[blindlaw] rift over law suit

[David Andrews]

Rod do you remember a while back, less than a year when we were 
seeking funds to support NFB Newsline.  The ACB went to Congress and 
directly opposed us.  Now why would the ACB oppose Newsline which is 
helpful and a  available to all blind persons, except to hurt us?

Dave

At 06:24 PM 12/1/2006, you wrote:
>Ronza, then if it is really two organizations with two differing view
>points, why can't we stop fighting with each other and fight with the world,
>instead. In your references to other organizations, I don't believe that any
>one of them would go to court and oppose the other's litigation when they
>should be fighting for the same thing.
>
>     My frustration is not that there are two organizations with differing
>point of views, as your message seems to indicate, rather, it is at the fact
>that we are fighting with ourselves, not with the misconceptions that are
>present in society. Here, one organization went to court and obtained a
>result, it makes absolutely no sense for another organization that is
>fighting for similar causes under a different philosophy to step in with the
>intention of negating the other's achievement. This is counter productive.
>
>If you read Sarah's point in a previous message, you'll see what she wrote
>makes sense. We have two choices: if our goal is to fight with one another,
>then let's not do it in the public, and certainly not in the courtroom. In
>the eyes of the general public we look as a group of "confused" indecisive
>community. Our second choice is that, let us invoke our own philosophy and
>stay out of each other's business as much as possible, and especially in the
>courtroom.
>
>Rod
>
>
>-----
>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>Behalf Of AZNOR99 at aol.com
>Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:30 PM
>To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] rift over law suit
>
>Hi Rod and All,
>
>I understand your frustration at the situation, but I think you're being a
>little unfair to all the parties involved.  When the split occurred, it is
>certainly true that the majority of us were absent.  However, each group
>felt
>that it was in the best interest of the populous to move away from the
>other.
>Now, whether we like it or not, each organization holds a different
>philosophy, works toward different goals, and generates different  policies.
>
>Nonetheless, each organization has a common cause -- promoting  the rights
>of blind
>people.  There are hundreds of civil rights  organizations in the country.
>I can
>think of five that focus on the rights  of incarcerated prisoners off the
>top
>of my head.  I've worked for three  that emphasize the rights of battered
>women.  Each has different  philosophies, but each was organized around
>acheving
>freedom, or justice, or  safety, or whatever primary goal, for that
>particular
>population.  I, for  one, choose the NFB because I believe in its
>philosophy.
>  I believe that  each blind person should be afforded equality, opportunity,
>
>and security.   I also believe that we should receive respect and seek our
>own
>  independence.  In my opinion, asking a court to require the government to
>change the shape of money conveys to the public, and to myself, that I am
>incapable of functioning in the world.  I believe I should utilize tools
>that
>adapt my surroundings to make them accessible for me; I vehemently oppose
>anything that requires the world to adapt to me because it reenforces
>misconceptions about blindness.  It is like shooting a fly with a missile
>when it would be
>more efficient and functional to just use a fly swatter.   But those are my
>views, and I chose the organization that most closely shares  them.  I don't
>
>perpetuate a rift between the ACB and the NFB by choosing  one organization
>over
>another.  I don't necessarily oppose the work of  Amnesty International by
>supporting some of the overlapping work done by the  ACLU, do I?  I bet each
>of
>us is a member of more than one Bar  Association.  Many of them started out
>as
>a result of rifts or breaks from  other bar associations.  We choose the
>ones
>that suit us best, and  sometimes we choose not to join others.
>
>My final thought, as I stand on my soapbox, is that I don't necessarily
>agree with your prison analogy.  Many of us would certainly refuse to leave
>
>prison early if it meant we were going to be classified as incompetent or
>transferred to an institution serving the criminally insane.  Some of us
>would rather
>finish out our stint in prison then agree to labels we believe are  false,
>harmful, and even abhorrent.
>
>Regards,
>Ronza
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blindlaw mailing list
>blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw