[nfbwatlk] Has the blind lost their way or their will?

[Dan Frye]

Precisely, Noel.  It's funny that this subject line has been 
mildly irritating me too, for the very same reason.

And, no, I think the blind have lost neither their way or their 
will.  As human beings I think we do the best we can to live up 
to our progressive philosophy within the constraints of political 
reality, fiscal capacity, existing organizational person-power to 
effect change, and a variety of other intangible factors.  It 
troubles me some when our own members are so publicly hard on 
themselves and our membership generally; mostly we're all trying 
to make a positive difference for ourselves and our fellow blind 
brothers and sisters.  Finally, while I often disagree with the 
philosophical positions adopted by some in the ACB, I tend even 
to believe that they are motivated by a desire to do good too; I 
just think some of them are misguided in their efforts.  The fact 
that even those who subscribe, in my opinion, to misguided 
blindness philosophy want to do good for our community is a 
comfort to me in some ways.  I would, of course, like to persuade 
them of my perspective, but I can disagree with them without 
minimizing their positive intent.

With Kind Regards,

Daniel B.  Frye
Office: (410) 659-9314, Ext 2208
Mobile: (410) 241-7006
Note: This message has been issued remotely from the Braille 
Note.

> ----- Original Message -----
>From: "Nightingale, Noel" <Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov
>To: "NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List" <nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
>Date sent: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:59:08 -0500
>Subject: Re: [nfbwatlk] Has the blind lost their way or their 
will?

>All I want to know, having now read the subject line from various
>replies to the original message, is whether "Has" is the right 
verb to
>have used.  I don't think so.  Seems to me if should be Have the 
Blind
>Lost Their Way...

>Have the

>-----Original Message-----
>From: nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org 
[mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>On Behalf Of Jedi
>Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 3:46 PM
>To: 'NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List'
>Subject: Re: [nfbwatlk] Has the blind lost their way or their 
will?

>Karl,

>I first want to submit that I'm working from the framework of my
>understanding of Bob's concerns, and he's certainly welcome to 
correct
>me if I've somehow missed the point.

>I appreciate your comments, but I'm having trouble seeing the 
connection
>between traffic signals and personal mobility tools such as canes 
and
>guide dogs.  Yes, you're right, the use of these tools signify 
the fact
>that we are blind.  And you're equally correct that the greater 
obstacle
>has more to do with attitudes than tools in the first place, and 
this
>concept has been so noted by Dr.  Jernigan himself.  However, I 
do believe
>that, in the context of bob's initial concern, there is a huge
>difference between guide dogs/canes and traffic signals.  In my 
opinion,
>the difference lies in the fact that, for the most part, traffic 
signals
>were implanted into society by sighted people who felt they had 
an idea
>of how we can safely cross streets.  And yes, some blind people 
agree,
>and their concerns are valid.  Personally, I believe that audible 
signals
>were a direct result of misinformation about the capabilities of 
blind
>people.  However, it should be noted that blind people have the
>wherewithal to cross streets without these signals, and our 
mobility
>tools help to make that process happen, and the fact remains that 
the
>signals can serve as road blocks to travel skill development.  
Lets' be
>honest here.  Those of us who possess better travel skills are 
seen to be
>more confident and competent than those of us who do not.  This 
is
>neither right nor wrong, but a simple fact.  That being said, 
many of us
>do not have access to excellent travel training, overall 
training, and
>good philosophy to boot.  These factors, I believe, add to the 
issue of
>low attitudes and expectations held by the sighted, and I also 
believe
>that audible traffic signals worsen the problem by not offering
>opportunities for blind people to share their alternative 
techniques
>with the sighted (which often leads to a better understanding of
>blindness), and they don't force blind people to learn the skills 
to
>cross streets; this should be a concern as traffic signals aren't
>installed everywhere.  All that being said, how do you expect for 
us to
>get employed when there's a question of our overall ability to 
take care
>of ourselves?

