[visionrehabtherapist] Re: A people-first language question
- From: "Brink-Chaney, Marcie (DELEG)" <brink-chaneym@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <Maduffy@xxxxxxx>, <visionrehabtherapist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:30:56 -0400
I am aware of the reasons for people first language. But, logically, we
have to take people from where they are to a higher level of awareness
and understanding. For example, if someone has never kept a house clean
very well and that person has a vision loss, you have to take them from
where they are and actually teach them skills of cleaning, not just
using techniques of doing cleaning using limited vision or no vision.
You can't assume that this person knows how to clean a surface or that
it is necessary to clean a particular surface. So I'm saying that we
start where people are by using the phrase "the blind." Then, after you
reach them, help them understand that the person is more important than
a characteristic or a lack of some physical ability. Reach them and then
educate them.
If you think about people who are deaf, I gather that those individuals
would not be very thrilled to be called people who are deaf because they
perceive deafness as a culture not a disability. That presents an
interesting question. Could blindness be considered a culture by some of
the people who are blind? I do not consider blindness as just an
inconvenience as some other people who are blind do. However, I don't
think that if I were sighted, everything would be better. If I were not
a person who is blind, I'd be a different person. In some ways, I hope
that my lack of sight has helped me to be more compassionate than I may
have been if I were sighted. In many ways, being visually impaired
probably has given me more opportunities than I would have had as a
sighted person. as far As I know, I was the first person to graduate
with a B.A. degree from my family. Economically, although I may have
made more money as a sighted person in the fields I have been trained
for, I probably would not have had the opportunity to be a vision
rehabilitation therapist. I also believe that those sighted people who
have truly become my friends are far more open and compassionate than
many people in general. They really did think of me as a person first.
But, that said, being blind is part of who I am and affects my
perception of myself and others. I think I've lost the thread that gives
this email message continuity and logic, so I'll quit. Ultimately, I
think it's more important for you to reach people who are blind to help
them be the people they can be or to help their family member or friend
or client/patient who is blind be all he/she can be and then after they
contact your website, address the stereotypes and mis-conceptions that
all of them probably may have.
Marcie Brink-Chaney CVRT
Michigan Commission for the Blind
Detroit Office
E-mail: brink-chaneym@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: (313)456-1643
Fax: (313)456-1645
-----Original Message-----
From: visionrehabtherapist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:visionrehabtherapist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Maduffy@xxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:27 PM
To: visionrehabtherapist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [visionrehabtherapist] A people-first language question
Greetings, colleagues:
This is Maureen Duffy, Editorial Director of VisionAWARE.org, a
"self-help for vision loss" web site. I need your thoughts and feedback
about a "people-first language" issue that is troubling me. At first
glance, you might think this is an esoteric request, but I assure you
that it is not.
We are strictly a web-only resource, with no brick-and-mortar presence;
thus, Internet search results are very important to us. Here is my
dilemma regarding our use of people-first language, which we take great
care to use throughout our site:
If I Google a phrase such as "resources for people who are blind,"
VisionAWARE will appear on page 1 of the search results, which is good.
If I Google a phrase such as "resources for the blind," VisionAWARE is
displayed much lower in the search results, which means that potential
readers are far less likely to find our information.
A keyword suggestion tool I've used shows substantially more related
results for "the blind" than for "people who are blind." Googling "the
blind" returns roughly 19.6 million search results for that phrase and
only 726,000 search results for "people who are blind." Clearly, people
are more likely to think/say/search on something related to/for "the
blind" vs. to/for "people who are blind."
Editorially, we take great care to say, "... for people who are blind or
have low vision," but that could be working against readers finding our
web site and the excellent information contained within it.
Thus my dilemma: Is it better to abandon our insistence on using
people-first language and allow more adults in need of vision
rehabilitation information find our site, or should we continue to set
the example with people-first language and languish undiscovered by many
adults in need of our information? (Perhaps the dichotomy is
over-dramatized, but you get the idea.)
Your comments, ideas, and feedback are most welcome.
Thank you in advance,
Maureen A. Duffy, CVRT
Editorial Director
AWARE (Associates for World Action in Rehabilitation & Education)
Phone: 914-528-5120
e-mail: maureen.duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Are you aware of our web site?
www.visionaware.org <http://www.visionaware.org/> "Self-Help for Vision
Loss"
www.twitter.com/visionaware
________________________________
Dell Days of Deals! June 15-24 - A New Deal Everyday!
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222865043x1201494942/aol?redir
=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215692145%3B38015538%3Bh>
***********************************
To view archives, edit list settings, subscribe or unsubscribe from list:
www.freelists.org/list/visionrehabtherapist
Administrator e-mail: dietz1112@xxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
