return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Motive and intent
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Mike
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Hey Mike!
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Mike
By mhelsher cheshire.net
Re: Mike
By mhelsher cheshire.net
Re: academic curriculum
By coalesceus yahoo.com
Re: academic curriculum
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: academic curriculum
By alice.javanet rcn.com
Re: Mike
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Mike
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Mike
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: academic curriculum
By snell gv.net
Re: academic curriculum
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
NNA press release 9/01
By dan dandugan.com
Re: academic curriculum
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
Re: Mike
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Mike
By mysplum earthlink.net
Children and Spiritual Questing - was Re: Mike
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By mysplum earthlink.net
Thank you to "Critics"
By jones9876 cs.com
fan mail
By dan dandugan.com
Re: fan mail
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
Re: Children and Spiritual Questing - was Re: Mike
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
hard times hit Anthroposophy, too
By dan dandugan.com
Waldorf Art
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Florida court cancels voucher program
By dan dandugan.com
Anthroposophy for Beginners
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Anthroposophy for Beginners
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Anthroposophy for Beginners
By dan dandugan.com
Re: More on Archangel Michael in Waldorf curriculum
By mysplum earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:26:21 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Motive and intent
) THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3110826381_280910_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Dear Mike,
I am really impressed with your message below. Your sense of empathy and
compassion shine through, and I want to commend you for it.
You are not the only person here who find his or her compassion
"steamrolled" by fervent feelings and opinions. We all have that happen,
sometimes.
What's remarkable is that you not only noticed what was happening, but also
felt compelled to correct the situation.
Lisa
Debra
Recently I was e-mailed off list by an old d.o.f. and informed as to some of
your personal experience.
After much thought I have realized that my own motive and intent was to
cause pain and to basically piss people off. I owe you and the list an
apology. I'm sorry. Sometimes my ability to have compassion gets steamrolled
by my own fervent attitude about some issues.
Peace
Mike
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: momof2gals mindspring.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dkiG.b1IpcO
Or send an email to: waldorf-critics-unsubscribe topica.com
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^===============================================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:54:19 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Mike
Mike:
Yours in freedom of thought,
I'll toast to that.
Sharon: How can you have freedom of mind when the organization you support
does not freely share important information with you?! How can you be free
when there is an esoteric subtext and ulterior motive, of which you know
little about, that feeds the system and informs all school activities and
strivings? How can a child be free when a school is pumping them with
Anthroposophy without their understanding or parental sanction? At the very
least parents should understand that the school is based on Steiner's
religious theories. Parents need to understand that Waldorf is a preparation
for children's future reincarnations. To with-hold this kind of information
is ethically and morally wrong!
Whitehead: "[A]s practiced in the C.I.A., there is a 'need to know' element
in
the discourse-dynamics, even in a school! The Receptionist does not
'need to know' of the arcane spiritual background of geology teaching
in Class 6." (Whitehead, Alan. A Steiner Primary School?: A Creative
Approach: A Companion Volume to: A Steiner High School?; A Steiner
Homeschool?. Brunswick Heads, Australia: Golden Beetle Books, 1993,p 15)
-----
"[M]atters pertaining to the use of certain textual material
(thoughts, quotations, verses, etc.) which is available to the
Waldorf school teacher as an aid for his practical and inner
development as a teacher, are another example where a safeguard is
needed from indiscriminate sharing." (Leist, Manfred. Parent
Participation in the Life of a Waldorf School. Great Barrington, MA:
Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, 1987, p. 10)
-----
"The task that needs to be lovingly taken up, says Barkhoff, is utterly
concrete: convey information, supply visible impressions (e.g., the
architecture of a Rudolf Steiner House, the bread baked by children at a
school, or a tour of the top floor of the Goetheanum), or tell simple human
stories. Anthroposophy needs to be dealt with as a phenomenon. The press
agent has to convey the outer appearance of things rather than the essential
core. A deep esoteric background is necessary to make the essential core
comprehensible". ( Article entitled "Public Relations for the Spirit,"
Anthroposophy Worldwide 4/2000, p 12).
-----
Wilkinson: "It has been known for parents to say that they like the school,
but wish it were divorced from certain 'crazy' ideas which they may have
garnered, or which a teacher may have expressed. The Waldorf school and the
'crazy' ideas
are, however, inseparable. Waldorf schools would not exist if they were not
related to these ideas." (Roy Wilkinson, "The Spiritual Basis of Steiner
Education: The Waldorf School Approach," Sophia Books, Rudolf Steiner Press,
1996.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:09:07 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Hey Mike!
Sharon: Hey Mike, still wondering what you meant when you told Debra to quit
the Holy Grail complex? It seems as if Steiner is the one who had a Holy
Grail complex. He taught that the union of the Grail and Arthurian streams
in 869 formed the new Michael impulse. He believed that the 13th C was very
important in the history of humanity because it was when the cosmic service
of Michael was established.
(p 22 E.E. Pfeiffer, The task of the Arch Angel Michael).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:00:08 -0400
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher cheshire.net)
Subject: Re: Mike
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C23892.32BFB380
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Re: MikeHi Sharon,
I don' have time to respond right now. I hope to make some time for
it soon. I think your questions are very important.
Peace
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: mysplum
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: Mike
Mike:
Yours in freedom of thought,
I'll toast to that.
Sharon: How can you have freedom of mind when the organization
you support does not freely share important information with you?!
How can you be free when there is an esoteric subtext and ulterior
motive, of which you know little about, that feeds the system and
informs all school activities and strivings? How can a child be free
when a school is pumping them with Anthroposophy without their
understanding or parental sanction? At the very least parents should
understand that the school is based on Steiner's religious theories.
Parents need to understand that Waldorf is a preparation for
children's future reincarnations. To with-hold this kind of
information is ethically and morally wrong!
