[nabs-l] Body language and facial expressions

[Ashley Bramlett]

Bridgit,
Nicely said, and some of these examples point out apples and oranges. Like 
you, I do not want to give people a reason to  think Im cognitively or 
developmentally delayed when I'm not. The disabilities are very different. 
Those with those disabilities function at a teen or child level; their body 
is grown, their mind is not. It is not their fault, it is the way they are 
built. And I just loved your anecdotes to back up your point.

I find it degrading when people talk over me to a sighted companion or 
assume I need extra help or something just because I'm blind. I have been 
treated like I'm not the college educated adult I am. Its definitely 
degrading and frustrating.  I think we should change behaviors that we can; 
after all a sighted person  growing up would be expected to extinguish these 
behaviors. So if we want to fit in and be treated like everyone else, then 
we should follow those same rules.

Ashley

-----Original Message----- 
From: Bridgit Pollpeter
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 8:12 PM
To: nabs-l at nfbnet.org
Subject: [nabs-l] Body language and facial expressions

Marc,

First, touché! I concede you have a point in your salutation, smile!

However, personally, I don't use the word retarded especially with
negative connotations. And my point was not to say that one disability
is worse, but each disability presents its own barriers. Developmental
disabilities can offer obstacles making it difficult to maneuver through
life without cognitive barriers. Again, I have quite a few family
members with varying degrees of developmental disabilities so I know a
little about it.

Disabled or not, we all have our limitations, whether they be mental or
physical. Where some struggle, others succeed. A developmental
disability, however, adds another layer making ones comprehension level
more difficult to navigate through situations.

I've witnessed these family members of mine struggle to understand basic
information that the average person with no cognitive problem understand
with no effort. When we have physical and sensory disabilities only, we
don't require most information, basic information, to be broken down and
simplified. We're not talking about Steve Jobs or Stephen Hawkings
intellect here, but the average intellectual capacity most of us have.

While at a recent doctor visit, the nurse, who was suppose to explain a
test procedure, asked if I wanted my companion to come in so I could
understand what she was saying. I told her that I not only was there on
my own, but that I would understand her explanation just fine, and she
was so worried about this until I finally put my foot down and made a
few things clear. I had no intellectual barrier keeping me from
understanding the information provided to any patient. I later asked the
doctor if that was a standard procedure and they told me no. This woman
assumed without ever asking a question, that I couldn't comprehend
information stated to all patients just because I was blind. Regardless
of a developmental disability or lower comprehension level, disabled or
not, I don't like when my mental capacity is questioned being a
30-year-old college-educated woman with a family. If some people all
ready think this, why give them more fuel to feed their grossly
misinformed notions?

Trust me, it's very frustrating to have people assume you can't
intellectually understand something. We shouldn't automatically assume
either that people with developmental disabilities  can't comprehend
something either; they certainly deserve the same respect we demand as
blind people, but why be considered to have a developmental issue if you
don't have one at all? This doesn't mean one disability is necessarily
"worse" than another, but it does mean one disability can present unique
barriers that are difficult to hurdle.

Let's say you work to become a doctor or teacher or lawyer or even a
parent but are blind, you don't want future employers or, people in
general, to assume you have a developmental disability because yes, even
with a mild developmental disability, you won't be a doctor or lawyer,
and because of cognitive barriers, certain things just can't be done. It
does depend of the severity of developmental problem, but even higher
functioning developmentally disabled people won't have the intellectual
capacity to do these things. . This is just a fact. Blindness, however,
isn't necessarily holding us back in an intellectual way. Individual
people may question our ability, but we have the capacity in which to
prove how capable we are. Many blind people face discrimination because
of their blindness. In my experience though, if you present yourself
with confidence, look and act polished, people are more likely to give
you an opportunity. If you don't appear put-together, exhibit mannerisms
even considered inappropriate for sighted people and don't carry
yourself with confidence and/or intelligence, it doesn't matter what
your resume says, what recommendations refer you to the job/ situation,
people will be more wary and unsure as to if you can do much. It's
reality, dude.

A cousin of mine with a developmental disability became pregnant in her
early 20's. It was determined she shouldn't have custody of the child
since she was unable to demonstrate her ability to care for herself. My
aunt stepped in to help raise the baby, and it was decided to finally
award joint custody between my cousin and her mom. I know we're all
thinking about I am Sam, but I know my cousin, she really wasn't able to
care for a child on her own. Marc, do you care to equate this to a mere
sensory disability like blindness? The differences are clear, at least
to those of us who are blind, and it's comparing apples to oranges.

And trying to compare abusive attitudes once deemed legal, and sadly
behavior still in abundance even though, at least in this country, is
now illegal,  is a bit of an apple and oranges issue too. Correcting
unusual body movements that can be changed, is nothing similar to
attitudes, and physical violence, that hurts, demeans and demoralizes.
Trust me, you won't win this argument with me; that's all I will say on
this issue.

If a person truly is in danger of harming themselves, or others, it
makes sense that someone should help or assist. Blindness, itself, is
not, or should not, be a factor causing people to automatically assume
we are a danger to ourselves and others. Across the board, people with
only blindness should not be penalized at all. With developmental
disabilities, it depends on the level and type of cognitive problem. You
can't equate the two here because the barriers aren't the same.

You can equate them when we discuss respect. Everyone should be treated
with dignity and respect. This thread has nothing to do with respect,
but how one handles the barriers of a disability.

