From: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton 
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
I think I understand why you draw the distinctions you draw.  For my part,
although I don't expect from NFB what I expect of the government of the
country that I entered by birth, I propose that we who claim to be the
blind speaking for ourselves would do well to have as participatory a
decision-making process as feasile.  I think my affiliate's usually quite
good about that, and I'm certain many other affiliates and divisions are
as well.  At the national convention, I think we can do better.
I very much appreciate the thoughtfulness and tone of your messages in
these exchanges.  Take care!
Al
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 sojacobson@mmm.com wrote:
> 
> 
> Steve Z.,
> 
> I hope you don't mind the "Steve Z." label, but it gets confusing with 
> two Steve's.
> 
> It seems to me that the recurring themes in your response remain the 
> dominance of the membership by the leadership and the complacency of the 
> membership.  You mentioned that there was not the "critical mass" to make 
> changes that you feel are needed, which would seem to acknowledge that 
> change is possible if the critical mass were there.  If one were to 
> change the process to either reduce the influence of the leadership or to 
> stimulate the critical mass to bring about change, isn't the process 
> that is being used to bring about change thereby bypassing the 
> membership?  What I am saying is that the process can always be the tool 
> of a faction, and that there is no process that truly guarantees that it 
> cannot be used to subvert the will of the majority.  Therefore, I would 
> maintain that the specific process is not all that important as long as 
> it offers the possibility of change.
> 
> You asked if I trusted the membership, and I do in theory.  In practice, 
> though, one must ask which membership.  Is the membership everyone who 
> pays their dues or is it everyone who comes to a convention?  I think 
> this is a difficult question to answer.  Further, I don't hold the NFB or 
> my political party to the same standard of participation as I hold my 
> government.  I chose the NFB and my political party based partly upon 
> what they already stood for, while I did not really choose my 
> government.  What this means is that I am willing to sacrafice something 
> in terms of the process to allow my party or the NFB to achieve the 
> goals for which I joined more quickly.  As I said in another message, 
> the fact that I can leave the NFB and go somewhere else if I am 
> disatisfied with the course taken is also part of the check and ballance 
> system that is not really present within our government.
> 
> I am finding this exchange interesting, and I hope you understand that I 
> am truly trying to exchange ideas and not simply engage in a war of 
> words.    
> 
> > Steve,,
> > 
> >       No you have me incorrect here.  It's nothing to do with trusting 
> > the membership. None of this has to do with trust.  It has to do with 
> > process.  Both the leadership and membership make decisional mistakes 
from 
> > time to time.  It just seems to me that too many general members just 
> > take blindly ideas and decisions of the leadership, whether it be 
> > national board or their state presidents.  There is not enough critical 
> > thinking among the members.  I sense that a feeling persists among the 
> > members that if Mr. Jernigan says it, it must be true.  
> > 
> >       In a way this is understandable.  The federation has done much for
> > many people and they honor that by generally agreeing with policies of 
he
> > organization.  However, some of the positions taken by the leadership 
ave
> > been left unquestioned.  I'm referring here to the resolutions process 
or
> > example.  Many were not sure if the airline battle was going to get us
> > where we wanted.  It's proven to have not done what was intented, that
> > blind be simply left alone and assumed to be competent.  We've arrived at
> > a fair compormise, where a process of self-identification of abilities is
> > in place, where an individual chooses to sit on a certain seat or not. 
nd
> > of course, the blind are still singled out by the airlines.  I should
> > clarify my statement, fair for sighted, but not necessarily the blind.  
o
> > I don't think the intended result has occured.  But all that is another
> > story meant here only as an example. 
> > 
> >       My basic thrust is that the general members and those that lead 
> > should be a team, working together with respect.  I think the leadership 
> > takes the members votes for granted and plan accordingly.  When a little 
> > problem occurs, out comes the guns, so to speak.  So this is not a matter 
> > of trust but of process.
> > 
> >       I could ask you and will, do you trust the judgement of the 
> > membership?  I'm not meaning to be flip with this question, but am njust 
> > turning it around.  Leaders are not always correct, nor are members.  And 
> > I do fault the membership as a whole for not thinking critically enough, 
> > my perspective, regarding key issues.  But I also quite understand how 
> > very difficult it is to make changes in the organization and the methods 
> > used by those in power to retain it.  It is a difficult situation.  There 
> > just isn't enough critical mass of general members who understand the 
> > ramifications of what is going on and how they can influence it.  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 sojacobson@mmm.com wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Steve,
> > > 
> > > Isn't the impact of your comments here that one really can't trust the 
> > > membership?  On the one hand, you are advocating for greater democracy, 
> > > while on the other you are saying that the membership should not have 
the 
> > > right or power to accept the recommendations of the leadership.  Unless 
I 
> > > am not understanding your point, I think it is the influence of the 
> > > leadership that makes you uncomfortable, not the political structure.  
> > > I'm not trying to be critical of that, only saying that it changes the 
> > > focus of discussion.   
> > > 
> > > > 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 
rganization
> > > > after he was expelled by means of having the general membership have 

> > > > 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 
tatus?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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      |
> > > > +----------------------------+
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 
> > >           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.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > +----------------------------+
> > |  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)
---------------