Category: the Rant Board
LL's recent post here brings up an interesting topic. Now, in this question, I'm just talking about regular blind folks, not public representatives or professionals and the like. How responsible are we as blind people for how all blind people look? There are those who think we are responsible for how we individuals look but not for the group. There are others who say we ahve to be super-perfect and be representatives for the whole group since many believe if you've seen one of us, you've seen all of us. I'm more the relax-and-be-yourself type, although I'm sure that may not work for everybody depending on your philosophy of blindness. So what do you think?
Labyrynth I don't think I'm advocating that blind people be the model of perfection just because we are blind, and I apologise if I give this impression. David blunkett says that being blind, he has no alternative but to be discourteous when people are boring him at receptions and he wants to get rid of them. Now, David Blunkett is a high profile representative of the blind community, like it or not. ask the average guy on the street in britain whether he knows of any blind person, and unless he or she has blind friends, they'll most likely say David Blunkett. In short, what Mr Blunkett says that specifically relates to his blindness will, I'm afraid, be taken as representative of the group by a large number of people. This phenomenon isn't just combined to blind people, and perhaps it wil make the point better if I give two further examples: first, imagine a senior judge who, in open court, asks 'Who, or what, are the rolling stones?' Now, it doesn't matter how brilliant the other members of the judiciary are, the headlines in the newspapers the following day will runn along the lines of 'judges live in last century, out of touch judiciary have power to send you to prison' etc. In short, his sentiments will engender prejudices in the general public that are unjustified. Now let me give you a real example: in 1980, the outgoing metropolitan police commissioner wrote in the American Police Journal, and I quote, "In the Jamaicans, you have a people who are constitutionally disorderly". Nobody agreed with this view, and the police over here were very quick to distance themselves from it, but it was taken to represent that the police were racists, particularly amongst the black community to whom the police were a bit of an unknown factor, a bit like blind people to the sighted. The bottom line is this: we all have prejudicees, like it or not, and we all have unknown factors. some people will take a view as representing the whole of the community if it is expressed by a high profile figure and if they know too little about the community to have anything more than a notion of how its members interact. So I agree, Labyrynth, be yourself, but I'm afraid that what Mr Blunkett has said is in effect using his blindness as an excuse to behave like a savage, and like it or not, those people who don't know what the right thing to say to blind people is anyway, and who feel embarrassment about asking things like 'Do you watch, no sorry, I mean, listen to the television?' are those most likely to form concretised conceptions about how we blind people behave when reading the pearls of wisdom of a high profile blind man.
I apologise for the length of the last post, by the way.
Lawlord, I'm afraid what you describe is exactly the way things work. What suprises me is how nonchalant you seem to be about it. Doesn't it seen incredibly unfair to you, gut-wrenchingly unfair, in fact, that every time you step out of your apartment, every time you open your mouth, every time you put on a piece of clothing, you are taken to represent a community that, it could be argued, doesn't exist as such, but is merely a jumbled group of individuals? Perhaps it's immature of me, but I tend to still get mad at things, even if they are unchangeable. I believe that acknowledgement in itself is a reaction.
Man, LL, I'm not going to punish you for writing long messages, so no worries there. Next, the way I see it, I represent myself and that's about it. Yes, I understand that in some people's minds I represent all blind folks, but I didn't ask them to do so and can not do much if those folks have their minds made up. Now, this is not saying that I can just be impolite or act irresponsible or such. That's just common courtesy.
Labyrynth I think we're in agreement on courtesy, for after all, Mr Blunkett seems to claim a right to be discourteous in his autobiography as reported in The Telegraph. Susanne, I'm afraid that gut-wrengchingly unfair though it may seem, it's the way of the world and it isn't just for blind people either. If you're a priest, a lawyer, a journalist, your are a member of that profession/community, and if you step out of line it reflects very badly on the rest of them. The most obvious example is politicians who are sleazey or fraudulent, things like that tend to reflect on the whole profession. Now, as to your idea that the blind community doesn't necessarily exist I'm afraid I have to disagree with you: we are, in fact, a minority group and you jully well have to get used to that. That doesn't mean, as you seem to portray, that every time you step out of your house etc. and every time you're opening your mouth your actions are scrutinised, that would be nonsense and I don't think I've ever argued that. What I'm arguing is in a nutshell this: if a person as a high profile member of a minority or small or unique profession such as the priesthood makes a statement such as 'being blind, the only way I can get rid of people I don't want to talk to is by being rude to them', that runs a very great risk of crystallising certain prejudices which, like it or not, exist. It's better I think not to get upset and stamp your feet about all these things, but instead to accept them and try and do something constructive to change them. David Blunkett is doing anything but.
