[stylist] Here is History of white cane,

[Robert Newman]

(I sent an email earlier, maybe it'll show up)
	I wrote Jeff Altman, the Nebraska Training Center travel instructor.
He has two articles dealing with the history of the cane and our use of it.
Here is the first article. There will be a second one that apparently gets
more into facts or something. 
The History of Orientation and Mobility

     The use of the cane or the staff by the blind dates back to antiquity,
but the organized study of cane use is perhaps as recent as the last half of
the last century.  Cane technique as we have come to know it today, with the
use of the Long Cane, dates back to World War 11.  This is roughly fifty
years ago.  The prime mover in the technique, Richard Hoover (a man of
remarkable talent) died in 1986.

     The roots of blind mobility are often attributed to the Old Testament.
The concern for the blind is traced to Deuteronomy X.X.V.1.1., 18, "Cursed
be he that maketh the blind wander out of his way, and all the people shall
say Amen." The use of the staff by the blind has its roots in Greek
Mythology.

"The ancient Prophet Teresias was deprived of sight for an offense against
the gods, he was compassioned by the goddess Charicolo, who in pity for his
misfortune gave him a staff, by which he could conduct his steps with as
much safety as if he had use of his eye sight"

     In the Biography of the Blind, James Wilson (I 83 5) offers these
observations on the use of a cane:

	"A blind man inclines to the hand in which the staff is carried, and
this often has a tendency to lead him astray when he travels on a road with
which he is unacquainted."

Wilson goes on to describe the establishment of The Asylum of the Blind in
Belfast in the year 1800.  If a formalized program for cane instruction
existed there was not made clear by Wilson.

     The first formalized system of cane travel was offered by William Hanks
Levy (I 872) in Blindness and Blind.  Levy's basic technique was as follows:
The cane is held in the right hand.  It is held vertically six inches in
front of the user.  The hand grasps the hook (crook) of the stick,
protecting the hand with the body of the cane. (Note that a straight cane
would not be usable with this method.) Before starting, "the stick should
gently sweep the ground in front." While in motion the user waves the stick
from left to right in step with the feet.

     Levy's system also includes the need for use of the other senses.
Hearing detects the approach of people and things.  Smell helps detect
landmarks.  And the use of thin shoes literally helps the traveler get the
feel of the terrain.

     The qualities of the stick are also addressed.  It needs to be light
but not elastic, so impressions can be transmitted.  The handle must be like
a hook.  Height should vary with the individual, though no measuring system
is offered.

     Levy's (1872) method for obstacle exploration is almost identical to
today's use of a cane.  However his true innovation in cane use came in
detecting drop-offs and steps:

"When steps, or other hindrances are anticipated, the stick should be
advanced to its full length, so as to perceive at the earliest possible
moment, the circumstances of the position."

This is the first recorded use of the cane extended as a probe or bumper.

     Levy (1872) did not, however, advocate truly independent travel.  This
is made clear in his descriptions of street crossings;

"Comparatively quiet streets may be crossed without a guide but those of
considerable traffic should not be attempted.  Just touching a first passer
- asking him to lead you across the street is better than risking your
neck..."

     In our next installment of the History of O&M we'll look at another
novel nineteenth century travel system from England.


The History of Orientation and Mobility, part II

     This is our second installment of the history of Mobility.  In the last
installment we looked at the system proposed by William Hanks Levy.  The
next two systems also come from England.

     After Levy, the next observations in cane travel came 24 years later by
E.F.B. Robinson (I 896) in his book The True Sphere of the Blind.  His
actual cane technique, though novel, did not prove as useful as Levy's,
however, his observations on travel and the traveler were most insightful.

     Robinson's cane technique calls for a straight stick.  To start the
traveler taps the edge of a sidewalk for the first few steps to draw a
straight line of travel.  To hold the line of travel Robinson notes that the
traveler must walk erect and quickly.  The following describes the actual
use of the cane;

"As he is in a quiet part of town he walks rapidly and balances his cane
immediately in front of him, keeping it oscillating like the pendulum of the
clock to guard his shins and knees..." (pg. 55)

Robinson made other observations about traveling in the environment.  He
noted people by "tacit agreement," walk down the right side of the sidewalk.
Like Levy, he also stresses the feeling of the surface by the feet of the
traveler.  For the cane itself, he suggests steel.  Despite the fact it is
heavy, its durability and conductivity qualities are extolled.

