[nabs-l] NFB Philosophy

Fri Jul 20 05:42:11 UTC 2012

Hello,
Is that really a good thing? Who's to tell us that we're right if there is 
no opposition? What looks better on a bill, two organizations signing for 
something, or one? What happens if people don't like the governmental system 
that the NFB uses?
Has anyone ever thought what would happen if a nomination went against the 
NFB president? If there was a group of people who didn't like the way the 
NFB was run? Of course they could try to run against the powerhouse, but 
I've seen someone run against someone the NFB president didn't want in 
office in a state chapter. He was kicked out of the NFB. Of course I don't 
know enough details, but that sure scared my mom away from being affiliated 
with the NFB...
If enough people wanted that person in office and were willing to stop being 
a part of the NFB, a new organization would be created. How long did it take 
the ACB to form out of the NFB? If the ACB and NFB merged, that balance will 
need to be met again and I bet it will take probably the same time as it 
took the first time.
If you haven't read the DragonLance books, they do a great job of describing 
the balance of power and the need for opposition for things to get done.
That was what made Augustus so strong. He required people to be devil's 
advocate, so he wouldn't just go on his own thoughts. I haven't seen a 
specific counsel within the NFB to publicly say what makes the proposed 
resolutions wrong and I haven't seen any way to amend the resolutions by the 
NFB as a whole. One can write a resolution that didn't pass, but as I was 
told (and I may be wrong,) a resolution can't be changed once it reaches the 
table. That is why the Braille resolution had so much conflict this last 
year.
But my point is, the ACB keeps the NFB focused on what matters to the NFB 
and I don't think the ACB really is strong enough on that many things to 
fight effectually  against us. Of course if everyone got their act together, 
there would be some power struggle, but the NFB is young, the NFB is 
energetic and the NFB people can sit through 2 4 hour sessions in one day 
with only a strait 2 hour break in the middle!
Thanks,

Brandon Keith Biggs
-----Original Message----- 
From: Joshua Lester
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 10:17 PM
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] NFB Philosophy

Well: the good thing is, that people are leaving the ACB, and joining
us, because they realize that we're right.
Think about Mike Coppell, (one of their prized members,) who has just
left them, and joined us!
Blessings, Joshua

