[Nfb-editors] Seeking an end to the seeking diversity discussion

Mon Mar 21 14:20:23 UTC 2011

Bridgit,

I'm surprised you have mentioned being blacklisted several times.  An 
accusation often leveled at NFB is that we are just puppets who aren't 
allowed to have our own opinions.  I don't think you believe or mean that, 
so talk of blacklisting disturbs me.

You are right that we must expand our membership by bringing in people who 
believe in our goals.  Mike and Barbara are also right that we must always 
remain an organization OF the blind.

All of you are right.  It is sadly so easy to dig into a position and defend 
it even when it is not being attacked and needs no defense.

Tom Scanlan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bridgit Pollpeter" <bpollpeter at hotmail.com>
To: <nfb-editors at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 4:11 PM
Subject: [Nfb-editors] Seeking an end to the seeking diversity discussion

I will say for the final time, sighted, blind, or alien from outer
space, I never suggested, nor do I agree with the NFB meshing causes
with other organizations.

I think most of us are saying the same thing, but we are to uptight with
our own opinions to see this.

None of us want to dilute or change the focus and goals of the NFB.  We
all agree that we, the blind, must continue to speak for ourselves.  The
NFB holds to a progressive mindset that most of us believe in otherwise
we would not be Federationist.

I, Joe, Robert and others never meant to imply we should purposefully
seek out a sighted majority.  And none of us called for a change in
policy or procedure.  This was merely a hypothetic discussion meant to
make us think.  Not everything deemed controversial is meant to imply a
person's internal feelings.  Sometimes it is good to look at all angles
and reason out what, and why, we believe in something.  It keeps us from
growing stagnet, and we learn to truly hold dear what we stand for.  We
may disagree on some points, but ultimately, we are all working towards
the same goals.

Before anyone blacklist me, let me affirm that I believe wholeheartedly
in this organization's foundations and philosophy.  I joined because the
Federation philosophy resonated with me, and it contained ideas I
already had constructed for myself-- that I am just as capable as any
sighted person, and I have the right to live like any other person.  The
values and message communicated by the NFB is a part of my daily life.

Again, I am not so naïve or idealistic to think for a minute that a
majority of sighted people believe in our philosophy.  This does not
mean they can not come to embrace our philosophy, but many can not
fathom being blind, let alone being self-sufficient, capable blind
people.  Many blind people feel this way too, and this is why we still
have so much work to do.

My original reasoning for winding down this rabbit trail was because I
feel our newsletters and publications have the potential to reach a
broader audience-- not necessarily for membership purposes, but to
spread our message far and wide.

I believe our written word has the ability to reach further than peoples
intellect.  If we can learn to construct professional, well-written
publications that can be distributed byond the NFB, I think we can
extend our goals far and wide.  It may take some creative thinking and
inovative methods, especially in this growing world of instant
technology, but this committee and each editor, I believe, holds the key
to breaking our message out beyond the dam to flood our communities.

Anyway, perhaps I am ahead of my time, but I never meant-- I never do--
to ignite this fire.  I did not intend to be controversial, nor did I
mean to take us off topic, though we have seen more activity on this
list lately than has been happening in a while.

For those who think I am some crazy idealistic against Federation
philosophy, well, I suppose you will have to either learn who I really
am, or you will continue to hear only what you want to hear.

I agree with Mike, this discussion has reached its end-- at least here.
I officially end it, and off up new fodder for discussion.

The Blind Driver Challenge is one of the Federation's more noticeable
initiatives currently, but I feel we, those in the organization, have
talked the issue to death.  Everywhere I turn, I see more stuff about
the BDC.  As a publication that has addressed this initiative over and
over, how can we still incorporate the BDC into our publication-- since
some non-members do read them, that is fresh and creative?  Any
suggestions?

Bridgit

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:51:21 -0700
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "'Correspondence Committee Mailing List'" <nfb-editors at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [Nfb-editors] Seeking diversity
Message-ID: <005801cbe698$eeb073f0$cc115bd0$@panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Bridgit:

I think we've about talked this subject to death.  However, I guess I
figured that we might have to change our focus to gain new sighted
members because otherwise, I don't see how what you advocate is doing
anything different from that which we already do.  As long as a majority
of members is blind, I've never seen sighted folks rejected and, it
seems to me, we recruit wherever we can from whomever expresses
solidarity with our goals and philosophy.  Where we differ, perhaps, is
that I fail to see trying to recruit among other pressure groups -- say,
the NAACP or NOW -- as yielding much of a dividend.  They'd rather we
joined *their* efforts as individuals or, in the case of some other
disability groups, they're usually hot-to-trot to get us involved in
coalitions.  To many, the idea of the blind as a minority group is
itself rather strange.

