[nfbmi-talk] Here is something from Federation Literature that youmay wish to read.

[Elizabeth Mohnke]

Hello Terri,

If you are going to post works that are not your own, please give credit to 
the person who wrote it.

Thanks,
Elizabeth

--------------------------------------------------
From: "trising" <trising at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:08 AM
To: "nfbmi List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Here is something from Federation Literature that 
youmay wish to read.

> Here is something from Federation Literature that you may wish to read.
>
>
>
>
> To Man the Barricades
> Some of you may remember the story Will Rogers liked to tell about his 
> early career as a comedian in vaudeville. "I used to play a song called 
> 'Casey Jones' on the harmonica with one hand," he said, "and spin a rope 
> with the other, and then whine into the old empty rain barrel ... and then 
> in between the verses I used to tell jokes about the Senate of the United 
> States. If I needed any new jokes that night, I used to just get the late 
> afternoon papers and read what Congress had done that day, and the 
> audience would die laughing."
>
> This story reminds me of my own activities over the past twenty years. I 
> have gone all over the country as the guest of blind groups and civic 
> associations; and, like Will Rogers, I tell stories about the Government 
> of the United States-particularly the Department of Health, Education, and 
> Welfare, and the other "professionals" doing work with the blind. And when 
> I need any new jokes, I just get the latest reports from the agencies and 
> foundations and read what they have been doing recently-and the audience 
> dies laughing. Unless, of course, there are people in the audience who are 
> blind, or friends of the blind-and they die crying.
>
> Which is a roundabout way of saying that much of what goes on in the 
> journals and laboratories and workshops of the agencies for the blind 
> these days is a cruel joke. It is a mockery of social science and a 
> travesty on social service. Far from advancing the welfare and well-being 
> of blind people, it sets our cause back and does us harm.
>
> The blind, along with some other groups in our society, have become the 
> victims of a malady known as "R and D"-that is, Research and 
> Demonstration. The R and D projects are largely financed by the Federal 
> Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and account for an 
> ever-increasing chunk of its budget. The whole tone and direction of 
> programs for the blind in the country-rehabilitation, education, social 
> services, and the rest-have been altered as a result. The art of writing 
> grant applications, the tens of millions of dollars available to fund the 
> approved R and D projects, the resulting build-up of staff in universities 
> and agencies for the blind, the need to produce some sort of seemingly 
> scientific results in the form of books and pamphlets to justify the staff 
> salaries and the field trips and conferences, and the wish for so-called 
> "professional" status have all had their effect. Blind people have become 
> the objects of research and the subjects of demonstration. They are 
> quizzed, queried, and quantified; they are diagnosed, defined, and 
> dissected; and when the R and D people get through with them, there is 
> nothing left at all-at any rate, nothing of dignity or rationality or 
> responsibility. Despite all of their talk about improving the quality of 
> services to blind people (and there is a lot of such talk these days), the 
> research and demonstration people see the blind as inferiors. They see us 
> as infantile, dependent wards. The signs of this creeping condescension-of 
> this misapplied science, this false notion of what blind people are, and 
> of what blindness means-are all about us. Some things are big, and some 
> are little; but the pattern is conclusive and the trend unmistakable.
>
> Consider, for instance, what has happened to the talking book. From the 
> very beginning of the library service back in the 1930's, the first side 
> of each talking-book record has concluded with these words: "This book is 
> continued on the other side of this record." The flip side has always 
> ended with: "This book is continued on the next record." Surely no one can 
> have any serious quarrel with this language. It serves a purpose. The 
> reader, absorbed in the narrative, may well not remember whether he is on 
> the first or second side of a record, and the reminder is useful and saves 
> time.
>
> In the last three or four years, however, something new has been added. 
> After the familiar "This book is continued on the next record," the 
> statement now appears: "Please replace this record in its envelope and 
> container." That one, I must confess, crept up on me gradually. Although 
> from the very beginning I found the statement annoying, it took some time 
> for its full significance to hit me.
