[nabs-l] majority

[Jedi]

Bridget,

As a case of history, something like what you describe really did 
happen. There are several blindness organizations in Canada of the 
blind. One of them, now called the National federation of the Blind 
Alliance for Equality, started out as the first Canadian organization 
similar to the NFB in the U.S. At some point in their history, they 
allowed sighted people to vote without any restrictions on ratios of 
blind to sighted. At some point, the number of sighted persons did 
outweigh the number of blind persons in the group, and the sighted 
really did change the direction of the organization such that the 
original integrity of the group's purpose was compromised. It wasn't 
because the sighted could see; that wasn't the problem. Instead, it's 
that sighted people (the majority of them) really don't get blindness 
on a fundamental level because it's contrary to their experience of the 
world as sighted persons. The sighted (for the most part) tend to see 
the world through their perspective and will act accordingly just as we 
act accordingly with our perspective. Though no harm is meant, the 
sighted may choose policies that aren't good for blind people. The 
Google Aps project is a case in point: no one means to discriminate 
against the blind; it just didn't occur to sighted users and designers 
that the blind can't get at the applications because they've really got 
no cause to understand. Most sighted people don't understand what the 
problem is with touch screens because it doesn't occur to them that 
they're a problem for the blind even though it should be quite obvious. 
Meanwhile, the problems that sighted people envision related to 
blindness are things we've overcome ages ago, but they haven't been a 
part of that process so they simply don't know. Yes, we can educate the 
sighted, but it takes a special sighted person to totally deconstruct 
their perspective and taken-for-granted assumptions about the world for 
them to get it. Yes, some blind people must go through a similar 
deconstruction, but I imagine that such a deconstruction may be more 
difficult for sighted persons in some ways since they adhere pretty 
strongly to a very visual reality. For the blind who must relearn, I 
wonder if it isn't a tad easier because there's a gut level 
understanding that a preference for vision is pretty arbitrary in 
nature. Maybe I'm wrong, and I definitely think I'm not doing myself 
justice. What do you all think?

Respectfully,
Jedi

Original message:
> 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/loneblindjedi%40samobile.net

-- 
Email services provided by the System Access Mobile Network.  Visit 
www.serotek.com to learn more about accessibility anywhere.