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

[Andra Stover]

Thanks for sharing this one. This really gets you to think.Thanks for
sharing this one. This really gets you to think.

On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 1:06 PM Suzanne Turner via Ohio-Talk <
ohio-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:

>
> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ohio-Talk mailing list
> Ohio-Talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Ohio-Talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org/astover%40kent.edu
>