[NFB-Talk] Partial Vision Interest Groups?

[David Andrews]

I would say a couple things here...

First we are an organization of thousands of 
individuals, and there will always be a variety 
of opinions expressed. Things you read here, or 
things people say to you do not necessarily reflect the positions of the NFB.

Secondly I understand what you are proposing, you 
want to use the sight you have better, and would 
like to talk to others about this. On the one 
hand, this makes sense, but it is going to be a 
tough sale in the NFB. There are several reasons, 
I think. First we have affiliated training 
centers who come from the approach that you are 
blind or not, whether you have remaining vision 
or not. They use sleepshade training, so people 
can learn non-visual techniques absolutely and 
efficiently. In the blindness field, there is a 
history of a hierarchy of sight, with low-vision 
people put above totally blind persons.

When I went to a school for the blind, many years 
ago, "partials" as we called them, got privileges 
totally blind persons did not get.

As others have pointed out, most of us feel that 
all blind people are equal, and we want to ensure that.

This may not be a good analogy, but maybe it is. 
Some people would regard what you are asking like 
someone who joined the NAACP and wanted to set up 
a sub-group for light-skinned black 
people.  Everyone else would say you are black, or you are not.

Granted, the issues here are more complex, but 
people react negatively to change, this is 
potentially a slippery slope, and politically it 
is a tough approach in the NFB.

You could talk to your state president to see if 
she or he has any ideas. For now, your 
discussions may have to be more informal.

I would, of course, set up a list for this topic, 
if President Riccobono asked me to, but I am not 
sure how you would get to this point.

David Andrews

At 10:14 AM 6/19/2024, you wrote:
>I find it interesting how, when one expresses a 
>thoughtful point of view which, yes, may butt up 
>against the prevailing opinions within 
>leadership, many are ready an willing to show 
>one the proverbial door and to ask one not to let it hit one on the way out

> >
>I love our organization and I want to see it 
>continue to grow, even at the fundamental 
>philosophical level. I want to remain, but I 
>want to see NFB become better by the day, but I 
>also have my own interests to consider, and this 
>is why I am inquiring about CCLVI at this moment.
>
>OK, so, this is a bit of a tangent, but, here goes

>
>I think these kinds of blindness philosophy 
>discussions are more than needed within our 
>organization. I honestly believe that our 
>organizations’ philosophy is still far from 
>complete and will indeed probably never be 
>complete, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. 
>I really believe that its philosophy needs to 
>continue to be refined and to adapt to present 
>and emerging currents of thought not only within 
>the membership but within the wider blind and 
>pan-disabled community. (Really, despite the 
>fact that we were once at the vanguard of the 
>disability rights movement, I think we would now 
>benefit from learning a thing or two from what 
>is going on regarding current disability 
>philosophy among our other disabled brothers and 
>sisters as well.) If one currently does not 
>exist, I would love to have some space created 
>where those in leadership and even other members 
>could engage in discussion and/or refinement of 
>NFB/blindness philosophy issues. It is true, our 
>founders are rightly to be revered for their 
>profound, meaningful and influential thought 
>leadership, They have taken us far and deserve 
>all the credit they receive for it. but times 
>change and notions evolve and older ideas, I 
>believe, deserve periodic reconsideration and rethinking.
>
>—
>
>Ms. Misty D. Kienzynsko, M.A.
>
>
>
>Bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem. — L. Annaeus Seneeca
>
>>On Jun 19, 2024, at 10:52 AM, kaye Zimpher 
>>via nFB-Talk <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Greetings Misty:
>>I think that this is one of the things that 
>>sets us apart from the American council of the 
>>blind. We see all blind people as equal, 
>>whether they have some vision or whether they 
>>don’t. I think this is a point in which a 
>>person with partial vision has to make a 
>>decision. Do you want to be a part of our 
>>organization where we know that we are all 
>>equal, regardless of how we deal with certain 
>>life situations, or do we want to be a part of 
>>an organization who holds sided people with 
>>higher reference and superiority. I think this 
>>is some thing that only you can decide. No one 
>>should make you feel bad about your decision either. I wish you well.
>>Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>>On Jun 19, 2024, at 10:30 AM, Misty 
>>>Kienzynski via nFB-Talk <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>I do know that there are a lot of partially 
>>>sighted people like me who feel that there is 
>>>in fact a “reverse hierarchy” of blindness 
>>>at play within our organization wherein people 
>>>who live an entirely blind life are at the top 
>>>and those with increasingly more vision who 
>>>live our lives utilizing various amounts of 
>>>our remaining sight find ourselves falling toward the bottom.
>>>
>>>And, honestly, having a special interest group 
>>>around low vision etc., I would argue, is not 
>>>about hierarchy at all. It is merely about 
>>>different ways of living and, heck, might even 
>>>speak toward our increasing DEI(A) initiatives.
>>>
>>>Indeed, all of us should be equally included in our efforts.
>>>
>>>P.S.: I realize that I initially stated that I 
>>>was not intending to create controversy, but, 
>>>since the philosophical angle has arisen, I 
>>>felt I needed to reply on behalf of myself and 
>>>probably many other partially sighted blind people within our midst.
>>>
>>>Thank you for your consideration.
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>>
>>>—
>>>
>>>Ms. Misty D. Kienzynski, M.A.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem. — L. Annaeus Seneeca
>>>
>>>>On Jun 18, 2024, at 5:41 PM, kaye Zimpher 
>>>>via nFB-Talk <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>You are correct that such special interest 
>>>>groups do not exist. The reason for this is 
>>>>that our philosophy in the national 
>>>>Federation of the blind does not believe in 
>>>>the hierarchy of sight. We are all equal and 
>>>>we should conduct ourselves as such. Having 
>>>>partial vision does not give one a 
>>>>superiority over those who do not. We welcome 
>>>>Those who have full site and partial vision. 
>>>>However, we all walk together through life 
>>>>and experience our blindness and different 
>>>>ways. We can share with each other, help each 
>>>>other, learn from each other, and support 
>>>>each other, but we do not form a hierarchy or 
>>>>segregation among visual acuities. I hope 
>>>>this answer is succinct and helps you, and in 
>>>>future, if you still do not find the  NFB as 
>>>>the place that you would feel most 
>>>>comfortable, my recommendation would be that 
>>>>you first look upon the website and listen to 
>>>>or read some of the many speeches and 
>>>>publications that discuss these matters and 
>>>>layout our philosophy and detail. If after 
>>>>that, you still do not agree, then you must do what is best for you.
>>>>Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>>On Jun 18, 2024, at 4:53 PM, Misty 
>>>>>Kienzynski via nFB-Talk <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Greetings.
>>>>>
>>>>>I recall being told a while ago that NFB has 
>>>>>no special interest groups, divisions, etc. 
>>>>>etc., even informally, that relate to the 
>>>>>unique needs/interests of those who have 
>>>>>useable vision and seek to utilize it most 
>>>>>efficiently for themselves, which, as a low 
>>>>>vision person, I would argue is our right to do.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is far from my intention to jin up 
>>>>>controversy about this here on this list, 
>>>>>though I believe that this issue does 
>>>>>deserve further discussion at a more 
>>>>>appropriate time and place, but I’m 
>>>>>wondering if the status of this situation 
>>>>>has changed and,if so, which entities may 
>>>>>now exist to address this gap in outreach within NFB.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have honestly thought to go so far as to 
>>>>>join that “other organization”’s CCLVI 
>>>>>to address this issue for myself, but I 
>>>>>would much prefer to remain within my own organization’s walls for this.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanking you for any info you are able to provide.
>>>>>
>>>>>—
>>>>>
>>>>>Ms. Misty D. Kienzynski
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem. — L. Annaeus Seneca