        Global Vision: The Federation on the World Scene

     I propose to you tonight that a new and grand objective be
added to our established goals and purposes: namely, the
inauguration of a World Federation of the Blind. 

     Those words of Jacobus tenBroek, spoken during a banquet
address at the NFB's 1964 convention in Phoenix, drew an immediate
and widespread response of affirmation both in America and abroad.
Directly following that convention banquet, leaders of the NFB met
with some fifteen distinguished foreign visitors from eight
countries to lay the cornerstone of what was to be the
International Federation of the Blind the first independent global
association of blind people in history. The decision to inaugurate
the International Federation came as the climax of a series of
events which blatantly exposed the voiceless and powerless status
of the blind in the world at large. For many years the NFB had been
represented by a delegate in the World Council for the Welfare of
the Blind, the only international organization in the field. Formed
and controlled by agencies for the blind (predominantly in Western
Europe and North America), the WCWB faithfully reflected its
managerial character in the narrow scope and quality of its
operations. All efforts to improve this situation, by the NFB and
the few other national organizations represented in the World
Council, were rebuffed by its agency leadership.

     The exclusion of the organized blind from this international
blindness cartel was completed in 1962 with the official ouster of
the NFB's delegate (Jacobus tenBroek) from his established seat on
the World Council's executive committee. That peremptory action
followed a stormy summer meeting in Hanover, Germany, where Dr.
tenBroek was denied an official hearing and barred from the seat to
which the National Federation of the Blind had been democratically
elected for a five-year term just three years before. In a
subsequent report, Dr. tenBroek declared that the tight control
over the world organization exercised by a handful of American and
British agencies raised a critical question for blind people
everywhere:  Should a world organization of the blind themselves
now be created to meet the needs not being met by the WCWB? 

     The organized blind of America had already shown their
readiness to sail into uncharted international waters through a
resolution passed in the 1962 convention of the NFB in Detroit,
which was forthright and unequivocal in support of a world
federation:

     WHEREAS, the blind people of the world at present have no
effective world agency or instrumentality through which they may
represent themselves or take effective collective action for the
improvement of their lot, the discussion of their experiences, and
the formulation of solutions to their problems; and

     WHEREAS, the World Council for the Welfare of the Blind is
dominated by agencies for the blind rather than representatives of
organizations of the blind and is in any event largely ineffective
and inactive; and

     WHEREAS, even that minimal and inequitable representation
possessed by the blind of the United States in the World Council
for the Welfare of the Blind and upon its Executive Committee seems
about to be further curtailed by improper and unconstitutional
actions of the officials of the WCWB: Now therefore,

     BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in
convention assembled at the Statler Hotel in Detroit, Michigan,
this seventh day of July, 1962, that this organization herewith
declare the urgent desirability and imperative necessity of a world
organization of the blind themselves for purposes of
self-expression and self-improvement. We declare it as our policy
henceforth to encourage and stimulate the development of such an
organization. We instruct our President, our delegate to the WCWB,
and our Executive Committee to take all such actions in such manner
and in such times as seems to them most meet and feasible and
supported by such resources as are available to bring about the
establishment of such an organization.

     The National Federation of the Blind continued to direct a
drumbeat of critical fire at the agency-dominated World Council
during the following year, with the most formidable onslaught
reserved for the occasion of the 1963 National Convention in
Philadelphia. In that  Cradle of Liberty,  on Independence Day
(July 4), Jacobus tenBroek delivered an address which many in his
audience regarded as a  veritable declaration of independence  for
the blind people of all nations from the World Council for the
Welfare of the Blind. Addressing the question  Whither the World
Council?  Dr. tenBroek sought first to set forth the expectations
that blind people might reasonably have regarding the role and
responsibility of the world organization which purported to be
acting in their name and for their well- being.

      Most of all,  tenBroek said,  we can expect and demand of
that leadership a reach of rhetoric to match the depth of its
dedication: a bold capacity for fresh and eloquent expression of
the high goals of social evolution the emancipating goals of
opportunity and equality, of independence and integration to which
any world organization for the welfare of the blind must surely be
devoted.  He continued:

     We cannot expect immediate solutions to the global terrors of
fear and hunger which torment the blind; but we can expect an
impassioned proclamation of their urgency and devastation. We
cannot expect a cure-all for the cultural and social blights that
stunt the growth of countless blind youths and condemn them to
lives of futile desperation; but we can expect a resounding
manifesto against the defeatism and indifference that permit these
things to rage unchecked. We cannot expect a social revolution
overnight; but we can expect a full and fearless revelation. We
cannot expect, from the labors of the World Council, an instant
conferral upon the world's blind of the epaulets of dignity and the
credentials of acceptance; but we can expect, and we can demand, a
Universal Declaration of the Rights of Blind Persons, a declaration
paralleling and enlarging the two great pronouncements already
promulgated by the United Nations: the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of the
Child.

     The Federation leader went on to assert that the World Council
had failed both in its proclaimed purpose and its performance:  It
has avoided offending any vested interests in the superannuated
agencies of the world. It has placed its stamp of approval upon
sheltered workshops and other mouldering artifacts of custodial
caretaking. It has gone through the motions of a live body, but has
placed no substantial matter in motion. In general, and in effect,
it has tended to let ill enough alone.

     The deepest failure of the World Council, tenBroek said, could
be simply stated:  It has shown itself to be lacking in vision. It
has been unable to prevent its own blindness. Confronted with the
grave social and human issues facing blind people everywhere, it
has chosen to look away. It has shed no light and generated no
heat.  All that the WCWB had generated, tenBroek maintained, was
conflict with the very people, the blind populations of the world,
whom it claimed to serve and to represent.  The conflict between
the National Federation and the reigning officialdom of the Council
is less significant in itself than as a symbol of the severe malady
from which this global agency is suffering. It is a disease of
unsympathetic atrophy, whose symptoms are paralysis of the will,
morbid sensitivity to illumination, and a fear of open places
accompanied by fits of pique and delusions of grandeur. 

     TenBroek concluded his speech to the NFB convention with these
words:  The founding fathers of the World Council were of the
agencies. Its representative members, by constitutional fiat, are
of the agencies. Its ruling directorate of titular and non-titular
heads are of the agencies. We may say of the World Council, in
summary, that the voice it affects is the voice of the blind man
but the hand is still the hand of the custodian. 

     At the same time as it was becoming apparent that
organizations of the blind themselves could not hope to gain an
effective voice in the WCWB, pioneering efforts were set in motion
in a variety of new and old nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin
America toward the formation of independent blind associations. A
notable instance was Pakistan, where the NFB's  goodwill
ambassador,  Dr. Isabelle Grant of California, instilled the spirit
of Federationism into an adventurous band of men and women. (More
will be said about this globetrotting gentleperson in later pages.)
The Pakistan Association of the Blind, under the leadership of Dr.
Fatima Shah, took its place in the early sixties in the vanguard of
independent national organizations of blind persons which were
arising in parallel with the newly won independence of their
countries.