>
> Here I was, let us say, reading a learned treatise on French history-a 
> book on Gallic statesmanship-one which presupposes a certain amount of 
> understanding and mental competence. The narrative is interrupted by a 
> voice saying "Please replace this record in its envelope and container." 
> Then it strikes me: These are the words one addresses to a moron or a lazy 
> lout. These words do not appear on records intended for the use of sighted 
> library borrowers. They are intended for the blind. To be sure, they are 
> not an overwhelming or unbearable insult. They are only one more small 
> evidence of the new custodialism, the additional input of contempt for the 
> blind recipient of services which is in the air these days.
>
> I have heard that the words were added at the request of some of the 
> regional librarians because certain blind borrowers were careless with the 
> records. Are sighted people never careless with books or records? Are such 
> words at the end of the record really likely to make the slob less slobby? 
> The ordinary, normal human being (blind or sighted) will, as a matter of 
> course, put the record back into the envelope and container. What else, 
> one wonders, would he do with it?
>
> Regardless of all this, one thing is fairly certain: My remarks on the 
> subject will undoubtedly bring forth angry comments from library officials 
> and others that I am quibbling and grasping at straws, that I am reading 
> meanings that aren't there into innocent words. To which I reply: I am 
> sure that no harm was meant and that the author of the words did not sit 
> down to reason out their significance, but all of this is beside the 
> point. We have reasoned out the significance, and we are no longer willing 
> for our road to hell to be paved with other people's good intentions, 
> their failure to comprehend, or their insistence that we not quibble.
>
> Here is another illustration-again, a slight and almost trivial affair. I 
> had occasion recently to visit a public school where there was a resource 
> class for blind and partially seeing children. The teacher moved about 
> with me among the students. "This little girl can read print," she said. 
> "This little girl has to read Braille." Now, that language is not 
> oppressively bad. Its prejudice is a subtle thing. But just imagine, if 
> you will, a teacher saying of a pair of children: "This little girl can 
> read Braille; this little girl has to read print." The supposition is that 
> the child possessing some sight, no matter how little, is closer to being 
> a normal and full-fledged human being; the one without sight can't cut it 
> and has to make do with inferior substitutes.
>
> Confront that teacher with her words, and she will be hurt. She will say, 
> "But that is not how I meant it. It was simply the way I said it." It is 
> true that she was not consciously aware of the significance of her 
> statement and that she did not mean to say what she said; but she said 
> exactly what she meant, and how she felt. And her students, as well as 
> visitors to her classroom, will be conditioned accordingly. I don't wish 
> to make too much of the teacher's terminology, or the words on the 
> talking-book record. Neither exemplifies any great cruelty or tragedy. 
> They are, however, straws in the wind; and either of them could be the 
> final straw-the straw that breaks the blind man's back, or spirit. Far too 
> many backs and spirits have been broken in that way, and the breaking must 
> stop.
>
> As I have said, some of the recent incidents in our field are small, and 
> some are big; but they fit together to make a pattern, and the pattern is 
> conclusive. During the past decade, for instance, the vocational 
> employment objective of rehabilitation has steadily receded before the 
> advancing tide of "social services" and "research and development," and 
> the Division for the Blind in the Federal Rehabilitation Service has 
> diminished accordingly in prominence and importance. By 1967 
> rehabilitation had taken such a back seat that it became submerged in a 
> comprehensive pot of Mulligan stew set up by the Department of Health, 
> Education, and Welfare called "Social and Rehabilitation Service," with 
> the emphasis clearly on the "social." A new public-information brochure 
> turned out by HEW, listing all the department's branches and programs, 
> placed rehabilitation-where do you suppose?-dead last.
>
> As far as the blind were concerned, the ultimate blow fell late last year. 
> Federal Register document 70-17447, dated December 28, 1970, announced the 
> abolition of the Division for the Blind altogether, and its inclusion in 
> the new Division of Special Populations! And who are these "special 
> populations"? They include, and I quote, "alcoholics, drug addicts, 
> arthritics, epileptics, the blind, heart, cancer, and stroke victims, 
> those suffering communication disorders, et cetera." (I leave the 
> specifics of the "et cetera: to your imagination.) Therefore, half a 
> century after the establishment of the Federal vocational rehabilitation 
> program, and almost as long after the development of a special division of 
> services for the blind (and still longer since the creation of separate 
> agencies or commissions for the blind in most of the States) the blind of 
> America were to lose their identity and return to the almshouse for the 
> sick and indigent.
>
> This was too much, and every major national organization and agency (both 
> of and for the blind) combined to resist it. By February of 1971 the HEW 
> officials had made a strategic withdrawal. They announced that they had 
> never intended to downgrade or de-emphasize services to the blind; but 
> that in order to clear up any possible misunderstanding they were 
> establishing a new "Office for the Blind," to be on a par with the 
> "Division of Special Populations," and in no way connected with it. Thus 
> (for the moment) the tide was reversed and the power of united action 
> demonstrated; but the tide is still the tide, and the trend is still the 
> trend.
>
> It is not difficult to find the evidence. For example, under date of 
> February 4, 1971, the Federal Rehabilitation Services Administration 
> issued an information memorandum entitled "Subminimum Wage Certificates 
> for Handicapped Workers." The document is self-explanatory; it is damning; 
> and it is all too indicative of what is happening to the blind in America 
> today. "A recent revision to the wage and hour regulations," the 
> memorandum begins, "broadens State vocational rehabilitation agencies' 
> certification responsibility with respect to employment of handicapped 
> workers at subminimum wages. The responsibility was previously limited by 
> regulation to certain categories of handicapped persons employed by 
> sheltered workshops.
>
> "The revision to the wage and hour regulations, effective February 4, 
> 1971," the memorandum continues, "authorizes State rehabilitation agencies 
> to certify certain disabled persons for work in competitive employment at 
> less than fifty percent of the statutory minimum wage but not less than 
> twenty-five percent."
>
> So said HEW in February of this year! No longer must the pay be even fifty 
> percent of the minimum wage! No longer is it limited to the sheltered 
> shop! It may now be extended to private industry, to so-called 
> "competitive" employment! And this, we are told, is rehabilitation. We are 
> not to quibble. We are not to read meanings into things which are not 
> there. We are not to find patterns or trends or hidden significance. No! 
> We are to take our twenty-five percent "competitive" employment, and be 
> grateful for it. That is what we are expected to do, but I doubt that we 
> will do it.
>
> I have already spoken about R and D-the so-called "research and 
> demonstration"-financed ever more heavily and lovingly by the Department 
> of Health, Education, and Welfare. I have at hand a typical product of "R 
> and D"-a comprehensive 239-page publication of the American Foundation for 
> the Blind, entitled A Step-by-Step Guide to Personal Management for Blind 
> Persons.1 I invite you now to accompany me on a step-by-step guided tour 
> through its pages and mazes. But let me warn you: It may be a bad trip.
>
> "One of the areas," we are told at the outset of this guidebook, "where 
> independence is valued most highly by a broad spectrum of blind persons 
> ... is personal management." I myself would put that a little differently. 
> I would say that the blind person should, and commonly does, take for 
> granted that independence begins at home-that self-care comes before 
> self-support-but that what he values most highly in life is not his 
> ability to master the simple rituals of daily living, such as are detailed 
> in this manual. It is not his ability to wash his face, take a shower, 
> clean his nails, brush his hair, sit down on a chair, rise from a chair, 
> stand upright, wash his socks, light a cigarette, shake hands, nod his 
> head "yes," shake his head "no," and so on and so on through two 
> hundred-plus pages of instruction. No, these are not the supreme 
> attainments and values in the life of the blind person, or of any other 
> civilized person. They are merely the elementary motor and mechanical 
> skills which represent the foundation on which more meaningful and 
> significant achievements rest. The skills of personal management are 
> rudimentary, not remarkable.
>
> However, the American Foundation's Guide to Personal Management for Blind 
> Persons does not put the matter in such modest perspective. Rather, it is 
> blown up to majestic proportions, as if it were not the beginning but the 
> end of self-realization and independence. Most of all, it is presented as 
> a very difficult and complicated subject-this business of grooming and 
> shaving, bathing and dressing-virtually as the source of a new science. 
> Much is made of the "need for an organized body of realistic and practical 
> personal management techniques." The American Foundation, out of a deep 
> sense of professional obligation and the excitement of pioneering on new 
> scientific horizons, agreed as long ago as 1965 (in its own words) "to 
> undertake the responsibility for developing, over a period of years, 
> workable personal management techniques for blind persons." To begin with, 
> an AFB staff specialist was assigned to coordinate the project, and he 
> proceeded immediately to carry out a massive survey of agencies throughout 
> this country and Canada-on such life-and-death questions and critical 
> issues as how to teach blind persons to shake hands correctly and put the 
> right sock on the right foot.
>
> But surveys at a distance, no matter how thorough and scientific, were not 
> good enough for such profound subject matter. No. What was needed was (to 
> quote the report) "the pooled thinking and experience of a fairly large 
> number of persons from diverse backgrounds and programs." In short, what 
> was needed was a conference, or better yet, a series of conferences-in big 
> hotels in major cities, complete with workshops, round-tables, lunches, 
> dinners, social hours, and sensitivity sessions. In the words of the 
> report: "For three years, 1967, 1968, and 1969, national meetings were 
> held in New York, Chicago, and New Orleans at which key personnel from 
> representative agencies met both to develop techniques and methods and to 
> refine and improve already existing ones."
>
> Here, to illustrate, is a typical technique-developed and refined over the 
> years in New York, Chicago, and New Orleans, representing the distilled 
> wisdom (if that is the proper expression) of key personnel from diverse 
> backgrounds and specialized programs. Here, under the broad classification 
> "Bathing," is the sixteen-step procedure for the "Sponge Bath." I quote in 
> full:
>
> Orientation: Discuss how equipment can be most efficiently used when 
> taking a sponge bath.
>
> Equipment: Water, two containers, soap, cloth, towel, bath mat.
>
> Technique:
>
> 1. Disrobe.
>
> 2. Put water of desired temperature in sink or container.
>
> 3. Thoroughly wet washcloth and gently squeeze cloth together.
>
> 4. Take one corner in right hand, the other in left hand, bring corners 
> together and grasp in whole hand.
>
> 5. With other hand grasp remaining cloth. Hold washcloth in closed fist.
>
> 6. Hold one hand stationary while turning other hand to squeeze excess 
> water.
>
> 7. Unfold cloth and drape over palm of one hand. With other hand pick up 
> soap and dip into water, then rub back and forth from wrist to tips of 
> fingers on cloth.
>
> 8. Place soap back in dish.
>
> 9. Place soaped cloth in dominant hand.
>
> 10. Starting with face and neck, rub soaped cloth over skin portion.
>
> 11. Place soaped cloth in water and wring as described above several times 
> until soap has been removed.
>
> 12. Use same motion as step 10 to rinse soap from face and neck.
>
> 13. Unfold towel. Using either or both hands, dry using a vigorous rubbing 
> motion.
>
> 14. Continue to each section of body-washing, rinsing, and drying.
>
> 15. As towel gets damp, shift to a dry section.
>
> 16. For drying back, put bath towel over right shoulder, grasp lower end 
> hanging in back with left hand and grasp end hanging in front with right 
> hand. While holding towel pull up and down alternately changing position 
> of towel until entire area of back is dry.
>
> Immediately following this highly developed and refined technique-the 
> product of five years of national conferences and international surveys-is 
> the step-by-step guide to taking a "tub bath." I feel that you will want 
> to know that this affair of the tub represents a more advanced and 
> elaborate enterprise in personal management. The greater complexity is 
> evident at the outset. You will recall that the first step in the sponge 
> bath technique was:
>
> "Disrobe." But the first step in the tub bath exercise is: "Disrobe and 
> place clothing where it will not get wet." That is, of course, a 
> substantial increase in subtlety over the sponge bath.
>
> Let us pause here for a moment and contemplate the significance of that 
> instruction:
>
> "Disrobe and place clothing where it will not get wet." What does it tell 
> us about the intelligence-the presumed intelligence-of the blind person 
> under instruction? It tells us that he has not the sense to come in out of 
> the rain; or, more exactly, that he has not the sense to bring his clothes 
> in out of the shower. He is presumed to be either a mental case or a 
> recent immigrant from the jungle, who has never taken a bath before. This 
> latter possibility is given additional credence by instruction number 
> fifteen: "As towel gets damp, shift to a dry section." If the trainee has 
> ever bathed before, he will know about that. Only if he is a babbling 
> idiot or Bomba, the Jungle Boy, does he need to be given that 
> extraordinary advice. This presumption of incompetence or newborn 
> innocence on the part of the blind person is, indeed, pervasive of the 
> entire 239-page guidebook.
>
> What else can it mean to say, with regard to the technique for shaking 
> hands: "If desired, the hands may be moved in an up and down motion?" What 
> else can it mean to say, with regard to the technique for nodding the 
> head: "The head is held facing the person to whom you wish to communicate 
> ... With the head held in this position, move the chin down towards the 
> floor about two inches then raise it again to the original position. Make 
> this movement twice in quick succession."
>
> One last quotation, before we leave this magisterial work of applied 
> domestic science. Under the general heading of "Hand Gestures," we find, 
> the technique for "Applauding." It goes like this:
>
> a. With elbows close to the body, raise both hands until the forearms are 
> approximately parallel to the floor.
>
> b. Move each hand towards the other so that they come in contact with one 
> another towards the center of the body.
>
> c. The thumb of both hands is held slightly apart from the other four 
> fingers which are held straight and close together.
>
> d. The fingers of the right hand point slightly toward the ceiling and the 
> fingers of the left hand slightly toward the floor so that when the hands 
> come in contact with each other the palms touch but the fingers do not.
>
> e. The thumb of the right hand rests on the knuckle of the left thumb, the 
> fingers of the right hand being above the fingers of the left hand.
>
> f. The hands are brought back to a position about eight to twelve inches 
> apart then brought together in a quick slapping motion.
>
> g. Polite applause would require slapping the hands together about twice 
> each second. More feeling would be expressed by the rapidity, rather than 
> the volume or loudness of the individual's applause.
>
> 2. Hands Inactive: When the hands are not being used for some specific 
> purpose, the most common position is resting the hands in the lap. For 
> example, the back of the left hand might rest on the left or right leg, or 
> in between, with the palm turned up; the right hand with the palm turned 
> down over the left hand and the fingers of each hand slightly curled 
> around each other.
>
> I cannot leave this great book and its truly vital subject without reading 
> to you the "Foreward" as written by Mr. M. Robert Barnett, executive 
> director of the American Foundation for the Blind: "We would like to take 
> this opportunity," he writes, "to express our appreciation to the many 
> persons professionally involved in work for the blind across the country 
> whose five years of hard work, creativity, and experience have made A 
> Step-by-Step Guide to Personal Management for Blind Persons a reality. For 
> many years, countless persons have expressed a need for such a manual and 
> we hope that this publication will help to fill that need."