Long live free speech!

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-editors-bounces at nfbnet.org
[mailto:nfb-editors-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of Bridgit Pollpeter
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 4:46 PM
To: nfb-editors at nfbnet.org
Subject: [Nfb-editors] Seeking diversity

Mike,

Again, I am not asking us to collaborate with other organizations.  I am
saying seek membership the way we do now, but be willing to include
non-blind members.

And I fail to see how gaining members threatens the focus of the NFB.

I am also not saying we take in new members just to have a large number.
We continue to do our work, and we seek those who find a common thread
in our efforts.  Why does my assertion that we should seek individual
membership from blind and sighted together translate into accepting
anyone no matter what, and taking on issues not related to Federation
goals?

And if we are about changing what it means to be blind, doesn't this
mean we are attempting to change mindsets of the blind and sighted
alike?  So doesn't this mean we would welcome new members, even if
sighted, that felt empowered by our mission, and believed in what we are
working towards?  We already have sighted members who believe in what we
do, and they are working alongside us.  This is what I am talking about.
The sighted make up the majority of the world.  If we find those who are
willing to learn and embrace our philosophy, they will help spread that
message.  Why is this bad?

Believe it or not, I am not an idealistic.  I actually tend to see the
bad in humanity, but this is more a matter of practicality.  We want to
change perceptions so we need to extend our membership, not just our
outreach, to anyone who feels the NFB resonates with them.

I am not saying tons of sighted people will feel this way, but this can
be said of the blind too.  We focus on working with these blind people
who do not "see the light," so why not the sighted people too?

If we concentrate on changing perceptions, and we teach people-- blind
and sighted-- about our philosophy and demenstrate it, and these people
embrace the philosophy, I fail to see how these new members-- converts,
if you will-- would suddenly want to change the current direction of the
NFB, or bring in outside issues.

Bridgit

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:12:37 -0700
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "'Correspondence Committee Mailing List'" <nfb-editors at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [Nfb-editors] Seeking diversity
Message-ID: <005d01cbe5ca$5b3e86d0$11bb9470$@panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Bridgit:

For starters, it seems to me that we already *are* reaching out as best
we can to gain a wider appreciation of our cause and to gain members.
That more people aren't involved is, to some extent, a sign of the
times.  Almost every organization from the YMCA and YWCA to the NAACP to
church groups to political parties is reaching out for members and
decries the fragmentation of current society wherein people are doing
their own thing on the Internet or via Facebook and Twitter and find
less and less time to join with others in common endeavors.  WE are not
unique.

Having said this, I consider it inevitable that trying actively to gain
members from other groups within society will inevitably mean a dilution
of our message, our goals and our principles.  Why should others join us
unless they expect to influence us?

In this connection, you ask what other groups of the disabled have heard
of us?  Have you not participated in councils dealing with specialized
transportation or dealt with other disability groups in conferences
designed to get everyone together or to ascertain what "people with
disabilities want" -- as if we have a common set of wants and needs. For
instance, I have encountered envy and even hatred among groups of
mobility-impaired persons and groups of developmentally-disabled persons
when we of NFB refused to make it our policies to work toward the goals
these other groups espoused.  They just could not understand why we
stuck to blindness issues. Frankly, they wanted our expertise and
advocacy skills to work for them. When we offered to help them advocate
for themselves, it wasn't good enough; they wanted us to actively work
on their issues.

I maintain that Dr. martin Luther King JR. began to lose effectiveness
just after the Selma March when he began to speak out against the
Vietnam War and against economic privation.  Both of these were worthy
causes but they diluted the punch of his civil rights movement.

Same thing with the national Organization for Women (NOW).  It was
within two states of adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment when it
began to take on causes such as women's reproductive rights and in so
doing, they lost ground so that I doubt the ERA will be adopted in this
century.

We of NFB cannot afford such mistakes.  You say you're not advocating
changes in our goals or philosophy.  But if we are to remain democratic,
these cannot help but change when we bring in anybody and everybody.

I'm not advocating exclusivity; I merely say that diversity for
diversity's sake makes no sense.

Mike

_______________________________________________
Nfb-editors mailing list
Nfb-editors at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-editors_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfb-editors:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-editors_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40pan
ix.c
om

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Nfb-editors mailing list
Nfb-editors at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-editors_nfbnet.org

End of Nfb-editors Digest, Vol 76, Issue 21
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
Nfb-editors mailing list
Nfb-editors at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-editors_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
Nfb-editors:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-editors_nfbnet.org/tom.scanlan%40earthlink.net