     It was in order to further and facilitate this  revolution of
rising expectations  on the part of the world's blind people, as
well as to counteract the paternalistic and custodial character of
the World Council for the Welfare of the Blind, that organized
blind leaders from several continents merged their efforts and
aspirations in the year 1964 in the common cause of an
International Federation of the Blind. The nature of that common
cause the spirit of Federationism among the blind at home and
abroad was powerfully articulated by Jacobus tenBroek, in a banquet
address delivered at the NFB's Phoenix convention in 1964. His
speech entitled  The Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World 
was at once a summation of the American success story of the
National Federation of the Blind and a new definition of
Federationism expressed in universal terms. This is what he said:

THE PARLIAMENT OF MAN, THE FEDERATION OF THE WORLD
by Jacobus tenBroek

     One score and four years ago, a little group of willful men
from thirteen states met in Convention Hall in Pennsylvania in
order to form a more perfect union. If you find an historic analogy
in that, so be it.

     The union we formed on that distant day in Wilkes-Barre was
far from perfect. It is imperfect still. But it has met the test of
time and turmoil, trouble and tribulation; it has not perished from
the earth.

     The National Federation of the Blind is still standing but it
is not standing still. It is on the move once more, as it was in
its first years of wrath and rebellion more united than ever and
more confident of its power, stronger in its faith, and richer by
its experience an older movement and wiser one, now revitalized and
recharged by an astonishing vision, an idea even more fantastic
than that which lured the handful of founders to the Pennsylvania
cradle of Federationism.

     The vision which moves us now is nothing less than the image
of world federation. I propose to you tonight that a new and grand
objective be added to our established goals and purposes: namely,
the inauguration of a World Federation of the Blind.

     And why not? Our own National Federation of the Blind has
blazed the trail and shown the way. We have demonstrated what blind
men and women can do in freedom and in concert, through
independence and interdependence. We have proved, in the fires of
battle, our right to organize, to speak for ourselves, and to be
heard. We have established beyond gainsaying our capacity to take
the leadership in our own cause. We have slowly and steadily won
recognition in the halls of government, in the agencies of welfare,
and in the public mind. Through our deeds and programs, by argument
and example, in action and philosophy, we have earned respect for
ourselves and our fellow blind, the respect of free men and of
equals.

     All this, and more, Federationism has done for blind
Americans. All this it can do for others. It is time that we shared
these fruits of struggle and victory with our brothers in other
lands. Let the word go out from this convention that we of the
National Federation stand ready to lend our efforts and energies to
the building of world unity among the blind. Let the liberating
principle of federation the spirit of democratic association and
collective self-direction catch fire among the blind people of
Asia, of Europe, of Africa, of Latin America as it caught fire and
blazed forth in the hearts of blind Americans twenty years ago, and
still sustains them by its warmth.

     What is this peculiar potent spirit which we call
Federationism? What are its explosive ingredients? What does it
have to offer to the blind of all nations which they do not have
and cannot obtain from their governments, their private agencies,
and public corporations?

     Federationism is many things to many men. First of all it is
an indispensable means of collective self-expression, a megaphone
through which the blind may speak their minds and voice their
demands and be assured of a hearing.

     Federationism is a source of comradeship, the symbol of a
common bond, an invitation to commingling and communion in a word,
to brotherhood among the blind.

     Federationism is a tool of political and social action, an
anvil on which to hammer out the programs and policies, projects
and platforms, that will advance the mutual welfare and security of
the blind as a group.

     Federationism is the expression of competences and confidence,
the sophisticated construction of able men and women not a retreat
for the lost and foundered. It is a home of the brave and a
landmark of the free.

     Federationism is the synonym of independence the antonym of
custodialism and dependency. It is the blind leading themselves,
standing on their own feet, walking in their own paths at their own
pace by their own command. It is the restoration of pride, the
bestowal of dignity, and the achievement of identity.

     Federationism is an agency of orientation a school for the
sightless an incomparable method of personal rehabilitation and
adjustment to the unpopular condition of being blind.

     Federationism is a dedication a commitment of the mind and
heart, an act of faith, and an adventure of the spirit which issues
a call to greatness and a summons to service on the part of all who
volunteer to enter its ranks.

     Federationism is a spearhead of revolution, bespeaking a
rising tide of expectation on the part of the once  helpless blind 
a blunt repudiation of time-dishonored stereotypes and an organized
demand for the conferral of rights too long withheld and hopes too
long deferred.

     These are some by no means all of the features and faces of
Federationism which are a familiar part of the experience of
organized blind Americans. There is nothing about them that is
exclusive to Americans or prohibited to others. They are not
contraband but common currency. They are as universal as the claims
of democracy. Federationism, like blindness, is no respecter of
persons or peoples. For purposes of democratic self-organization
among us there is neither black nor white, Jew nor Greek, Christian
nor Brahman they are all one within the universal community of the
blind.

     A few years before the outbreak of World War II, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt declared prophetically that his generation of
Americans had a rendezvous with destiny. They did indeed. They kept
that rendezvous, and all mankind is thankful that they arrived on
time for the appointment. I am convinced that this generation of
blind Americans now has a rendezvous with destiny: that we are the
advance guard of a movement destined in time to transform the lives
and fortunes of the blind people of the world. That transformation
will not be accomplished in the first year or in the first decade
or even in the first generation. But, in the well-remembered words
of another President, let us begin. Let us reason together to
compare our experiences, to pool our resources and to combine our
strengths. Let us act together, to build our common foundations and
to erect our platforms. Let us march together, against the
ubiquitous foes of ignorance and folly, prejudice and pride, which
stand across our paths the world over.

     Above all, let us begin.

     The convention banquet at which Dr. tenBroek delivered his
address on the spirit of Federationism came as the capstone to a
day-long international program featuring the NFB's distinguished
guests from around the globe. Presided over by Kenneth Jernigan as
master of ceremonies, the banquet also witnessed the conferral of
the Newel Perry Award upon Dr. Isabelle Grant in honor of her years
of tireless globetrotting in the interests of blind welfare and
education. Immediately following the banquet, as the night grew
late, the international visitors and leaders of the NFB met to lay
the cornerstone of the world organization; and they left their
labors in the early hours of the morning with the certain
anticipation of a new day dawning for the international movement of
the organized blind.

     That day of judgment and decision came less than a month
later, on July 30, 1964, in New York City, when the International
Federation of the Blind was officially inaugurated at a charter
meeting of delegates and prospective members. Dr. Jacobus tenBroek
was unanimously elected president; Rienzi Alagiyawanna of Ceylon
was chosen first vice president; and Dr. Fatima Shah of Pakistan
was named second vice president. The goals and purposes of the IFB
were set forth in the preamble to its constitution adopted by the
delegates at the New York meeting:

     The International Federation of the Blind is the blind people
of the world speaking for themselves acting in concert for their
mutual advancement and more effective participation in the affairs
of their respective nations.

     The International Federation of the Blind is an organization
of the blind of all nations, operated by the blind of all nations,
for the blind of all nations. It is an educational and fraternal
association, nonprofit and nonpolitical in character, dedicated
solely to serving the common needs and aspirations of blind men and
women everywhere in the world.

     We join in this common cause to:

     Cooperate with the World Council for the Welfare of the Blind
in achieving its objective, providing the means of consultation
between organizations of and for the blind in different countries.

     Encourage self-organization and self-determination by blind
people in all countries through their own voluntary associations,
joined together in turn by membership in the International
Federation.

     Serve as a world assembly for meetings, communication, and
interchange among blind persons of all nationalities, toward the
end of reinforcing their confidence in themselves, in each other,
and in their common cause.

     Provide a forum for collective self-expression and discussion
by the blind of the world, and to act as the articulate voice for
their joint decisions and common objectives.

     Work for the progressive improvement and modernization,
throughout the world, of public policies and practices governing
the education, health, welfare, rehabilitation, and employment of
the blind.

     Disseminate accurate information, increase knowledge, and
promote enlightened attitudes on the part of the peoples of the
world toward blind persons.

     Solicit the support of national governments everywhere for the
programs and policies of the organized world blind, and advise and
assist those governments in their implementation.

     Furnish a beacon for the underprivileged and disadvantaged
blind people of the earth and create a potent symbol through which
blind people everywhere seek the rights and opportunities that are
the birthright of all men.

     Stand as living proof to the essential normality, equality,
and capability of blind men and women as first-class citizens of
the world as well as of their individual nations.

     Slightly over a decade after this inaugural event, Kenneth
Jernigan who had meanwhile succeeded tenBroek as President of the
National Federation of the Blind recalled the bright beginning and
high promise of the International Federation in an address prepared
for delivery at the World Congress of the Jewish Blind held in
Jerusalem in August, 1975. After reviewing the inauguration of the
IFB in the mid-sixties, Jernigan spoke of its mission and its
further progress:

     Thus was the spirit of Federationism transformed into a
worldwide liberation movement. Emboldened by visions of
self-realization and achievement, the International Federation has
since penetrated the farthest corners of the earth. Its ambassadors
and missionaries have traveled tirelessly by airplane, steamship,
and white cane to scores of countries carrying the gospel of hope,
of unity, and above all of collective self-determination. It has
not been a placid journey; the road to equality and interdependence
for the blind people of the world is strewn with stumbling-blocks.
Some are unrelated directly to blindness: poverty, ignorance, and
powerlessness. But even these can be reduced and reformed by
measures planned to aid and rehabilitate the blind. It is not by
accident that most of the blind are poor, and that many of the poor
are blind. It is not by accident that the blind nearly everywhere
have been kept in ignorance untrained, unlettered, and undeveloped.
Ignorance is no more than the state of being ignored. That state
has ended for the blind in America; it is ending in Europe; it will
be ended, step by step and country by country, through the
determination and self-determination of blind people themselves.

     There have been three identifiable stages in the social
history of the blind in the Western world: those of persecution,
protection, and participation. For many millennia blindness was
regarded as a fate worse than death, and accordingly the blind were
consigned to a fate akin to death. Later, through the conscience of
the Judeo-Christian heritage and the consciousness of the
Greco-Roman, the blind became objects of charity, philanthropy, and
welfare. In our own time the third stage has become a reality for
some and a possibility for all: the ultimate stage of integration
and independence, of participation and power. In summary, it might
be said that during the first stage of their existence the blind
were people to whom things were done; in the second stage they were
people for whom things were done; and in the third stage we are
people who are doing for ourselves.

     That is the essential message of Federationism and the word
that I would bring to you from your fellow blind around the world.

     Through the early decades of international activity, there was
one person in particular one very particular personality who, in
company with Jacobus tenBroek and Kenneth Jernigan, led the way for
the National Federation of the Blind onto the world scene. Dr.
Isabelle Grant (a retired Los Angeles educator, who was born in
Scotland) seemed an unlikely candidate for the role of world
traveler and trailblazer when she first entered the field: recently
blinded, physically slight, culturally sheltered much of her life,
she might have stepped out of the pages of Mark Twain's Innocents
Abroad. But appearances were deceiving; this frail Scotswoman,
accompanied only by her inseparable companion a white cane named 
Oscar  girdled the globe again and again over a quarter of a
century in the cause of welfare, health (and above all, education)
for the blind masses of the world. Something of her unique
accomplishment, and of its relation to the international activities
of the National Federation of the Blind, was eloquently reviewed by
Hazel tenBroek in a 1979 article published by the Braille Monitor.
Following is a portion of her commentary.

     Dr. Grant's interest in education for the blind grew as she
met successful blind people in this country and elsewhere. It
became obvious that training and education and self-help
organizations were the roads to salvation for the blind. She
attended a meeting in Oslo, Norway, in 1957 on the Education of
Blind Youth and came home imbued with the crusader's zeal to spread
the benefits of training and organizing. Dr. Grant decided that it
was time to take her sabbatical leave since regulations required
that she teach for at least two years after returning, and her
normal retirement date was fast approaching. Urged by this and
spurred by her curiosity and desire to help, she determined to
travel. Pakistan, she concluded, would be her major goal and as
many other of the surrounding nations as she could manage.

     Typewriter, Brailler, paper, stylus and slate strapped about
her, one hand free for her white cane, lugging the rest of her
baggage as best she might, Dr. Grant took off on a plane
Pakistan-bound, though she was so exhilarated that she might easily
have carried herself away. She was in Pakistan for six months
September, 1959, to February, 1960. During that time she turned the
thoughts of the blind of that country away from their despair and
custodialism and helped to move toward self-governance.

     There she found Dr. Fatima Shah, a well-educated, highly
placed physician who had lost her sight in 1957 and who as is
common among the sighted regarded blindness as just one step better
than being dead. The greatest shock to Dr. Shah, however, was the
realization that  others had given her up and regarded her
blindness as termination of her active life.  With Dr. Grant urging
her on, Dr. Shah discovered that her life and her training need
only be redirected. She helped to found the Pakistan Association of
the Blind. That organization has grown in size and influence. Dr.
Shah, its first president, is now the president of the
International Federation of the Blind.

     Dr. Grant did travel to other countries surrounding the
subcontinent and made frequent stops on her road to and returning
from those places. She made hundreds of contacts with blind people.
When she returned to the United States and her teaching duties, it
was with the determination to travel again as soon as she could to
learn more about the blind and especially about blind children. She
kept up a flow of correspondence with those she had met, exhorting
them to take action. Appalled at the absence of the barest means of
communicating and learning, Dr. Grant began her own recycling
projects. She scrounged slates, styluses, paper, watches, Braille
books, typewriters, Braille writers, and anything else she thought
might be useful, and sent them off to anyone in those far and
foreign parts who could write and ask. Though the NFB organized
fundraising and the gathering and mailing of books and materials on
a regular basis, Dr. Grant continued her personal projects along
these lines.

     Dr. Grant was looking forward to her retirement and more
travel. That event occurred at the end of the school year in June,
1962. The occasion was marked by many events and the bestowing of
many honors. The greatest of these was a Fulbright Fellowship. This
was supplemented by a grant from the National Federation of the
Blind, and Dr. Grant once again made travel plans. Main target
Africa.

     She started her travels by accompanying the tenBroeks to a
meeting of the executive committee of the World Council for the
Welfare of the Blind, in Hanover, Germany. The NFB wanted to talk
with those worthies about how the NFB representation in the WCWB
was being exploited and outright denied in something other than an
above-board fashion. The NFB spokesmen were given a very chilly
reception, were otherwise gratuitously insulted, and were not
permitted to attend the committee's sessions though the NFB was, at
the least, a dues-paying member.

     Dr. Grant and Dr. tenBroek sat having tea and toast in a small
neighborhood guesthouse after the sessions had adjourned and
bemoaned the domination of a worldwide organization dealing with
the blind by the American Foundation for the Blind and other
agencies. Dr. tenBroek had been in contact with some of the leaders
of organizations of the blind in Europe. As he and Dr. Grant
talked, it became obvious that if the blind were to be properly
represented and were to govern their own affairs, sooner or later
they would have to organize on something larger than national
scopes.

     Dr. Grant made her way east. She developed a technique for
finding blind people and for managing to see ministers high in the
governing ranks of many countries not infrequently, the heads of
state. To all of them she talked of organization, of teaching, of
training. Sometimes Dr. Grant had to stamp her foot or shake a
finger in anger when discussing the conditions of the blind with
these plenipotentiaries, but those actions were rarely taken amiss.
Occasionally these officials caught her fervor for the necessity of
educating blind youth to get them out of the deep and unending
poverty that was their lot. In some countries she was permitted to
conduct seminars for teachers of the blind on proper methods of
instruction. In other countries, she was able to persuade
governments to institute educational programs or other measures for
the rehabilitation and training of the large blind populations,
especially the young. In all countries she encouraged the blind to
organize for their own improvement after the model of the National
Federation of the Blind.

     Dr. Grant's expressed goal was an international student
division organized to feed trained people into new national
organizations of the blind. Every country had some sort of agency
for the blind, but only in Europe, the United States, Australia,
and New Zealand were there organizations of the blind which were
independent of the agencies. She saw the students as the future
leaders of those oppressed millions of blind people in other
countries, who would lead them out of their bondage of poverty to
the independence which was every man's birthright.

     The leaders of the Federation, however, felt the time was ripe
to create an international unit more comprehensive than a student
division. With Dr. Grant's enthusiastic participation, plans were
set afoot for the formation of a worldwide organization. The 1964
NFB convention in Phoenix was the convention, as it turned out, of
the International Federation of the Blind. One whole day was
devoted to the presentations of foreign dignitaries.
Representatives of seven countries were present, and a number of
others sent papers about conditions and programs in their nations.
As reported in the 1964 Convention Roundup:

     The visitors came to Phoenix with varying points of view on
programs for the blind, from countries with widely divergent needs
of the blind, and in different stages of readiness for world
organization of the blind. To a man, however, they recognized the
need for organization of the blind themselves on a world basis, the
necessary major features of such an organization, the common
aspirations of the blind everywhere for independence and
integration, the common goals to be achieved by organization, and
the common functions to be performed.

     Preliminary meetings were held at Phoenix and later in New
York. All saw their dreams brought to fruition when, with a
constitution drawn by Kenneth Jernigan, and under the leadership of
Dr. Jacobus tenBroek, the International Federation of the Blind
became a reality. Professor tenBroek's banquet address,  The
Parliament of Man: The Federation of the World,  set forth the
problems and the solutions.

     But the fitting climax to that convention, and to these early
years of Isabelle Grant's involvement with the organized blind
movement in the United States and around the world, was the
conferral upon her of the Newel Perry Award by NFB President
Russell Kletzing. In presenting the award, President Kletzing made
the following remarks, which serve as a fitting summation of the
career of a most courageous and far-seeing woman:

     If we of the National Federation honor Isabelle tonight, it is
because she has been doing us honor for many years. To blind people
everywhere she has become the gracious and dynamic symbol of
Federationism of voluntary self-organization and self-advancement.
We have long since dubbed Isabelle our  ambassador without
portfolio ; and indeed she needs no portfolio since she carries the
message and spirit of our movement in her heart and expresses it in
her work.

     Isabelle Grant is of course more than that more than our
ambassador and chief missionary overseas. In her own right she is
a leader of the blind, a skillful educator, a tireless promoter,
and an astonishing example of the triumph of mind and will over
physical limitation. Everyone here knows of her fabled travels
around the world, accompanied only by her faithful, understanding,
and sustaining companion a white cane named  Oscar.  And we all
know what these travels have been like: not the leisurely excursion
of a tourist but the hard road of the crusader seeking not ease but
hardship, and concentrating in particular upon those newly
emerging, poverty-stricken lands whose teeming populations of blind
people are both the largest and neediest in the world.

     Nor do I need to dwell at length upon the social miracles
achieved by Dr. Grant over the past six years for the blind of
Pakistan. She has inspired them with faith, a faith once undreamed
of, in their powers and their collective future. She has stimulated
their voluntary organization and worked with them to build a strong
foundation of Federationism. She has pushed, prodded, and pestered
the government of Pakistan into sponsoring a full-fledged
revolution in its attitudes surrounding the education of blind
children and the training of teachers for them.

     But no list of specifics can convey the full scope of this
gentlewoman's teaching. By her deeds, by her words, and by her
enlightened example, Dr. Grant has truly educated us all.

     During the later seventies and into the next decade, to the
dismay of the organized blind in America and elsewhere in the
world, the International Federation of the Blind fell victim to
what came to be seen as a tragic irony. Although it had been
founded explicitly in order to secure the independence of the blind
from the agency-controlled World Council, it began to appear that
the divorce had never become final and that the party of the second
part the IFB was again being seduced and compromised by the powers
of the World Council. Specifically, it was sought to bring about a
merger of the two organizations and thereby effectively to co-opt
the IFB and absorb it once again within the global network of the
blindness system.

     During this period the National Federation of the Blind
persistently worked to hold the IFB to its original principles and
to carry the progressive philosophy of Federationism,  American
style,  to the world at large. In this spirit Rami Rabby, the NFB's
representative on the executive committee of the International
Federation, attended the third general convention of the IFB held
in Antwerp in 1979, where he found broad support among the
generality of delegates (as distinguished from the official
leadership) for the approach of the National Federation. The
prevailing atmosphere at the IFB convention was conveyed in a
subsequent report on the event, which appeared in the Braille
Monitor (December, 1979):

     The National Federation of the Blind of the United States was
represented at the Third General Assembly of IFB by Rami Rabby and
Harold Snider. Since Dr. Jernigan was not in a position to travel
to Belgium, Rami Rabby (a member of the executive committee of IFB)
carried out two official duties on his behalf. On Thursday morning,
July 26, he chaired a convention session on the subject of
legislation for the blind. Earlier in the week (on Tuesday morning,
July 24) he presented a paper entitled  Organization of the Blind, 
which explained in some detail the need for an organization which
is truly of the blind, national in scope, and structured in the
form of a federation united under a centralized administration. He
described typical activities carried out by the NFB at the chapter,
state, and national levels.

     The presentation was well received, and the questions and
comments which followed it reflected, to a much greater extent than
was the case at the 1974 IFB General Assembly, a community of
interest between the blind of the United States and the blind of
other nations, both industrialized and developing, and the
similarity between agency-consumer relationships in America and
elsewhere in the world. Here are just two examples of
question-and-answer exchanges that took place following Rabby's
presentation:

     Question from the delegate from Greece:

     Do you in the United States have a situation like we do in
Greece, where our organization is the true organization of the
blind, but the agencies and the government have set up their own
puppet organizations of the blind, and they always say that they
speak for the blind, and that we don't? Do you have something like
that? 

     Rabby's Answer:

     You bet we do! We are very familiar with that kind of
situation. Isn't it amazing how agencies behave in the same way
from one country to the next? Yes, in the United States, the puppet
organization of the blind is sometimes called the American Council
of the Blind, and other times, it may be called the Independent
Blind of Illinois, and the agencies are always trotting them out in
front of the press and financing their publications and telling
everybody that they are the real blind and that we are not;
whereas, in reality, these puppet organizations speak only for the
agencies. 

     Question from the delegate from Pakistan:

     Do you have problems in the United States with blind people
who have had a good education and who have succeeded in their jobs,
and so they forget about all the other blind and do not want to
join our organization? 

     Rabby's Answer:

     Yes, unfortunately, we do know that problem very well. We know
blind people who feel and act that way, and we try to make them
realize that it is mainly because of the National Federation of the
Blind that they were offered the opportunity of a good education
and a good job in the first place and that it is now their
responsibility to fight with us so that others may have the same
opportunity. 

     The effort by the American leaders of the organized blind to
keep the International Federation independently on track continued
in the next year (1980) with an invitation to the newly elected
president of the IFB, Dr. Franz Sonntag of Germany, to address the
NFB's 1980 convention in Minneapolis. Dr. Sonntag began his speech
with a pertinent recollection:  It is hardly possible,  he said, 
to speak about the IFB without commemorating Dr. Jacobus tenBroek,
who took the initiative in establishing the International
Federation of the Blind. I remember very well the day of the
founding assembly in New York in 1964 when Dr. tenBroek succeeded
in drawing up this fascinating picture of a strong world-wide
organization of all the blind. 

     In the course of his speech Dr. Sonntag made a revealing
observation concerning the respective weight and authority of the
IFB and its agency counterpart, the World Council.  As to the
relation between the IFB and the World Council for the Welfare of
the Blind,  he pointed out,  there are certain difficulties. First
of all, some facts: The World Council for the Welfare of the Blind
has an annual budget of approximately $160,000; whereas, the
International Federation of the Blind has an annual budget of
approximately $40,000.  Nevertheless he told the convention that he
could not imagine any future amalgamation of the IFB with the World
Council because of the determination of the IFB to keep its
independence and its commitment. He concluded by speaking in
English for the first time:  We know who we are,  he said,  and we
can never go back. 

     Unfortunately, the events of the next few years were to prove
the IFB president wrong on all counts. Whether or not the leaders
of the International Federation knew who they were, they could and
did go back to their old condition as minions of the World Council.
By 1984 a date with ominous overtones in science fiction and in the
international blind movement the National Federation judged the
situation to have deteriorated to such a point as to preclude its
continued participation in the IFB. After a full score of years, in
which it had successively inspired and nurtured the fledgling
international organization to its present maturity, the National
Federation of the Blind of the United States felt compelled to
withdraw from membership and to express its displeasure in no
uncertain terms. National Federation of the Blind President Kenneth
Jernigan, in a letter to President Sonntag of the IFB, noted the
mandate given him by the 1984 convention and summarized the
principal causes leading to the NFB's decision to withdraw:

     Baltimore, Maryland September 25, 1984

     Dr. Franz Sonntag, President International Federation of the
Blind Federal Republic of Germany

     Dear Dr. Sonntag:

     At the annual convention of the National Federation of the
Blind held in Phoenix, Arizona, in July of 1984, the delegates
passed a resolution directing that our organization withdraw from
the International Federation of the Blind unless (at the discretion
of the Board of Directors) it could be determined before the
beginning of the proposed meeting in Saudi Arabia in October of
this year that the International Federation of the Blind had begun
to move again toward the achievement of the goals for which it was
originally founded. No such movement has occurred. The IFB was
established to provide a vehicle for concerted action by
organizations of the blind throughout the world. By the most
generous interpretation that can possibly be made it no longer
meets that standard. In fact, the International Federation of the
Blind is now largely controlled not by independent organizations of
the blind but by government agencies, blind people who represent
nobody except themselves, and (most especially) by the agencies and
individuals who dominate the World Council for the Welfare of the
Blind. The fact that some of the principal actors in this drama are
blind has nothing to do with what I am saying. It is one thing to
be blind and quite another to be elected by other blind people to
represent them.

     Moreover, the International Federation of the Blind no longer
has any meaningful program but simply parrots the actions of the
WCWB. Under the circumstances it is understandable why talk about
merging the two organizations seems logical instead of ludicrous,
as it would have seemed when the first meeting of the IFB occurred
in New York City in 1964. I was there; I drafted the original IFB
Constitution; so I ought to know what the mood and the intent were.

     We are not withdrawing from the WCWB, for it does not claim to
be an organization of the blind, representing the blind. It claims
to be a mixture of agencies and organizations of the blind, and I
think it more nearly meets its stated purposes than does IFB.

     In the circumstances it is not surprising that IFB has chosen
to hold its convention in a city which excludes one of the members
of its own Executive Committee, that it no longer represents rank
and file blind people of the world, and that it bends the knee to
the WCWB.

     This letter constitutes official notice that the National
Federation of the Blind of the United States (the founding member
of the IFB) is no longer a member of IFB effective at the beginning
of the first official meeting of the membership or Executive
Committee of IFB to be held in Saudi Arabia in October. This letter
also constitutes official notice that Harold Snider and Avraham
Rabby are no longer members of the Executive Committee of IFB
effective at the beginning of the first meeting of either the
Executive Committee of IFB or the delegates of IFB at the meeting
to be held in Saudi Arabia in October.

     There is, we think, an organization in the United States of
America which more nearly accords with the current behavior and
philosophy of IFB than we do. We refer to the American Council of
the Blind. We recommend that you admit them to membership since,
according to our observation, they move in the orbit of the more
regressive agencies in this country, do not represent rank and file
blind people, and do not aggressively fight for the interests of
blind people. We feel certain that you and they will find such a
marriage both convenient and congenial.

     It is our current plan to initiate action to work directly
with independent organizations of the blind in other countries to
establish an international vehicle for the expression of the
collective will of the blind of the world and to further the goals
for which the IFB was originally established. The National
Federation of the Blind of the United States of America formally
and officially asks that this letter be read to the opening session
of the delegate assembly of the International Federation of the
Blind in Saudi Arabia and that it also be read at the first meeting
of the IFB Executive Committee to be held in Saudi Arabia.

     Very truly yours, Kenneth Jernigan, President National
Federation of the Blind

     As it happened, 1984 would turn out to be a watershed year for
the cause of international organization and representation not only
negatively, with the National Federation's withdrawal from the IFB,
but positively as well. For in that year a new global framework was
inaugurated, under the name of the World Blind Union, resulting
from the merger of the IFB and the World Council for the Welfare of
the Blind. Since the National Federation had retained its
membership in the WCWB, it was positioned to play an instrumental
role in the new World Blind Union should there be reasonable
grounds for optimism regarding its potential capacity to serve the
needs of blind people. Putting reservations aside in an act of
faith and good will, the National Federation accepted a seat on the
WBU's executive committee and commenced to build its involvement
and influence which culminated in 1987 with the election of Kenneth
Jernigan to the presidency of the combined North America/Caribbean
Region (to which he was re-elected in 1988 for a four-year term).
In his Regional Report to the World Blind Union at its convention
in Madrid, Spain, in 1988, Jernigan (who was in attendance as part
of a large American delegation) summed up the organizational
activity of the preceding four years and gave his assessment of the
prospects and problems facing the WBU and its global constituency.
The text of his report follows:

     In 1984 the International Federation of the Blind and the
World Council for the Welfare of the Blind met in Saudi Arabia to
merge and become the World Blind Union. This coming together was
not achieved without difficulty. Many (including my own
organization, the National Federation of the Blind of the United
States) had serious misgivings about the merger, but we decided to
go forward with a positive attitude to participate in the newly
established world body.

     That was 1984, and we now meet in Madrid in 1988 to take stock
of the past four years and chart the course for the quadrennium
ahead. The numbers attending this General Assembly and the hope and
enthusiasm which pervade its deliberations make it clear that the
sanguine expectations of 1984 were well founded. The World Blind
Union is a functioning reality, already possessing the beginnings
of a tradition and the framework of a protocol of operation.

     An integral part of that protocol is the regional structure of
the Union. Shortly after the Assembly in Riyadh in 1984, the
delegates of the then North America Region met in Washington to
elect officers and make plans. There were (and are) six delegates
from the United States. Three of these (the delegate from the
American Council of the Blind, the delegate from the Blinded
Veterans Association, and the delegate from the National Federation
of the Blind) represent organizations of the blind. Three (the
delegate from the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of
the Blind and Visually Impaired, the delegate from the American
Foundation for the Blind, and the delegate from the National
Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped) represent
organizations for the blind. Of the four delegates from Canada two
represent the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and two
represent the Canadian Council of the Blind. At that initial
meeting in Washington in the fall of 1984 we were seeking a basis
for joint action and a means of personal understanding and
cooperation. Since that time we have held seven meetings, one each
spring and one each fall, and we have had a continuous exchange of
correspondence and individual visits.

     When we look back over the past four years, the
accomplishments of the North America/Caribbean Region have been, by
any standard, impressive. Under the leadership of Dr. Euclid Herie,
Managing Director of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind,
our region has raised $30,000.00 to endow the Louis Braille Museum
at Coupvray, France; and we are now in the process of making
additional substantial contributions. In cooperation with Mr. Andre
Nicole and others we intend to raise enough money throughout the
world to insure the permanent financial security of the Louis
Braille Museum and to make certain that this monument to one of the
principal benefactors of the blind continues in perpetuity. Braille
is a significant part of our heritage, and one of the principal
yardsticks for measuring the vitality and validity of a
civilization or culture is the degree to which it shows respect and
reverence for the ancestors who brought it into being. Working with
Mr. Nicole and his colleagues, we in the North America/Caribbean
Region intend to place the Louis Braille Museum on a firm and
enduring foundation.

     In New York in the fall of 1986 our region hosted the meeting
of the World Blind Union Executive Committee. It was the occasion
for constructive interaction with the United Nations and increased
public awareness of the needs and aspirations of the blind.

     Our region has now been enlarged to encompass the Caribbean
Council for the Blind, and two representatives from that
organization currently serve as delegates so that our regional
structure now consists of twelve delegates: six from the United
States, four from Canada, and two from the Caribbean. Acting
through the regional structure, Canada and the United States have
provided material and technical assistance to the Caribbean area,
and there is every prospect that such assistance will continue.

     We have established a regional Committee on the Status of
Blind Women, and that committee is functioning actively. The
Committee met during the time of our regional meeting in Toronto in
May of this year and presented a proposed plan of action to the
full delegation. The plan was adopted and is now being put into
effect.

     At the World Blind Union Executive Committee meeting in New
York in the fall of 1986 our region presented a resolution to
require that all meetings of the WBU officers, Executive Committee,
and other committees be open for any member of the organization to
attend. We also sponsored a resolution to require that WBU meetings
be held in countries which would not exclude for political,
cultural, philosophical, or religious reasons individuals,
delegations, or representatives of the blind from any place on
earth. Both of these resolutions were adopted by the WBU Executive
Committee, and we feel that the organization is strengthened (both
politically and morally) as a result.

     Meeting in Toronto in the spring of 1988, the North
America/Caribbean Region adopted for recommendation to this
Assembly a resolution to require that the World Blind Union not
blur its distinctive role by participating in coalitions with other
disability groups. As you consider our proposal during the meetings
of this Assembly, we ask that you read it carefully, both for what
it says and what it does not say. We would not prohibit (where
appropriate) cooperation with other groups of the disabled, but we
would preserve with unmistakable clarity the concept that the
primary purpose of this organization is to deal with problems of
the blind, not the disabled as a whole.

     So far, I have talked to you about tangible achievements which
we have made in our region during the past four years, but our most
important accomplishment has not been tangible. It has been
attitudinal and spiritual. The World Blind Union has been the means
of bringing us together to work cooperatively as a team. There are,
of course, still philosophical differences which divide certain
ones of us on particular issues, but those differences have not
been emphasized in our deliberations. In fact, they have receded in
prominence and have gradually been replaced by an atmosphere of
joint effort to reach common goals. And this sense of increasing
closeness and community of purpose is spreading beyond the narrow
confines of the formality of the regional structure to every aspect
of our organizational functioning and our personal and professional
relationships.

     Let me specify. In June of this year I went to Kingston,
Ontario, to speak at the convention of the Canadian Council of the
Blind; and in July Dr. Herie, managing director of the Canadian
National Institute for the Blind, and Mrs. Braak, president of the
Canadian Council of the Blind, came to Chicago to participate in
the convention of the National Federation of the Blind. Plans are
already under way for future exchanges, and the resulting shared
information and strengthened bonds of friendship give a new
dimension to what we are doing.

     Last July (and I think this is clearly the result of our WBU
regional contacts) a program of truly historic significance
occurred in Montreal at the meeting of the Association for
Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired.
Geraldine Braak, Canadian Council of the Blind; Oral Miller,
American Council of the Blind; Susan Spungin, American Foundation
for the Blind; Euclid Herie, Canadian National Institute for the
Blind; and I, National Federation of the Blind, participated in a
two-hour panel discussion. The very fact that such a panel could
take place at all (particularly, considering the participants) is
noteworthy. It could not have happened four years ago. Moreover,
the tone of the discussion was friendly and constructive, and
positive developments resulted.

     It was agreed that the five organizations involved would meet
next year at the National Center for the Blind in Baltimore for a
detailed exploration of common concerns and possible programs of
joint action. The meeting will be hosted by the National Federation
of the Blind and may (if all the participants agree) be expanded to
include the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the
Blind and Visually Impaired, and possibly others. This, indeed, is
progress.

     One other item should be mentioned in this report. The North
America/Caribbean Region comes to Madrid unanimously urging the
General Assembly to elect Dr. Euclid Herie as treasurer of the
World Blind Union. As in so many other things during the past four
years, we are unanimous in this action. We know Dr. Herie; we like
him; and we respect him. Moreover, his competence and experience
particularly suit him for the position. He administers a program
with a large budget; yet, he finds time to deal compassionately and
sensitively with the problems of individuals.

     I would like to conclude this report by making these
observations: In a very real sense every day of our lives is a new
crossroad, requiring decisions which inevitably lead to advancement
or failure, but not all days are equally important. Some stand out
above others, representing times of crucial significance in the
history of a person or a social movement. Madrid in 1988
constitutes one of these landmark times. What we do here during
this brief period may well determine the course of the affairs of
the blind of the world for generations to come.

     There are certain issues with which we must deal, both wisely
and decisively. We must decide how we will allocate the resources
we have, and what we will do to increase those resources. We must
deal with the problems of the blind of the developing countries,
and must do it in such a way that we do not give the impression
(either to ourselves or others) that there are two classes of blind
people in the world, the inferior and the superior. We must
recognize that we are brothers and sisters, and our actions must
suit our words. Above all, we must understand and support the
concept that we who are blind intend to have the major voice in
determining our own destiny. Through the centuries others have made
our decisions and settled our fate, but that time is at an end. We
are determined that it will be at an end. We will have no more of
it. The World Blind Union can and should be the vehicle for the
emancipation of the blind. Otherwise, we default on our
responsibility. If this organization simply becomes another forum
for meaningless talk and learned professional papers, it will be
one of the tragic lost opportunities of history. The World Blind
Union (approached in good faith and properly utilized) can be the
key to open the door of first-class status for the blind of the
world. My brothers and my sisters, let us work together to make it
come true.

      The blind of the world have waited long, but the waiting must
now end.  With these words, Kenneth Jernigan, in his role as
regional president, summed up the essential message of a major
address which he delivered in September, 1988, before this Second
General Assembly of the World Blind Union in Madrid. In the
address, entitled  Fighting Discrimination and Promoting Equality
of Opportunity,  he called upon the WBU and its delegates from all
parts of the world to make of their organization a society of
equals  members of a family, sharing and working throughout the
world in a common effort for the salvation of each other, and the
salvation of all of us.  This trenchant address, presented to an
international audience of his peers, might stand as a fitting
testament to the arrival of the National Federation of the Blind
and of its long-time leader to a position of major influence in the
field of blindness, not only in America but in the field at large.
Here are excerpts from his address:

FIGHTING DISCRIMINATION AND PROMOTING EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
by Kenneth Jernigan

     When the World Blind Union came into being four years ago in
Saudi Arabia, the question facing the delegates was not purpose or
method but whether the organization should be established. Today
the question is not whether, but why and how. Four years ago the
General Assembly was concerned with organizational structure,
political viability, and worldwide acceptance. Today it is
concerned with the means of achieving its objectives and a clear
definition of what those objectives should be.

     Of course, our Constitution has a statement of purpose. It
says in Section 1 of Article II:  The purposes of the World Blind
Union shall be to work for the prevention of blindness and towards
the advancement of the well-being of blind and visually impaired
people, with the goal of equalization of opportunities and full
participation in society, if necessary by special, legal, or
administrative measures; to strengthen the self-awareness of blind
persons, to develop their personality, self-respect, and sense of
responsibility; and to provide an international forum for the
exchange of knowledge and experience in the field of blindness. 

     That is what the Constitution says, and the first statement of
purpose ( to work toward the prevention of blindness ) and the last
( to provide an international forum for the exchange of knowledge
and experience in the field of blindness ) are clear and
unmistakable. But what about the rest of it in some ways the very
heart and soul of it?