     World War I gave the world the first experiment with mass casualties in
this century.  The British rehabilitated their war blind at St. Dunstan's.
Sir Arnold Lawson (1922) in describing the blinded soldier in his book War
Blindness at St. Dunstan's, gives us a psychological insight into the newly
blind;

"When sight is first lost the patient is plunged into an intellectual abyss.
He finds or rather fancies himself completely dependent on others for
everything.  He cannot walk, eat, or amuse himself his every action seems to
necessitate an appeal for help." (pg.131)

To combat these problems a mobility system was developed.  Lawson describes
it as follows;

"Thus to enable him around to find his way about the building, narrow strips
of carpet, the edges of which can be detected by the stick and which each
man is provided, are laid along the corridors: and handrails where necessary
afford further help, whilst stairs are indicated by patches of rubber or
wood which feet instantly detect." (pg. 132)

This would seem to indicate the British supported an organized use of cane
for mobility.  Perhaps this statement by Sir Arthur Pearson (I 92 1), a
blinded war veteran, and later the person in charge of St. Dunstan's will
shed light on cane use;

"Not long after my sight went I gave up the use of one unless I was walking
by myself in a place I didn't know well or I was going for a tramp over
rough country... I am quite sure that I got along much better without than I
did when I depended upon one.  I walked more naturally and felt more
confident.  The experience of the men of St. Dunstan's who accustomed
themselves to this habit agreed with mine." (pg. 34)

Surprisingly, Pearson described a fairly sophisticated cane technique.  It
includes point forward, with occasional tap side to side.  He advocates
occasional sideways tap along the curb or the wall at the side of the walk
to draw a line of travel.  Though he sees the cane as the elongation of the
arm, he warns that a heavy cane is a reminder of a beggar.  This theme is an
important one in acceptance of cane use.

     Observations of the environment were also made.  He cautions the blind
traveler to pay sharp attention to the dip in the road prior to reaching the
curb.  He also warns that horse drawn carts may mask the approach noise of
fast cars.

     In our next installment we will look at Richard Hoover and the impact
of World War 11.  We will also look at the V.A.'s initial refusal to deal
with blind rehabilitation.

The History of Orientation and Mobility, part III

     We left off with the british using than discarding their canes.  In the
late 1920's Seeing Eye came into being.  In the late thirties a young
instructor, Richard Hoover, at the Maryland School for the Blind had asked
the Principal, Warren Bledsoe if he could experiment with independent travel
using a cane.  The answer at that time was no.  But, World War 2 would
forever change the field of Mobility.

     A special committee was created by The Office of the Surgeon General in
the Spring and Summer of 1942 to investigate agencies for the Blind in
America and overseas.  It was believed the war was certain to create many
newly blinded servicemen.  On May 28, 1943 Valley Forge and Letterman
General Hospitals were designated the special treatment center for blind
casualties.

     Pooling its patients also meant pooling its resources.  The Army put
out its call in the ranks and to civilians to recruit personnel with
experience working with the blind.  This is how people like Richard Hoover
and Warren Bledsoe Junior found their way to Valley Forge.  Two other
individuals played significant roles at Valley Forge.  Father Thomas
Carroll, affectionately known as "the blind priest," was a frequent visitor
to Valley Forge, and Chaplain at Avon (Old Farms).  Kathern Gruber was in
charge of the program for the war blinded for The American Foundation for
the Blind.  Both would become members of the Veteran Administration's
Citizen Advisory Committee, and play key roles in the establishment of the
VA's Blind Rehabilitation Center at Hines.

     Initially, the Army believed the VA would receive discharged servicemen
and complete their rehabilitation.  In his article on the account of Army
rehabilitation of blind servicemen Colonel James Greear, suggests that is
was believed the VA would establish an institution similar to St. Dunstan's.
However, the VA refused to do this.  The matter was temporarily resolved on
January 8, 1944 when President Roosevelt made the Army the office of primary
responsibility to establish a servicing institution for blinded servicemen.

((Editor's Note: The V.A. was in the midst of a huge scandal that was being
congressionally investigated when World War 11 broke out.  All this action
was tabled.  In the light of these major problems, it is not shocking they
refused to become the sole source provider of blind rehab, a daunting task
if one expected World War I type casualties.  After the war Omar Bradley, a
five star general was appointed to head the V.A. and clean up the
problems.))

     The V.A. did obtain Avon Old Farms School in Connecticut in Spring
1944, and opened on May 21, 1944 as Old Farms Convalescent Home.  Veterans
were to go here for follow on training after their Army rehabilitation.  On
August 25, 1944, Dibble General Hospital (present day Menlo Park) replaced
Letterman.

     Colonel Greear was Chief Ophthalmologist and Hoover's commanding
officer at Valley Forge.  In recounting the Army's rehabilitation efforts
for the blind in an article in "Outlook for the Blind" (1946) he describes
how a soldier would learn orientation:

"He was expected to learn fairly quickly to get around alone with, and
without a cane; to travel easily with people; to get in and out of
automobiles, buses and trains: to go up and down stairs and escalator; to go
through revolving doors; to walk along unfamiliar streets, following
directions, and to explore unfamiliar terrain by using his cane..."

     In discussing Avon, Greear makes no mention of orientation.  Russell
Williams offers a far more telling description:

"Avon, at the outset of its establishment, held that a cane was not
necessary, modifying this doctrine to some extent as time went on with
regards to downtown travel, but always appearing to ascribe some particular
virtue to avoidance of its use whenever possible."

	Warren Bledsoe recounts that the Saturday evening Post did an
article on Avon entitled "They Learn to See at Avon Farms." The use of
facial vision was the topic.  The Office of the Surgeon General got involved
in favor of the Valley Forge Program.  In the summer of 1945 they dispatched
an orientor from Valley Forge to Dibble to train staff.  This was to insure
that service-members reached Avon trained in cane use already.

In our next installment we will look at how the Mobility program at Valley
Forge really got off the ground.  Then we will look at the resistance to it
in the outside community.  As part of the last installment a will provide a
complete bibliography for those interested in further information.

The History of Orientation and Mobility, part IV

     In the last segment we looked at the establishment of special Army
training centers at Valley Forge and Dibble.  In this segment casualties
mount as the Normandy invasion begins in mid 1944.

     Richard Hoover in his writing recalls that one day at a staff meeting
at Valley Forge someone said:

     "Does anyone here think the blind people in America do a good job
getting around.  I think they do a poor job."

However, Bledsoe recalls the scene quite differently.  After the Battle of
the Bulge in December 1944, the topic of discussion at a staff meeting was
the supposed shattered morale of the newly receive blinded soldiers.  It was
Hoover who said:

"I think the first thing they need to know is how to get around.  We've been
working on it, but not enough.  People say blind people in this country do a
good job of getting around.  I don't think they do a good job.  They do a
hell of a poor job. 55

     This may have offended some of the staff in the room, but it did prompt
then Lieutenant Colonel Greer (Chief of Ophthalmology and Hoover's boss) to
examine the possibility of Orientation Training.

     By this time Hoover was ready to offer formal practical course of
training.  Colonel Henry Beuuwkes, Hospital Commander, was impressed with
Hoover's proposal.  He not only agreed to adopting his Long Cane training,
but to allow screening and selection of instructors, and the necessary
manpower to allow effective training.

     The following curriculum comes from a 1946 article written by Hoover.
Rehabilitation for the blind was slated for 16 weeks, but Valley Forge was a
treatment center which could extend the time of a soldier's stay.  The
orientation course consisted of 98 hours and was broken down as follows:

1.	Travel (20 hours)
2.	Special Methods (12 hours)
3.	Demonstrations (12 hours)
4.	Sports (12 hours)
5.	Background Lectures (12 hours)
6.	Discussion (10 hours)
7.	Detail Duty (6 hours)
8.	Tests (8 hours)

To travel independently the use of five natural aids was taught.  They
included sound, touch, scent, muscular sensation and obstacle sensation.
Hoover remarks that the first three were depended upon most, the last two
the least.

