From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: "Blind Loyalty"
Date: 31 Jul 92 04:36:30 GMT
Reply-To: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 23457

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to Mike Freeman <15 Jul 92 21:06> Jamal Mazrui wrote:

 JM> Hi Mike!  I am impressed with the
 JM> thought and articulation you express in
 JM> this echo.  I mean that sincerely.  It is ironic that the
 JM> the NFB administration you so fervently defend is likely
 JM> to be the very one that turns on you at some point in the
 JM> future because you thought too much for yourself and
 JM> developed some following because of your persuasiveness.

Hi, Jamal!  I appreciate and thank you for the compliments.  It is my
contention that NFB philosophy and policies, if explained with lucidity,
will speak for themselves.

My purpose in the Federation is not to build up political capital for
protection against future disagreements with NFB leadership.  Remember,
I elect them, not them me.  My purpose is to do what I can to aid the
struggle of the blind to gain first-class status and full integration
into society.

[Material deleted]

 JM> By the way, why don't you show us how free thinking you
 JM> really are and tell us about some specific significant
 JM> issues with which you disagree with Jernigan.

Requests such as this are an interesting phenomenon.  One would never
say to a loyal Republican or Democrat:  "Show me that you're an
independent thinker by naming several issues of your party's platform
with which you disagree."  One presumes that Democrats and Republicans
think for themselves.  Yet because a person is known to be in the
National Federation of the Blind, many people (especially those who have
no love lost for the NFB) presume that he/she cannot or does not think
for himself/herself.  Why should members of the NFB be subjected to a
standard which differs so markedly from that applied to members of other
organizations?

Consider also the implication of your request.  You presume that if I
agree with Dr. Jernigan (or other Federation leaders, for that matter)
that I have not arrived at my views on my own.  This demonstrates faulty
logic.  Assume, for example, that I came up with a policy that the NFB
leadership thought had merit.  We would be, by definition, in agreement.
Yet would I not have thought for myself?  After all, I was the one who
(we are assuming) proposed the policy in the first place.  Hence, the
implied assumption in your request is not universally valid.

Finally, I observe that in days of yore, i.e., before the National
Inquirer, People Magazine and A Current Affair, squabbles within
families were, for the most part, not considered fit subjects to be
aired in public.  I deem it appropriate to apply this same ethic to any
disagreements which I might have with others in the Federation.

Regards,

Mike Freeman
... *The National Federation of the Blind is changing what it means to be blind.*
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org