[stylist] Here is History of white cane,
James Canaday M.A. N6YR
n6yr at sunflower.com
Wed Dec 3 05:01:51 UTC 2008
first article came through twice.
jc
Jim Canaday M.A.
Lawrence, KS
At 09:00 PM 12/2/2008, you wrote:
>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
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/n6yr%40sunflower.com
More information about the Stylist
mailing list