[nabs-l] majority

[Jorge Paez]

Yet,
wouldn't a sighted majority, no matter their standing,
destroy what lies at the very core of our existence?

Notice the key word here is "majority."

Jorge


On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:18 PM, Bridgit Pollpeter wrote:

> But does it matter if the majority is blind, or should it matter that
> the majority holds to Federation philosophy?
> 
> Yes we are the blind speaking for the blind-- as it should be.  And we
> should maintain that a majority of our leadership be blind, but when did
> we decide that membership come at a cost?  Are we not trying to change
> what it means to be blind?  Does this not include attempting to reach
> out to the blind and sighted alike in hopes they are willing to learn
> and embrace our philosophy?  Why would this look bad, or change the
> focus of the organization?  Shouldn't it be about a collective voice
> furthering Federation goals and causes?
> 
> We walk a fine line between independence and reverse prejudice.  And as
> Miranda described, how was it fair that her chapter take a head count of
> the blind and sighted just to say yes or no to a sighted member wanting
> to join?  How does this look to someone who presumeably was ready to
> join the NFB and do their part?
> 
> I have heard the argument that a sighted majority could vote against our
> current policies and change the organization, but is not this judging
> sighted people just because they can "see?"  What is to stop a blind
> majority from doing the same?  Not all blind Federationist are "on
> board" with every aspect of the organization.  Isn't it making an
> awfully big assumption to claim a sighted majority, who chose to join a
> progressive group, would storm in and change our direction, even though
> they willingly joined a progressive organization?
> 
> I am not suggesting we try to have more sighted people over blind
> people, though if this ever did happen, it would be a sad state of
> affairs that few blind people cared enough to join.
> 
> For a group seeking equality, it seems odd that we would exclude people
> based on their eyesight.  Sound familiar?
> 
> Bridgit
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:09:06 -0400
> From: Jorge Paez <jorgeapaez at mac.com>
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> 	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Blind Majority
> Message-ID: <15D2C523-E8DC-441F-A903-279641EEA4A4 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> 
> Miranda:
> I understand your points,
> but under the constitution, going over majority would mean the sighted
> have the major vote, which would defeat the NFB's purpose for existing.
> 
> 
> Jorge
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nabs-l:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/jorgeapaez%40mac.com