     Editor's Note: There is very little written about the training in
obstacle sensation.  The movie "Bright Victory" with Arthur Kennedy does
have a scene where he is being trained in this, and this is probably an
accurate rendition of techniques used.

     The hospital itself was the initial setting for lessons.  The first six
without a cane, the next 16 were with one.  This setting provided a
challenge to the pupil and in Hoover's words, "yet not so difficult to
invite defeat in the very beginning." The next nine lessons were taught
downtown.  Successful completion brought the pupil a furlough.  No mention
of remedial training is made, but it is logical to assume it was available.

     The gift of Valley forge goes deeper than just cane technique.  It is a
comprehensive system that includes the traveler orienting himself and
protecting himself even when a cane is not used.  Hoover's protection system
is the forerunner of the current day Upper Protective Technique.

     The cane techniques taught by Hoover are almost identical to their
successors today, the Touch Technique and Diagonal Technique.  Hoover's two
true innovations are the length of the cane, and touching it in front of the
foot about to step instead of the traditional cane and step on the same
side.

     The cane itself had been a limiting factor.  Hoover's outdoor method
(Touch Technique) called for an extended cane to follow the principle of
cane tip forward suggested by Levy.  The added length allowed a safety
margin in searching for curbs, obstacles and dropoffs.  Wooden canes proved
undesirable.  In 1945, 300 aluminum canes weighing between six and eight
ounces each were obtained.  All were a standard length of 45 inches.

     ((Editor's Note: Aluminum was used in production of airplanes,
diversion of this for cane making was a major coup of the time and shows the
emphasis given the rehabilitation effort.))

     In our next installment we will look briefly at Hoover's philosophy on
Mobility training and what happened to him after the war, the resistance in
the field, and the establishment of Hines.

The History of Orientation and Mobility, part V

     In our last segment, Richard Hoover had won approval of his idea for
Mobility training for the blinded troops sent to Valley Forge.

     With the approval of Hoover's mobility plan Colonel Beeuwkes had also
agreed to the screening of additional staff as orientors.  The initial Army
move to establish Valley Forge and Dibble as blind rehabilitation centers
brought experienced staff, but now Orientors had to be recruited, screened
and trained.  In recalling the selection process Hoover describes the
following:

"It has been said that the patients were allowed a very large amount of time
to learn their basic skills (months).  Such was not the case , however, with
their instructors, who had to produce or be disqualified within a few short
weeks."

A staff of 50 was eventually selected.  The peak load at Valley Forge was
estimated at about 360 pupils.  Their actual screening method was not
recorded by Hoover, but by the time they arrived for screening Hoover had
developed his Long Cane techniques and was experimenting with them under
blindfold.  Performance under blindfold seems to have been one of the
standards required.

     Hoover was released from active duty as a First Lieutenant at the
beginning of 1947.  The VA had approved the opening of Hines on July 12,
1946.  The program would not actually begin until July 4, 1948.

     Hoover was repeatedly offered the position of being in charge of the
Blind Rehabilitation Program at Hines.  He refused repeatedly.  Instead, he
entered Johns Hopkins Medical School, and eventually became an
Ophthalmologist.  He stated; "I think the best thing you can do for the
blind is make them see." He was however, in an unprecedented move, made a
consultant to the VA Department of Medicine and Surgery while still a
medical student.

     Warren Bledsoe filled the position at Hines which Hoover declined on an
interim basis.  Later the position would be filled by Russell Williams.

     Hoover did not abandon mobility.  He continued to teach orientation
classes while in medical school and residing at the Maryland School for the
Blind.  He taught students and members from various agencies servicing the
blind community.

     Why was Hoover so concerned to teach orientation? Hoover had been
trained to work with the blind, and worked at the Maryland School for the
Blind before the war.  He offered these thoughts in 1947:

"Individuals also become functionally deficient to a certain degree when
encountering a more intricate and complex environment.  So most of us go on
to seek training and education to cope with new situations and lend
ourselves pliable to these many situations arising in the competitive
world."

Hoover goes on to compare Orientation to Plato's ideal concept of education,
which is achievement of all one is capable of:

"So, consider now, how paramount it is to give an education which
establishes an intelligently functioning sensory and motor whole which
cannot be produced in part and aims at the ultimate in education of which
Plato spoke.  Surely, walking without a guide would fall into this category
besides its being a necessity, a joy, a right and a privilege."

At Valley Forge the population was naturally servicemen.  After the war,
controversy existed over who could benefit from Hoover's program.  The Army
had dealt with once sighted male adults, who at the very least, had
previously been sighted, and in excellent health.  None had been
congenitally blind, none had been over sixty.  Hoover (1947) clearly
addresses what he thinks is the potential target population for training:

"...this speaker believes the time to begin orientation and travel is at the
earliest possible moment.  In the case of the infant the free use of the
upper and lower extremities should be encouraged with authoritative training
beginning with creeping movements and progressively continued the adapted
throughout school years.. For those losing sight at a later age the hospital
is the place to start orientation and travel, and it should be continued
until the individual is independent and satisfied.  There is no limit as to
age, but here again, anyone entertaining the foolish notion that absolutely
everyone should learn to travel should erase such a wild idea immediately.
There are just as many in comparison, no doubt, not mentally or physically
prepared for such an event as there are those of us not adequately suited
for flying a P80."

     ((Editor's Note: It is important to consider the time that this
statement was made, and the fact that little in the way of blind
rehabilitation was being done with multiply involved individuals.  This 1947
reference is the only time Hoover expressed his thoughts on this topic in
writing, he did write other articles on establishment of the Valley Forge
program.))

     In our final installment we will look at the controversy over Mobility
training.  We will also look at the lengths the army went to distance
themselves from the controversy.

The History of Orientation and Mobility, part VI

     Seeing a blind person traveling with the aid of a cane may or may not
be an every day sight for everyone, but it has certainly become a common one
in our society.  It seems incomprehensible today to fathom what all the
resistance to teaching travel skills was about.  At the very least one would
reason that independent cane travel was worth trying.  Why was there so much
bias about the idea of a person with a cane?

     Art often mirrors and colors the impression of the viewer, and society
in general.  The art with blind as subjects in western culture has often
represented them as pitiful, tattered beggars, often holding a cane.  This
idea certainly did not escape Pearson, as shown earlier.  Rembrandt's Tobias
shows a blind man reaching out, groping as if completely, hopelessly lost.
Bellange shows a blind man, staff raised to heaven, speaking or questioning.
Lagendyk and Parry each did poignant portrayals of blind beggars with canes.

     Perhaps the idea met with the same inertia all new ideas first meet.
Hoover shares this recollection of one visitor:

"We had a number of prominent visitors.  One outstanding educator of the
blind, himself sighted, seemed the epitome of mental blindness one day when
he was supposed to be observing a lesson in foot travel and spent most of
his time with his back to the instructor and blind soldier, giving a long
lecture to his host on what a mess the Army was making of its program for
the blind."

The position of the Army is very hard to define.  Colonel Greear was
supportive of Hoover and writes praises of the Orientation Program in his
1946 article.  Curiously, in an article published in May 1944 in the same
magazine, Outlook for the Blind, he fails to mention anything about Hoover
or orientation.  It is easy to suppose that the program really did not bear
fruit until 1945.

     This is true, but in the 1946 article Hoover is not mentioned either.
There is only a reference to a highly qualified enlisted man who was later
commissioned and in charge of the physical reconditioning program, which
included orientation.

	The person is Hoover.  Few people are mentioned by name in the are
is another incident involving the Army and Hoover.  Hoover addressed the
American Association of Instructors of the Blind, 38th Stated Meeting, held
at Perkins School, June 24-28, 1946.  When the proceedings were published
after the meeting, Hoover is listed as Lt.  Richard E. Hoover.  His November
article in Outlook for the Blind fails to carry his military rank, though he
was still on active duty at the time of print.

