[nabs-l] Ending the NFB/ACB feud

[T. Joseph Carter]

Sarah,

My posts to the ACB list were based on my view of the world:  Blind 
people can do anything they set their mind to doing.  The only limits 
we have are the ones we accept.  I can either sit around feeling 
sorry for myself because the world is unfair and discriminatory, or I 
can get out there and fight for what I want.  Play hard or go home.

Are you suggesting the above is inappropriate for an ACB list, when 
posted by a Federationist?  Or that I should have concealed my 
affiliation, perhaps?

That sounds much better with a Jernigan sound bite about training and 
opportunity, terms of equality, blah blah blah.  But I didn't learn 
it from Kenneth Jernigan, his writings, or the NFB.  I learned it 
from my mother, who wouldn't understand "NFB" or "Federation".  If 
you used the words National Federation of the Blind (or American 
Council of the Blind for that matter), she'd ask, "Isn't that the 
blind thing Joe does?"

Mitch Pomeranitz said the NFB doesn't have a monopoly on its 
philosophy, and he's right.  You won't find me regurgitating sound 
bites except in discussion about how meaningless they were and are to 
me without application.  I've heard my own philosophy in the ACB, and 
yet its different if I say it, because I'm a Federationist.  Why?

Seville regularly takes fire for being on the list as well.  He posts 
sparingly, and is therefore more tolerated than I was.  He and Joe 
Orozco are essentially the token Federationists.

But all of this misses the point that you and Aziza expect us to 
change our behavior, attitudes, and beliefs.  You expect the ACB to 
concede ... nothing.  This isn't compromise, nor is it common ground.  
It is unabashed appeasement, and frankly I find it distasteful.

Joseph


On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 03:08:10AM -0400, Sarah J. Blake wrote:
> Joseph, there are several Fedarationists who are regular participants on  
> ACB-L. (Seville Alexander comes to mind.) If the tone of your posts 
> becomes abrasive, it can affect the outcome of your dialogue. Also, the 
> fact that you are recognized as a Federationist does not mean anything. 
> You *ARE* a Federationist. Being open about that point might have been a 
> wise thing depending on what you were discussing and  how much your NFB 
> philosophy pervaded your discussion.
>
> Sarah J. Blake
> Personal email: sjblake at growingstrong.org
> http://www.growingstrong.org