[NFB-Talk] Partial Vision Interest Groups?

[David Andrews]

Your objections have been around for years.  The 
other side of what you say is that maybe most of 
us vote the way we do because that is how we 
feel. I know it is that way for me. If I find 
myself disagreeing with 51 percent of NFB 
decisions, or more, if not I will stay and work to represent my views.

Dave

At 08:28 PM 6/19/2024, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I will probably be chastised by this forum for 
>speaking my mind, but, after seeing some of 
>these viewpoints, I am afraid I cannot stay silent.
>
>When I first joined the NFB in the mid 90s, I 
>did feel the sense of this condescending 
>attitude that others have hinted. Frankly, it 
>started with the cane I was carrying vs. the 
>standard one carried by NFB party members. 
>People said that I was behind compared to 
>others. Behind in what? Behind in my lack of 
>arrogance? Then the notion that blindness is a 
>mere physical inconvenience. While this sort of 
>philosophy does, indeed,  instill confidence, it 
>hardly leans on practicality. Finally, the 
>perfunctory rubber-stamp votes at conventions 
>where everyone simply says "yay," to approve 
>resolutions without any accurate count. What 
>that smacks of is the memable NFB adage that "We 
>walk alone but march together." I would add that 
>we simply march together, and have forgotten 
>anything about being able to walk alone, with 
>any modicum of independent thinking.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Rajiv
>
>
>----------
>From: "Raul Gallegos - NAGDU via nFB-Talk" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Cc: "Raul Gallegos - NAGDU" <rgallegos at nagdu.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 7:35:34 PM
>Subject: Re: [NFB-Talk] Partial Vision Interest Groups?
>
>Hello all. Earlier in this thread, Mike Hingson 
>recommended that the article, “definition of 
>blindness” be read. In case someone needs a 
>link to one of the several places it appears on the NFB site, here it is.
>
><https://nfb.org/blog/definition-blindness>https://nfb.org/blog/definition-blindness
>
>
>
>I hope this helps.
>
>
>
>--
>
>Raul Gallegos, President
>
>National Association of Guide Dog Users
>
>(346) 439-7444 • <mailto:rgallegos at nagdu.org>rgallegos at nagdu.org
>
>www.nfb.org • 
><https://d.docs.live.net/df04fbdd43ea5830/Documents/www.nagdu.org>www.nagdu.org
>
><https://calendar.google.com/calendar/ical/nagdu.org_7eopjofhnd4968m46rcmgrck0s%40group.calendar.google.com/public/basic.ics>Subscribe 
>to the NAGDU public calendar
>
><https://facebook.com/groups/nagdu>Facebook 
>Group • 
><https://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org>Email 
>list • <https://nfb.social/@GuideDogUsers>Mastodon
>
>“You can live the life you want. Blindness is not what holds you back.”
>
>
>
>From: mike at michaelhingson.com <mike at michaelhingson.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 11:22 AM
>To: NFB Talk Mailing List <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Cc: Raul Gallegos - NAGDU <rgallegos at nagdu.org>
>Subject: RE: [NFB-Talk] Partial Vision Interest Groups?
>
>
>
>I agree with Raul here. I am sure there are 
>sighted people who look down on other sighted 
>people who have not learned to read or who have 
>a disability such as dyslexia. Traditionally in 
>our race of beings some like to think they are better than others.
>
>
>
>Within the NFB we do work to make all welcome 
>and comfortable. The organization does NOT have 
>a philosophy that segregates. As I said 
>yesterday, using Dr. Jernigan’s definition of 
>blindness, people are blind when their eyesight 
>has diminished to the point that they need to 
>use alternatives to their eyes in order to 
>accomplish tasks and function. I do realize 
>there are low vision people who do wish to think 
>they are different than blind people, but in 
>reality if you think about it, that “difference” is artificial.
>
>
>
>If you read my article in the Braille Monitor 
>concerning disabilities, you will see that I 
>contend that EVERYONE has a disability including 
>light dependent people whose disability is 
>simply covered up by “light on demand” being so prevalent.
>
>
>
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>Michael Hingson
>
>
>
>From: nFB-Talk 
><<mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org>nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org> 
>On Behalf Of Raul Gallegos - NAGDU via nFB-Talk
>Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 8:52 AM
>To: NFB Talk Mailing List <<mailto:nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Cc: Raul Gallegos - NAGDU <<mailto:rgallegos at nagdu.org>rgallegos at nagdu.org>
>Subject: Re: [NFB-Talk] Partial Vision Interest Groups?
>
>
>
>Hi there, I am sorry to hear that you have had 
>experiences like that. And all the years that I 
>have been a member of the national federation of 
>the blind, I have never encountered that type of 
>elitist behavior. Although I read braille, I 
>only read it with one hand and it is not all 
>that fast. Whether I interact with people who 
>can read three times faster than me or three 
>times slower than me, it has never been an issue.
>When it comes to auditory listening, as in from 
>a speech synthesizer, I feel that there are 
>appropriate times to rely on it and appropriate 
>times not to. Sometimes, I will personally use 
>speech over braille, and sometimes the other way 
>around, but again, it depends on the situation. 
>I have never felt like anybody has looked down 
>in a condescending fashion because of my 
>preferences. Likewise, I don't think of anyone 
>as a lesser person if they rely completely on 
>speech or if they are not a braille reader.
>
>
>--
>Raul Gallegos / President
>National Association of Guide Dog Users
>346.439.7444 | <mailto:RGallegos at nagdu.org>RGallegos at nagdu.org
>https://www.nagdu.org
>
>Jun 19, 2024 10:46:39 AM Bryan Schulz via 
>nFB-Talk <<mailto:nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>:
>
>Hi,
>
>Along with this, there seems to be an elitist 
>thought that people who physically cannot read 
>braille or those who prefer synthetic speech are looked down on!
>
>Bryan
>
>From: nFB-Talk 
><<mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org>nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org> 
>On Behalf Of Misty Kienzynski via nFB-Talk
>Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 10:15 AM
>To: NFB Talk Mailing List <<mailto:nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Cc: Misty Kienzynski <<mailto:mkienzyn at alumni.iu.edu>mkienzyn at alumni.iu.edu>
>Subject: Re: [NFB-Talk] Partial Vision Interest Groups?
>
>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 Seneca
>
>
>
>On Jun 19, 2024, at 10:52 AM, kaye Zimpher via 
>nFB-Talk <<mailto:nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>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 <<mailto:nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>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 Seneca
>
>
>
>On Jun 18, 2024, at 5:41 PM, kaye Zimpher via 
>nFB-Talk <<mailto:nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>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 <<mailto:nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20240619/f954ac21/attachment-0001.htm>