[nfb-talk] Open Letter to Marc Maurer

[Steve Jacobson]

Please note that my comments here are general ones and are not aimed at any particular message or writer.  Since I try 
to help out with technical aspects of our lists, I have read many messages on this subject here and on as many as ten 
other lists.  

I have probably preached this too man times to be effective any longer, but I just do not see any serious discussion of 
the root of several of these issues here or on any of our other lists.  We certainly should cooperate with the ACB when 
we can, and both sides should attempt to avoid needless confrontation.  That makes complete sense, of course.

What is not being discussed, though, is that I see a very fundamental division within the blind community.  The division 
is primarily between us and the ACB, but it exists among ourselves, too, to some degree.  

I don't think a single blind person would say that having identifiable money would not be helpful sometimes.  That's really 
not the issue here at all.  The issue is whether we have a right to it or whether it is something we are requesting?  The 
same thing is true of accessible traffic signals and probably several other issues as well.  I'm not speaking legally now 
but more philosophically.  Those of us who have reservations about all of this tend to feel that it falls into the category of 
things we ask for.

So what difference does this make?  Some have expressed here and on others of our lists that we need accessible 
money because we should not be required to take extra steps because of blindness.  Some have also said that we 
need accessible traffic signals because if the sighted have the information that a light is green, so should we.  What 
people who hold these particular positions seem unable to address is where do we draw the line?  In my life, doing 
laundry for our family has as much of an impact on me than identifying money because I am just no good at remembering 
the color of my children's clothing.  Partly because of this, I leave that to other family members and I stick to carrying 
baskets and moving the clothes others sort through the washer and dryer, and I mark my own clothing.  This would 
clearly not be an issue if I were not blind, though.  Why, therefore, should society not pay for someone to do my laundry, 
or at least do the sorting?  I am not advocating that society should do that, but I'm trying to make a serious point.  
Obviously, I take extra steps to do it right, whether it is marking clothing or working with another family member.  If we 
define issues based upon what involves extra effort on our part, how do we ever sort them out?  Some aspects of 
blindness are truly big deals and we need help, while others are not.  People forget that even sighted people have 
things to deal with individually that many other individuals may not have to deal with.  Don't we at least have to make an 
effort to figure out what can reasonably be done through our abilities?

If we don't approach all differences in our lives arising from blindness as something society must correct, then we need 
to discuss the relative need for money we can identify.  However, at this point, we have not gotten there yet.  Beyond 
the discussion of our need, we should be asking how other currencies evolved to be different colors and shapes.  In 
some cases, it may have been done for blind people, but as I understand it, blind people are not the only factor.  
Therefore, even if we were to get currency of different shapes, should it happen solely to satisfy us thereby hanging the 
cost completely on us while letting other advantages go unnoticed?  This is always going to be a balancing act, what to 
ask and to fight for when.  As blind people, we are not always going to agree on the level of need for a given issue, but 
so far, the need for accessible currency has rarely been discussed and is therefore not even the issue that it should be.  
Instead, people talk about bad blood, the structure of the NFB and sometimes how unfeeling we are, while completely 
dodging the fact that this represents a fundamental difference.    When are we going to talk about what are needs and 
what are rights and where the line should be drawn?  Okay, I better unload the dryer.

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 10:38:15 -0600, MARSHA R WALLEN wrote:

>I would agree except most of the bad blood is with people who no longer
>are with us or whom have dropped out of either organization.  Most of the
>remainder of the members are only going on what they have heard through
>the years.  Bad blood can be infectous.  Isnt it time to let go off all
>the old stuff and start over.  ACB members are just as guilty of keeping
>the rift going even though many were not involved at the time and base
>their opinions on hearsay.

>Robyn
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk