[nfbmi-talk] Here is something from FederationLiterature thatyoumay wish to read.

[Mary Ann Robinson]

I agree.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pauline Smith" <zim1993 at gmail.com>
To: "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Here is something from FederationLiterature 
thatyoumay wish to read.


>I think I had a copy of this (Enbrel?) at one time but with the presser to 
>cut down on the amount of paper and stuff.... In the apartment and the 
>necessity to do so, it got passed out.. But it is good to revisit stuff 
>like this so that we remember what we stand for and also learn more about 
>the organization particularly those of us who have been in it for a while 
>but like me aren't as steeped in the philosophy as some of the rest of 
>you...
>
> Pauline Smith sent you this voice-to-text generated email using Voice on 
> the Go.
> To listen, click on the voice message link or open the attachment.
> https://vemail2.whitelabelapp.net:443/enterprise/Recordings/tCchci5n-20130305-1820.wav
>
>
>> Original Message:
>> ---------------------------------
>>
>> From: "Larry D. Keeler" <lkeeler at comcast.net>
>> Sent: March 5, 2013 5:58:22 PM
>> To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Here is something from Federation Literature 
>> thatyoumay wish to read.
>>
>> Yah, I got the jist of the last messsage.  I feel that Terri just wants 
>> us
>> to look at some of the old speeches so that we don't fortget what we 
>> stand
>> for.
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Jacalyn Paulding" <jacalynpaulding at gmail.com>
>> To: "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Cc: "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Here is something from Federation Literature
>> thatyoumay wish to read.
>>
>>
>> > Let me clarify I was speaking of the email that contained DR Jerrnigans
>> > criticism of therehabilitation teaching manual that Terri sent out some
>> > time ago. , not this most recent one.
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPhone
>> >
>> > On Mar 5, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Jacalyn Paulding 
>> > <jacalynpaulding at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I understand what Elizabeth was saying , the original email was
>> >> confusing. It sounded as though the speech was the writing of the 
>> >> author
>> >> of the email. It is important to give credit where credit is due.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>
>> >> On Mar 5, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Jordyn Castor <jordyn2493 at gmail.com> 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> It just so happens that there is this little well-known tool called
>> >>> Google.
>> >>> If you type in "NFB To Man the Barricades" the very first link that
>> >>> comes up is:
>> >>> https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/convent/banque71.htm
>> >>> Under the first heading is who it's by, where the address was 
>> >>> delivered,
>> >>> and the date if you need that information as well. Very easy to 
>> >>> find...
>> >>> So there you have it, the link to the properly cited article and all. 
>> >>> I
>> >>> hope you enjoy it.
>> >>> Jordyn
>> >>> On 3/5/2013 2:25 PM, Elizabeth Mohnke wrote:
>> >>>> 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, ov
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/lkeeler%40comcast.net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/zim1993%40gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/brightsmile1953%40comcast.net
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2641/5650 - Release Date: 03/05/13
>