[nabs-l] A great article

Thu Sep 8 01:51:51 UTC 2011

Hello Bridgit,

In your post, you state, "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." While I will agree with you that the NFB believes in the 
capabilities of blind people, I really wonder how the NFB challenges and 
supports each and every individual within the organization. Perhaps it is 
different in different parts of the country, but I am not quite sure how 
well this attitude and philosophy holds true on a local level.

On one hand, the NFB does not claim to have a system of hierarchy, yet at 
the same time, it seems to pick and choose who they are willing and not 
willing to help in a time of need. When certain people face discrimination 
based on their blindness, the NFB seems to rally around them and provide 
them with all the support they need. However, at the same time, there are 
other people who face the exact same kind of discrimination, and they are 
forced to deal with it on their own without being able to receive much if 
any support from the NFB. I am sorry, but this only seems rather 
hypocritical to me.

Elizabeth

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bridgit Pollpeter" <bpollpeter at hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:55 PM
To: <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Subject: [nabs-l] A great article

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/lizmohnke%40hotmail.com
> 