>
> I would like to know who those "countless persons" are who have expressed 
> a need for such a manual, wouldn't you? Are they blind persons-and if so 
> have they been waiting all these years without being able to test the 
> water, clap the hands, lift the bale, tote the barge, nod, shake, shimmy, 
> rattle and roll? How have they managed their lives all these years without 
> this personal guide from the American Foundation and its cohorts?
>
> But maybe they are not the ones who have expressed a need for such a 
> manual. Perhaps it is not the blind at all but-as the Foundation puts 
> it-those "professionally involved in work for the blind" to whom this 
> definitive guidebook is addressed. Not our blind brothers, but our blind 
> brothers' keepers. Presumably they are the ones who are to conduct the 
> "orientation" sessions which precede each of the various procedures and 
> techniques-such as:
>
> "Discuss types of ties and materials from which ties are made (silk, 
> linen, leather, knit, synthetic, and wool)." And: "Discuss reasons for 
> brushing hair regularly and the suitability of different types of brushes" 
> (scrub brushes, toothbrushes, horse brushes, sagebrushes, brushes with the 
> law, etcetera). Well, admittedly, I added the last part of that sentence 
> myself; but I maintain that it is no different in character, and no more 
> foolish, than the trivial and vacuous material set forth in most of the 
> 239 pages.
>
> Indeed, the very triviality and vacuity of this misguided guidebook may 
> deceive some readers into dismissing it as an unfortunate exception, not 
> characteristic of the main body of work turned out today by serious 
> scholars and professionals in the field of work with the blind. Let me 
> emphasize, therefore, as strongly as I can, the typical and conventional 
> character of this manual. It is not the exception. Its name is legion; its 
> approach, its philosophy, and its superficial contents have been 
> duplicated many times over in the research and demonstration projects of 
> the American Foundation for the Blind, the Department of Health, 
> Education, and Welfare, the college institutes, and the State agencies 
> caught up in the profitable cycle of grants, surveys, tests, and 
> questionnaires.
>
> There is another potential objection to dispose of. That is the 
> supposition that this set of instructions, simple-minded as it is, is not 
> really intended for the ordinary, capable blind person but only for a 
> minority. Moreover, it is true that the book itself makes a verbal nod in 
> this direction, admitting modestly that its techniques are not the only 
> ones possible and that there may be other ways to approach the same goals. 
> But the book also contains an opposite disclaimer, to the effect that the 
> proposed techniques may be too complicated and advanced for some blind 
> persons to handle without preliminary instruction. However that may be, it 
> is clear that this lengthy five-year report is meant to be circulated 
> generally to agencies and schools, to parents and counselors, to guides 
> and custodians, without reservation or qualification.
>
> The best evidence of how this book is intended to be read is to be found 
> in its title. It does not say that it is a step-by-step guide to personal 
> management for mentally retarded or extremely backward blind persons. It 
> does not say it is a guide for tiny children. It says what it means, and 
> means what it says- namely, that it is A Step-by-Step Guide to Personal 
> Management for Blind Persons.
>
> And we can do no less than that ourselves; we must also say what we mean. 
> As long as such insulting drivel about us continues to be issued in the 
> name of science by agencies doing work with the blind-as long as Federal 
> money continues to be available to support it-as long as the climate of 
> general public opinion continues to tolerate it-as long as blind persons 
> continue to be found who can be coaxed or hoodwinked into participating in 
> it-then, for just so long must we of the National Federation of the Blind 
> raise our voices to resist it, denounce it, and expose it for the 
> pseudoscience and the fraud which it is.
>
> The Federal research and demonstration projects, the wording on the 
> talking-book records, the attempt to abolish the Division for the Blind in 
> Federal rehabilitation, the payment of subminimum wages in sheltered shops 
> and private industry, and the guidebooks to tell us how to run our daily 
> lives are all straws in the wind, signs of the times. But there are other, 
> more hopeful signs. Though the Library of Congress tells us to replace our 
> records in the envelopes and containers, its book selection policies have 
> been refreshingly updated. More and better books are now available to the 
> blind than ever before, including best-sellers and popular magazines. 
> Likewise, though the Division for the Blind was abolished at the Federal 
> level, the move was successfully resisted and reversed. And although 
> teachers still talk of blind people who have to read Braille and can't 
> read print, although subminimum wages are still allowed in sheltered shops 
> and private industry, and although the Foundation's guidebook is still 
> distributed by the hundreds and thousands to slow our progress, we (the 
> organized blind) are abroad in the land in growing numbers-aware of the 
> peril and prepared to fight it. It is just that simple: We are prepared to 
> fight, and we will fight. We don't want conflict or trouble with anyone; 
> we don't want to quibble or be aggressive or militant; we don't want 
> strife or dissension; but the time is absolutely at an end when we will 
> passively tolerate second-class citizenship and custodial treatment. We 
> are free men, and we intend to act like it. We are free men, and we intend 
> to stay that way. We are free men, and we intend to defend ourselves. Let 
> those who truly have the best interests of the blind at heart join with us 
> as we move into the new era of equality and integration. Let those who 
> call our conduct negative or destructive make the most of it!
>
> I want to say a few words now to those agencies doing work with the blind 
> who march with us in the cause of freedom, who are glad to see the blind 
> emancipated, and who work with us as human beings-not as statistics or 
> case histories or inferior wards. To such agencies I say this: You have 
> nothing to fear from the organized blind movement. Your battles are our 
> battles. Your cause is our cause. Your friends are our friends. Your 
> enemies are our enemies. We will go with you to the legislatures and the 
> Federal Government to secure funds for your operation. We will urge the 
> public to contribute to your support. We will defend you from attack and 
> work with you in a partnership of progress.
>
> Now, let me say something to those agencies who still look back to 
> yesterday, who condescend to the blind, who custodialize and patronize. To 
> them I say this: Your days are numbered. Once men have tasted freedom, 
> they will not willingly or easily return to bondage. You have told us as 
> blind people and you have told the community at large that we are not 
> capable of managing our own affairs, that you are responsible for our 
> lives and our destinies, that we as blind people must be sheltered and 
> segregated-and that even then, we are not capable of earning our own keep. 
> You have told us that we as blind people do not really have anything in 
> common and that we, therefore do not need an organization-that there is no 
> such thing as an "organized blind movement." But you have not spoken the 
> truth.
>
> If you tell us that you are important and necessary to our lives, we 
> reply: It is true. But tear down every agency for the blind in the Nation, 
> destroy every workshop, and burn every professional journal; and we can 
> build them all back if they are needed. But take away the blind, and your 
> journals will go dusty on the shelves. Your counselors will walk the 
> streets for work, and your broom corn will mold and rot in your sheltered 
> shops. Yes, we need you; but you need us, too. We intend to have a voice 
> in your operation and your decisions since what you do affects our lives. 
> We intend to have representation on your boards, and we intend for you to 
> recognize our organizations and treat us as equals. We are not your wards, 
> and there is no way for you to make us your wards. The only question left 
> to be settled is whether you will accept the new conditions and work with 
> us in peace and partnership or whether we must drag you kicking and 
> screaming into the new era. But enter the new era you will, like it or 
> not.
>
> Next, I want to say something to those blind persons who are aware of our 
> movement and who have had an opportunity to join it but who have not seen 
> fit to do so. In this category I also place those blind persons who are 
> among us but not really of us, who (technically speaking) hold membership 
> in the Federation but are not really part of the movement. The 
> non-Federation and the noncommitted blind are a strange phenomenon. Some 
> of them are successful in business or the professions. I have heard them 
> say, "I really don't need the Federation. Of course, if I could do 
> anything to help you people, I would be glad to do it, but I am 
> independent. I have made it on my own." I have heard them say:
>
> "You really can't expect me to go down to that local meeting of the blind. 