On 7/20/12, Brandon Keith Biggs <brandonkeithbiggs at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> Possibly because the NFB is such a huge pusher to the fair wages and
> frankly, they probably saw the unfair wages as hardly something that will
> make a difference. Also, I believe another voat for less than minimum wage
> is that one can stay on SSI while getting lower than fair wages.
> Every side thinks they are right, so does that make them both wrong?
> As pointed out at the banquet speech at the NFB convention this last year,
> we can only try our hardest to be the victors, and because we know we are
> right, we will win.
> Thanks,
>
> Brandon Keith Biggs
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Lester
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 9:30 PM
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] NFB Philosophy
>
> Arielle: that was a great post.
> I just have one question about this.
> If our philosophies aren't at odds, then why did the ACB vote, "Do Not
> Pass," on the "Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act,"
> resolution at their convention?
> Evidently, they're okay with disabled workers being paid below the
> federally mandated minimum wage.
> Hmmm!
> Thanks, Joshua
>
> On 7/19/12, Arielle Silverman <arielle71 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I think Sean's description of "NFB philosophy" as he sees it was
>> excellent. I would also add two things:
>> 1. I don't think the NFB has a patent on this philosophy. In fact, I
>> would argue that most committed ACB members and many other successful
>> blind people who choose not to affiliate with organizations also
>> espouse the positive philosophy of blindness that Sean described. The
>> NFB has chosen to make this philosophy a central focus, but that does
>> not mean that non-NFB members cannot live by it themselves or
>> encourage others to accept it. It is important to remember that the
>> ACB split off from the NFB, and although I am not an expert on what
>> happened, everything I've read about the split suggests that it
>> occurred because of disagreements about how leadership in the
>> organization should be structured, not about fundamental philosophy of
>> blindness. In more recent years the NFB and ACB have taken differing
>> approaches to some policy issues, but that does not necessarily mean
>> that their core philosophies of blindness are at odds. I don't think
>> the two organizations should merge into one super-organization of
>> blind Americans because I like the fact that individuals have choices
>> about which organization to join and that there's not one big group
>> monopolizing the organizational stage. But I also think that the NFB
>> and ACB have more in common in terms of their goals for changing what
>> it means to be blind than we might think on first glance.
>>
>> 2. To address Marc's point about universal design: In the nine years I
>> have been a part of the NFB, I have observed that the NFB increasingly
>> takes a pragmatic dualistic approach to promoting both individual
>> coping with accessibility barriers and advocacy to bring them down. I
>> would urge you to read the NFB 2012 resolutions once they become
>> available online, and you will find that most of these resolutions
>> address access barriers in one form or another and advocate for their
>> removal. I believe the NFB is moving further in the direction of
>> pushing for accessibility and I have seen change on this front even
>> since the time when I first joined nine years ago. However, though we
>> are committed to doing what we can to promote universal access for
>> blind people, we also are aware that, realistically, it will take time
>> for all those in power to make it happen. In the meantime, we are also
>> working to help blind individuals figure out how to adapt to those
>> barriers we are not yet able to control. For example, we will fight
>> for full access to educational technology, but instead of waiting to
>> enroll in college until this access happens, we will also work to
>> harness the support of human readers and other adaptations so that we
>> can still be successful in spite of these barriers. In other words,
>> instead of pitting individual adaptation and universal design against
>> each other as mutually exclusive options, why not take a dual approach
>> toward both of these goals?
>> Arielle
>>
>> On 7/19/12, Justin Salisbury <PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu> wrote:
>>> I have a few notes for a few different people on this thread.
>>>
>>> Tyler:
>>> I understand the hesitancy about getting involved when you don't fully
>>> agree
>>> with everything that everyone else believes.  I once had that hesitation
>>> about getting involved with organized religion.  I started going to a
>>> campus
>>> ministry at my college because a friend sold me on the free dinner, and
>>> I
>>> quickly learned that no church is homogenous in beliefs.  In some
>>> churches,
>>> the leadership will try like mad to perpetuate the idea that everyone in
>>> the
>>> church believes exactly what they do and that anyone who disagrees
>>> slightly
>>> is against them.  In my church, we aren't like that, and we understand
>>> that
>>> people have differing views.  We unite under the idea that it's okay to
>>> disagree on individual issues and discuss them, but we have generally
>>> the
>>> same core beliefs.
>>> That's how we are in the Federation.  If you don't agree with something
>>> we're doing, I'll make an effort to help you come to terms with it
>>> because
>>> that's my individual personality.  I often find that, when someone
>>> disagrees
>>> with something we're doing, it is because of a lack of understanding of
>>> what
>>> we're doing or the underlying issue.  At the end of the day, I won't
>>> shun
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Marc Workman:
>>>  Of course we, in the Federation, fight to break down the barriers.  Why
>>> do
>>> you think we do legislative lobbying?  Washington Seminar is an
>>> absolutely
>>> amazing experience, and you should try it!  We honor adaptability
>>> because
>>> there's no sense in being helpless in the meantime while we work on
>>> those
>>> barriers.
>>> On the mention of Sean's place in social stratification:  I am a colored
>>> person, I'm the first person in my family to go to college, and I don't
>>> bother wallowing in the lack of advantage that I face because of it.
>>> Quite
>>> frankly, I'm not even convinced that I am disadvantaged by being a
>>> colored
>>> person.  With the first generation college student part, I have to seek
>>> mentors in the academic process from outside my family, and I know many,
>>> many educated Federationists who have eagerly fulfilled that role for
>>> me.
>>> Lastly, I've made comments like "i've had this conversation with you
>>> before"
>>> in a public manner to other people-trust me, I have-but I've realized in
>>> retrospect that it only creates distance between everyone who hears me
>>> and
>>> myself.  A lot of people take that as an implied personal attack.  I'm
>>> not
>>> saying Sean took it that way, but I'm sure plenty of people did read it
>>> that
>>> way.
>>>
>>> Brandon Keith Biggs, I loved reading this part of your email:
>>> In my book, there is no larger crime than depriving someone of their
>>> dreams
>>> and the second biggest crime is taking away the chance for people to
>>> reach
>>> for those dreams. For while there are dreams, there is hope. With hope
>>> life
>>> always has enough energy to turn the corner and keep going.  The NFB to
>>> me
>>> is that hope and the rock and refuge that is always there for me if I
>>> need
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Yours in Federationism,
>>>
>>> Justin Salisbury
>>>
>>> Justin M. Salisbury
>>> Class of 2012
>>> B.A. in Mathematics
>>> East Carolina University
>>> president at alumni.ecu.edu
>>>
>>> “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
>>> change
>>> the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”    —MARGARET MEAD
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/arielle71%40gmail.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/jlester8462%40students.pccua.edu
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/brandonkeithbiggs%40gmail.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/jlester8462%40students.pccua.edu
>

_______________________________________________
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/brandonkeithbiggs%40gmail.com 