[stylist] Definition of blindness

Wed Feb 20 02:34:28 UTC 2013

Ashley,

True, a name is what we make it, but unfortunately, these particular
names have already been made for us. There's a reason the NFB prefers
the term blind for everyone because it doesn't allow for distinctions;
we are all equal.

You say a label is just a label, but why's it so important you identify
with one label over another? Why partial or low vision or visually
impaired over blind? Why identify with any? What is so bad about
*blind*? If a label only has power if you let it, why not then use the
term blind?

And you must live in a fantastic area because it's the social workers,
school administrators and government that are denying blind people
services. Yes, there are many blind people who refuse to take advantage
of services, but this is because society has created a perception that
blindness is a horrible situation rendering one incapable and helpless.
When you grow up with ideas like this being perpetuated, with labels
that carry specific definitions, you don't want to be identified with
any.

Ross worked as a consultant for a now defunct state rehab agency for the
blind a few years ago. The director at the time was hoping to switch to
a more progressive teaching method, but the entire staff was extremely
resistant to any change. They used these labels to determine what type
of training students received. Those labeled low vision were actively
discouraged to learn any nonvisual methods. Partials were grudgingly
taught nonvisual methods but expected to use sight as much as possible.
Totals were taught nonvisual skills but not much was expected of them. 

Ross and another guy were hired to work as consultants and instruct in
the Iowa Model. Ross has useable vision, and the other guy was a total.
The staff out-right refused to work with the total claiming he couldn't
effectively teach and that they wouldn't be teaching their students who
were totals how to do things like travel independently around the town
without sighted assistance, and since this guy had no vision, it wasn't
safe. 

I visited, and while there, I was getting around the facility on my own.
I met a man who had been a doctor and was now totally blind. He was
really intelligent, but no one ever taught him how to navigate the
facility in a nonvisual way. He had been there for four months and still
didn't not know how to get around the building. The reasoning was that
as a total, he wouldn't be traveling around without sighted assistance
often, so why teach him a method to do it independently? Ross finally
taught him some mobility, and he had a lightbulb go off. He started to
believe he wasn't completely useless anymore.

While there, Ross and the other guy had a lot of contact with the
students. Meeting Ross and the guy was like unlocking prisoners of war.
They were so eager to learn a more independent way of doing things. They
were like sponges. They started insisting Ross and the other guy teach
them some things, so the director allowed for Ross and the guy to have
more exposure with the students. They blossomed so much, and like I
said, they were eager to learn these things.

Now, I know from personal experience with other people that many blind
people don't want to be considered blind and don't seek out services,
but there are a lot who do want it-- totals, partials, visually impaired
and low vision-- but they are not given this opportunity. Or some don't
even know what certain services like Braille or travel can do for them
until they are exposed to it, but again, many agencies and case workers
deny these services because they have some level of vision.

Please explain why parents are fighting for Braille education for their
low-vision and partially sighted kids? Why are those with some sight
often forced to use and strain that sight? Why do people assume a total
can't live up to expectations others do?

Why do you think organizations like the Federation were established?
Society was institutionalizing  us and marginalizing us. Society said we
weren't worth enough to invest in. Placing rubber erasers on the end of
pencils was good enough work for the blind. If your family didn't take
care of you, you were dumped at some agency. And we are not talking of
the 1800's here.

Despite the ADA and Equal Rights movement, blind people are still
fighting not only for equality, but for society to get that we know what
is possible, what we can and can not do. Regardless of vision level,
most *legally blind* people could benefit from alternative, nonvisual
tools and methods, but so many people are denied such services because
they have some vision, so they should use it.

Others can better address this topic. I wish your assessment of the
world were accurate, but unfortunately, we are still fighting and
struggling because society wants to deny that it's okay to be blind.
Pushing vision on anyone is preferred over admitting that maybe
blindness isn't as bad as people think. 

So many of us can speak about this. There's a reason the Federation
fights for accessible material and devices for students and equal
opportunity and advocates and educates about blindness. The world wants
us to be broken sighted people; they don't want to think a happy,
healthy, active life is possible when blind. Because of societal
perceptions, misinformation, budget cuts and plain, old fear, all blind
people are fighting against these labels that determine not only what
services we may qualify for, but who we are as people. 

Terms other than blind, in my opinion, were created as a cushion to make
people feel better about all the negative perceptions. In reality, blind
is blind, and if a name only has power if we let it, then being labeled
as blind shouldn't matter.

It's a personal choice, but I don't want to be labeled for my vision
loss, which is but one part of my many faceted being.

Bridgit
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:58:05 -0500
From: "Ashley Bramlett" <bookwormahb at earthlink.net>
To: "Writer's Division Mailing List" <stylist at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [stylist] Definition of blindness
Message-ID: <2B5E81E2C6F34EF5A621DD386DFDC5EE at OwnerPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8";
	reply-type=original

Bridgit,
I guess I disagree with this notion, like the public is the enemy;
labels 
are power if you give them power.
Those people not getting services probably haven't gottenthe doctor's 
signature for vision impairment or admitted they're blind.
I think it?s the blind people themselves with some vision refusing
services 
cause of the stigma.
I am on lists of blindness professionals and often they talk about when
to 
pressure people to  use canes on O&M. Do they provide service without a
cane 
if people refuse it? It?s a hard question some professionals grapel
with.
Yes, we get treated differently based on vision amounts. But isn't that
why 
we should live our lives fully regardless of what
people think of us? I think we can educate them and tell them whatever
label 
we choose.
People know I have usable vision but see a cane and I sometimes am asked

about how much I see.
It doesn't bother me. Except for federationists, most people with vision

call themselves visually impaired, visually challenged, or low vision.
Labels only separate us if we let them. You can have a meeting with
blind, 
sighted and those with usable vision and simply accommodate all with 
braille, large print, and regular print for instance.
Whatever label people choose is okay. I have friends with no vision and 
various levels of vision and those fully sighted.

To me visually impaired term says you can see but your vision is
restricted; 
nothing else.
I think I'll disagree with some of these positions and that we all have
to 
be called blind but that is me.

Ashley