[NFBOH-Cleveland] Braille Monitor: Thoughts on Black Lives Matter and Bringing our Other Characteristics to the Table by Gary Wunder

[Suzanne Turner]

Thoughts on Black Lives Matter and Bringing our Other Characteristics to the
Table


by Gary Wunder

It is all too easy to assume that people know me since I edit the Braille
Monitor, but for purposes of this article let me do a little
self-introduction. I am going to be speaking about something I am learning
about rather than something I already know, and I'm going to be addressing
issues that I have not lived but have worked to understand. I am a white
male who is sixty-five years old. By any standard I have gotten most of the
breaks that society has to offer. I realize that some of where I am and what
I do is related to decisions and choices I've made, but I also hold in my
soul a great deal of gratitude for the people who have wished me well and
made my path easier. I only wish that every person in this country who is
blind was offered the same opportunities, and it is to that end that I write
to help those of us in the Federation make this an achievable goal.

Now let me turn to the dual subjects of this article. When I first heard the
statement "Black Lives Matter" and then heard the broader statement "All
lives matter," I thought them to be quite compatible, in harmony, one simply
being more expansive than the other. All lives do matter, but to conflate
the two statements being expressed is precisely the problem because it moves
the emphasis away from the lesser importance given to crimes against black
people and the treatment they receive at the hands of those hired to heal
and unite the communities they serve. 

I was slow to understand the difference between the two statements until a
few analogies were offered. If I say that blind lives need to be insured to
focus readers of my message on the fact that blindness has kept people from
buying life and health insurance on the premise that blind people will
necessarily have shorter lives and cost more to insure, is my message
emphasized or deemphasized by the statement that, of course, all people need
or deserve insurance? If I say that blind people need computer hardware and
software they can use to participate fully in today's society, and someone
else makes the observation that all people in this day and age need access
to computers. What happens to my message about the cost of screen reader
technology, Braille displays, and software that is written in such a way
that it doesn't matter how much money I spend on all of this assistive
technology-I simply cannot use what is so available to the general public?
When we advertise the National Federation of the Blind's scholarship
program, we are saying that blind students matter, that the technology used
in the classroom must be accessible, and that accommodations must be made in
the classroom for things that are only presented visually. Is that message
heard, or is it likely to be overshadowed or dismissed entirely when someone
makes the observation that of course many students need scholarships,
whether they are blind or can see? If I put forward the message to Congress
that blind people need access to home and medical appliances they can use,
and someone who hears it observes that everyone needs the same thing,
doesn't my message that inaccessible touchscreens make both types of
appliances inaccessible and threaten to drive me out of my home harder to
hear and consequently less likely to be acted upon? If in appreciation I say
to a gathering that I love my wife. Immediately someone observes that yes,
but you love everybody, don't you? Wouldn't an answer that yes, I love
everybody, actually be one that diminishes the point I was trying to make
and could actually be hurtful rather than helpful?

At one time in our Federation we had a simple message. It went something
like this: The thing that brings us together is blindness. The thing that
keeps us together is focusing only on blindness. Being people from all walks
of life of course means we will have issues in addition to blindness, but
for the sake of unity, we must leave these at the door. Sometimes this focus
was right. We should be able to fit under one roof those who favor more
military spending and those who favor less. They should be able to agree
that, in a country in which we spend so much money on and depend upon the
military, there ought to be a place for blind people in her service. A woman
who wants to stay at home and raise her child should be able to sit beside a
woman wanting a professional career, both arguing for the accessibility of
home and medical equipment. A man who believes salvation comes through
Christ should sit comfortably with the man who feels that Christ was a good
man but not as important as his Christian brother. Both should be able to
share in the cause of making more spiritual material available accessibly in
Braille and audio, and both should be able to address transportation issues
that sometimes keep blind people from engaging in religious services.

But what happens when the more difficult issues intrude? How do we deal with
the unarguable fact that a white man in St. Louis County gets more frequent
visits from a rehabilitation counselor or teacher than a black man who lives
in East St. Louis? Does the man from East St. Louis have a point in saying
that he can never learn Braille when the person providing lessons comes so
infrequently? What about his learning cane travel when the cane travel
instructor fears walking with him through his neighborhood? We must somehow
have policies that work for the blind of East St. Louis as well as the blind
living in the more affluent St. Louis County, and a black person must have
the right and all of us must take responsibility to listen when he says that
the rehabilitation system he encounters is not the one we so frequently talk
about. It certainly is our obligation to point out that the flawed system we
want to fix must address not just the problems people have who live in
affluent areas but also those for people of color who often may not?

Do we have all the answers? No. Does this mean we should avoid tackling the
questions that will lead to equal opportunity? It does not. It is only
through applied brainpower, building relationships, and making a place for
ourselves in all communities where blind people live that we will begin to
change those things that are difficult. It is only through risk and
demonstrated caring that we will convince blind people in these communities
that our message is for them, our love is for them, and that our aspiration
that they can live the lives they want also includes them. We must work hard
to avoid the suggestion that we are doing the offering, and they can come
into our tent. Instead we want to make it clear, especially to ourselves,
that this tent belongs to all of us and that addressing the issues of all
blind people is a core principle of the Federation and not a gesture
patronizingly offered by those who have the power to those who do not.

In a very divided nation we have messages to send about the needs of blind
people, but perhaps we will send other needed messages as well. The
futuristic Star Trek wanted to captivate us with new technology and going
"where no man has gone before," but quite intentionally it hooked us with
another possibility, another promise we might strive to keep. That promise
was to give all women and men an equal opportunity, to see others without
stereotypes based on race, geography, or political differences. The point
was not to ignore the differences we found among earthlings and others in
the universe but to applaud the majesty of it all. The show wasn't perfect;
we had to have the good versus the bad, so some of those we found in the
universe had to be fought, defended against, and made to understand that
they could not live by conquering or mistreating others. Live and let live
is so easily said and so much harder to implement. But it is nothing less
than treating people as you want to be treated. Perhaps, more expansive and
inclusive is to treat people as they would have you treat them. If we can
send our message of need and hope together, what a force for good we can
be-a force that starts with leading blind people and culminates in helping
to lead all people to build a better world in which we see our safety,
security, and happiness as inextricably bound together with those of our
fellow human beings, regardless their race or socioeconomic status.

(back
<https://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm20/bm2007/bm200703.htm> )
(contents
<https://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm20/bm2007/bm2007tc.htm> )
(next
<https://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm20/bm2007/bm200705.htm> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfboh-cleveland_nfbnet.org/attachments/20200726/d30ffa01/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 75343 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfboh-cleveland_nfbnet.org/attachments/20200726/d30ffa01/attachment.jpg>