[nabs-l] Lives Worth Living disability documentary to air

[Bridgit Pollpeter]

Steve,

Yes, I agree with you. I think I've been misunderstood to an extent. I'm
very well aware that when it comes to disability rights in general,
blindness is still considered one of the "worse" disabilities, and our
causes and concerns are often pushed to the bottom of priority lists if
even listed at all. One of the reasons the Federation was established
solely focusing on blindness is for this very reason.

I'm in no way diminishing the work of Dr. Tembroek, or any other NFB
founder such as Dr. Jernigan, my point was to just explain that many
were involved in organizing and pushing for the equality and acceptance
of those with disabilities. We may not always work together, or
understand the other, but individually, many have participated in this
movement.

Sadly, we've struggled as blind consumers and tend to have to fight even
among other disabilities. As I stated, I've done no extensive research
on Ed Roberts or this entire topic in general, and if this documentary
doesn't spend time, or completely omits, the presence of the blind
community especially focusing on the NFB founders, it will be a shame
and a huge quiet statement that blindness holds no place of equality
even among the general disability independence movement.

I had to work with a man who was a paraplegic for a speaking engagement
planned by the Disability Awareness office I worked for during college.
His idea of independence reflected my own, and I was excited to meet
him. His message was powerful and very similar to the one the Federation
teaches. Imagine my surprise when he, a man not in control of his entire
body, was shocked that I, who just had  no use of my eyes, could
"function as well as I do." This threw a wet sock in my opinion of this
man and his independent spirit. It was a real wake-up call. I went into
this encounter with an open mind and no preconceived notions, and yet
this man already bought into the old perceptions about my disability.
Not that he didn't believe me when I spoke of the abilities of the
blind, but he came into the situation already with certain ideals
obviously not intending his message to include all disabilities.

So I understand, and agree to an extent, why an organization like the
Federation works as it's own entity choosing to not actively work much
with other disability organizations. This seems like an unfortunate
reality on the part of other entities working for the disability rights
movement. And I've stated more than once that the Federation has done
the most for people who are blind, and without the Federation and it'
leaders, our world would be very different even with people like Ed
Roberts out there.

Again, my only point was to display that when discussing disability in
general, others have, and still do,  work to achieve an independent and
positive mindset in society. I find it incredibly naïve to state that
the Federation alone, emphasis on alone, was the leader in the
disability rights movement. This statement doesn't imply that the
Federation some how has no place in the movement or that it wasn't a big
powerhouse player in the movement. Nor am I suggesting that founders
like Tembroek or Jernigan weren't on the same par as Ed Roberts. To read
my posts and interpret them as diminishing the role of the Federation is
to focus on a perceived idea of what I'm saying and not realizing that
I'm not excluding anyone from this discussion, but merely adding those
who have, in their own ways, been equal players in the disability rights
movement. I'm only attempting to show a wider picture displaying the
various people who were involved in inacting change leading to a
disability rights movement at all.

Sincerely,
Bridgit Kuenning-Pollpeter
Read my blog at:
http://blogs.livewellnebraska.com/author/bpollpeter/
 
"History is not what happened; history is what was written down."
The Expected One- Kathleen McGowan

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:31:28 -0500
From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Lives Worth Living disability documentary to air
	on PBS
Message-ID: <auto-000003842198 at mailback3.g2host.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Bridget,

While I agree with the sentiment you express that we need to be aware of
the fact that we're not the 
only group involved with the rights of all disabilities, I also think
that it needs to be recognized 
that there have been some good reasons why we sometimes chart our own
course.  I do not know if it was 
the same Ed Roberts, but we had some differences with an Ed Roberts in
the mid-1970's when he was 
director of the California Division of Rehabilitation over some big
problems in the Business Enterprise 
Program there.  If it was the same guy, that doesn't detract from what
he has accomplished, but as I 
recall, there was an effort on his part to minimize our role as blind
consumers, and it was felt that 
was in part because he saw uniqueness as not being something that was
consistent with a strong 
disability movement.  

One of the problems we had in the 1970's and still have today is that we
are still a fairly low- incidence group.  There was a strong disability
rights movement then and there was serious organizing 
efforts.  The push was very, very strong to promote the view of
"Disabled" with no emphasis on specific 
disabilities.  Issues we tried to raise that were important to us often
could gain no traction in the 
larger groups which were often referred to as cohalitions, but such
groups did expect all member groups 
to carry out their priorities.  Let me explain how one process worked
here in Minnesota in which I 
participated with other members of the NFB of Minnesota and other
organizations of the blind.  The forum 
was a governors commission on the handicapped or something similar.  The
goal was to work out in a one- day meeting what the priorities of the
governor should be.  What was done was to first work together as 
a common group to establish the broad priority that affected all
disabilities.  as I recall, some of the 
broad priorities from which to choose were architectural barriers,
transportation, financial aid, and 
several others.  The choice of architectural barriers as the top
priority was never in doubt, and it was 
the logical choice.  At that point, curb cuts were not in use all over
and people were still pitching a 
fit at the cost of ramps.  However, now that a priority was established,
the various disabled groups 
were asked to split up into separate working groups and decide which of
our particular issues would fit 
into the architectural barriers category, and that issue would then be
the top priority for that group.  
The only thing that really fit at all for us at the time was brailling
elevators.  When the conclusions 
of the group were published, braille elevators were listed as the most
important barrier to blind 
persons becoming part of society.  While there were other organizations
of the blind participating and 
they may have been happier about this choice than we were, all of us who
were blind agreed that 
transportation was a bigger issue for us as were library services and
education.  We experienced other 
situations where issues that we felt were crucial to our integration
into society were subordinated by 
issues that were more important to the larger group.  While we probably
felt this way even before the 
70's, it became very clear to many of us at the time that we needed to
maintain control of our destiny, 
to push the issues that were important to us, and to cooperate with but
not be subordinate to other 
larger groups when we shared common goals which does happen sometimes.

I think it is important that we recognize that there are others of note
who have made contributions to 
the progress that disabled people have made.  As you know, Dr. tenBroek
was also from Berkeley, and he 
spent considerable effort in the promotion of protections of other
disadvantaged groups, even being 
involved in the writing of the Brown versus Board of Education that is
thought of as being at least the 
beginning of the end of segrated schools in the United States.  It is
also good to remember, though, 
that the larger disability movement has not always been our friend,
either.  We have much in common, but 
there is much that is unique, too, requiring us to be aware of the
history.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson