[nabs-l] No Braille? No Literacy!

[Michael D Ausbun]

Greetings Miss Mihalakis,
	I certainly agree that over generalization is a bad thing; however, I am not sure if I can agree with your dichotomous depiction of sighted and nonsighted individuals, as I understand it. Do you really mean that blind folk are entirely different from sighted people? If so, how can you have revelry in one’s ocular failings, if you have nothing to compare it to? Surely, after all, if you are reveling in your situation, you have something to compare it to; but, if I understand your depiction of the relationship between the two, a sighted person can never gain access to the same space as a blind person, as it applies to interpersonal relations.
	
All:
As it applies to the topic of this thread, though, I think the main contention I have with Arielle’s point is that cultural boundaries are developed through the experience of the individuals who make up said culture. Naturally, if we have this conception of literacy as print-interpretation, then we will, necessarily, need to reject listening as a form of literacy. My suggested solution to this conundrum, simply put, is why listening cannot be a form of literacy for sighted people as well? I certainly would not exclude them from that form of literacy, mostly because I do not believe there should be an otherisation of either sighted or blind people. We still, at the end of the day, are all homosapians.

I really like this topic, though!


________________________________________
From: Carly Mihalakis [carlymih at comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 3:19 PM
To: Arielle Silverman; National Association of Blind Students mailing list; Michael D Ausbun; National Association of Blind Students mailing list
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] No Braille? No Literacy!

Afternoon, Arielle,

That what's good for the goose is good for the
gander attitude is, I believe, so incredibly
toxic for a main reason that blind people are
blind, while Ol'Sighty can see. Blind people and
sighted people are two separate and distinct
animals. Just because one group of people namely
Ol'Sighty hasn't too developed his own
compensatory strategies. Please allow blind
people to shine, to revel in their ocular sightlessness!
Car  may not have developed a particular
adeptness with listening, doesn't mean that a
blink hasn't cultivated their listening skillsanimalsis
At 09:38 PM 4/25/2015, Arielle Silverman via nabs-l wrote:
>Hi all. To be clear, I often take in information
>by listening, both as a matter of availability
>and efficiency. However, the fact that listening
>can sometimes be a useful substitute for print
>doesn't negate my original point: We don't
>consider listening to be a viable substitute for
>print reading in the sighted world, so why
>should we change our standards and allow blind
>people to read by listening alone? We could just
>replace all print material in the world with
>text-to-speech, but we don't, because we place
>cultural value on the written word, and most
>sighted people process information better when
>it is read. Even "auditory learners" in our
>society are expected to read at least some print
>unless they have a severe reading disability
>(and even then, they are expected to read road
>signs and the like). It needn't be any different
>for the blind. And, my point about refreshable
>Braille being more affordable than hard copy
>Braille was from the production perspective, not
>the consumer perspective. If a school district
>could choose to hire a ton of transcription or
>buy a few refreshable Braille displays, the
>latter option would cost less. I also hope that
>in the coming decades, the cost of refreshable
>Braille will go down. Arielle On 4/25/15,
>Michael D Ausbun via nabs-l <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
>wrote: > Hello Ben, >  It has been a while! I
>remember discussing this with you at the
>Nevada > state convention back in November, and
>I apologize if you already answered > these
>questions for me before: > (1)      In the
>instance where an individual is an auditory
>learner, and not a > kinesthetic learner, would
>you still dismiss auditory intake as literacy? >
>Essentially, having the ability to read the
>braille would be a form of > kinesthetic
>learning, because you are physically translating
>the symbols, > whereas someone who is an
>auditory learner would have more difficulties >
>processing the information, even if they were
>able to read the braille, > because they just
>learn better through auditory means. >
>(2)       Would not an interpretation of
>auditory symbols be a form of symbolic >
>interpretation? That is to say, if reading were
>merely the translation of > symbols into
>language, would not listening to words be a
>quicker > transformation of the interpretation
>of the symbols? True, the individual > does not
>have to ‘read’ the original source material,
>but they still have to > interpret the
>information, and organize it into comprehensible
>order within > their minds. > I think another
>important thing to remember, in the favor of
>braille being a > substitution instance of
>literacy is, technology often fails, while
>braille > rarely does. In other words, battery
>life of devices can be short, or > electronic
>devices can be fried by water or other
>environmental > disturbances. Conversely,
>braille could become warn after enough use, or
>if > it is not taken care of; however, it is
>less likely to occur than the > technology
>failing on people. I do not know, it seems to be
>a compelling > reason to learn, if only because
>it provides more reassurance of sustained >
>dependency… > Respectfully, > Michael Ausbun > >
>________________________________________ > From:
>Ben Dallin [bendallin at outlook.com] > Sent:
>Saturday, April 25, 2015 8:36 PM > To: Michael D
>Ausbun; National Association of Blind Students
>mailing list > Cc: Joseph Hudson > Subject: Re:
>[nabs-l] No Braille? No Literacy! > > This is an
>interesting discusssion, and one I definitely
>have some opinions > about. My guess is that
>some will think I'm splitting hairs, but I
>think > there is an important difference between
>reading a book, and listening to a > book, and
>the two expressions are not interchangeable. If
>you are listening > to a book read by a human
>narrator or a computer, you yourself are not >
>reading. Reading  involves translating certain
>symbols, whether they be > print or braille,
>into language. That is being done by the
>narrator or > computer if you are listening to a
>book. And let me be clear, if I have to > get
>through a vast amount of material, I will listen
>to the material on a > device where the speech
>can be greatly sped up. However, if I have my >
>druthers, I will prefer to actually read the
>book in braille. I find I am > more engaged with
>the text and my comprehension > and recall
>improves. I am also able to project my own voice
>to the material, > rather than hearing it
>through another. > This is not to criticize at
>all people who would rather listen to books >
>instead of read them. If someone cannot use
>print or braille however, they > are still
>incredibly disadvantaged if they completely rely
>on audio, and I > could not consider such a
>person to be literate, based  on the widely
>used > and accepted definition. This happens in
>every day life, not just during a > hypothetical
>catastrophe. Lectures and meetings, where it may
>be important > to take down and read
>information, while still being able to listen
>to > speakers or presenters, are prime
>examples. > My take home message is simply that
>if you cannot read print, there is no > way to
>be truly literate unless you know braille.
>Technology has given us > access to much more
>material, some of it not available through
