[nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

[Lora and Myrtle]

That is not what I was saying at all!. I am totally open about talking about
my blindness and am totally accepting of my blindness. It is just sometimes
easier if you are in a hurry to say visually impaired than blind so you
don't have to explain your vision in a hurry. My previous message was
obviously taken the wrong way.

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:34 AM, David Andrews <dandrews at visi.com> wrote:

> Joseph:
>
> I understand what you are saying about politically correct o language.  It
> can be taken to far.  On the other hand, some change in language is the
> first step in bringing about change.  For example, if we still used the N
> word, African-Americans wouldn't have probably achieved much civil rights
> wise.  People stopped using the word even though some of them still probably
> thought of blacks in terms of the N word and all it applies.  However, for
> most of us, eventually our actions and and thoughts start to follow our
> words.
>
> Dave
>
> At 11:22 PM 11/15/2008, you wrote:
>
>> Harry, I object to the concept of political correctness outright.  It
>> forces people to say things they do not mean and mean things they do not
>> say.  Morally, that seems wrong to me. I endeavor to say exactly what I
>> think.  Not everyone likes that.  And you know what?  That's fine.  In fact,
>> sometimes I'm wrong.  Thing is, you've got to be willing to accept
>> responsibility for being wrong now and then, or you'd best not say anything.
>> Too often, politically correct speech is used as an excuse to have
>> everything be so nebulous that anything you say can be interpreted any
>> number of ways, none of which you can be held responsible for.  Down that
>> road lies the girlie-men from Joe Orozco's history lesson.  *grin* Joseph On
>> Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 07:34:36PM -0800, Harry Hogue wrote: >Here's an
>> interesting thought.  We get all bent out of shape about the word "visually
>> impaired," or any other kind of "politically correct "language, and insist
>> that we call things the way they are, but yet we also insist that the
>> techniques we use be called "alternative."Â  I understand and agree with
>> that one, because "substitute techniques" does sound inferior, but I just
>> think it's interesting how strict we are on our termonology. > > >--- On
>> Sat, 11/15/08, Chris Westbrook <westbchris at gmail.com> wrote: > >From:
>> Chris Westbrook <westbchris at gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [nabs-l]
>> Philosophical Terminology >To: "National Association of Blind Students
>> mailing list" <nabs-l at nfbnet.org> >Date: Saturday, November 15, 2008,
>> 8:10 PM > >Also, I don't think that just because you call yourself visually
>> impaired >you are necessarily denying your blindness.  I will use an example
>> with another >disability from my own life.  I am hearing impaired.  Notice I
>> said hearing >impaired, not deaf.  I choose not to call myself deaf, because
>> deafness >generally implies profound hearing loss, sign language, the
>> inability to speak, >etc.  If any of you have been around me for a while,
>> however, you no that I do >not deny my hearing loss.  I wear two hearing
>> aids.  I also accept that certain >things are much harder if not impossible
>> for me, such as street crossings and >socializing in crowded situations.
>>  Why is it deemed OK for me to call myself >hearing impaired when it is not
>> OK for a visually impaired individual to call >themselves visually impaired?
>>  after all, even if you are totally blind you are >visually impaired.  The
>> more I think about these things, the more I find myself >struggling with
>> some of the stricter points of NFB philosophy. >----- Original Message -----
>> From: "T. Joseph Carter" ><carter.tjoseph at gmail.com> >To: "National
>> Association of Blind Students mailing list" ><nabs-l at nfbnet.org> >Sent:
>> Saturday, November 15, 2008 8:24 PM >Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Philosophical
>> Terminology > > >> I think you are all getting too hung up on empty words.
>>  The NFB >philosophy is about actions and attitudes. >> >> If you call me
>> blind and mean by it that I am helpless, I will take >offense.  If you call
>> me impaired and mean that I just can't see much but am >otherwise like
>> anyone else, I'll accept your words as respectful. >> >> I can almost always
>> tell the difference, and I bet you can too. >> >> Joseph >> >> On Wed, Nov
>> 05, 2008 at 11:06:10PM +0000, Corbb O'Connor wrote: >>> I didn't write the
>> subject line, but I am assuming that was a >blanket marketing e-mail. That
>> is, it was meant to be forwarded around. Just as >we want to attract new
>> members (as has been said by me and others), we >wouldn't want to push
>> people toward the delete button after only reading the >subject line.
>> Marketing, my friends, it's marketing. I agree with all of you >-- we in the
>> Federation are blind, even those of us with some residual vision. >Let's not
>> push people away from our great organization before they even know >who we
>> are and why we use the words we do. I don't think we're >undermining
>> ourselves or our philosophy -- we're trying to find others out >there who
>> don't see as well as their peers (seniors, students, >and...well...everybody
>> else) to show them our positive philosophy on blindness. >>> >>> ----- >>>
>> Corbb O'Connor >>> studying at the National University of Ireland, Galway
>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 5, 2008, at 10:33 PM, Janice wrote: >>> >>> Hello
>> Karen, Terri and Listers, >>> >>> Wow, Karen!! I must say, thanks for
>> calling us, as the nabs board and >as >>> nabs members,  out on this very
>> interesting point. I have recently >noticed >>> something like this also. I
>> think that Terri's point can be a good >one. It >>> might be important for
>> the Federation to use terminology such as >visually >>> impaired or low
>> vision, to try to attract a larger facet of people. >These >>> people might
>> be uncomfortable with their blindness, they might not >want to >>> identify
>> as blind... so, we say- Hey you visually impaired person... >this >>> group
>> is for you too! >>> Once we have their foot in the door so to speak, then
>> >>> we can teach them about our philosophy and educate them in the fact
>> >that we >>> are all blind individuals> We can then wow them into believing
>> that > the visual hierarchy does not matter. Even if you >>> are legally
>> blind,    the key word is blind. One is not going to be >>> recognized as a
>> legally visually impaired person, are they? >>> >>> However, I do wonder in
>> certain instances where the lines get blurred >and if >>> we are sacrificing
>> what we are as an organization to try to get these >new >>> individuals into
>> our door. For example, not  to pick on one specific >>> facebook group, but
>> I will use the 411 group, since it seems to be the >most >>> recent one and
>> has sparked some debate. The salutation line- >"Attention >>> blind and
>> visually impaired high school students!" This makes >some sense >>>
>> according to Terri's argument. We want those who self identify as >visually
>> >>> impaired to come to our group. Yet, why would we need to use the
>> >terminology >>> visually impaired among ourselves and within our Federation
>> family? >>> >>> Why would we use the words low vision, visually impaired, to
>> refer to >other >>> Federationist? One such example I an talking about is
>> the email >subject line >>> :"for the sake of ne, in which the group was
>> actually announced >to the NABS >>> list. the official heading was something
>> like- Blind and Visually >Impaired >>> Teen Group on Facebook. why not just
>> use something like, "new >blindness >>> group of facebook! >>> ? I am
>> definitely not trying to point fingers at any specific group or >person... I
>> am really curious, because I have seen terms such as visually >impaired, low
>> vision, and high partial , in our literature recently, also. I >>> am merely
>> using the facebook post as the most recent and relevant >example. >>> Is
>> this a new trend in Federation philosophy? or do we believe that >perhaps
>> >>> trying to be all inclusive has caused us to become a little lax and
>> >blur >>> the lines of philosophy? Are the philosophical boundaries of all
>> blind >>> members being equal, thus united we stand and divided we fall, not
>> as >solid >>> , and binding, now, as when I first joined the Federation...?>
>> >>> >>> I really am confused and would love to hear the philosophers among
>> us >debate >>> this observation. What are the effects of these happenings,
>> to our >>> philosophy? Do we need to tighten our concepts about blindness
>> and >what it >>> stands for within the Federation, or is inclusion the
>> matter of >importance? >>> >>> Thoughtfully yours, >>> >>> Janice >>> -----
>> Original Message ----- From: "Terri Rupp" ><terri.rupp at gmail.com> >>> To:
>> "NABS list serve" <nabs-l at nfbnet.org> >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05,
>> 2008 2:25 PM >>> Subject: [nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology >>> >>> >>>>
>> Karen and all, >>>> The NFB is using different outlets to try to reach out
>> to >nonmembers. >>>> Facebook is just one of them.  Although as you said,
>> the >philosophy of the >>>> federation is based on the word "Blind", that
>> word >"Blind" is  sometimes a >>>> negative things to those people
>> struggling to deal or accept their >>>> blindness.  It was only until a few
>> years ago that I was one of >them.  I >>>> didn't want to associate with
>> anything that labeled me as >blind.  I felt >>>> ashamed to be blind and
>> called myself "visually >impaired".  The acceptance >>>> of one's blindness
>> is a grieving process that each person goes >through >>>> differently.  What
>> we have to do is serve as positive blind role >models, >>>> and show that
>> being blind is no different than being short.  It is >simply >>>> a >>>>
>> characteristic.  Once we attract them to these groups, we can >promote NFB
>> >>>> activities, scholarships, etc and reel them in with our >philosophy.
>> >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> Terri Rupp, President >>>> National Association of
>> Blind Students >>>> >__________________________________ _____________
>> >nabs-l mailing list >nabs-l at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> nabs-l_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your
>> account info for nabs-l: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/na
>> bs-l_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com_______________________________________________ nabs-l mailing list
>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe,
>> change your list options or get your account info for nabs-l:
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com</x-flowed>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database:
>> 270.9.4/1790 - Release Date: 11/15/2008 9:32 AM
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nabs-l:
>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/blindhistory%40gmail.com
>



-- 
Lora and Leader Dog Myrtle