From: Steve Zielinski 
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
Jim, 
The criticism in this thread does not have anything to do with the
empowering nature of the nfb philosophy.  Many, myself included, view that
philosophy as a valid means of dealing with the social aspects of
blindness, lack of understanding from people, discrimination, etc.  I have
absolutely no problem with the general empowering philosophy of blindness
which the NFB promotes.  I feel it is the only way to fly.  Some may take
the philosophy a little over board in my opinion, but as long as they
don't include general rudeness towards others, sighted or blind, then
that's fine with me.  In fact I've found that most of the competent blind
people I know have been touched positively by NFB philosophy. 
	The problem is in the political structure of the NFB itself.  The 
lack of meaningful input is evident to those who would only observe.  The 
reason that so many do not see it is in part because they agree with the 
political structure and therefore don't see the need to challenge it 
directly.  An example.  
	After an attempt was made to get the membership to have an
opportunity to vote on re instating Jamal Mazrui into the organization
after he was expelled by means of having the general membership have a
chance to vote on it, the National Board blocked the opportunity for the
membership to vote.  After that occured, the NFB constitution was changed
so that it would take four or five state presidents and/or national board
members to sign off on any members request to take a similar issue to the
board.  That additional hurdle to have a chance for the common member to
have a vote is the kind of political games which offend many.  And of
course, the general membership approved the changes, thereby tightening 
the national boards power over the membership politically. 
	I think for many in the NFB, the organization is similar to a 
religious experience, where they feel they finally belong.  The group 
 cannot do any wrong, and if it could be considered that it may have made 
 a mistake, it is viewed as only marginal and isolated.  With this 
attitude there is no desire or need to analyse and examine what is really 
happening, that would turn over the boat and open up lines of attact from 
the "enemies outside".  As long as this kind of "close the circle" belief 
system exists in the NFB, the basic lack of meaningful political 
involvement will continue.  There are those in the NFB who basically talk 
among themselves about internal political structure but don't step up to 
the plate to try and make a change.  I think part of the reason for lack 
of attempting to make a change is the knowledge that it is a very hard 
road to take, fraught with lots of obsticles.  One of the greatest 
obsticles is the memberships lack of understanding and possibility of 
turning on them personally.  
	Have a nice day.
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Jim Marks wrote:
> 
> 
> Montanans are an independent lot.  We take rugged individualism to
> extremes, and view national organizations with mulish skepticism.  
> 
> As a committed Federationist, I have encountered much resistance to our
> organization from other Montanans.  Presumably the reluctance to
> cooperating with national authorities stems from the cowboy libertarianism
> for which our state is so infamous.  But I don't think we can blame the
> independence streak for anti-NFB rhetoric.  I believe the opposition to the
> NFB comes as a direct result of people's relationship with blindness.  Our
> organization, imperfect as it is, unquestionably challenges everyone's
> understanding of blindness.  Many are comfortable with attributing
> blindness as the problem rather than grasping that attitudes are the real
> oppressor.  Time and time again I have witnessed people react negatively to
> the NFB because the leadership presses hard for positive attitudes,
> personal accountability, and self-determination.  As a friend of mine who
> just attended his first convention last year said, the NFB raises the bar.
> It develops our own self-awareness and changes what it means to be blind.
> Some react well by getting more involved and trying to shape our
> organization through the involvement.  Others elect to criticize the way
> things are done without contributing to the movement in meaningful ways.
> Some even stoop to really silly name calling and baiting.  But as for me, I
> am very glad to be a Federationist.  And if such affirmations make me seem
> like a mindless follower, think again.  I am a Montanan and am skeptical as
> hell of anything that looks too good to be true.  I am involved because of
> the principles and because I get a direct infusion of ever increasing
> expectations for myself.  No, we're not a bunch of super blind folk; we are
> just doing the best we can.  I, for one, have much to learn.  And I have
> much to teach.  Isn't the essence of the NFB this collective effort to do
> something about negative attitudes and low expectations?  And maybe, just
> maybe, the harsh criticism about the way we do things really is nothing
> more than a mask for complacency with shame and second class status?
> 
> Jim Marks
> 
> 
> At 06:22 PM 4/13/1998 -0700, Daveed Mandell wrote:
> >
> >
> >How frightening that only Harvey has the guts to speak out about problems
> >re the NFB.  It's horrible, and a commentary on what the national
> >leadership has done to the membership.
> >Even the late Dr. Isabelle Grant, a marvelous, brilliant human being,
> >remarked to me, during the 1971 convention in Houston, that the membership
> >was like a bunch of sheep!
> >She was right then, and is right now!
> >Whatever good the NFB does is lost to so many due to its undemocratic
> >structure, leadership and actions.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
+----------------------------+
|  Steve Zielinski  (N8UJS)  |
|      stevez@ripco.com      |
+----------------------------+
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------