>braille, but > I think it's not the same as
>reading,  and there could be  some dangers in >
>equating listening with reading. > The high cost
>of braille, whether being produced in hard copy,
>or in > purchasing a braille display, may be a
>roadblock to wider literacy among the > blind
>and is not a factor I had considered much, but
>it sounds like it could > be true and hopefully
>technology, as it has done so far, will continue
>to > provide opportunities for braille to become
>more available, as well as > cheaper to
>produce. > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Apr 25,
>2015, at 7:18 PM, Michael D Ausbun via nabs-l >>
><nabs-l at nfbnet.org> wrote: >> >>    I am going
>to play devil’s advocate, here, mostly because
>I disagree >> with the common conception of
>‘literate.’ Before I begin, however, I
>want >> it to be clear that I believe, having
>the ability to read braille is not >> only
>important, but also vital for any visually
>impaired individual’s >> success. With that
>said: >> >> The definition of literate, as
>according to wikctionary is, “Able to read >>
>and write; having literacy,” or
>“Knowledgeable in literature, writing; >>
>literary; well-read.” >> >>    I believe, as
>per the first definition, it is clear that in
>order for a >> blind person to be literate, they
>must be able to read braille. After all, >>
>their eyes cannot, in most cases, read print,
>and as was pointed out, in >> order to know the
>fine-rules of grammatical construction, a person
>must >> have first-hand knowledge of what it
>looks like (no pun intended). >>    With that
>said, however, I believe the first definition is
>archaic and >> thus, quickly becoming the
>subsidiary definition. I, myself, know how to >>
>read Spanish, German, Computer, Symbolic logic
>(which, I have found >> actually has its own
>braille code), Chinese, English grades one and
>two, >> and nemeth code. Even so, I much prefer
>to listen to all of my books. It >> makes the
>reading less exhausting, while allowing me to be
>more done. For >> example, just today, I have
>read seven books, all of which are more than >>
>three hundred pages long. I do not know of a
>sighted or blind person, who >> could duplicate
>that via print or braille. >>    The largest
>problem with accepting listing as a form of
>literacy comes >> in the form so a person having
>readily accessible means. That is to say, >> it
>is very possible that something drastic might
>happen, where electricity >> is removed, causing
>a person to no longer have access to their
>device, >> which would make them incapable of
>either definitions (1) or (2). Then >> again, if
>that happens, a braille reader would be at the
>same >> disadvantage, because sighted people
>would be far too busy to emboss >> things via a
>Perkins braille, and without their assistance,
>blind >> individuals could not produce their
>texts either. >>    I am probably just being
>cynical, but I still see, regardless of the >>
>strives we have been able to make, a necessary
>dependency upon those who >> can see. Certainly
>though, this will not always be the case. I
>suggest >> that, as a community, we do not weigh
>the two forms of information-take in >> against
>each other, but instead advocate for a
>combination of the two. >> Braille and auditory
>reading. >> >>
>________________________________________ >>
>From: nabs-l [nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] on
>behalf of Joseph Hudson via >> nabs-l
>[nabs-l at nfbnet.org] >> Sent: Saturday, April 25,
>2015 6:51 PM >> To: Darian Smith; National
>Association of Blind Students mailing list >>
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] No Braille? No
>Literacy! >> >> Hi Darian, well I agree they do
>have devices to make real horrible, it's >>
>finding the right one that works for you and if
>piece of audio technology >> is what works for
>somebody like myself that's what we're going to
>stick to >> a Weber grill display works better
>for somebody else, then that's what >> they're
>going to stick to. In my case, I will stick to
>my Mac, my iPhone, >> and my iPad. >> Joseph
>Hudson >> I device support >> Email >>
>jhud7789 at gmail.com
><mailto:jhud7789 at gmail.com> >> Face time and
>iMessage >> jhud7789 at yahoo.com
><mailto:jhud7789 at yahoo.com> >> Office phone >>
>641-715-3900 x34315 >> Emergency line >>
>641-715-3900 x5887652 >> Skype >>
>joseph.hudson89 >> >>> On Apr 25, 2015, at 7:15
>PM, Darian Smith via nabs-l
><nabs-l at nfbnet.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi
>all, >>> I think Arielle brings up some valid
>points here. >>> The one point I would question
>is how technology has served to make >>> access
>to braille more  affordable? >>> >>>  Maybe this
>is the case in relative terms, but until most
>anyone who >>> wants access to braille can go
>out and get a  device    that makes >>> braille
>portable I don’t think I could agree with that
>particular point. >>> Darian >>>> On Apr 25,
>2015, at 5:02 PM, Arielle Silverman via
>nabs-l >>>> <nabs-l at nfbnet.org
><mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi
>all. I don't understand why there's any doubt
>that Braille literacy >>>> is needed for
>literacy. The way I see it, we expect all
>sighted people >>>> in nearly all cultures to be
>print literate. Why would we expect less >>>>
>from the blind? If a day comes when listening is
>considered an >>>> acceptable form of literacy
>for sighted people, then I might change my >>>>
>mind, but for now I think it is a simple matter
>of whether or not we >>>> believe blind people
>should achieve the same literacy standards.
>If >>>> blind people should hope to communicate
>in writing with anyone else, >>>> we need to
>know spelling, capitalization, written grammar,
>and >>>> punctuation rules. The fact is we can
>get these from Braille but not >>>> from
>listening alone. Furthermore, Braille is the
>only reliable way >>>> for us to access any
>written material we want to read aloud to >>>>