>Finally, I want to make one last point before I go.  The NFB's 
issues
>with items such as traffic signals and currency have nothing to 
do with
>a need to prove anything to anybody.  The fact is that we've been 
getting
>around these obstacles long before anyone decided that traffic 
signals
>were a good idea, and we've been dealing with money since its 
existence.
>Granted, we've never had all that much of it.  But isn't, at the 
core,
>the real problem? Now, if there really was an imposition upon our
>ability to travel about safely without traffic signals, and if 
there was
>no other way than accessible currency for us to properly manage 
our
>cash, then you're absolutely right that the NFB would be fighting 
tooth
>and nail for these and other related adaptations.

>Respectfully Submitted

>-----Original Message-----
>From: nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org 
[mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>On Behalf of Carl Jarvis
>Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 9:35 AM
>To: NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [nfbwatlk] Has the blind lost their way or their 
will?

>Good morning Bob and All,
>I believe that it is Society's deep seated prejudices regarding
>blindness that sit at the center of any effort on our part to 
level the
>playing field for ourselves as blind people.
>Does a white cane, or dog guide, or Braille, or an audio 
computer, or a
>NFB Reader, or an audible traffic signal, or identifiable paper 
money
>make a blind person more, or less acceptable as an equal partner 
in our
>community?
>We blind folk debate over these things as if they really matter.  
The
>white cane, we say, or the Dog Guide, make us more acceptable 
because we
>can travel independently.  But identifiable paper money or 
audible
>traffic signals?  That, we say is an imposition on the public at 
large
>and will set us apart and make us appear less capable.
>The fact of the matter is that any of our tools set us apart.  No 
matter
>how

>we dress it up, we are held as being different in the publics 
eyes.
>Remember, even the right of the blind to travel freely as any 
sighted
>citizen has the right to do, was denied us until we fought for, 
and
>passed the White Cane Laws across our nation.
>Imagine!  We had to insist on our own Bill of Rights!
>Whenever Cathy and I travel together the people we meet assume 
that I
>need Cathy in order to be out and about.  I know this because 
many folks
>say this

>to our faces.
>But this does not mean that I'm about to make Cathy stay home, or 
walk
>behind me, or pretend she doesn't know me in order to prove that 
I can
>walk alone.
>Should I intentionally leave my white cane home because little 
children
>think I have to have it in order to be out in public?  Will they 
hire a
>blind person one day, if they think of us as needing all this 
special
>help in order to move about?
>Should I insist that we not put up audible traffic signals 
because
>someday an employer will remember that some blind people rely on 
them to
>cross a street, and refuse to employe one?
>Does the public look at the standard traffic signal as a 
reasonable
>accommodation to keep themselves safe?
>If it accommodates the majority it is all right.  If it 
accommodates
>blind folks it is an imposition.
>But is it the accommodation that sets us apart?  I believe that 
it is
>the blindness that is seen by our sighted brothers and sisters as 
making
>us inferior.
>There was a time when some blind people would not use the white 
cane
>because

>they believed that it set them apart.  Has our universal use of 
the cane
>or dog guide made us more, or less acceptable in the minds of the
>public?  I personally don't think it matters.  We are still, "The
>Blind".  Lumped together as one being.
>The fight must be on changing public attitudes.  And changing 
public
>attitudes will only occur when we legislatively shove it down the
>publics throats.
>We will have to legislate fairness and equal treatment regardless 
as to
>whether we also put in audible traffic signals or use white 
canes.  We
>will have to demand, through the law that we be given the same 
treatment
>and rights as all Americans, whether we use a NFB Reader to see 
our
>money, or have different sizes and colors of paper currency.
>It is the attitude of that mother, the one Bob heard tell her 
little
>daughter that the blind person needs the audible signal in order 
to
>cross the street, it is that attitude that is our problem.  Not 
the
>signal.  Not the dog guide.  Not any of the many reasonable
>accommodations.  It is that mother's deep seated belief that 
blind
>people are incompetent.  And she passes it along to her daughter 
in many
>more ways than we can imagine.

>Carl Jarvis

>_______________________________________________
>nfbwatlk mailing list
>nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk

>_______________________________________________
>nfbwatlk mailing list
>nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk
>_______________________________________________
>nfbwatlk mailing list
>nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk