From: Carla.Campbell@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Carla Campbell)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: nfb bbs censorship??
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:02:49 GMT
Reply-To: Carla.Campbell@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:129/89.0 - BlinkLink, Pittsburgh PA
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 23319

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

First, let me say thanks for responding to my question, rather than to
my politics. I appreciate the articulate response and your ideas on the
subject.

 MF> negative hoopla in the article was adduced without proof but
 MF> was done skillfully enough that someone not thoroughly
 MF> acquainted with the events described in passing wouldn't know
 MF> it.  Although we could refute the article, point by point,

Nah-- what I had in mind when I wrote that I was surprised the article
was not left for "internal debate" on the NFB BBS was not that you or
your organization would want to refute it point-by-point, but more that
it might feed discussion on how to counter (positively, not by refuting
this particular article) what NFB members say are misperceptions of the
organization.  Seems to me that a group concerned with the image of
blind people ought, also, to be able (and interested in) promoting its
own organizational image to potential members as well as to the
government, airlines and television networks.  I merely thought that a
careful study of the way the organization is percieved by some (whether
the perception is eronious or not) might serve the NFB well. Knowing thy
enemy and all that stuff.

But then, I have heard from a number of members and ex-members, alike,
that "internal debate" runs a bit against the grain.  I think that's a
shame, since, if incorporated and sanctioned, it often makes a structure
stronger, while it can only weaken if done covertly.

To use your Voice of America Analogy, I know that, while the VOA did not
broadcast from Moscow, the Soviet government certainly listened and
discussed its broadcasts internally, because they felt it to be in their
best interests to know what the Soviet population was hearing about
them.  They then ran carefully-scripted "counter reports" on their own,
domestic radio programs to make the VOA broadcasts seem absurd (which
most of them were, in their extremeism)  Of course, these
carefully-scripted "counter broadcasts" were equally absurd in their
extremism, and did not serve the Soviet government very well.  True or
not, the VOA and other images of the outside world did lead the Soviet
people to question their leadership.  One perspective was as absurd as
the other, but the "covert" nature of the Voice broadcasts lent them
undue credibility in the minds of the Soviet population.
Re-transmitting VOA programming from Moscow might not have been such a
bad investment for the Soveit government as it might seem...

Secondly, were *I* an NFB member who knew what in that article was true
and what was not, I would have a good old time parodying it and
chortling about it in the company of my fellow Federationists.  But my
idea of humor has gotten me in trouble before, and I suspect it would in
this instance, as well. ;-)

The Soviets also undervalued the power of humor.  It is absolutely
astounding how many groups and organizations undervalue the power of
humor.  A good situation comedy about the Voice of America and the
people who probably broadcast it would probably have gone a lot further
than fifty news "counter broadcasts."  It would definitely have done
more to bolster internal morale than self-righteousness ever could.

But back on topic... you are correct: the article is available to any
NFB-Net users who want it, if they dial another number somewhere to pick
it up.  That is, as I noted in my first post on the matter, why I don't
consider this to be a "free speech issue" at all.  I do not question the
*right* of the operators of the system to remove the article.  I don't
even question the *ethics* of it.  I merely speculate on the probable
loss of opportunity for self-examination and, well, a bit of fun.  sure,
people can still talk about the article, having read it elsewhere, but
somehow I doubt it's happening in a constructive or entertaining vein if
it's happening at all.  the removal of the article is bound to have had
a chilling effect on any such discussion.

I beg your pardon if this seems exceptionally "anti-NFB."  It is
intended constructively, albeit criticism.  Often, it *appears* (from
the outside) that the NFB is too concerned with how it comes off to
sighted people to worry about selling its philosophies to the rest
(majority) of the blind population.  And I do mean "selling"-- not
preaching.

Most of us, after all, belong to no organization for the blind.  For
many of us, it is not "laziness" or "disinterest" which keeps us
unaffiliated, but the belief that no existing organization of the blind
represents our views and needs and because we feel that too much energy
is used up on petty politics within the existing organizations.  I know
that I do not feel that my right to have differing opinions on some
matters and to act on those opinions would be respected, were I to join.
(I don't belong to a church, either-- I have yet to find one which
promotes my particular view of the Universe or which tolerates my being
vocal on that which they do not promote.) Since I do not see eye to eye
on each and every issue, and would not be untrue to my beliefs by being
silent, I doubt that I would be welcome. Likewise with many people, I
imagine.  Without intending it to sound self-important, I think,
collectively, it's the loss of the organizations who cannot harness our
enthusiasm on *some* issues.

Maybe none of these things are true, but until one of the organizations
actively *cares* what we think, I think there will remain many of us out
here who could be contributing energy to the NFB or some other
organization who can't be bothered to give it the time of day any more
than it can be bothered with what we think or believe.

Sure, NFB'ers know about the ACB's stance on them, but do you really
know about (or care about)the perception of the NFB amongst we, the
non-alligned blind population?  Articles like "Blind Loyalty" do
contribute to our perception of the NFB, and, for that reason, alone,
ought to warrant calm, rational counter-discussion.  Perhaps you truly
believe no one is listening.  I'm here to tell you that ain't so.  Some
of us are watching closely, hoping to see what we're looking for some
day-- in the NFB or anywhere else.

                                                 --Carla

... Read what I mean, not what I write!

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89.0!Carla.Campbell
Internet: Carla.Campbell@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org