Category: Let's talk
I've never felt the need to be involved with any blind groups such as NFB or ACB. But I'm curious to know some key differences between the two groups. I'm sure there's another thread where allegiances to one or the other group is claimed. Please, I'd just like to learn the differences and similarities between them. If anyone's curious to learn why I'm interested, I'm not sure why, I just am.
You could check out the graffiti board on this topic; I've never read it, but it does exist.
Someone remind me and I'll attempt to make a post about this issue if it's still an active one, preferrably after convention. :)
Hi, BLW. This question is a good one, but almost impossible to answer without any kind of bias, no matter how neutral a person may try to make it. For example, my answer would very likely be different from someone who is a member of the ACB. Let me think how to answer this, and I may post again. It will take some thinking, especially to phrase things in as unbiased a manner as I can.
SD said what I also meant to, and better than I probably would have.
it's about like asking what's the difference between the republicans and democrats. Either side will tell you why they are right and the other side is wrong. then in front of the cameras they will put on this face of working together. But I don't even think the blindness consumer groups go that far.
Yeah, I know. Now, would someone please elaborate on the differences/commonalities Lol.
I am a part of the NFB and I can tell you only what I have heard with sadly no proof to back it up:
The NFB seems to be far more conservative philosophy when it comes to blindness. We seem to push the idea that one blind person represents the whole community. I'm guessing the ACB is more open-minded. Am I way off? If I am, somebody shed some light.
Yes, Margorp, I personally feel you are off on that one. I don't think that's a belief perpetuated by the Federation by any means. I think it is often the case, but I thought that a long, long time before I knew anything of the NFB. And, no, generally NFB and ACB do not put on a face of trying to work together. Why bother? There are times when the two do work together, when they agree on a specific issue, but it is rare.
I will attempt to answer your question, at least in part, Brenda, and attempt to be fair about it, though as an NFB member, my bias will show.
I believe that both organizations truly do want to better the lives of blind people. However, they have very different ideas of what that means, and of how to go about it. NFB seems to believe that we adapt to the sighted world in so far as we can, rather than them adapting to us. Yes, adaptations have to be made, but I think the NFB basically says only when necessary. ACB, to my knowledge, believes that a ton more things need to be adapted for us. For example, all movies in DVS, audible traffic signals at every lighted intersection in the US, that kind of thing. NFB is not against DVS, or all audible traffic signals, as the misconception would say. They just do not believe they are needed all the time.
NFB, from my experience, is usually more proactive: lobbying the government for various legislation that could help the blind, starting programs for a variety of age groups and issues, and so forth. See things like Newsline, the science camps for blind youth, that kind of thing. ACB tends to be more reactive, particularly to anything that NFB does. I would say the most proactive thing ACB has done recently was to sue the US Treasury to make currency accessible. I agreed with them on that one, actually.
NFB is certainly bigger, and I think has more young people in it. Do you know about how the ACB was started? It was a split-off organization from the NFB, hence why there is such a blood feud between the two groups. I know their ideals are different, and I understand why they do not work together most of the time. However, I think a lot of the nastiness you see on either side is not called for.
On the flip side of this, an ACB member would very likely tell you that the Federation is far too radical, militant, etc. Sometimes it can be, I won't deny that. But sometimes that strength of opinion is needed. A council member may say that the Federation is an elitist organization, but I don't believe that, either. Go to any convention, and you'll see blind people of all different backgrounds, skill levels, visual acuity, and much more there.
Those are just a couple differences off the top of my head. I may have more later.
Ah but as an n f b member I can say that the federation does tend to get way to up on their high horse on things. I guess one way to really learn the difference is look on the web and decide for yourself because now I am confused. Lol.
Yes, Margorp, sometimes they can. I have to admit that I neither like nor respect many of our national leadership. However, I do agree with the vast majority of the things the Federation stands for, which is why I am a part of it. No organization or group is perfect, be it blindness or otherwise. I don't think someone will find a group that they agree with absolutely everything on. I like working with my state and local affiliate on things, and get involved in the national stuff I agree with.
I still wonder why we have both? Are the philosophies that different?
I would say very much so. At least from everything I've read, and that includes literature from both organizations, and talking to members of both. They are also run completely differently.
Interesting.
As a non-member of each, I'd say try and look at the modern accomplishments of each and see what you think then. Also, to be involved in one, I think you have to have an interest in politics on some level. For me, being involved in something volunteer is doing something tangible, so I can't really stick it to any organization, NFB, ACB or otherwise, if that's not what they do. If you're interested in some form of activism and the like, you'd probably be fine with whichever one agrees with most of how you think.
Perhaps, I'd like to compare the literature. I'll bet it's quite simelar.
I don't think the literature is all that similar on anything but the surface. But. Form your own opinions.
I don't belong to either, because like you BLW I just don't have a need. Sister Dawn has actually done a great job of stating the different from what I can tell by going to meetings of both and talking to members of both and reading the websites. No group human run will have unity, so that is why we have both. Both have their good and bad points, and I'm stuck in the middle where as I don't think everything need be made accessible, and I also don't believe that blind people are able to be or do anything. We are varied in your life styles, upbrings, financial abilities, famlies and such, so we like any other people will be different and have less or greater advantages. Example a blind person dones't need ever cross walk with a sounding signal, but on the other hand a blind person can be say a pilot, but would you fly with them? Smile. Both do a world of good for the blind, and they receive much support, so I say let them roll.
And I must say that I found the sound signal to be garbled and rediculous.
I have a question, and perhaps someone more familiar with the nfb can answer. Is there any reason as to why there have only been about three presidents over the past seventy years? what of opposing viewpoints? are they welcomed? at convention, I also noticed a lot of religious under-pinnings; can anyone from the ACB comment as to that being the case there as well? Canada's a pretty secular country, so unless a group of people is gathering for a religious purpose, prayers/god/faith issues usually aren't really mentionned.
Oh, and does the ACB also have people get up on stage at convention and give testimonials?
My best guess would be that they do sinse both organizations push the blind community mombo-jumbo.
most political organizations have testimonials. Generally these are statements that support whatever the going thing is, and consequently I think it's how you look at such stories.
To me it's hard to believe, I'd rather look at the data and arrive at my own conclusions, but I have close family who are taken with these things in various scenarios and I've learned over the years it doesn't make them shallow. They're only useful to you if you gain anything that way.
As to the religious underpinnings, I don't know how far they go or anything, but many gatherings of organizations can have an invocation or blessing which you could call monotheistic genaric. There was one when I went to Division meeting for the Coast Guard Auxiliary last week. That was one event among many things in the meeting. I don't know what will change at least in the Military, as Wicca is now an officially-sanctioned religion for U.S. forces meaning Wiccans get their own priests or religious leaders so I don't know how that will change things over the years.
The NFB of course isn't bound by American tradition or custom, but many private organizations take the Military's and government's lead on these types of issues in our country. Hence the common use of Robert's Rules of Order. You'd have to get comment from an NFB-er on their specifics. Think what one will about various traditions, but it may be they're following standard parliamentary and military procedure.
So who is really in charge? Is there a blind "think tank" that both the nfb and acb must follow?