Whitehead: "[A]s practiced in the C.I.A., there is a 'need to
know' element in
the discourse-dynamics, even in a school! The Receptionist does not
'need to know' of the arcane spiritual background of geology teaching
in Class 6." (Whitehead, Alan. A Steiner Primary School?: A Creative
Approach: A Companion Volume to: A Steiner High School?; A Steiner
Homeschool?. Brunswick Heads, Australia: Golden Beetle Books, 1993,p 15)
-----
"[M]atters pertaining to the use of certain textual material
(thoughts, quotations, verses, etc.) which is available to the
Waldorf school teacher as an aid for his practical and inner
development as a teacher, are another example where a safeguard is
needed from indiscriminate sharing." (Leist, Manfred. Parent
Participation in the Life of a Waldorf School. Great Barrington, MA:
Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, 1987, p. 10)
-----
"The task that needs to be lovingly taken up, says Barkhoff, is
utterly concrete: convey information, supply visible impressions
(e.g., the architecture of a Rudolf Steiner House, the bread baked by
children at a school, or a tour of the top floor of the Goetheanum),
or tell simple human stories. Anthroposophy needs to be dealt with as
a phenomenon. The press agent has to convey the outer appearance of
things rather than the essential core. A deep esoteric background is
necessary to make the essential core comprehensible". ( Article
entitled "Public Relations for the Spirit," Anthroposophy Worldwide
4/2000, p 12).
-----
Wilkinson: "It has been known for parents to say that they like
the school, but wish it were divorced from certain 'crazy' ideas
which they may have garnered, or which a teacher may have expressed.
The Waldorf school and the 'crazy' ideas
are, however, inseparable. Waldorf schools would not exist if they were not
related to these ideas." (Roy Wilkinson, "The Spiritual Basis of Steiner
Education: The Waldorf School Approach," Sophia Books, Rudolf
Steiner Press,
1996.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 01:48:45 -0400
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher cheshire.net)
Subject: Re: Mike
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C238FD.92C72040
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Re: Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: mysplum
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: Mike
Mike:
Yours in freedom of thought,
I'll toast to that.
Sharon: How can you have freedom of mind when the organization
you support does not freely share important information with you?!
How can you be free when there is an esoteric subtext and ulterior
motive, of which you know little about, that feeds the system and
informs all school activities and strivings? How can a child be free
when a school is pumping them with Anthroposophy without their
understanding or parental sanction? At the very least parents should
understand that the school is based on Steiner's religious theories.
Parents need to understand that Waldorf is a preparation for
children's future reincarnations. To with-hold this kind of
information is ethically and morally wrong!
Mike: Your questions are difficult to answer because they stem
into the very deep and controversial topic of human freedom. I
personally would hope not impose my ideas about this subject on
anyone. I will however share some brief experiences that have led me
to where I'm at today.
I think my perspective is bias because of my life experience to
date: About 15 years ago I did some comparative religious studies
coupled with the works of people like: C. G. Jung, Robert Bly (Iron
John) and especially Joseph Campbell. Campbell spent his life
studying myths and legends all around the world, throughout recorded
history. He found many similarities in the myths of completely
different cultures. This lead him to come to some interesting
conclusions about the nature of human consciousness. I also studied
Buddhism for a while, mostly as a cure for the dogmatic theism that
was handed to my as a child. I spent many years as a flaming agnostic
in a predominantly God orientated twelve Step fellowship (I survived
the Regan era Ollie North CIA drug war :) My wife and I went to a
therapist for a year and a half *before* we got married. I worked
with a group of friends for a year or so on John Bradshaw's PBS
series on "The Family". We also work shopped Bill Moyers se!
ries entitled "The Power of Myth". We attended a U.U. church for a
little while to expose our children to a variety of different
religious ideas. These are just a few examples. Suffuse it to say
that I have been a seeker of self knowledge for some time now. I've
always had what I call my 'anarchist inkling'; studying the huge
realm of human consciousness has given me a clue as to why. I've
never felt comfortable hanging out with any one group for to long.
Jung's work with dreams coupled with my studies of mythology has
caused me to lean toward a more metaphorical understanding of life.
This is why I am not freaked out by some of RS's ideas. We all fall
into a different aspect of consciousness when we sleep. Maybe RS
could access that while he was awake; who knows? I've found some of
his writings to be quite interesting thus far. I am especially
looking forward to studying "The Philosophy of Freedom". Don't get me
wrong, I have great interest in natural science as well i.e. "Steven
Hawkings Universe", but because of the subjective nature of
consciousness, science has only recently began to study it. I'm
looking forward to reading Alan Wallace's new book "The Taboo of
Subjectivity: Towards a new science of Consciousness". I may be
fooling myself, but I'm just not ready to accept that I am an
automaton made up of accidental biological activity. Nor am I willing
to have to much faith anything. The scope of life and of human con!
sciousness is to vast. And no human being or ideology, to my
knowledge, has yet to come up with a good answer to the question:
What is the source of life?
I'm writing an essay entitled "Gnosticism in Modern Form, A
Threshold to a Truly Humane Society" It will be derived from the
works of people like Alan Wallace, Noam Chompsky, Herman Hesse, C. G.
Jung, Joseph Campbell, a study of the Gnostic Gospels found in Egypt
in 1945, The Band U2, The Indigo Girls, and even Alanis Morissette.
It's part of an online Humanities program that I'm enrolled in that
revolves around the evolution of human consciousness, with an
emphasis on developing personal self knowledge. It involves the study
of people Like: Nietzsche, Rembrandt, Blake, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky,
De-Vinci, Goethe, Ben Franklin, Dante, Mozart, Plato, Lincoln and
even Rudolf Steiner, to name a few.
I think I'm reasonably well informed, and all of the questions
that I thought to ask were answered to my satisfaction. I think I
have a pretty good understanding what you call the "esoteric subtext
and ulterior motive", though I'm sure there is always more to learn.
I understand your concern for the subtle aspects of WE that are not
talked about to often. I think you make a good point about the ethics
and morality revolving around the disclosure of the Anthroposophical
underpinnings. Personally, I'm more concerned about the subtle
aspects of compulsory education these days. I like to call it
'conditioning for insertion into the consumer matrix'.
Maybe we can talk more about Freedom later, thats all the time I
have today.
Peace
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Coalesceus (coalesceus yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: academic curriculum
Your comments about how bad it was at your UK Waldorf
school got me wondering, especially about the
assertion expressed on this list that in Waldorf
schools, spelling exercises and instruction are not
healthy and are therefore discouraged.
So, I looked into the archives of the Waldorf
discussion list for the last five years, and extracted
the following bits of information. Since these are but
isolated snippets of information, I suspect that there
is a larger truth about the real relationship between
Waldorf education and spelling hidden between the
lines here:
1) The Detroit Waldorf School has an annual
school-wide spelling bee, and grade 4 (at least) has
one every six weeks or so;
2) The Detroit Waldorf School 4th grade classes have
spelling homework every Monday night, involving a mix
of drill and story problems. Spelling _rules_ are
emphasized;
3) With two exceptions (both exceptions being
parents), virtually 100% of the discussion over the
last 5 years revolving around spelling and spelling
bees was positive and supportive, by parents and
teachers, in the context of a Waldorf education. The
two exceptions mentioned supported the learning of
spelling, but did not support the competitive nature
of spelling bees;
4) The Shining Mountain Waldorf School gives weekly
spelling tests in the eighth grade;
5) The Aurora Waldorf School of Alaska includes
spelling exercises in the weekly homework, starting
with 4th grade;
6) The Austin Waldorf School hosts an annual spelling
bee at the fall Michaelmas festival;
7) The Austin Waldorf School fourth grade plays
"spelling baseball" (a kind of spelling game);
These examples were simply what was mentioned
explicitly in a posting during this period. I suspect
that similar orientations toward spelling are held by
more than just these few mentioned Waldorf schools.
It appears that spelling instruction and drill is very
much alive and well in Waldorf schools generally. I
wonder what else is alive and well in Waldorf schools
that might be getting a less than objective treatment
here?
Coalesceus
--- bea (mypostbox.formail virgin.net) wrote:
) Hello su
) My children were at the largest waldorf school in
) the uk, which is also the
) oldest in the english speaking world, so very
) established (75yrs).
) In my daughters class by class 5 there were only 2
) children who could read
) and write (only 13 in class) the parents had been
) furious about the
) situation since class 3, we were told that we had to
) "trust" this "trust" is
) very big in the waldorf schools, it comes in when
) there are no other
) answers.
) We were told by class 5 we would "catch up" with the
) outside world, this
) does NOT happen.
) Spelling is not taught, we were told further up the
) school (class 9) that to
) correct spelling is to stifle creativity, it also it
) seems does something
) to the etheric body. I have many ex-waldorf pupils
) in their early twenties
) around my house their spelling is atrocious, they
) all blame their own
) stupidity instead of the lack of teaching.
) You find a huge arrogance amongst many of the
) anthro's at the waldorf
) school, it is because they (think they) are in touch
) "with higher worlds"
) and therefore *know* what is right for the pupils,
) and we parents who aren't
) in touch are still somewhere down there scrabbling
) around dealing with
) unimportant things such as spelling etc when we
) should be looking at the big
) picture of life in terms of millions of millennia
) (past lives/future lives)
) bea
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 12:29:25 -0400
From: (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: academic curriculum
Lisa here: Glad to hear that some Waldorf schools actually try to teach their
students to spell! I am wondering, however, why we ought to praise schools for
doing what they are *supposed* to be doing, at the most basic level?
My older daughter attended a Waldorf school through the first half of fourth
grade, and they were just beginning to have spelling drills/quizzes in fourth.
Contrast that with the experience of my soon-to-be second grader at a
non-Waldorf school. Juliet had spelling tests twice a week -- a pretest and
then a post-test -- in first grade! The tests provided teachers and parents
and students with a very accurate measure of what the girls learned in the
course of a week (just note the improvement between the pre- and post-tests!)
and did not cause the girls undue pressure.
The bottom line when it comes to spelling is reading. Good and prolific
readers are often good spellers (though not always!).
If Waldorf schools really cared about literacy, they would not discourage
children from reading before the third grade. (And no one try to tell me they
don't discourage reading: we lived through it.)
Literacy is about a lot of things, especially fluency in reading and written
communication.
My family's experience in Waldorf -- and our experiences being exposed to
Waldorf "educated" kids here on this list and elsewhere -- leave me very
unimpressed with the results of Waldorf education.
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Coalesceus (coalesceus yahoo.com)
wrote:
) Your comments about how bad it was at your UK
) Waldorf
) school got me wondering, especially about the
) assertion expressed on this list that in
) Waldorf
) schools, spelling exercises and instruction are
) not
) healthy and are therefore discouraged.
)
) So, I looked into the archives of the Waldorf
) discussion list for the last five years, and
) extracted
) the following bits of information. Since these
) are but
) isolated snippets of information, I suspect
) that there
) is a larger truth about the real relationship
) between
) Waldorf education and spelling hidden between
) the
) lines here:
)
) 1) The Detroit Waldorf School has an annual
) school-wide spelling bee, and grade 4 (at
) least) has
) one every six weeks or so;
)
) 2) The Detroit Waldorf School 4th grade classes
) have
) spelling homework every Monday night, involving
) a mix
) of drill and story problems. Spelling _rules_
) are
) emphasized;
)
) 3) With two exceptions (both exceptions being
) parents), virtually 100% of the discussion over
) the
) last 5 years revolving around spelling and
) spelling
) bees was positive and supportive, by parents
) and
) teachers, in the context of a Waldorf
) education. The
) two exceptions mentioned supported the learning
) of
) spelling, but did not support the competitive
) nature
) of spelling bees;
)
) 4) The Shining Mountain Waldorf School gives
) weekly
) spelling tests in the eighth grade;
)
) 5) The Aurora Waldorf School of Alaska includes
) spelling exercises in the weekly homework,
) starting
) with 4th grade;
)
) 6) The Austin Waldorf School hosts an annual
) spelling
) bee at the fall Michaelmas festival;
)
) 7) The Austin Waldorf School fourth grade plays
) "spelling baseball" (a kind of spelling game);
)
)
) These examples were simply what was mentioned
) explicitly in a posting during this period. I
) suspect
) that similar orientations toward spelling are
) held by
) more than just these few mentioned Waldorf
) schools.
)
) It appears that spelling instruction and drill
) is very
) much alive and well in Waldorf schools
) generally. I
) wonder what else is alive and well in Waldorf
) schools
) that might be getting a less than objective
) treatment
) here?
)
) Coalesceus
)
)
)
) --- bea wrote:
) ) Hello su
) ) My children were at the largest waldorf
) school in
) ) the uk, which is also the
) ) oldest in the english speaking world, so very
) ) established (75yrs).
) ) In my daughters class by class 5 there were
) only 2
) ) children who could read
) ) and write (only 13 in class) the parents had
) been
) ) furious about the
) ) situation since class 3, we were told that we
) had to
) ) "trust" this "trust" is
) ) very big in the waldorf schools, it comes in
) when
) ) there are no other
) ) answers.
) ) We were told by class 5 we would "catch up"
) with the
) ) outside world, this
) ) does NOT happen.
) ) Spelling is not taught, we were told further
) up the
) ) school (class 9) that to
) ) correct spelling is to stifle creativity, it
) also it
) ) seems does something
) ) to the etheric body. I have many ex-waldorf
) pupils
) ) in their early twenties
) ) around my house their spelling is atrocious,
) they
) ) all blame their own
) ) stupidity instead of the lack of teaching.
) ) You find a huge arrogance amongst many of the
) ) anthro's at the waldorf
) ) school, it is because they (think they) are
) in touch
) ) "with higher worlds"
) ) and therefore *know* what is right for the
) pupils,
) ) and we parents who aren't
) ) in touch are still somewhere down there
) scrabbling
) ) around dealing with
) ) unimportant things such as spelling etc when
) we
) ) should be looking at the big
) ) picture of life in terms of millions of
) millennia
) ) (past lives/future lives)
) ) bea
)
)
) __________________________________________________
) Do You Yahoo!?
) Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
) http://health.yahoo.com
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 12:47:58 -0400
From: Alice K (alice.javanet rcn.com)
Subject: Re: academic curriculum
on 8/1/02 12:29 PM, momof2gals mindspring.com at momof2gals mindspring.com
wrote:
) Lisa here: Glad to hear that some Waldorf schools actually try to teach their
) students to spell! I am wondering, however, why we ought to praise
schools for
) doing what they are *supposed* to be doing, at the most basic level?
) My older daughter attended a Waldorf school through the first half of fourth
) grade, and they were just beginning to have spelling drills/quizzes
in fourth.
) Contrast that with the experience of my soon-to-be second grader at a
) non-Waldorf school. Juliet had spelling tests twice a week -- a pretest and
) then a post-test -- in first grade! The tests provided teachers and parents
) and students with a very accurate measure of what the girls learned in the
) course of a week (just note the improvement between the pre- and post-tests!)
) and did not cause the girls undue pressure.
) The bottom line when it comes to spelling is reading. Good and prolific
) readers are often good spellers (though not always!).
) If Waldorf schools really cared about literacy, they would not discourage
) children from reading before the third grade. (And no one try to tell me they
) don't discourage reading: we lived through it.)
)snips(
Alice here:
And may I point out from our personal experiences the danger of delayed
reading - delayed diagnosis of learning disabilities.
By the time there is clarity about a kid with L.D., it can be too late
developmentally to easily assist the child and expose him/her to a variety
of teaching methods that could make the difference in finding the
neurological "key".
Sure, my child is spiritually "one with the angels", but she really hates to
read at age almost fourteen.
As the head of the school for LD that she will be attending next year said,
"At this age, this is clearly indicative of a teaching disability rather
than an untreatable learning disability. If this had been addressed earlier,
there would BE no disability."
searching for the truth,
Alice (child in a W. school for nine years)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:45:53 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Mike
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3111054354_1090511_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 7/31/02 10:48 PM, Mike Helsher at mhelsher cheshire.net wrote:
I personally would hope not impose my ideas about this subject on anyone. I
will however share some brief experiences that have led me to where I'm at
today.
Sharon: Hi Mike, thanks for your thoughtful response. I don't think you can
impose your ideas on me if we are freely sharing and exchanging information
in a discussion.
Mike: I think my perspective is bias because of my life experience to date:
About 15 years ago I did some comparative religious studies coupled with the
works of people like: C. G. Jung, Robert Bly (Iron John) and especially
Joseph Campbell. Campbell spent his life studying myths and legends all
around the world, throughout recorded history. He found many similarities in
the myths of completely different cultures. This lead him to come to some
interesting conclusions about the nature of human consciousness.
Sharon: Yes, you mentioned before that you had read the occultist, E. Casey.
I just came across Casey this past year. (Not impressed). I lived during the
same era as you Mike! I read and watched Cambell on TV as well. (I'm a
Moyer's fan). I remember when Moyer's popped the ultimate question to
Cambell, something to the tune of, "So, after all these years of study, what
did you learn, is there more after death?" Cambell said he didn't think so.
I can't remember the exact words, but I would love to find them again.
Mike: I also studied Buddhism for a while, mostly as a cure for the dogmatic
theism that was handed to my as a child.
Sharon: Was it a cure or do you just *think* it was? Is your "new self"
really better than your "old self" or do you just *believe* this? Was your
old self really flawed or inferior? If so, why?
Don't you think Buddhism can be dogmatic? Certain strains are even
considered atheistic.
Mike: Suffuse it to say that I have been a seeker of self knowledge for some
time now.
Sharon: Aren't we all? I, like many of my fellow Waldorf critics, thirst for
knowledge. I am a freethinker, I have no gods or masters...I will be free.
I marvel at nature, but reject all human religious constructions. You are a
religious seeker trying out the Anthroposophic path (Steiner's guess.)
Sounds fair enough to me. You know exactly what you are doing, you are an
informed participant in Steiner's esoteric mystery school. Anthroposophy is
not being imposed, you have chosen the path. I was duped, you were not. See
the difference? I was expecting an art based, nonsectarian school for my
child, not an Anthroposophic initiation. I want Waldorf to be openly
Anthroposophic. I want Waldorf to quit the deception and fully disclose
their esoteric base to prospective parents. I want Waldorf to quit the
"outer form" scam.