And another thing: You know, labyrynth, when I first saw this discussion title I thought that it was about shopping centres, because they do say that once you've seen one shopping centre, you've seen 'em all.....or is it that once you've seen one shopping centre, you've seen a mall?
Um, not sure if I was supposed to ignore the pun or what? Hahahahahaha, kidding with ya, LL. Anyhow, to make another point, I don't really feel like I'm being scrutinized as I am out and about. I'm just being myself and doing my thing and living life. But if I had the chance to be in the public eye or be famous, I think I would refuse. For one thing, some of my ideas about life and all would not sit well with most people. No, nothing radical, but people prefer idealism and feel-good words to realism and flippant, sarcastic cynicism. I would have to know who and what I could criticize safely and who and what I could not. No thank you.
to quote Spiderman "with great power comes great responsibility", being a high profile member of any group usually is rewarded financially or otherwise but it also has it sresponsibilities. We often use famous actors, sports people, musicians etc as role models, something I am sure they never really asked to be but having chosen the life style / profession they have it can't be avoided. It's really similar with the blind thing, the most famous blind people are remembered (just take "Ray" the movie as an example). I feel they have the responsibility to try and create a positive or at least realistic image of what a blind person is and is not, whether they like it or not. People stereo type, they always have and they always will and they base their stereo typing on what little they know about the group they are stereo typing. It's really up to you whether you want to affect or change that image in people's minds, of course once someone gets to know you as a person you should be able to set them straight about what you are and what you represent but at first they have to go by what little they know.
I still wonder how much this particular comment of the not-so-compitent home secretary is going to change the perception of the blind, I think we might pick up on this comment more than a lot of people because we are looking for quotes related to blindness (but of course I don't know). My thinking is that it won't really make much of a difference and certainly not over here since no one's really following what's happening outside the country, unless it were in Iraq of course and the word "home secretary" will sound foreign to most people. Yes, I generally agree with LL that mr Blunket is in no way improving our image in the public eye. I can't see it affecting me directly and hope that people concentrate on the big picture and his wrong doings regarding his personal affairs and abuse of power rather than a comment in his autobiography, but you never know.
Cheers
-B
I'd agree with you Wildebrew that we might be making too much of this quote were it not for the fact that, in general, Blunkett's biography dwells too much on the deprivations he has suffered, and doesn't concentrate on his achievements. I know that many blind people in britain to whom I have talked, as well as a lot of my friends from law school who read the telegraph over the weekend, were very shocked by this nonsense. The Americans should, of course, be very interested in the Kimberley Quinn affair, especially as the latest allegation is that M rBlunkett is in the habit of revealing information that is supposedly top security information on security at US airports to Mrs Quinn. So if he's told her about US security, then who else?
Yes, indeed, that sounds awful. I really hope the man will be sacked with all undue respect. :)
I used to enjoy the www.blindkiss.com talk shows .. the fact I"m bringing them up is because they are by UK blindies and the tone of the dicussions clearly indicates that Blunket is not your favorite blind person type of guy. It seems he is arrogant and hardly ever smiles and now, it appears, not only does he use his blindness as an excuse for unacceptible behavior but tries to even elicit sympathy becuase of that, and that is a complete taboo in my mind.
Indeed yes, there is all that about his temper, his rudeness, his capitalising on his disability when it suits him, his arrogance, plus the fact that when he was education secretary in 1997 he voted to put tax on certain braille products as well as white sticks, which makes it more expensive for certain companies, who are not eligible for discounts, to buy them. It is estimated that the cost of braille volumes has gone up threefold.
Well, as for affecting change, I'd say just approach it realistically. Don't expect to change everybody quickly or instantly. You might find a few people who will start ridding themselves of the old ideas, but you'll find others who are pleased as punch to hold onto the old ideas. It's about picking your battles I suppose.
But oonly affect change where change is necessary is the corollary of what you say, Labyrynth. Modern is not always better.
Huh? Are you agreeing or disagreeing. I'm not going to argue either way, as I'm not prepared to.
I'm not at all sure to be honest as since that shopping centre joke I posted above I've not been able to argue coherently on this topic as I can't take it seriously! All my fault I suppose, and I'm sorry if I've ruined a seirous discussion Labyrynth with this behaviour. Sorry what was the question again?
Now it's jokes LL whatever next!! Frey.
I agree with a lot of people on here who say that what David did was wrong. I also agree that it may infact people's views on the blind comunity. I do agree with ll in that we are a omunity, and we do get stariotyped a lot. I think it's silly, but what can ya do about it. I also think that when people do see us in the public eye, that we should give a good example of ourselves because unfortunately others look at one of us, and judge the rest. I've been a victum of that. There was a girl who worked at a call center who called an other blind person, and that blind person was really rude to her, and she had told a friend of mine that she hated blind people and thought we were all needy just because of that. Luckely my friend talked to her, and introduced me, and she learned otherwise.
LL, methinks you apologize too much. Hahahahahaha. Don't worry about it. Now, I'm curious. What makes us a community?
Well, Labyrynth, that depends what you define as a community. I suppose you could say we are a minority group bound together by a common feature unique to our minority group and not possessed by others. A community, of course, doesn't require that all the members know each other, or interact, or anything of that nature. Police talk about the black community, the Muslim community, so the blind community doesn't seem that odd.
Yes, of course, if a community is defined as a group of people who have a specific characteristic in common, then there is such a thing as 'the blind community'. But, then, there is also the community of red-haired people, and the community of those who were born on the 17th of the month, or the community of those who woke up at exactly 5:38 am this morning. The point is, I'm not really sure if such a minimalistic understanding of 'community' is really meaningful. Personally, I think a bit more is required for a genuine community, such as a number of shared interests, or attitudes, or concerns, or a certain sense of, well, community. Of course, this still doesn't answer the question of whether or not there is such a thing as 'the blind community', and I certainly am not the person to answer this, or even take a stand on it. But it might help to develop a criterion according to which the question can be evaluated.
Yes, of course, if a community is defined as a group of people who have a specific characteristic in common, then there is such a thing as 'the blind community'. But, then, there is also the community of red-haired people, and the community of those who were born on the 17th of the month, or the community of those who woke up at exactly 5:38 am this morning. The point is, I'm not really sure if such a minimalistic understanding of 'community' is really meaningful. Personally, I think a bit more is required for a genuine community, such as a number of shared interests, or attitudes, or concerns, or a certain sense of, well, community. Of course, this still doesn't answer the question of whether or not there is such a thing as 'the blind community', and I certainly am not the person to answer this, or even take a stand on it. But it might help to develop a criterion according to which the question can be evaluated.
Susanne, you've already shown yourself to be familiar with philosophy in quicknotes, so you'll know of course that the traditions of Aristotle and aquinas, as formulated in the theory of natural law's most recent exposition by John finnis, state two fundamental propositions: first, a community is defined by more than a shared physical characteristic as you say, and as I believe I acknowledged above. second, there is no one size fits all approach as I believe you are seeking, and instead, it is more constructive to form the central case of community i.e. the purist form of community, against which other communities would be judged. So, let's do this and assess where the blind community would be after this assessment: the purest form of commmunity, let's say, is where the members voluntarily join together for a common purpose or in furtherance of common goals, with common shared interests. Taht may not be an accurate formulation, but it will do. Now, what aobut the blind community? WE share a physical characteristic yes, but it goes beyond that of course in that we share certain interests, co-ordination problems, issues that are pertinent to us are not pertinent to those outwith the community. So, the voluntary element is perhaps the only one that's missing, so we can conclude that the blind community is more cose to the central case of community. It is by no means a peripheral case such as the Viking community in York might be said to be due to the thousand years or so since the Viking invasion. So, Susanne, your suggestion of a red-haired community is not on point unless having red hair leads to a set of common goals, interests and problems. If there is such a thing as a red-haired community, then from a philosopical standpoint it is so peripheral, so far removed from the central case we have identified above, that we can at best describe it as a corrupt misuse of the concept of community.
Exactly! That was meant to be my point, I apologize if I didn’t express it very clearly: a shared physical attribute alone is not enough to make a community in any meaningful sense. Common concerns, goals, and perhaps attitudes are required. Now the question becomes how many of these concerns, and to what extent, must be shared for a group to qualify as a community.
On a different note, I’m not sure what you mean by saying that I seem to be looking for a one-size-fits-all approach. Could you explain, please? The one way I can make sense of this statement is to assume that you are referring to my aim to define principles in isolation, as opposed to relying on the data of reality. Is that what you meant? I think my confusion might stem from the fact that I feel that at this point I’m not defending a coherent or cohesive theory of any kind, but am merely trying to keep track of an assortment of unrelated, and perhaps ‘unrelateable’, comments I made at some point or other.