     But why should people in the Army or anyone for that matter be negative
on cane use? World War 2 provided dazzling scientific breakthroughs.  Sonar
and radar were perfected.  The jet engine was invented and atomic power
introduced.  In comparison to these great scientific strides, and those that
have subsequently followed, the Long Cane or guide dog might seem primitive.
Also, there is the desire to make the blind individual undetectable to the
general public while traveling.  When considered from this standpoint,
independent travel is no longer the issue.

     Facial Perception, the magic sixth sense, seemed to be the main
competition to Long Cane travel.  The idea of something natural, internal,
replacing sight is very appealing.  Levy, Pearson and Hoover, though the
last was somewhat skeptical, mention it.  Today we know it is based on
hearing.  Ironically, in an obscure article titled "Can Orientation Be
Taught Blind Students?", published in the March 1945 edition of Outlook for
The Blind, Toger Lien comes to that conclusion.  After experiment he states:

"From this I concluded that ability to detect obstacles was entered in the
ear that the facial sensations were only secondary effect." Perhaps the
inertia to this idea is similar to the inertia facing Long Cane use at the
time."

     Why did Orientation work at Valley Forge? The had the right clients,
people who had once been independent and wanted to be independent again.
They had the right instructors, the Army had taken a new generation willing
to break from tradition.  They had the right cane, the six to eight ounce
Long Cane was vital.  They had the right method.  Levy, Robinson and St.
Dunstan's had greatly influenced Hoover, but his idea of projecting the cane
to the side of the following step was purely his own.  And finally, they had
Richard Hoover.  Bledsoe offers this assessment:

"Other hospitals had somewhat similar resources, but did not have Hoover.
He found a way not only to get the right men together to teach soldiers, but
knew how to handle both patients and how get the best out of them."

(Editor's Note: A bibliography of the materials Bob Kozel used to research
this series is available upon request.)

REFERENCES:

Bledsoe, C.W. (1969).  From valley forge to hines: truth old enough to tell.
American Association of Workers for the Blind, Annual.  Washington, D.C.
97-137.

Bledsoe, C.W. (1983) Originators of orientation and mobility training.  In
Foundations of Orientation and Mobility, chapter 18.

Grear, J.N. (1944).  Rehabilitation of the war-blinded soldiers, Outlook for
the Blind, 38, 121-124.

Grear, J.N. (1946).  Rehabilitation of the blinded soldier, Outlook for the
Blind, 71, 271-278.

Hoover, R.E. (1946).  Foot travel at valley forge. 38th Stated Meeting of
the American Association of Instructors of the Blind, 138-143.

Hoover, R.E. (1946).  Foot travel at valley forge, Outlook for the Blind,
40, 246-251.

Hoover, R.E. (1947).  Orientation and travel technique for the blind.
Proceedings of the American Association of Workers for the Blind, 27-32.

Hoover, R.E. (1968).  The valley forge story.  Blindness 1968, American
Association for Workers for the Blind Annual, 55-65.

Lawson, A. (1922).  War blindness at St. Dunstan's, London: Frowde, Hodder
and Stoughton.

Lein, T. (1945).  Can orientation be taught blind students? Outlook for the
Blind, 39, 64-67.

Levy, W.H. (1872).  Blindness and the blind.  London: Chapman and Hall.

Pearson, A. (1921).  The conquest of blindness.  London: Hodder and
Stoughton.

Robinson, E.F.B. (1896).  The true sphere of the blind.  Toronto: Briggs.

Williams, R.C. (1972).  Orientation and mobility, background discourse.  In
R. Hardy & J Cull (Eds.), Social and rehabilitation services for the blind,
chapt. 13.  Springfield: Thomas.

Wilson, J. (1835).  Biography of the blind.  Birmingham: Showell.


(Editor's Note: The "History of O&M" is a six-part series which appeared in
the BVA Bulletin throughout 1997.  Thanks go out to Bob Kozel, the VIST
Coordinator in San Diego, for researching and writing this material.)

President NFB Writers' Division
Robert Leslie Newman
Email- newmanrl at cox.net
Division Website- 
Http://www.nfb-writers-division.org