[Nebraska-students] Philosophical Terminology

[Mary Gould]

     I agree with Kayde that you can't force terms on people--particularly if they don't even know that any terms are being forced on them.  You aren't going to get some random person with poor eye-sight, who has never been told that he or she is, therefore, blind, interested in a group for "blind" people on Facebook or anywhere else.  Such people will have to be drawn in in such a way that they realize there is something worth being drawn into--something that is applicable to their situation.
     That being said, I think that there is a place for terminology such as "visually impaired."  And if used properly, in context, it shouldn't create problems or unreasonable hierarchical divisions, etc.
     I can't keep everyone from writing this off as a post from a newbie, who has not yet been fully endoctrinated, or something, but at least take it into consideration, because there are some things that are just plain facts.
     Back when I could read books without magnification, when I had never considered inversing the colors on my computer screen, when a set of headlights meant 2 and not 12-ish, when I could recognize people across the room, when I could run around in just about whatever light I wanted without wondering if there was a hole or a step, when I hadn't given the doctors 6 reasons to find out about the inner workings of my eyes--back when the only thing that set me apart from others was that I held my books a little closer than they would have preferred and I knew that I wasn't going to be able to drive--back then, my vision was impaired.   It just was.  Does that mean that I wasn't "blind"?  No.  Does that mean that I was "visually impaired"?  Yes.  They are not mutually exclusive.
     So, we don't want divisions...well, that may just be an unfortunate reality.  Because there are divisions, at least in so far as there are differences.  And the lifestyle of a high partial is very different than the lifestyle of someone who has no vision whatsoever.  Denying that would make the Organization less effective--and unless I am very much mistaken, I don't think that that is what anyone is advocating, either, but take that line of thought to its natural conclusion.  Such differences do not mean that one level of vision is better than another, or that one person can, should, or will be more successful than another.  Acknowledging that one group of blind people have one set of life circumstances and that another group of people have a different set is only reasonable--within reason.  (Andd it's all my "in contexts" and "within reasons" that you have to keep in mind, so that it doesn't sound like I'm promoting a very
 different philosophy.)
     When I attended a job cadre at the Commission a while back, there was quite a bit of material covered that did not apply to me, that I listened to for potential future reference, but that did not help me in my particular situation.  Not every blind person needs tips such as "Be the first one to extend your hand for a handshake, to avoid an awkward situation," because shaking hands with people doesn't result in any awkwardness if you don't have any trouble seeing when someone wants to shake your hand.  The material was good, I'm glad they presented it, but that doesn't change the fact that it didn't apply to me at the time.  In fact, I might have benefitted to some degree from some material directed more towards...whom?  There HAS to be some sort of designation for those who have more vision than others.  And "those who don't need assistance finding the bathroom a few minutes before an interview" most definately doesn't cut it (yet this
 bathroom issue was another perfectly good point that was brought up and addressed at the cadre.  There are subgroups.  There just are.  (Don't get ahead of me, I'm getting there...)
     To me this sounds like trying to say that anybody with American citizenship is an "American" and NOTHING else.  The girl whose passport says she is American, but who grows up in a household speaking Chinese and thinking like a Chinese (which, by the way is a VERY different worldview!) is American, sure, but is a very different type of American than the Caucasian girl born to American parents in Europe (but has American citizenship nonetheless), who has never been in the US for more than a few weeks at a time; and she is, in turn, very different from the Caucasian girl growing up in Small Town America, knowing no foreigners at all!  Those three are VERY different!  (And obviously, there are LOTS of other types, too!)  If you don't believe me, just ask me, because I'm the girl in scenario 2, and it took 2 years for me to get (mostly) used to being "American" in America.  Obviously, none of those people are in any way more second-class
 than any other of them, but they are extremely different, and anyone who knows me will tell you, that if you want to make me mad, telling me that I'm just like other "Americans" will do it.  My 2 years of severe culture shock hurt much too much to be discounted altogether!
     Does that mean that I think that Americans or blind people should splinter off into a gillion different groups?  No, but don't force Brand-New-to-the-States-Scenario-2-Girl into the mold of the girl in scenario 3, either--they tried that at my new "American" school, and it didn't work very well.  I'm not saying that those blind people who have some vision should rely on it as much as possible, or should fight the idea of being blind, anymore than I'm suggesting that I should have continued my schooling in German once I moved here--transitions are good and necessary--but I do still think in German in certain situations.  In the same way, I think it's reasonable that partials, the visually impaired, the low vision, the legally blind--I don't care what the term is...somebody figure it out and get back to me when it's over and done with--be recognized as such under the "blind" umbrella, because they are a part of its make-up.
     When do you go from being said term to not being it anymore?  I don't know.  And I'm sure that this is what everybody wanted to jump to way earlier, and why a lot of people will disagree with me, because of potential problems such a label can create if people take it and run with it.  And I'm certainly not advocating breaking it down much if any further than to acknowledge that there exists a difference between those who have the kind of vision I did as a teenager and those who have none.  This is the tricky part, the part that I don't have the answer to right off hand--at least not without more thought.  And I am quite tired of writing, so that thought will not come from me tonight; I will leave that for someone else to think about, or you can ask me later, when I've recovered from my essay-length post.
     My point is, that, as I said before, the two terms are not (or at least shouldn't be) mutually exclusive.  I see no problem with acknowledging a reality, but it is our responsibility to use the terminology correctly--responsibly and consistently.  I agree, don't say "blind AND visually impaired," but, if you feel the need to include the "vusually impaired" for some specific reason (such as when it applies to magnification, as previously mentioned in another post), say "blind (INCL. visually impaired)" (and sure, insert parentheses there to reinforce the point)  If "visually impraired" takes on a life of its own, that's not my fault--I'm not advocating that, but I am recognizing its existence.  Chinese-Americans shouldn't decide to form their own country, either, but they are still a type of American with their own ways of thinking, speaking, and doing things.  Misuse doesn't damage the inherent value of a term.
 
When it comes right down to it, I now consider myself blind, but when I
first learned about the organization... it was a different story.  I refused
the term, and although I always believed, at least on some level, in  the
ability of blind people, ( I had a blind great-aunt winning state fair
ribbons in cooking, how could I not?) I couldn't wrap my mind around the
idea of being blind myself.  I figured I had some sight, so it didn't
count, or maybe I wouldn't be welcome, so I was a bit shy of NFB things and
philosophy at first. I tend to agree with KD's assessment, that sometimes
we have to use the terms that people understand, and in the case of blind
people with some remaining vision, its usually something like legally-blind
or visually impaired..etc, or they may not see the NFB as being an
organization for them too.  Once we have welcomed a new member, we can teach
them the philosophy, but we have to get them through the door first, and
these terms are useful for that.

Just my 2 cents worth... *grin*

Amy
 As to the discussion of the kids at the skating rink, blind would have been
a more useful term.  When it comes to the KNFB mobile, I think it was a
matter of what sub-division of the blind would be assisted.  A totally blind
person would have very little use for a magnification function, so it was
actually geared toward those who often self-identify as visually-impaired.
In that context, at least, Visually impaired is an appropriate descriptor,
and far less a mouthful than the NFB-appropriate alternative, blind with
some remaining vision.

Amy Just to add fuel ...

I agree with you guys on all of this. I was one such that hated the term
"blind" until I was well into the federation. But what's
concerning me is
that the term "visually impaired" seems to be creeping deeper and
deeper into our vocabulary. When the latest Jernigan institute newsletter came out,
there were two instances where "blind" and "visually
impaired" were written
alongside one another. One such said that a group of blind and low vision
teens were excluded from skating at an ice rink. In that instance, did we
really need to separate the groups?

In Dr. Maurer's presidential release, he told us that the KNFB Mobile could
have the screen magnified to better assist the visually impaired. How come?
Are we recruiting even at our convention?

I believe that "visually impaired" can serve as a great recruitment
tool, but at what point are we straying too far over the line? When is enough
enough? I don't want to promote the hierarchy of vision any more than we
have to.

Just my thoughts,

RyanI agree with both Karen and Kayde: we shouldn't differentiate among
ourselves because we all have something in common, but on the other hand we
are trying to include other people and educate them to see that they can be
blind without "acting" blind. Some people are more comfortable with
the term "visually impaired" instead of "blind," but in the end it
is what the person thinks about himself/herself that is important. If we can make an effort to
include people who are not comfortable with their blindness, than maybe down
the road they can learn to accept their blindness. I really don't think it
matters though. I'm legally blind, and I don't prefer either term over
the other. In some cases I feel more sighted than blind, and sometimes I feel
more blind than sighted. The important thing is that I know my vision isn't
always reliable and I have the skills to compensate for that and I'm not
ashamed of it. Blindness to me is like hair color or eye color. We don't
divide people by what color their hair is on web sites, so I don't know why
we should with blind people. It doesn't matter if I call myself visually
impaired or blind, I am still the same person. I guess I have mixed opinions
on the issue. And maybe it's not really an issue at all. The important
thing is that we're empowering people and giving the information and support they
need. On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:42 PM, KD Rieken <kdlachanteuse at gmail.com> wrote:

> That raises a very valid point. Why do such publications include both
> phrases? "Blind and visually impaired?" Is it directed toward those who are
> struggling with their concepts of blindness so they don't feel excluded, or
> is it something that's so ingrained in our society that it's hard to get
> away from? Thoughts?
> Kayde
>
I agree. I was going to post something like this but couldn't figure out
how to phrase it appropriately. Thanks. 
Kelly> > While I agree that one of the goals of the NFB is to veer away from such
> > terms, another goal is recruiting and spreading the message. If a random,
> > partially-blind person on Facebook came across a group that said nothing
> > about "visually impaired" or "low vision" people, a likely response would
> > be, "Well, that's not for me, I'm not blind, I have low vision." So by
> > putting these terms out there, we increase the likelihood of recruitment,
> > then start to educate about terms of blindness and what they mean. That's
> > the only reason I can think of. Anyone else have thoughts?
> > Kayde

> > Hello all,
> >            I was looking around on facebook and noticed several new groups
> > for students affiliated with the NFB. And I must say, several of them look
> > really interesting. However, I have one concern. Since joining the
> > federation it has been my understanding that we encourage everyone, whether
> > they are a high partial or totally blind, to consider themselves blind. Our
> > taglines are things like, "Changing what it means to be blind," and "Voice
> > of the Nation's Blind." Yet more and more frequently I find other terms
> > showing up in our literature. The term "visually impaired," is used in the
> > group descriptions for both The NFB Café and Blind 411. I believe one of
> > our greatest strengths, one of the things that sets us apart from other
> > organizations, has always been that we do not divide people into categories
> > based on how much vision they have. We believe that those with no vision at
> > all can be just as successful as the highest partial. It seems to me that
> > using terminology such as "visually impaired," and "low vision," changes
> > that, and I fail to see what good can come from that division.
> >
> >            I am extremely interested to see what the list, and particularly
> > the members of the NABS board, have to say about this issue.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Karen