[stylist] Here is History of white cane,
Judith Bron
jbron at optonline.net
Wed Dec 3 03:00:04 UTC 2008
Robert, I got that email. Judith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Newman" <newmanrl at cox.net>
To: "'NFBnet Writer's Division Mailing List'" <stylist at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 9:50 PM
Subject: [stylist] Here is History of white cane,
> (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
>
> _______________________________________________
> stylist mailing list
> stylist at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/stylist_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> stylist:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/stylist_nfbnet.org/jbron%40optonline.net
More information about the Stylist
mailing list