She needed tools and accommodations, not charity. She fought for systems that allowed her to participate, not for others to do things for her. That’s the difference between dependency and interdependence with autonomy. She fought for the level of the freedom she wanted for everyone as much as she was able.
No, I’m going by the real definitions of words. Charity by definition is something done in informal basis (and as such, it’s unreliable). It’s not welfare system - which Keller wanted (reliable egalitarianism). Keller herself was vocally against relying on charity as the sole system of support for the needy. She argued that as long as the disabled and the poor relied on the “generosity” of individuals, they remained subjects rather than citizens.
In May 1888, Keller started attending the Perkins Institute for the Blind. In 1893, Keller, along with Sullivan, attended William Wade House and Finishing School. In 1894, Keller and Sullivan moved to New York to attend the Wright-Humason School for the Deaf, and to learn from Sarah Fuller at the Horace Mann School for the Deaf. In 1896, they returned to Massachusetts, and Keller entered The Cambridge School for Young Ladies before gaining admittance, in 1900, to Radcliffe College of Harvard University, where she lived in Briggs Hall, South House. Her admirer, Mark Twain, had introduced her to Standard Oil magnate Henry Huttleston Rogers, who, with his wife Abbie, paid for her education.
Yeah, she did it all by herself lol
Let me be clear, I’m by no means knocking Helen Keller. But dude, let it go that doing everything by yourself is somehow better, because it’s not.
Where did I ever say that doing everything by yourself is better somehow? I pointed out specifically that she needed assistance. She didn’t need someone to do everything for her, she needed someone to enable her to do as much as she could for herself, and that’s also what kind of policies she fought for.
I’m not making moral claims, nor am I saying what “should” be. I’m just pointing out an obvious feedback loop, which however does put the onus on the reader to figure out for themselves how much freedom they want to allow for everyone (again, not just themselves).
Seems to me you’re trying to read what I said as a call for some “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” idea. Which is isn’t, if you pay attention to the words I used.
She needed tools and accommodations, not charity. She fought for systems that allowed her to participate, not for others to do things for her. That’s the difference between dependency and interdependence with autonomy. She fought for the level of the freedom she wanted for everyone as much as she was able.
Now you’re just arguing the definitions of words.
And I’m pretty sure that the only reason her teacher was able to help her grow was that the teacher got training at charity schools.
No, I’m going by the real definitions of words. Charity by definition is something done in informal basis (and as such, it’s unreliable). It’s not welfare system - which Keller wanted (reliable egalitarianism). Keller herself was vocally against relying on charity as the sole system of support for the needy. She argued that as long as the disabled and the poor relied on the “generosity” of individuals, they remained subjects rather than citizens.
Yeah, she did it all by herself lol
Let me be clear, I’m by no means knocking Helen Keller. But dude, let it go that doing everything by yourself is somehow better, because it’s not.
Where did I ever say that doing everything by yourself is better somehow? I pointed out specifically that she needed assistance. She didn’t need someone to do everything for her, she needed someone to enable her to do as much as she could for herself, and that’s also what kind of policies she fought for.
I just don’t understand your point I guess
I’m not making moral claims, nor am I saying what “should” be. I’m just pointing out an obvious feedback loop, which however does put the onus on the reader to figure out for themselves how much freedom they want to allow for everyone (again, not just themselves).
Seems to me you’re trying to read what I said as a call for some “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” idea. Which is isn’t, if you pay attention to the words I used.