     No one would minimize the importance of preventing blindness,
but this is largely a medical problem; and the World Blind Union
will not (and, indeed, should not) ever be the prime mover in this
area. As to providing  an international forum for the exchange of
knowledge and experience in the field of blindness,  that is
certainly important, but in and of itself it is not enough. It is
a means rather than an end. If we are to get at the real problem of
blindness, we must (as our Constitution says) find a way to advance
the well-being of blind and visually impaired people by equalizing
their opportunities; helping them achieve full participation in
society; and making it possible for them to have self-respect,
self-awareness, and a sense of responsibility.

     But how shall we do it? First of all, we must be (and,
moreover, must regard ourselves as being) an organization of
equals. This means that the primary purpose of the World Blind
Union cannot be merely to serve as a vehicle for channeling money
from those who have it to those who don't. It will be easy for me
to be misunderstood on this point, for it is a sensitive area. I am
not saying that the members of a family should not share what they
have with each other; nor am I saying that the blind of the world
should not regard themselves as a family, for they should. Rather,
I am saying that the members of a family should first be members of
the family and that as a consequence sharing should follow and not
just sharing of material things but also of spiritual and
intellectual things as well. It cannot be the other way around. We
cannot (because of urgent need, feelings of guilt, superiority, or
a sense of duty) create an organization for the primary purpose of
the one-way flow of money from more fortunate to less fortunate
people. We cannot because it will be detrimental to both the givers
and the receivers, because it will create acrimony instead of
harmony, and because it will not lead to a permanent solution of
the problem. Moreover, if the giving of money is the primary
purpose and everything else is incidental, there are better and
more effective ways of doing it than through the World Blind Union.

     If we are to succeed in our efforts, we must carry out the
purpose clause of our Constitution. We must help the blind of the
world achieve equality of opportunity, self-awareness, and
self-respect. Of course, this necessarily means the provision of
resources (more resources than have ever before been provided); but
it means more than that. It means opportunity as a matter of right,
not charity; and it means opportunity stimulated and provided from
within each country as well as from external sources. It means that
we who are blind must be members of a family (equals), sharing and
working throughout the world in a common effort for the salvation
of each other, and the salvation of all of us. It means action, not
just words. It means recognition of the fact that we who are blind
are brothers and sisters facing a common problem, which requires a
common solution achieved through joint action.

     There is something else. We must not try to impose our own
political systems or cultural values upon each other. Societal
norms are different in almost every part of the world, and if we
wish to change them, this is not the forum for doing it. Instead,
we must strive to see that the blind of every country have the same
opportunity, economic base, social recognition, and civic
responsibility as others in their culture. This means more than
money, but it means that, too.

     If we are to deal with each other as equals and work together
to solve our problems, we must understand that those problems are
essentially the same for all of us whether we live in the East or
the West, the industrialized or the unindustrialized, the developed
or the underdeveloped countries. There are, of course, individuals
who are exceptions; but as a general rule, the blind of every
nation on earth (the most developed as well as the least developed)
are when compared with others in their culture economically and
socially disadvantaged.

     So what must we do as a World Blind Union? How shall we
achieve our objectives of equal opportunity and first-class status?
For answer let me call on the experience of the organization I
represent. When Dr. Jacobus tenBroek and those who joined with him
organized the National Federation of the Blind of the United States
in 1940, they did what every minority does on its road to freedom.
They shifted emphasis from the few to the many, from enhancement to
basics. In our country in the pre-1940 era those who thought about
blindness at all (the blind as well as the sighted) put their major
effort into helping the gifted and promoting the exceptional. We of
the National Federation of the Blind took a different course. We
started with the premise that until there are food, decent
clothing, and adequate shelter, there can be no meaningful
rehabilitation, real opportunity, or human dignity. It was not that
the few or the superior were to be neglected but rather a
recognition that none can be free as long as any are enslaved. The
Federation's top priority in the early 1940s was to get (not as
charity but as a right) sufficient governmental assistance to
provide a basic standard of living for the blind who had no way to
provide for themselves.

     There was something else: The Federation said that the blind
had the right to speak for themselves through their own
organization and that no other group or individual (regardless of
how well-intentioned) could do it for us whether public agency,
private charity, blind person prominent in the community, or blind
person heading an agency. The right was exclusive, and only those
elected by the blind could speak for the blind. The test was not
blindness, and it was not connection with an agency. Instead, it
was self-determination. That is what the National Federation of the
Blind of the United States stood for in 1940; that is what it
stands for today; and that is what I believe the World Blind Union
must stand for, now and in the years to come. The blind of the
world are a distinguishable minority with identifiable problems
which can only be solved through collective action. Therefore, the
blind must have the right of self-determination, the right to speak
for themselves with their own voice.

     It is true that the World Blind Union not only consists of
organizations of the blind but also organizations and agencies for
the blind, but it is also true that many of these organizations and
agencies for the blind are controlled by the blind and that their
leaders are chosen by the blind. We must deal with substance
instead of form, reality instead of shadow, and fact instead of
terminology. The World Blind Union must either be truly
representative of the will of the blind themselves, or it cannot
long survive. That is not to say that we should not have sighted
members or agency members representing only themselves or their
programs. Rather, it is to say that the organization must be
controlled by the blind and representative of the blind. This can
be determined not only by its structure but also by its programs
and behavior.

     If the World Blind Union is to be meaningful, it must deal
with basics. It must address the needs of both body and soul. We
who are blind are like all of the rest. When we are hungry, we want
to eat; and until that need is satisfied, we have difficulty
thinking about very much else. But food is not enough. As I have
said, we are like all of the rest. After we have eaten, we want
meaningful jobs and useful occupation just like the rest. And after
food and jobs, we want equal participation and human dignity just
like the rest.

     The blind of the world have waited long, but the waiting must
now end. Yesterday and tomorrow meet in this present time, and we
who are assembled here in Madrid (we who are blind and those of you
who are sighted and have committed yourselves to work with us) have
an unavoidable responsibility and an unparalleled opportunity. What
we do in this Second General Assembly will have consequences for
decades to come. Our task will not be easy, but we must make this
organization succeed. The stakes are too high and the alternatives
too unacceptable to allow it to be otherwise. If we fail to meet
the challenge, the present favorable circumstances may not come
again for another generation.

     If the blind of the world are to have meaningful opportunity
and if discrimination is successfully to be resisted, we must have
a world mechanism to focus the energy and muster the resources to
make it happen, and the World Blind Union is the only mechanism we
have. To build another would be difficult at best. If all of us who
are here today come to the task with good faith, true commitment,
and real determination, tomorrow will be bright with promise. Let
us put the past behind us and work together to make it come true.

     