David.Andrews@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (David Andrews) (06/28/90)
Index Number: 8974
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
WW> Let me get this straight...Because I said that a person
WW> sitting in the emergency seat that could read the
WW> instructions might add to the chances of a safe exit, and I
WW> even further state that it might not be a big advantage, but
WW> at least a little bit, you question my faith in myself as a
WW> blind person and in my fellow blind brothers and sisters???
WW> Well excuse me David, but you are so far off base with
WW> this one I can hardly hide my wrath!!! I honestly just wanted
WW> to let this one go as I suspected it would get nowhere,
WW> because just as I surmised when I left my original, you
WW> continue to see the whole issue only as an act of
WW> discrimination against us and totally deny that there even
WW> could be anyones safety in mind! I'm not sure that safety is
WW> the only goal of the airlines in this matter, but I've
WW> discussed this with our local NFB chapters president at length
WW> and he sure as hell didn't question my self perception as a
WW> blind person or my perception of blind people in general once
WW> in his defense of the NFB position! Perhaps this is because
WW> he knows me better than you, or perhaps because he is able to
WW> recognize that a universal opinion by blind people on an issue
WW> isn't related to one's self image, even if it was possible,
WW> but since we're character slaughtering here... Why is it
WW> you've been treated like a child as a blind person? This never
WW> happens to me! Perhaps it is because I exhibit an air of
WW> confidence at all times! I feel so bad for you, having to
WW> endure all those poor misguided sighted people thinking of you
WW> as needing help, and I'm just glad that I don't have to endure
WW> that kind of treatment! David, obviously I know what you're
WW> talking about, as I'm sure we all have been victims of
WW> patronization at one time or another, but I'm amazed that you
WW> could even suggest that my self perception or my perception of
WW> blind people in general is at fault! If that is what
WW> disagreeing with the NFB gets me, you're helping me make my
WW> mind up very rapidly!!!
Willie,
It was certainly not my intent to assasinate your character. I was trying to
make a general statement about what I see as a major problem with many blind
people, but I did it poorly, and it came out too directed at you. I appologize
for any offense I gave you. I was also guilty of striking out at you a little
for what I see as apathy on the part of many blind people because you said you
were tired of this issue. I appologize once again.
Unfortunately, I suspect that we will never agree on this issue, but I
appologize for personalizing it.
What I was trying to say in part with a general statement is that I think that
society believes that blind people are helpless by and large. They have
conveyed these ideas to blind persons themselves and many of us have come to
believe them ourselves. I can elaborate at another time if you wish, but I work
for a Rehab agency and have taught in an Orientation Center and see this day
after day. It was wrong of me to hang all this on you, because from what I know
of you you do seem to have plenty of self confidence. I do not know you well
enough to know how you feel about yourself and other blind persons.
By the way, I am a person who has good skills, travel etc., and i conduct myself
in a confident manner. In fact, many of my NFB friends have told me to slow
down etc. I realize that you are assasinating my character because you were
angry and hurt by what I said, but it is wrong of you to assume that I have been
treated like a child because I act like a helpless blind person. I act just the
opposite and still get that kind of treatment occasionally.
While I know that the airline issue is not totally a civil rights issue, there
are elements of a civil rights issue there. Some of the most compatent and
confident travelers I know have been treated like children, arrested, etc. by
airlines. If you look at the recent history of blind people, you will see many
improvements. I think that parallels to the black civil rights movement can be
drawn. Our lives have improved greatly since the 40's and 50's, but there is
still a long way to go. Why are 70 percent of us still unemployed. Many people
want to think of us as poor and helpless, including many professionals in the
field, because they can then help us and feel superior. As a group, we are
saying that we are as good as everyone else and deserve the same treatment. We
are trying to break people's stereotypes of us. People don't like that. They
resent us rocking the boat. I think that we are starting to see a backlash
against what we have accomplished recently. There is likely to be a time of
unpleasantness until we are able to take our place in society as equals.
I suppose that many people aren't going to see it the way I do, and you all will
think I am crazy. Well, so be it.
In some ways, much of the recent legislation has increased our problems. In the
sixties and early seventies, blind people traveled without incident. Tehn came
504 etc. and everybody thought that they had to do this and that for us. Now we
have much new legislation, such as the ADA. Our needs are very different from
the physically disabled, and when we are all lumped together, it is going to
create more problems for us. You can't legislate change in attitudes, it has to
happen one person at a time, and that is the big problem for blind people, the
attitudes of socienty and those attitudes that they have conveyed to many blind
people who are not as strong minded as you and I.
I am sorry I went on so long, and I appologize for offending you, once again. I
have always liked and respected you!!! hI do hope that I can give you a
different prospective on things, not just turn you off.
David Andrews
... Your Sound Alternative
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89.0!David.Andrews
Internet: David.Andrews@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.orgEric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org (Eric Bohlman) (06/28/90)
Index Number: 8975
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
Maybe we could put this airline seat problem (I nearly wrote "airline seat
thing." Bushspeak will creep up on you if you aren't careful!) into
perspective by considering another safety-related situation. Remember that
I'm sighted, so I may be approaching this from a somewhat different angle.
Consider a landlord who doesn't want to rent an apartment to a blind person
for fear that he'll start a fire while cooking. That's definitely a safety
consideration. However, if that landlord is willing to rent to smokers
(careless smoking causes FAR more residential fires then cooking accidents),
he's singling out blind people for discriminatory treatment, and I'd go as far
as saying that he's discriminating on the basis of lack of clout (smokers have
"freedom to do what they want" while blind people "are lucky to get what they
can." The key here isn't really that the blind person is being "discriminated
against" but that the discrimination is based on a double standard.
Around the turn of the century there was a Supreme Court case known as Yick Wo
which dealt with the issue of safety regulations being applied in a
discriminatory manner. The city of San Francisco had an ordinance requiring
special regulatory approval for laundries when the building was made of wood
rather than brick. This was based on fire-safety considerations. However, it
turned out that the main criterion the city used in deciding whether to grant
such approval was the nationality of the laundry's owner; if the owner was
Chinese, the approval was almost never granted, and if the owner was a
native-born American, it almost always was granted. The court ruled that the
mere fact that the mere fact that safety was the end purpose of the ordinance
did not entitle the city to discriminate based on nationality.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!115!778.1!Eric.Bohlman
Internet: Eric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.orgGary.Petraccaro@f90.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Gary Petraccaro) (06/28/90)
Index Number: 8978
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
David,
I don't know how much the safety issue positions sighted people take
owes to their prejudices and neither, with all respect, do you. Likewise,
as it is convenient for me to assume goodwill on most people's part it is
inconvenient for you to do so. So, okay, all motives are adulterated and
none are pure, this is news? Frankly, were I sighted I would have just
about had it with the constant invalidation of my feelings and opinions I'd
receive from the civil rights berserkers. Well, you know what's often said
about crying wolf. One day the cry of "you're prejudiced, you don't have a
right to draw your conclusions!" will go out once too often and the reply
will come back, "since I'm such a loathesome jerk that I can't trust my own
judgment, I can't trust my judgment about your claims. Might as well
disregard it, and you, and continue on as I have in the past, being a
contemptable, insensative jerk." Of course, I'm not sighted. Most sighted
people are far more indulgent than I. That's why I was outraged by a
particular show in the EMPTY NEST series.
This show, for those unfamiliar, deals with a father and two sisters
living in Miami. One sister is a happy-go-lucky sort and the other worries
about practically everything. The latter sister meets an absolute troll of
a blind man; self-centered, manipulative, obnoxious--not any charicature we
have all seen, but just a real bastard who happens to be blind. Here
reaction after several dates? "Never saw a cloud, never saw a tree."
After the last date, she finally gets to the point of saying, "you're a bad
blind man." Now me, I'd just have punched out the slime ball and not
bothered with the self abuse this woman put herself through. But, you know
what? My contempt for the "blind man" was as nothing compared to my pity
and horror at what this woman had done to herself. Most people, I suspect,
won't have as long a string as she did. Eventually, they will get pretty
tired of having it pulled.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!90!Gary.Petraccaro
Internet: Gary.Petraccaro@f90.n129.z1.fidonet.orgDavid.Andrews@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (David Andrews) (06/28/90)
Index Number: 8979
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
EB> Maybe we could put this airline seat problem (I nearly wrote
EB> "airline seat thing." Bushspeak will creep up on you if you
EB> aren't careful!) into perspective by considering another
EB> safety-related situation. However, it turned out that the main criterion
EB> the city used in deciding whether to grant such approval was
EB> the nationality of the laundry's owner; if the owner was
EB> Chinese, the approval was almost never granted, and if the
EB> owner was a native-born American, it almost always was granted.
EB> The court ruled that the mere fact that the mere fact that
EB> safety was the end purpose of the ordinance did not entitle
EB> the city to discriminate based on nationality.
Eric, As always, you don't speak often, but when you do, you
always have something useful, interesting and instructive to say.
If the airlines can prove that all blind persons are unsafe sitting
next to exit row seats, then I will be the first to accept it. If
it is truly a safety issue, they let them act more consistently
towards everyone. However, if they are assuming that most, if not
all blind people are unsafe, because of their pre-conceived
notions, which they seem to be doing, then we can't just ignore it,
even if it is unpleasant, which it is.
A number of years ago, a group of blind people went out to
Baltimore-Washington International Airport and evcacuated an
airplane. It did not take them any longer then it did a sighted
group. What problems there were were caused by sighted airline
attendents trying to help in the wrong way. I have talked
personally to people who participated in this exercise. Anyway,
this all will ultimately be straightened out, but I think things
will get worse before they get better.
David Andrews
... Your Sound Alternative
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89.0!David.Andrews
Internet: David.Andrews@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org