[NFB-Talk] Partial Vision Interest Groups?

[Misty Kienzynski]

Let it be noted that I am entirely in favor of using sleepshades, though I once was not, as the principal mode of blindness skills instruction, due to visual instability for most in the blind community, but I also see room for other supplementary forms of instruction should an individual wish to utilize them.

And, yes, I am one of those people who chooses to be a free thinker within our movement, because, once again I will say that, I love our organization, but our beloved organization seems to shut down free thought before it even has a chance to germinate. Is there perhaps fear of change or the unknown at work here? Is there perhaps unthinking adherence to ancestors or leaders that preclude the possibility of respectful disagreement and difference?
—

Ms. Misty D. Kienzynski, M.A.





Bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem. — L. Annaeus Seneca


> On Jun 19, 2024, at 12:15 PM, David Andrews via nFB-Talk <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nFB-Talk mailing list
> nFB-Talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nFB-Talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/mkienzyn%40alumni.iu.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20240620/343f9a2a/attachment-0001.htm>