Mike: Jung's work with dreams coupled with my studies of mythology has
caused me to lean toward a more metaphorical understanding of life.
Sharon: Metaphorical? Seems to me you have chosen Steiner's metaphysical
brand of esotericism. I read some Jung as I crawled out of Waldorf's
oppression. On my list of books to read is Peter Staudenmeir's
recommendation. Now the months have flown by and I still haven't done so.
Unfortunately, my list is at home so I can't give the title, but a scholar
basically debunks the Jung cult. Glad you reminded me of it.
Mike: This is why I am not freaked out by some of RS's ideas.
Sharon: I am freaked out by Steiner's racist doctrine. I am freaked out by
the way contemporary Anthroposophist's tried to deal with it in the "Dutch
Report". I am freaked out by Steiner's followers' deliberate attempts to
hide important information from Waldorf parents. I am freaked out by
Waldorf's inability to be open. I prefer a more open society. I prefer
pluralism rather than segregated faith schools that only give the "outer
form".
Mike: We all fall into a different aspect of consciousness when we sleep.
Maybe RS could access that while he was awake; who knows?
Sharon: Since Steiner *might* have been so enlightened let's just accept all
his ramblings as truth. After all, who knows, he might have been right?
(Sarcasm).
Mike: I've found some of his writings to be quite interesting thus far.
Sharon: I've found most of his writings to be quite loony thus far, but each
to their own. I'd like to know more about the deeper aspects of
Anthroposophy, the secrets, the doctrine I can't tap. I'll admit that I
enjoy Rudolf's fantasies on Sorath's incarnation, his convictions regarding
the cosmic importance of Anthroposophy, as well as his future prophesies
about Jupiter, Venus and Vulcan. Makes me laugh, I am drawn to comedy. I
prefer the work of the older Rosicrucians, I find their worldviews much more
interesting in a "quaint" sort of way.
Mike: I am especially looking forward to studying "The Philosophy of
Freedom". Don't get me wrong, I have great interest in natural science as
well i.e.
Sharon: Enjoy trying to break the code. Don't worry, I won't get you wrong,
I know the difference between "natural science" and science.
Mike: "Steven Hawkings Universe", but because of the subjective nature of
consciousness, science has only recently began to study it. I'm looking
forward to reading Alan Wallace's new book "The Taboo of Subjectivity:
Towards a new science of Consciousness".
Sharon: I'd disagree with your conclusions about science having "recently"
begun to study consciousness. I personally can't imagine how consciousness
could be anything but subjective, especially after seeing a TM video a
couple of months ago and hearing ex-members speak about their levitation
experiences. Participators *thought* they were levitating, they really saw
each other flying around the room on little sponge cushions. I cried with
laughter as I viewed the evidence, the video tape of believers "hopping"
around the room on little sponge cushions. Intelligent people can believe
anything they wish, anything they put their minds to. It always comes back
to the power beliefs have over the believer. I'm not familiar with the books
you are referring to so I can't comment.
Mike: I may be fooling myself, but I'm just not ready to accept that I am an
automaton made up of accidental biological activity. Nor am I willing to
have to much faith anything. The scope of life and of human consciousness is
to vast. And no human being or ideology, to my knowledge, has yet to come up
with a good answer to the question: What is the source of life?
Sharon: Then why narrow things down so much? Why enter the closed,
intramural world of Anthroposophy? Why prop up Steiner's guess?
Mike: I'm writing an essay entitled "Gnosticism in Modern Form, A Threshold
to a Truly Humane Society" It will be derived from the works of people like
Alan Wallace, Noam Chompsky, Herman Hesse, C. G. Jung, Joseph Campbell, a
study of the Gnostic Gospels found in Egypt in 1945, The Band U2, The Indigo
Girls, and even Alanis Morissette. It's part of an online Humanities program
that I'm enrolled in that revolves around the evolution of human
consciousness, with an emphasis on developing personal self knowledge. It
involves the study of people Like: Nietzsche, Rembrandt, Blake, Tolstoy,
Dostoevsky, De-Vinci, Goethe, Ben Franklin, Dante, Mozart, Plato, Lincoln
and even Rudolf Steiner, to name a few.
Sharon: I'd love to read it. What program are you enrolled in? I like the
choice of musicians.
Mike: I think I'm reasonably well informed, and all of the questions that I
thought to ask were answered to my satisfaction. I think I have a pretty
good understanding what you call the "esoteric subtext and ulterior motive",
though I'm sure there is always more to learn. I understand your concern
for the subtle aspects of WE that are not talked about to often. I think you
make a good point about the ethics and morality revolving around the
disclosure of the Anthroposophical underpinnings.
Sharon: I'm glad you are informed and satisfied. There's always another
layer when it comes to Anthroposophy, "keep on lifting"! I don't think there
is such a thing as "subtle aspects not talked about too often " when it
comes to Waldorf. The esoteric subtext is not subtle at all and never
mentioned to prospective parents "not in the know"! Steiner's Anthroposophy
is a specific religious doctrine that feeds Waldorf. I guess I just don't
relish being manipulated, deceived, duped and condescended upon. I don't see
the purpose of "hidden knowledge". I'm for an open, pluralistic society. It
pisses me off when our government acts deceptive, but I know not to trust
it. I trusted Waldorf, only to have my trust dashed.
Mike: Personally, I'm more concerned about the subtle aspects of compulsory
education these days. I like to call it 'conditioning for insertion into the
consumer matrix'.
Sharon: I'm more concerned about being duped by Anthroposophists.
Compulsory? Are you not free to home school or choose another system, even
nonschooling? Many critics bought into Waldorf's false promise of
"nonsectarianism" as we fled the public system because of fears such as
those you express, only to find that we were wrong, only to discover that we
were being conditioned to prop up Anthroposophy without our sanction or
understanding. Manipulated by Waldorf into becoming consumers of "Mc
Anthroposophy".
An interesting little anecdote: My daughter has been hanging out with her
old Waldorf friends while we are spending time in Dornac II. She tells me
that one of her Waldorf friends proudly hangs labels and Victoria Secret
bags on her walls for decoration! Fat lot of good Waldorf did! (G) Mike, are
you the product of public education? If so, it can't be that bad, surely?!
At least public school teacher's don't have to read Steiner and other
Anthroposophic publications all day.
Mike: Maybe we can talk more about Freedom later, thats all the time I have
today.
Sharon: That would be nice.
Mike: Peace
Sharon: And to you too.
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: mysplum earthlink.net
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dkiG.b2JmGo
Or send an email to: waldorf-critics-unsubscribe topica.com
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 12:02:31 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Mike
)Mike: Jung's work with dreams coupled with my studies of mythology
)has caused me to lean toward a more metaphorical understanding of
)life.
)
)Sharon: Metaphorical? Seems to me you have chosen Steiner's
)metaphysical brand of esotericism. I read some Jung as I crawled out
)of Waldorf's oppression. On my list of books to read is Peter
)Staudenmeir's recommendation. Now the months have flown by and I
)still haven't done so. Unfortunately, my list is at home so I can't
)give the title, but a scholar basically debunks the Jung cult. Glad
)you reminded me of it.
"The Jung Cult" by Richard Noll. Highly recommended for students of
Steiner (mentioned in the book).
)Mike: I may be fooling myself, but I'm just not ready to accept that
)I am an automaton made up of accidental biological activity.
You're raising a straw man here. You can get a better understanding
of evolution by reading some of the wealth of recent popular writing
on the subject. I suggest Richard Dawkins' "River out of Eden."
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:16:23 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Mike
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_kUsccWEl5JXSzZNhiWav/w)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Re: MikeHI folks,
This conversation speaks directly, IMO, to the nature of the beast.
Parents and teachers with the best of intentions find themselves
needing something to help them make sense of life. Searching...
always searching. The magic and innocence of childhood turns into
the reality of our mortality - many wonderful human beings seem to
need a raison d'etre. Religion works for some - booze and drugs for
others - various spiritual journeys for others - and perhaps even
consumerism/materialism might be the answer for others. I am not
here to judge another's chosen path. However...
When I see these discussions on this list - or others - I often
ponder this question: What about the children? What about *their*
needs while we are all striving for whatever that *special something*
is that always seems to be just out of reach? What about the
children? Occasionally at our old school during the loooooong heavy
conferences/meetings where we were *striving* for spiritual meaning
or common ground - ostensibly with regards to the school, but we all
knew it went deeper than that - a parent would stand up and ask "what
does this have to do with the children?" You could hear a pin drop
after those words. It has taken me years to understand that Waldorf
really is not about the children. There is no respect for these
beautiful beings as individuals. Very little, anyway. Until
puberty, at least - they are simply in transition a la Steiner.
Incarnating souls. "Form the class." Remember that concept? Four
temperaments - put them into groups and "form them." !
Do not answer questions - or answer them with questions....We can
dance around excuses for these theories forever - In my view this is
a total lack of respect for children - respect which I believe only
works 2 ways. If young children actually do learn by example - I
wonder what learning is happening in a Waldorf education?
Why do people want to teach - in Waldorf or elsewhere? I would hope
this very important question will be answered after a great deal of
thought has gone into the well being and *needs of the children* the
teacher will come in contact with - rather than by the *needs of the
teacher* on whatever spiritual path they may have chosen.
- Walden
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Helsher
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: mysplum
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: Mike
Mike:
Yours in freedom of thought,
I'll toast to that.
Sharon: How can you have freedom of mind when the organization
you support does not freely share important information with you?!
How can you be free when there is an esoteric subtext and ulterior
motive, of which you know little about, that feeds the system and
informs all school activities and strivings? How can a child be free
when a school is pumping them with Anthroposophy without their
understanding or parental sanction? At the very least parents should
understand that the school is based on Steiner's religious theories.
Parents need to understand that Waldorf is a preparation for
children's future reincarnations. To with-hold this kind of
information is ethically and morally wrong!
Mike: Your questions are difficult to answer because they stem
into the very deep and controversial topic of human freedom. I
personally would hope not impose my ideas about this subject on
anyone. I will however share some brief experiences that have led me
to where I'm at today.
I think my perspective is bias because of my life experience
to date: About 15 years ago I did some comparative religious studies
coupled with the works of people like: C. G. Jung, Robert Bly (Iron
John) and especially Joseph Campbell. Campbell spent his life
studying myths and legends all around the world, throughout recorded
history. He found many similarities in the myths of completely
different cultures. This lead him to come to some interesting
conclusions about the nature of human consciousness. I also studied
Buddhism for a while, mostly as a cure for the dogmatic theism that
was handed to my as a child. I spent many years as a flaming agnostic
in a predominantly God orientated twelve Step fellowship (I survived
the Regan era Ollie North CIA drug war :) My wife and I went to a
therapist for a year and a half *before* we got married. I worked
with a group of friends for a year or so on John Bradshaw's PBS
series on "The Family". We also work shopped Bill Moyers !
series entitled "The Power of Myth". We attended a U.U. church for a
little while to expose our children to a variety of different
religious ideas. These are just a few examples. Suffuse it to say
that I have been a seeker of self knowledge for some time now. I've
always had what I call my 'anarchist inkling'; studying the huge
realm of human consciousness has given me a clue as to why. I've
never felt comfortable hanging out with any one group for to long.
Jung's work with dreams coupled with my studies of mythology
has caused me to lean toward a more metaphorical understanding of
life. This is why I am not freaked out by some of RS's ideas. We all
fall into a different aspect of consciousness when we sleep. Maybe RS
could access that while he was awake; who knows? I've found some of
his writings to be quite interesting thus far. I am especially
looking forward to studying "The Philosophy of Freedom". Don't get me
wrong, I have great interest in natural science as well i.e. "Steven
Hawkings Universe", but because of the subjective nature of
consciousness, science has only recently began to study it. I'm
looking forward to reading Alan Wallace's new book "The Taboo of
Subjectivity: Towards a new science of Consciousness". I may be
fooling myself, but I'm just not ready to accept that I am an
automaton made up of accidental biological activity. Nor am I willing
to have to much faith anything. The scope of life and of human c!
onsciousness is to vast. And no human being or ideology, to my
knowledge, has yet to come up with a good answer to the question:
What is the source of life?
I'm writing an essay entitled "Gnosticism in Modern Form, A
Threshold to a Truly Humane Society" It will be derived from the
works of people like Alan Wallace, Noam Chompsky, Herman Hesse, C. G.
Jung, Joseph Campbell, a study of the Gnostic Gospels found in Egypt
in 1945, The Band U2, The Indigo Girls, and even Alanis Morissette.
It's part of an online Humanities program that I'm enrolled in that
revolves around the evolution of human consciousness, with an
emphasis on developing personal self knowledge. It involves the study
of people Like: Nietzsche, Rembrandt, Blake, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky,
De-Vinci, Goethe, Ben Franklin, Dante, Mozart, Plato, Lincoln and
even Rudolf Steiner, to name a few.
I think I'm reasonably well informed, and all of the questions
that I thought to ask were answered to my satisfaction. I think I
have a pretty good understanding what you call the "esoteric subtext
and ulterior motive", though I'm sure there is always more to learn.
I understand your concern for the subtle aspects of WE that are not
talked about to often. I think you make a good point about the ethics
and morality revolving around the disclosure of the Anthroposophical
underpinnings. Personally, I'm more concerned about the subtle
aspects of compulsory education these days. I like to call it
'conditioning for insertion into the consumer matrix'.
Maybe we can talk more about Freedom later, thats all the time
I have today.
Peace
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:25:44 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: academic curriculum
)Your comments about how bad it was at your UK Waldorf
)school got me wondering, especially about the
)assertion expressed on this list that in Waldorf
)schools, spelling exercises and instruction are not
)healthy and are therefore discouraged.
)
)So, I looked into the archives of the Waldorf
)discussion list for the last five years, and extracted
)the following bits of information. Since these are but
)isolated snippets of information, I suspect that there
)is a larger truth about the real relationship between
)Waldorf education and spelling hidden between the
)lines here:
)
)1) The Detroit Waldorf School has an annual
)school-wide spelling bee, and grade 4 (at least) has
)one every six weeks or so;
)
)2) The Detroit Waldorf School 4th grade classes have
)spelling homework every Monday night, involving a mix
)of drill and story problems. Spelling _rules_ are
)emphasized;
Debra:
This is wonderful. Do you know the content of the spelling words? My
oldest son had spelling tests in Waldorf third grade too. The tests
weren't weekly - they seemed to just pop up once in awhile. The words
he was assigned to learn to spell weren't very useful in his daily
life. "Queen, gnome, cloak, robber, fairies" is from one spelling
list I kept. . .
The public school Max attended used the 600 most commonly used words
list that was developed by some public school teachers in California.
That, to me anyway, seems to make more sense than having the children
learning to spell Anthroposophical tenants. I mean, very few jobs
require the proper spelling of gnome, etc.
I did notice that vowels were focused on in Max's first grade lesson
book, but then again, Eurythmy is about communicating directly with
the spirit world - and Eurythmy movements represent vowels. . . One
just can't get away from Anthroposophy in a Waldorf school.
Max had weekly spelling tests starting in second grade right on
through eighth grade. (I don't know about first grade public school
curriculum as Max was in Waldorf then.)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 16:42:09 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: academic curriculum
Coalesceus wrote (snip)
) So, I looked into the archives of the Waldorf
) discussion list for the last five years, and extracted
) the following bits of information. Since these are but
) isolated snippets of information, I suspect that there
) is a larger truth about the real relationship between
) Waldorf education and spelling hidden between the
) lines here: (snip)
Walden: Thank-you for that - many of us are indeed looking for the "larger
truth" about Waldorf. As these snippets seem to have been plucked from
another List (SJU?) I assume the issue of cutting and posting from the SJU
list to the critics list has been settled now? I can't see why any of the
authors of those posts would mind having them appear here - I hope they do
not mind if this list borrows other Waldorf posts from their list as well.
To take only what is convenient to our own belief system - from one list and
paste on another list - is showing a less than the realistic tip of the
iceberg. Lots of heavy cold stuff left under the water. We have to swim
down deep to really see.... The reality is that critical thinking is not
allowed on that list and is encouraged - pro or con Waldorf - here. We are
all searching for the "larger truth," n'est ce pas?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:34:02 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: NNA press release 9/01
Here's an interesting press release from a year ago. The news
center's web site is: http://www.nna-news.org/en/
-Dan Dugan
***
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001
Sender: NEWS from NNA (NNA-NEWS-OUT LISTSERV.ANTH.ORG)
From: Christian von Arnim (csvonarnim CS.COM)
Subject: The Charter Schools federal court case - is Waldorf education
religious?
Copyright 2001 News Network Anthroposophy Limited. All rights reserved.
The following material may be republished without the prior consent of News
Network Anthroposophy. News Network Anthroposophy does, however, require
acknowledgement of the source and, if provided, the author of the material.
+ + + + +
NNA-B A C K G R O U N D
The Charter Schools federal court case - is Waldorf education religious?
For some years now, People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS) has
been pursuing legal action against two school districts in the US state of
California for using Waldorf teaching methods. PLANS claims that the
Sacramento Unified School District and the Twin Ridges Elementary School
teach religion in their schools in breach of the US constitution because
their teaching is based on Waldorf education methods. The schools dismiss
the charge and respond that while they successfully apply the Waldorf method
in their teaching, they do not teach the content of anthroposophy or Rudolf
Steiner's writings. In the most recent development, the Sacramento federal
district court threw out the case on the grounds that PLANS lacked standing
to be a proper plaintiff. The case is by no means finished, however, since
PLANS has already submitted an appeal. Robert Freehling presents the
background to the case.