> Nobody goes there except a few old people, who sit around and drink coffee 
> and plan Christmas parties. I am a successful lawyer, or businessman, or 
> judge; and I am busy. Besides, they never get anything done. They just 
> talk and argue." I have heard them say: "I don't know that I necessarily 
> have anything in common with other blind people just because I'm blind. 
> Almost all my friends are sighted. My life is busy with bowling, hiking, 
> reading, or my business or profession." I have heard them say: "You people 
> in the Federation are too aggressive. You are always in a fight with 
> somebody, or bickering among yourselves. I am an individualist and never 
> was much of a joiner."
>
> I have heard some of them say: "I am an employee of a governmental or 
> private agency doing work with the blind, and I think it would destroy my 
> professional relationship with my clients if I were to work actively in 
> the Federation. Anyway, we all have a common concern, the betterment of 
> blind people; so I'll make my contribution by working as a 'professional' 
> in the field. Besides, not all blind people agree with you or want to join 
> your organization, and as a 'professional' I have to represent and work 
> with all blind people."
>
> I have heard them say all of these things, and to such blind persons I say 
> this: You are patsies! Not only that but you are also deceiving yourselves 
> and failing to act in your own best interest. Further, you are profiting 
> from the labor and sacrifice, and are riding on the backs, of the blind 
> who have joined the movement and worked to make it possible for you to 
> have what you have. Some of you feel superior to many of the blind who 
> belong to the Federation (especially those who work in the sheltered shops 
> or draw welfare), but your feelings of superiority are misplaced; for 
> collectively these people have clothed you and fed you. They have made it 
> possible for you to have such equality in society and such opportunity as 
> you now enjoy. Resent what I say if you will, but it is the truth, whether 
> you like it or not and whether you admit it or not. It is true for those 
> of you who work in the agencies as well as for those of you who work in 
> private endeavor.
>
> If you think this movement should be better or that it should be of higher 
> caliber, then join us and help make it that way. If you think the local 
> meetings or the State conventions are dull or uninspiring, then do your 
> part to make them different. Even animals in the jungle have sense enough 
> to hunt in packs. The blind ought to be at least as intelligent.
>
> We need you, and we want you as active participants in the movement; but 
> until you will join, we must do the best we can without you. We must carry 
> you on our backs and do your work for you, and we will do it. The fact 
> that we say you are patsies does not mean that we resent you. Far from it. 
> You are our brothers, and we will continue to look upon you as such, 
> regardless of how irresponsibly you behave. We are trying to get you to 
> think about the implications of your actions. We are trying to get you to 
> join with us to help make things better for other blind people and for 
> yourselves. We are trying to get you to stop being patsies.
>
> Finally, I want to address myself to the active members of the NFB-to the 
> blind, and to our sighted brothers who have made our cause their cause. To 
> the active Federationists I say this: We are not helpless, and we are not 
> children. We know our problems, and we know how to solve them. The 
> challenge which faces us is clear, and the means of meeting that challenge 
> are equally clear. If we fail in courage or nerve or dedication, we have 
> only ourselves to blame.
>
> But, of course, we will not fail. The stakes are too high and the need too 
> great to permit it. To paraphrase the Biblical statement: Upon the rock of 
> Federationism we have built our movement, and the gates of hell shall not 
> prevail against it! Since 1969 we have talked a great deal about joining 
> each other on the barricades. If there was ever a time, that time is now. 
> What we in the Federation do during the next decade may well determine the 
> fate of the blind for a hundred years to come. To win through to success 
> will require all that we have in the way of purpose, dedication, loyalty, 
> good sense, and guts. Above all, we need front-line soldiers, who are 
> willing to make sacrifices and work for the cause. Therefore, I ask you 
> again today (as I did last year and the year before): Will you join me on 
> the barricades?
>
> FOOTNOTE
> 1. American Foundation for the Blind, A Step-by-Step Guide to Personal 
> Management for Blind Persons, New York, New York, 1970.
>
> Back to top
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/lizmohnke%40hotmail.com
>