NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/misc/handicap/5287

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-24 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!isc-br!bunker!hcap!hnews!101!460.0!Jamal.Mazrui
From: [e-mail] (Jamal Mazrui)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: What is a team player?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:43:45 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: FidoNet node 1:101/460.0 - VI/BUG, Holbrook MA
Lines: 56
Approved: [e-mail]
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 23294

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

I find the discussion interesting about differences among a sheep, team
player, and free thinker.  It seems to me that a sheep will follow the
leader without thinking about matters before doing so.  A team player
will think for him or herself and try to preclude public differences of
opinion by airing differences internally and seeking compromise.
Should a team player still follow a decision, however, if it violates
important principles to him or her?  When you draw analogies with a
football team or church, the answer seems to be affirmative.  Yet
neither of these purport to be democratic, voluntary organizations that
represent the membership.  A football team consists of paid athletes
who work according to a clear chain of command, beginning with the
coach, followed by the quarterback.  A Church has a spiritual rather
than business chain of command beginning with God, followed by the
minister.  I wonder if you intended to compare the NFB to these types
of organizations and whether your comparison is revealing about what
you believe to be the NFB's true nature?

If we wish to differentiate a free thinker from a team player, then
perhaps we could say that he or she will think and speak for him or
herself without seeking to avoid public confrontation with others.
This may not be the most constructive manner for a member to behave
because it may cause unnecessary diviseness.  I would argue, however,
that the free thinker must be protected in any organization that
purports to be democratic.  If democratic rights of membership do not
apply when we wish that someone would be quiet rather than publicly air
a difference of opinion, then those rights are not worth much, are not
sincerely accorded, and therefore are not truly rights.  By the way,
sheep-like behavior is not particularly constructive for an
organization either, but I believe the right of people to behave like
sheep should be protected.

I think that many blind people follow Jernigan without question because
he exhibits ministerial qualities that provide them with a feeling of
comfort and security about their lives now and in the future.  It is as
if following him is a path to salvation and if they have faith they
will be "saved."  Unfortunately, I think it occurs with the numbers it
does partly because of his charismatic skills and partly because of the
still deprived condition that most of us face as blind people.  With
70% unemployed, a lot of us feel an isolation, frustration, and
hopelessness with life that is aching for an anectote.  For many,
Jernigan provides this anecdote.  I am glad for the self esteem he
raises in many blind people, including myself when I first lost my
sight.  I am disappointed in the exploitation of that psychological hold on
people to further his personal political ambitions.

Regards,

Jamal

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!101!460.0!Jamal.Mazrui
Internet: [e-mail]