And I've yet to hear an answer from those arguing we should be accepted
even when exhibiting behavior like rocking or eye poking, in response to
my question,  how can you keep saying this when it's behavior also
demonstrated by sighted people as well, and it's corrected in them? Stop
making it a blind vs. sight issue when it doesn't have to be. As a
former sighted person, I get sick of hearing how it's us against those
with sight. That all sighted people are horrible and out to get us. I
had disabled friends when I was sighted, and I didn't make assumptions;
I treated them the same as our non-disabled friends. If I found
something they did odd or weird, I didn't assume it was because of their
disability. If I was like this, I'm sure others are too. In fact, I know
some sighted people who have a similar attitude.

And you argue the world should change how they view blind people who
engage in such behavior instead of the other way around, but why not
correct and  change behavior that isn't unusual, and work towards
changing minds about our actual abilities.

Not all (please keep the "Not all" in mind before jumping on my back) ,
but many blind people I know who exhibit some of these extreme behaviors
are the ones who aren't independent and don't believe they are capable
of  much. Maybe we need to work on convincing the world, ourselves
included, that we don't have limitations, which is the real problem,
instead of concentrating  efforts to accept physical movements not
socially acceptable.

You keep going on and on about how we shouldn't be shaped into what the
sighted world wants to be or how sighted people need to accept us quirks
and all, but does not language like this develop into a form of reverse
prejudice? If we're simply people who, as it happens, can't see, why,
once again I ask, do we keep playing the blind vs. sight card? I don't
consider myself different from anyone else I know other than I can't use
my eyes. This doesn't mean I don't work to end stereotypes and change
negative attitudes, but I don't place distinctions that, though reverse,
perpetuate the idea that we're different.

The reality is that the world is a bitch. Disabled or not, humans
established certain ideas from the beginning of time. Whether disabled
or not, male or female, blonde or brunette, people judge, people assume,
people have stupid ideas about life. Experience of the world will show
you how complex this is.

On that note, Thanksgiving was great, and speaking for Americans, we're
always right, giggle!

Sincerely,
Bridgit Kuenning-Pollpeter
Read my blog at:
http://blogs.livewellnebraska.com/author/bpollpeter/

"History is not what happened; history is what was written down."
The Expected One- Kathleen McGowan

, Message: 6
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:15:16 -0800
From: Marc Workman <mworkman.lists at gmail.com>
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Body language and facial expressions
Message-ID: <CD9FBD09-7AF9-40AE-996B-31776B1974B6 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Bridgit wrote,
why be assumed to have an intellectual barrier if you don't have one?
Most people will already make assumptions about us as blind people; why
give them more reasons to make snap assumptions? The fact is blind
people, who are just blind, have no barriers other than the ones
society, and themselves, put in our path. People with developmental
disabilities have an actual intellectual barrier.

Now let's rewrite this from the perspective of an intellectually
disabled person who is trying to convince other intellectually disabled
people not to look blind.

why be assumed to have a sight limitation if you don't have one? Most
people will already make assumptions about us as intellectually disabled
people; why give them more reasons to make snap assumptions? The fact is
intellectually disabled people, who are just intellectually disabled,
have no barriers other than the ones society, and themselves, put in our
path. People who are blind have an actual sight limitation.

Ashley wrote,
I was never told not to look blind. But I was told not to rock because
it looks like something a cognitively delayed/retarded person would do.
Why have people assume we have another disability when we don't? It
makes us look worse.

It makes us look worse only if you assume it's worse to be cognitively
delayed/retarded.  Again, would it be okay to say, hey, stop that
rocking, you look blind.  You're not blind; you're just cognitively
disabled, and you don't want to look worse, so stop looking like a blind
person.

I think this whole line of argument that we don't want to look
"retarded", and I use that word in quotes because it's a degrading word,
is incredibly ironic considering that it expresses the same negative
attitudes towards intellectual disability that we are all supposed to be
fighting against with respect to blindness.

Bridgit wrote,
Blind, sighted, purple, blue, certain behaviors and mannerisms are not
appropriate no matter the circumstance, and it should be corrected.

What I'd like to know is: who exactly decides this and how is it
decided? Does Bridgit get to say what is an isn't appropriate? Is it
this thing called society that decides? Does not what is considered
appropriate change over time? So how does it change? There was a time
when it was considered inappropriate for women and African Americans to
talk back to white men.  It seems obvious to me that what is considered
to be appropriate changes over time and that this change occurs because
people challenge attitudes.  Is it not at least possible that some of
the behaviours that we've been discussing are like some of the attitudes
about women and minorities that have been challenged and changed?

Ashley wrote,
Just goes to show that if you behave naturally, people may not think of
your blindness or focus on it; they focus on you as a human.

I don't know about you, Ashley, but my blindness and my humanity are not
mutually exclusive.  It's not seeing me as a blind person that bothers
me.  I am a blind person.  It's the negative attitudes about blindness
that bother me.  Specifically, it's viewing blindness as bad, as ugly,
as weird, as abnormal, as wrong that bothers me.  One way to deal with
these attitudes is to train blind people to look and act like most
people look and act.  A second way is to educate people, to teach them
that blindness may lead to looking and acting differently, but that this
is not bad, ugly, weird, abnormal or wrong.  The latter path is of
course the harder one.  It's much easier to change the minority than the
majority.  I believe, though, that the latter path leads to the world
that is better for everyone.

I know many of you are celebrating Thanks Giving.  We in Canada
celebrated it at the appropriate time in October, but for all you
Americans, I hope you're enjoying the holiday.

Cheers,

Marc


_______________________________________________
nabs-l mailing list
nabs-l at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
nabs-l:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/bookwormahb%40earthlink.net