[Nfb-history] Helen KEller

[Kane Brolin]

Hello.  I would like to respond to a couple of great points that Peggy
Chong and Steve Jacobson have made in this thread. They don't all have
to do with blindness.

On 6/7/17, Steve Jacobson via Nfb-history <nfb-history at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> the historical context is very important.  There is a lot of truth to the
> saying that those who do not understand history are condemned to relive it.

Not always to the letter.  But, as Mark Twain once said, history rhymes.
>
> I think it is fair to say that as the NFB developed, our view of ourselves
> conflicted some with the view that was presented of the blind by the
> American Foundation for the Blind.  The idea of the blind speaking for
> ourselves challenged, to some degree, the position of the AFB as our
> advocate.  Since Helen Keller was so closely aligned with the AFB, she
> likely saw the young upstart organization through the eyes of others within
> the AFB as temporary and radical.  On the other hand, while we as an
> organization likely respected her for all that she accomplished, it was in
> our interest to find successful blind people who represented our
> perspective
> on blindness.  Therefore, I do not think it is all that surprising that she
> didn't refer to us and we didn't spotlight her.

I'm not questioning that at all.  I do wonder how 21st-century deaf
culture interprets Helen Keller, if they pay attention to her at all.
Parts of deaf culture seem just as resistant to custodialism and to
the expectations and stereotypes  of them of "hearing culture" as
Federationists are when it comes to the outmoded expectations and
stereotypes of mainstream "seeing culture."  I wonder if any deaf
people see her positions of last century as being irrelevant to their
cause today.

On 6/6/17, Peggy Chong via Nfb-history <nfb-history at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> Keller was definitely a promotional tool for the AFB.  But we also have to
> look at the times she lived in.  Who else would have hired her in the
> 1920's?  Maybe a sheltered shop.  How else would she have been able to have
> afforded an interpreter, traveled, had access to basic information without
> income from promoting and raising funds for AFB.  OR, she would have gone
> back home and stayed on the family farm for the rest of her life creating
> needlework projects.  She had to make choices.  At the time, were there any
> other choices for her to make?  We can only guess.

Back in 2011, an article about company loyalty appeared in The New
York Times.  It reads in part:  "Fifty years ago, an employee could
stay at the same company for decades, and the company reciprocated
with long-term protection and care, said Tammy Erickson, an author and
work-force consultant. Many were guaranteed longtime employment along
with health care and a pension."

The television actor Dick Van Dyke, still active at age 91, was once
asked about why he continued to do so many projects for CBS.  (He's
been in the entertainment business now for nearly 70 years.)  He said
he remains comfortable with CBS because he is a confirmed company man.
People of that era just felt and practiced a lot of loyalty to the
employer which had stuck with them, which continually paid them a
check, and then promised to subsidize their golden years.  A lot like
the strong degree of patriotism many felt back then, compelling them
to sign up for combat duty in multiple wars.  So part of what
motivated Helen Keller to stick by the Foundation, it seems to me,
might have been a deep-seated loyalty that came naturally to people
then--especially those who had risen from a hard background--that just
was part and parcel to American culture in the first ¾ of the
twentieth century.  Understood in that context, it's not hard to
conceive that Helen Keller turned out to be a "company woman," serving
as a loyal spokeswoman for the org that was helping to make her
comfortable and keep her in the public eye.  A lot of what motivates
us disabled people is just basic human impulse and broader culture,
not necessarily having anything to do with blindness or deafness.

It's been a very stimulating discussion, this, around the legacy of
Helen Keller.  So much of what we're saying about this is based on a
rational attempt to speculate about what Ms. Keller thinks and what
practical considerations drove her perhaps not to go to certain places
in her head or in her rhetoric.  It might be worthwhile--for me, at
least--to go back and read some of what Helen Keller actually wrote in
her memoirs and spoke about in public addresses.  I'm going to do that
over the next few months, and I'm thinking about synthesizing this
into some kind of article or longer paper, in the event anyone would
care to read it.  Part of my motivation is that 1 June, 2018 will mark
the 50th anniversary of her death, and I think it would be interesting
to many people with a general interest in Helen Keller as a public
figure--not just in the blindness community--to read some of what she
actually said, so the complexity and power and maybe even the internal
contradictions that were characteristic of her might be shown in a
truer light.

Thanks for all your observations.

-Kane