[nabs-l] A great article

[Bridgit Pollpeter]

I've stayed out of this thread to be one less voice continuing the
circle we move about in with this topic. That being said, I've decided
to jump in and add my two-cents, though quite a few have covered most of
the bases.

Arielle eloquently articulated the underlying message, which is we
should not shy away from questioning in order to learn and grow. Making
judgments and classifying people for choosing one organization over
another, does not provide help in the selection process, and it usually
turns people off from a particular organization. Respect is something we
should give all people regardless of organization affiliations, personal
philosophies of blindness, skills used or not used, as well as bigger
societal issues such as race, religion and sexual orientation. We can
disagree and encourage specific avenues, but we can still be respectful.
Even when others are disrespectful to us, we make choices of how we
respond; we are in complete control of these choices, so we can choose
to ignore ignorant, spiteful, ridiculous comments and remain respectful.
As cheesy as it is, you do catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

I'm Irish and German so I have quite the temper! I know how difficult it
is to be calm and collected when someone not just disagrees, but
disagrees aggressively and rudely. Again, though, we can't expect people
to join an organization if members appear to be militant and don't allow
questioning or sharing information not originating from that
organization. People don't respond well to attitudes aggressive and
judgmental in tone.

That being said, I agree with Dave; the NFB and ACB have opposing
philosophies and approaches to blindness, and since the ACB grew out of
dissension, there is no way to mesh the two. Personally, I don't think
the Democrat, Republican analogy adequately  describes these
differences. For me, it's more like the Catholic church and the Lutheran
church- Lutheranism stemmed from those opposing many beliefs and
practices in the Catholic church, developing into a separate
denomination that, while sharing many, many tenants, there are a few
fundamental practices and beliefs  in discord with one another, creating
two vastly different sects of Christianity, though they seem similar at
first glance.

Yes, both NFB and ACB serve blind people and our needs; both work to
maintain a balance between those "speaking" for the blind and the blind
speaking for themselves; both adopt resolutions and have a political
presence. Once you look past the surface, though, you realize how
different the two are, and how different their perspective is regarding
blindness and what is best for blind people.

I've known fiercely independent ACB members, who seem to follow a
philosophy closer to the NFB's, and I've known NFB members who were
quite content to rely on others for every little thing and didn't
believe blind people are capable of much. And of course vice versus.
However, at their cores, not only do the philosophies clash, but
expectations and what's deemed important for the blind, are
fundamentally different.

I like to look at it this way: The ACB accepts you right where you're
at. If you want to pursue a college degree in nuclear physics, great,
but if you want to sit on the couch all day letting others assist you
with daily functions, that's okay too. They don't challenge; there are
no expectations. The NFB on the other hand believes blind people are
capable of much more than is generally thought, and we challenge one
another to leave our comfort zones and discover ourselves and the world
around us. Yes, the person sitting on the couch day after day is capable
of so much more, and if they had the encouragement and guidance to
explore, they will find new, exciting experiences open to them as an
individual, and they will also further the message that blind people are
equal.

This is another difference I've observed; The NFB doesn't believe in an
hierarchy of blindness. Totally blind, useable vision, totally sighted-
there's no difference in the abilities, just in some of the methods and
tools used to do things. We encourage the use of alternative skills
because in most cases, they are more efficient than constantly
struggling to use what vision some of us may still retain, and often, a
combination of the two, allows us to be as efficient as possible. The
NFB finds sight not to be crucial or even easier, but an added
convenience. The ACB, based on my observations, has a rigid hierarchy
often labeling totally blind people as less capable, perpetuating the
idea that the more sight you have, the better off you are. They don't
collectively encourage alternative skills for those still retaining
vision, instead forcing many who would benefit from these skills to
continue using vision that statistically is not very efficient.

Example, a few years back, while training at the Iowa Department for the
Blind, I, along with eight other students, was chosen to visit another
state rehab agency for the blind with IDB staff. I was told, by an
employee of this agency and an ACB member, that I would never be as well
off because I'm totally blind. Meanwhile, I traveled around the entire
facility and had it figured out in a couple of days (and I'm no travel
master) while students of this agency who had been there for months,
many of them with useable vision, had no clue how to get from one end of
the facility to the other. Three days into the visit, I and another IDB
student, took a city bus and investigated the downtown area, never
having been there before, while the same students mentioned previously
were not only astounded we did this on our own, but that we were allowed
to travel a route not familiar to us, and never traveling it without
sighted assistance first. I use this to illustrate how inefficient many
of those students were, lacking skills, and confidence, that could have
made them more efficient. Instead, they were taught that sight is better
and that blindness doesn't afford one much independence. At the end of
the week, those students were thirsty for more. Their eyes had been
opened, and we discovered later that many of them were demanding similar
instruction as IDB had presented.

People like to say the NFB is against sight because of the encouragement
and support to learn and use alternative skills, but this is not true at
all. In the NFB, the goal is to be as capable, confident and efficient
as you can be. Based on studies, skills like Braille or using software
like JAWS, or combining alternative skills with vision, make for a much
more capable, confident and efficient blind person than those only using
sight.

The two organizations can't join forces, though we may support causes
individually, because the fundamentals can not mix- like water and oil.
We can't view each in the same light. Obviously we must decide what we
think and believe, but as Dave says, sometimes the approach to each
organization is idealistic, and at the end of the day, we can't expect
to find equal ground between the two.

The article in question with this thread discusses generic tips and
information any organization could post. Subscribers to the list should
be mindful, though, of the material posted coming from the ACB. I don't
believe in censorship, and discussing subjects is a great way to
decipher and digest info, allowing us to draw conclusions, but if we
start posting philosophy vastly different from the NFB's, we need to be
mindful of how we present it. Questioning is a good thing, but we also
want to ensure no one confuses issues and philosophies specific to and
vital to the foundation of NABS .

Again, I would leave it to the list moderator to check anyone posting
inappropriate info. And we need to realize there's a way to discuss and
debate without being condescending or judging. Arguing is an art form,
and those who master it can articulate an intelligent, constructive
argument, providing a back-and-forth that is not personal in nature or
negative in its tone. When articles like this are posted, the intent
isn't meant to be subversive and covert, sneaking in material in an
attempt to change this list and the organization. Even if the info
appears dodgy at times, most of us just want to challenge, inform, learn
and grow. Adopting militant attitudes and approaching these posts with
email bombs, as I refer to them, does not cultivate an environment rich
for growth.  More than likely, it will turn people away, or peek
curiosities and send readers on their merry way to further investigate
other organizations and schools of thought. As academics- as in this
list is dedicated to academic pursuits and issues- we should foster
commradorie   in our discussions and disagreements, challenging rather
than condescending to or intimidating and shunning, nurture rather than
create negativity and dissension; find a diplomatic approach and work to
be welcoming and even-tempered, this will draw members more than
militant attacks that seem to censor instead of crafting an intelligent
argument that will likely be more effective.

And now I end this novel. I guess my goal should be to construct shorter
posts! LOL

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

Message: 19
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 05:51:30 -0500
From: David Andrews <dandrews at visi.com>
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] a great article
Message-ID: <auto-000026575478 at mailfront4.g2host.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Joshua et al:

I think that some people are a bit idealistic when it comes to 
relations with the ACB.  It is important to remember that they were 
born out of opposition to the NFB and how we do things.  So, if you 
take away from them being against us, and doing things differently, 
there just isn't much left.  So, you may be expecting more than they 
can deliver.

Dave