That may well be what you are trying to do, Susanne, but that wasn't what I meant actually. I was referring to your quest for a definition of community, your reference to a criterion against which eveyrthing could be evaluated. However, as the theory of natural law espoused by John Finnis shows, it is necessary to explain what you mean by a definition first, and it is actually my contention that 'community' cannot really be defined. My view is in fact that the lbind community is a fairly strong form oc community, close to the central case of community as I said before.
Okay... I see your point, I think. What you're saying, then, is that there isn't one criterion for community-hood (community-ship? :-)), but it's rather like 'family resemblance' (as defined by Wittgenstein, since we're throwing around names :-)), i.e. there are a bunch of characteristics that communities tend to have, and every community must have a certain set of them to qualify as such, but must not have them all.
Interesting... I can live with that.
Here's my opinion: Blind people are given a bad name by people who have maybe seen one blind person doing something considered weird or abnormal, such as rocking back and forth, or some other so-called blindism. My vision teacher and I read an article on how blind people often grow up with bad habits, but are never stopped by parents or other adults because they hesitate to approach us. As a side note, my environmental science teacher last quarter didnt want to say the word "blind" or even "disabled" it seemed, so she called me "less fortunate." I couldnt really understand it. But anyways, this article described the many social drawbacks of having these so-called blindisms. Also it stated that job interviewers, if they such such traits in their future employees at the job interview, were less likely to hire the prson. It concluded by saying that, as little kids, blind people should be discouraged from any bad habits they have, as they tend to persist longer than sighted childresn's habits. This might be because as little kids, blind people are kind of oblivious and think that if they cant see anything, then no one can see them either...Just a thought.
What in the name of bloody hell, as Victor Meldrew used to say, is a vision teacher? it sounds like one of those stupid politically correct names the shit Labour government gives to someone they've massaged out of the unemployment statistics by putting them on a voluntary work scheme. I mean, if you can't see, surely you can't be taught to see again? Think I'd better get hold of one of these vision teachers myself, how much do they cost? AS for bad habits in children, a lot of kids these days are disrespectful ruffians and develop bad habits and I think it's important to dispel those, whether the kid is sighted or not. However, I do agree about so-called 'blindisms' and I wouldn't employ someone with them.
drown them in the sea, that's all they're good for. Or if you're not near the coast, a river will do.
LL Niblet is American is he not? Therefore I believe his 'vision teacher' has nothing to do with Tony and his brilliant and effective Labour government....I've said it before and I'll say it again TP of the P is in the E and dear old Michael has not and I believe will not ever have a chance to see what a shit Conservative government he can muster eh? And just whom are you proposing to throw in the sea? Frey.
Less fortunate? Now that's just wrong. I'd rather be called blind. Less fortunate seems a bit condescending and assumes superiority of those with all senses intact, or am I reading way way too much into things? Shame the poor teacher couldn't say the word blind. Did they think they were respecting you by not using that word, or is there a deep-down fear of loss of sight by that individual? Sometimes, light-dependent folk puzzle me.
It's fear of offending you/hurting your feelings by using the b-word. You know, just in case you haven't noticed you can't see, no one wants to be the one to tell ya ... hehe. Light-dependent folk? I like that :-).
Oh, that's what people say, but you have to wonder. I'm also aware that many light-dependent folk fear going blind, so perhaps they avoid the word because of the concept. Also, so waht if I'm offended? Will that cause permanent damage? Will it make me die or disappear? What will really happen?
No, no, I think it's true, that is why people avoid the word (of course that's only an impression, coming from one of those light-dependent folk :-)). I don't think it's so much that sighties fear losing their sight but that the concept of blindness, even when not applied to themselves, seems to many to be such an overwhelmingly horrific thing that they simply cannot imagine that it might be possible for a blind person not to break down in tears if their blindness is mentioned. As for the fear of offense... perhaps it's not just that they're affraid of offending you, but also of the awkward situation that would be created if indeed you got offended, for themselves as much as for you.
Susanne, some good points there. But on the subject of offence, if I et offended by something, isn't it partly my fault for being offended in the first place and I should perhaps relax a bit more?
Now then now then, on that point, Sir, as we say in the debating chambers where the Lawlord has spent today, I do believe that Susanne has hit the nail on the head. it's all down to misguided politically correct claptrap. Drown them in the sea as well, all those who advocate this nonsense. And when the sea is full, drown them in lakes and rivers.
Must agree about the whole PC mentality or lack of it. "All it seems to ahve done, despite its intent, is to make people even more afraid.
Exactly, Labyrynth, it's the same woolly-minded misguided souls who say we shouldn't mention the C word as it's too offensive. no, not that C word! One-track minds some people! i meant Christmas!