>somebody else, whether that be our young
>children or our audience at a >>>> professional
>conference. It's extremely hard to read a
>prepared speech >>>> or a storybook aloud to
>others while listening to it. If we hope to >>>>
>meet the same standards of written
>communication, and translation >>>> between oral
>and written modes, as our sighted peers, then we
>need >>>> Braille. I also get really annoyed
>when people try to say that >>>> technology has
>"replaced" Braille. Technology actually makes
>Braille >>>> infinitely more portable and
>affordable than it was before. >>>> Best,
>Arielle >>>> >>>>> On 4/25/15, Joe via nabs-l
><nabs-l at nfbnet.org >>>>>
><mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
><mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org >>>>>
><mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org>>> wrote: >>>>> I wish
>my cable company would feel the same way about
>not making me >>>>> pay >>>>> that >>>>> kind of
>money. LOL >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Musings of
>a Work in Progress: >>>>> www.JoeOrozco.com/
><http://www.joeorozco.com/> >>>>> >>>>> Twitter:
>@ScribblingJoe >>>>> >>>>> -----Original
>Message----- >>>>> From: nabs-l
>[mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org >>>>>
><mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org>] On Behalf Of
>Joseph Hudson >>>>> via nabs-l >>>>> Sent:
>Saturday, April 25, 2015 5:04 PM >>>>> To:
>Mabelin Ramirez; National Association of Blind
>Students mailing >>>>> list >>>>> Subject: Re:
>[nabs-l] No Braille? No Literacy! >>>>> >>>>>
>Hi, what same time I agree with you but one
>thing that you have to >>>>> understand is that
>it takes money and manpower in order to produce
>the >>>>> documents for the braille. Not
>everybody, and knows how to produce >>>>>
>things >>>>> in >>>>> braille. This is why I'll
>rely on email for my Electric bill, and my >>>>>
>cable >>>>> bill. Because I don't want to have
>to have my company payout that kind >>>>>
>of >>>>> money. >>>>> Joseph Hudson >>>>> I
>device support >>>>> Email >>>>>
>jhud7789 at gmail.com
><mailto:jhud7789 at gmail.com> >>>>>
><mailto:jhud7789 at gmail.com
><mailto:jhud7789 at gmail.com>> Face time and >>>>>
>iMessage >>>>> jhud7789 at yahoo.com
><mailto:jhud7789 at yahoo.com >>>>>
><mailto:jhud7789 at yahoo.com>> Office phone >>>>>
>641-715-3900 x34315 >>>>> Emergency line >>>>>
>641-715-3900 x5887652 >>>>> Skype >>>>>
>joseph.hudson89 >>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 25, 2015,
>at 3:56 PM, Mabelin Ramirez via nabs-l >>>>>>
><nabs-l at nfbnet.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I
>honestly think that braille should be put on all
>documents that we >>>>>> blind >>>>> folk
>receive. Because think about this for a minute,
>we won't always >>>>> have >>>>> sighted peers
>around us. >>>>>> We can't always depend on
>sighted folks all the time to read things >>>>>>
>to >>>>>> us. >>>>> Plus the scanning apps we
>sometimes use aren't very accurate when it >>>>>
>comes >>>>> to printed material. This should
>also apply in schools as well. >>>>>> I'm just
>voicing my opinion on this. >>>>>> If anyone
>disagrees that is fine. >>>>>> All of us have
>our own opinions. >>>>>> This is just my thought
>on the matter. >>>>>> Take care all, >>>>>>
>Mabelin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
>_______________________________________________ >
> >>>>> 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/jhud7789%40outlook
> >>>>>> .com >>>>> >>>>>
>_______________________________________________ >
> >>>> nabs-l mailing list >>>>>
>nabs-l at nfbnet.org
><mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org> >>>>>
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_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/jsoro620%40gmail.com
> >>>>>
><http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/jsoro620%40gmail.com>
> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
>_______________________________________________ >
> >>>> nabs-l mailing list >>>>>
>nabs-l at nfbnet.org
><mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org> >>>>>
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_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
> >>>>>
><http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com><http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com
> >>>>>
><http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com>>
> >>>> >>>>
>_______________________________________________ >
> >>> nabs-l mailing list >>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
><mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
><mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org >>>>
><mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org>> >>>>
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>>>
><http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org><http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_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/dsmithnfb%40gmail.com
> >>>>
><http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/dsmithnfb%40gmail.com><http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/dsmithnfb%40gmail.com
> >>>>
><http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/dsmithnfb%40gmail.com>>
> >>>
>_______________________________________________ >
> >> nabs-l mailing list >>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
><mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org> >>>
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_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/jhud7789%40outlook.com
> >>>
><http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/jhud7789%40outlook.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/mausbun%40unr.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/bendallin%40outlook.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/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/carlymih%40comcast.net