[nabs-l] NFB Philosophy

[Jedi]

Marc,

You're right that some of our NFB philosophy does reflect values 
generally held in American society. Wether these are right or wrong 
doesn't matter to me in this very instant, but i think it is fair to 
say that the membership of our organization certainly reflects the 
variety of individuals in the U,S, generally. for that reason, it is 
definitely worth saying that Sean's take on NFB philosophy is as 
individual to him as it is to anyone's. Furthermore, I think that 
sean's ideas about the role of universal design reflects sean himself 
and his own values generally. But I think it is unfair to say that he 
doesn't consider others' views and needs. And though you're correct to 
say that his position on the social grid may affect his level of 
awareness of certain issues, it is not correct to assume that he has 
not made himself aware through various means or that he altogether does 
not consider the needs and issues of others.

As to the overall discussion of universal design within the 
organization, I think it really varies. Some people are more interested 
in environmental access issues than others. And I also think the 
organizations views overall on the matter have changed and are changing 
because our world is changing and has changed over time.

Here's my take on universal design. I think it's a great idea in 
theory, but its application gets messed up by, especially in the case 
of blindness, what various groups and individuals think we blind need 
and don't need. And I think much of this need is determined by the 
barriers various people think are imposed by blindness. As for me, I 
think most things in life are already accessible to me as a blind 
person as they are. Yes, it took some training for me to make that 
happen. but it wasn't like it took years and years of training. Though 
my training covered specific types of barriers and how to overcome 
them, much of my training was spent convincing myself through multiple 
trials and mentoring that I have the creativity and wherewithall to 
adapt to my world for the most part. And I think that's part of the 
problem. Many of us in the blindness community (including the 
professionals who serve us) believe that we blind (the average blind) 
don't have that wherewithall. I don't think that's correct and 
seriously underestimates what we can do for ourselves in a variety of 
life areas, not just in this particular domain. And frankly, many 
universal design ideas come with the notion that blindness makes it 
difficult for an individual to make sense of their environment because 
of the lack of sight alone.

Now before you get all hot and bothered by thinking that I'm against 
universal design, let me say that I do support including universal 
design in technology such as kiosks, e-book readers, computers, point 
of sale terminals, etc. These are devices included in daily life that 
really do present a challenge to us. Yes, we could overcome this 
barrier by shopping elsewhere, by getting help when necessary, by 
getting our consumables from firms who don't use inaccessible 
technology, etc. But that's kind of ridiculous in my view. The 
technology's there. Companies such as Apple have proven that, when 
designed from the ground up, accessible technology doesn't constitute a 
huge financial hardship. I also support accessible pedestrian signals 
where they would be helpful, but not at every damn block! Video 
description? Sure. Accessible currency? Sure. Do I think not having 
video description or accessible currency is discriminatory? No, not 
necessarily. And that's partially what I think Sean means when he says 
that there's a huge difference between moving on and whining. Blind 
folks have gotten along without descriptions and bumps on money for 
some time without too much trouble. We've even developed some of our 
own tools and means for getting around these problems. But does that 
mean we're fundamentally against these new accessibility features? Of 
course not! I acknowledge, and so do others sharing views similar to 
mine, that these features do make our lives a littel more convenient, 
and that's not necessarily a bad thing so long as we can still adapt to 
situations where these conveniences are not yet available. And there 
really are some barriers that universal design helps with. I think of 
braille signs. I can't tell which bathroom is which without going in 
and finding out the hard way. I can't tell which room is which unless I 
ask people in these rooms or near them. Braille signs help me overcome 
these barriers. Without a beep or a voice telling me which floor I'm 
on, I wouldn't know unless I had some way of counting them as the 
elevator rises or if I get out of the elevator and find out through 
exploration. By then, the elevator's gone if it's not the floor I want 
and I have to catch the next one. But if it doesn't beep or something 
telling me whether or not the thing is going up or down, I guess I'll 
have to find out the hard way. All this is to say that universal design 
really does help me as a blind person, but I don't support design 
features that presume I can't think or do for myself. I'd much rather 
prefer that the money spent on unnecessary features gets spent on 
training blind people or on developing accessibility features that can 
be taylored to the needs of various individuals without annoying others.

Respectfully,
Jedi


REspectfully,
Jedi

Original message:
> Hello Sean,

> As I was reading, I was wondering why the emphasis was entirely on 
> attitudes with no mention of physical/design barriers, and then I get 
> to the last point and realize why. The barriers aren't the problem, 
> it's our failure to simply accept them and move on that's the problem.

> Sean wrote,
>> we can choose to accept it and move on, or we can wallow and wine that 
>> things aren't fair.

> Or, a third option, we can do something to change what isn't fair, call 
> something an injustice when it's an injustice and do something to eliminate it.

> We've had similar discussions before, so I don't expect to change your 
> mind, but maybe someone else will be persuaded, and I'm not all that 
> tired anyway.. I will say that I think you do reflect a common attitude 
> that partly constitutes NFB philosophy, and it's probably the one 
> aspect of this philosophy that I think is mistaken.

> I think I get it — the whole pull yourself up by the bootstraps 
> attitude (very American) — there's value in that, but I think it tends 
> to come from a place of privilege. Going out on a dangerous limb, Sean, 
> guessing white, male, middle class, well educated, heterosexual, no 
> other significant physical or psychological variations. Even if I'm 
> completely wrong on most of this, I can tell you're well educated and 
> intelligent. My point is only that it is easier to say we should just 
> suck it up and move on from such a place of relative privilege. The 
> danger of just sucking it up and moving on is that you might not be as 
> motivated to change things to help out those who aren't able to suck it 
> up and move on. Personally, I'm aiming for a world that's as inclusive 
> and accessible as possible to all blind people, not just the creative, 
> educated ones. So if there's a barrier that I myself can get around, 
> that won't stop me from pointing it out and trying to eliminate it. 
> Simply going around it, however, makes me more likely not to think 
> about it and consequently not to do anything about it.

> There is value in providing blind people with tools for dealing with 
> injustice and encouraging them to use these tools. We live in an unjust 
> world. What I reject is the false dichotomy of either accepting the 
> injustice or whining about it. We can and should not simply "accept it 
> and move on", but actively work to eliminate injustice where ever we find it.

> Regards,

> Marc
> On 2012-07-17, at 11:38 PM, <nabs.president at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Tyler,



>> Fair question. And while I do not claim to speak for everybody, and, in
>> fact, believe that there is no one great truth or philosophy about
>> blindness, do believe that there is a positive and realistic way of thinking
>> about blindness and all that it entails that is referred to as NFB
>> philosophy. I happen to subscribe to it, though I, as I have stated before,
>> do not agree 100% with everything the NFB does or says. Claiming to embrace
>> this philosophy no more relinquishes my claim on independent thought than
>> does subscribing to any point of view on any other issue. So, to boil it
>> down into a few key points, here is my take on what the NFB philosophy on
>> blindness is:



>> 1)      Blindness need not prohibit one from leading a meaningful,
>> productive and fulfilling life.



>> 2)      While blindness surely presents certain difficulties, frustrations
>> and inconveniences, the perception of blind persons among the general public
>> and the associated chronic underestimation of the abilities of blind
>> individuals causes more problems than anything inherent to blindness itself.



>> 3)      Blindness, rather than defining who I am, is but one characteristic
>> I possess. A characteristic with a greater impact on my life than the fact,
>> say, that I have brown hair, but a characteristic nonetheless.



>> 4)      By employing blindness skills, and when given the opportunity to do
>> so, average blind folks can do the vast majority of jobs, and participate in
>> the vast majority of pastimes,  that average sighted folks can. By
>> extension, exceptionally bright, hard-working, or otherwise gifted blind
>> individuals can do the things that exceptional sighted folks can do.



>> And, though I wouldn't list it as a belief at the core of how I view
>> blindness, I think it's worth saying:



>> Sometimes, we, as blind people, need to be willing to go the extra mile to
>> get things done. Should things be designed for universal access? Absolutely.
>> Is it fair that I have to spend extra time scanning my books while my
>> sighted peers do not? No, it's not. However, in full recognition that there
>> are strong and persuasive moral, and probably practical, arguments for
>> remedying the status quo, we must recognize that the world and life are not
>> fair. Sometimes I'll have to work harder than the guy next to me to
>> accomplish the same thing. But, sometimes, the guy next to me will have to
>> work harder than me to compensate for some shortcoming of his own. That's
>> life, and we can choose to accept it and move on, or we can wallow and wine
>> that things aren't fair. We've all got obstacles to overcome, and, for me,
>> being blind happens to be one of them.



>> I hope that all makes some sense. I would be curious to hear what others
>> think about the question. It is a good one and worth reflection and
>> discussion.



>> Take care,



>> Sean

>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/mworkman.lists%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/loneblindjedi%40samobile.net