From: sojacobson@mmm.com
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
Steve Z.,
To categorize members into those to are willing to fight for democracy and
those who are not oversimplifies the question greatly.Is the NFB a
political structure created to amplify the voice of blind people?  Is the
NFB an organization whose prime purpose is to change society's attitudes
about and perception of blind people?  I think we have to be some of both. 
It is not possible to be all of both.  A large, broadly based, democratic
NFB in 1950 would have likely voted against much of the philosophy we take
for granted today.  I heard a tape of a speech Dr.  tenBroek gave on
sheltered workshops at our convention in Milwaukee in 1953.  I thought it
was a great speech and was amazed how he could have forseen the problems
he did.  However, the people listening to his speech received his words
politely but with restraint.  We know now that he was right, but it was
not apparent at that time.  Although we act through the NFB to further our
interest, we have also depended upon our leaders and each other to stretch
our expectations and look at the impact of issues in the long run.  To
accomplish this, we must continue to strike a ballance between democracy
and empowering our leaders. 
My experience was different than yours and that, of course, affects our
viewpoints.  In my state, we had situations where members went to our
legislature testifying against legislation overwhelming backed by our
members.  We have had situations where agencies would pick from our
members people who were most sympathetic to them, then state that these
people were our representatives because they were our members.  I had to
personally deal with a situation where someone anonymously dropped off two
twenty dollar bills and a list of forty names of sighted persons who were
to be considered as new voting members shortly before an important vote in
our affilliate.  Without strong leadership e would not have survived.  I
am not drawing parallels with other specific situations through my
examples, only that I think we need to remember why we had chosen to have
an organization with a strong leadership.  People say that times have
changed, and of course they have, but I don't think they have changed as
much as you might think.  I guess what I am saying is that we need to
change with the times, make adjustments to our philosophy and structure to
be more effective, but we must also remember the struggles we overcame to
get this far and that some of the regressive elements we have had to fight
in the past are still alive and well. 
     
> 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 
ibertarianism
> > 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.  
ur
> > 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 
ar.
> > 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 
eem
> > 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 
f
> > 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 
roblems
> > >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      |
> +----------------------------+
> 
> 
> 
--
          Steve Jacobson
          National Federation of the Blind
          3M Company 
          E-mail:  SOJACOBSON@MMM.COM
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 3M Company.
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------