Sacramento, 19 September (NNA) - This May saw an important milestone in the
efforts of a small but determined group to close down all public Waldorf
schools: their lawsuit was thrown out by a federal district court. The
group, called People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS), claims that
Waldorf education is religious, and therefore should not be supported by the
government, as this violates the proper separation of church and state
guaranteed by the US constitution.
Their strategy has focused on a legal case against two California public
schools, the Yuba River Charter School in the Sierra foothills, and John
Morse Waldorf Methods Magnet in the city of Sacramento.
The case was dismissed because the court ruled that PLANS lacked standing to
be a proper plaintiff. Since PLANS originally brought the suit as taxpayers,
this defined their standing as a party who could claim they had been harmed.
Judge Damrell, who presided in the case, had ruled in favour of the
plaintiff last year, agreeing that PLANS could represent its taxpaying
members even though it is a non-profit, and therefore non-taxpaying, entity.
The issue of standing was raised early on, but this year saw a new twist
from a related ruling by a federal appeals court in New York. The case
involved the Altmans, a Roman Catholic family, who took the Bedford Central
School District to court for instruction and activities that violated their
religious beliefs. The Altmans removed their children from the school
pending the outcome of the legal efforts. Because the Altmans no longer had
children in the school, the court ruled out parts of the case that alleged
personal harm to them as taxpayers.
Judge Damrell was sufficiently impressed with defence lawyers' arguments
showing the significance of the Altman case that he overturned his previous
ruling.
This was not the only setback for PLANS in the case. They had earlier
offered testimony by half a dozen self-appointed experts on Waldorf methods,
including two of the directors of PLANS. According to the defence lawyer,
one was withdrawn, and the court ruled that four of the others did not
qualify as experts. The sixth was accepted as an expert on protestant
religious beliefs, but not on Waldorf education.
PLANS contends that the religious philosophy of anthroposophy is
inextricably linked to Waldorf education, and that the children are being
taught anthroposophy through a curriculum that is saturated with its
influence and ideas. The public Waldorf schools, on the other hand, contend
that all religious language, verses and other content that would be used in
a private Waldorf school are carefully combed through to avoid conflict with
the principles of public education. Yet, PLANS has no intention of dropping
the matter, and has already appealed the case. Lawyers do not expect any
resolution for at least a year.
The courts have been struggling for years with this issue. The first
amendment prohibits the US Congress from passing any laws "respecting an
establishment of religion...." At the founding of the country, this was a
simple matter, merely meaning that the US should not establish an official,
tax-supported, state-enforced religion, as the countries of Europe all had.
Education was not part of the picture, because there was no state-supported
education until many years later.
It wasn't until the 20th century that the relation between state, education
and religion really began to enter the courts. The most famous case was the
"Scopes Monkey Trial" in the 1920s, regarding a school teacher who presented
Darwinian evolution to his class. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
instigated the case to test the constitutionality of the state's law that
prohibited the teaching of evolution. After much publicity, the teacher was
found guilty, and fined one hundred dollars.
In the 1960s the tenor of the debate shifted radically after the American
atheist Madelyn Murray O'Hair put forced school prayer on trial before the
Supreme Court. The court ruled in her favour that children should not be
compelled to say anything in class with religious content. Since then there
has been extensive argument both in and out of the courts as to what is, or
what should be, allowable. As the issues are decided in successive cases,
the rules seem to get both more restrictive and more complex.
Behind the planning of PLANS
PLANS, which claims over 40 members, is led by the triumvirate of Debra
Snell, Dan Dugan, and Lisa Ercolano. All of them have significant
connections to Waldorf. Debra Snell, a resident of Grass Valley, California
actually helped to found the Waldorf Charter school there. Dan Dugan is a
parent who claims to have fallen in love with Waldorf about a decade ago,
especially its beautiful classroom materials, as well as its emphasis on
creativity and the arts.
He placed his child in a private Waldorf school. He started reading up on
the background of Waldorf, including the writings of its creator, Rudolf
Steiner, about whom he knew nothing.
Mr. Dugan read a number of Steiner's books which contained passages that he
interpreted as racist and aspects of the curriculum that he considered to be
anti-scientific. So he approached the school with a proposal that they
"modernise" their science curriculum. The school refused. They told him,
according to his account, that people came to the school for the spiritual
philosophy, and that if he didn't approve he could leave.
Mr. Dugan interpreted the lack of dialogue on the issue as being secretive,
undemocratic and opposed to rational science. This impression was
strengthened as he found out that the philosophy was based on the occult, by
which he understood "hidden" teachings, and that these were somehow
connected with an historical lineage of secretive mystery schools which had
access to "higher knowledge" beyond the comprehension or critical evaluation
of the uninitiated.
Later Mr. Dugan found other parents, including Ms. Snell, and ex-Waldorf
teachers who formed a group called Critics of Waldorf, where they share
their experiences. When the Waldorf schools moved into the public arena, in
tax-supported charter schools, this group became alarmed and decided to take
the schools to court.
Charter Schools
Charter schools have become popular across the United States in the past
decade as a viable alternative to ordinary state-managed curricula. Each
charter school is supposed to be given broad latitude to adopt its own
approach according to the interest of local educators, parents and,
hopefully, children. The initiating group is given a charter by a
"chartering agency," usually either the state or a local school district.
Accountability standards are required to be, and generally are, equal or
greater than those for other public schools, and the charter goes up for
renewal every few years
While increased choice of curriculum is a principal aim of charter laws,
this freedom may have a rope attached. About 80% of chartering agencies
nationwide report rejecting schools for curriculum reason and 60% had
schools make changes in their curriculum in order to get approval.
California law really opened the door on the charter movement in 1998, in
which year it allowed for up to 250 charter schools to be created, and 100
new schools a year thereafter.
Unlike in a regular school, parents must sign a petition, prior to starting
the school, stating intent to enrol their children. Attendance at such
schools represents a real choice for the parents as well as the teachers, as
the law states that no student or teacher can be assigned to one by
compulsion. In addition, and importantly for the Waldorf charter schools,
state and federal charter law provides that a charter school must be
non-sectarian in its programmes, admission policies, employment practices,
and all other operations.
Waldorf Meets the World
The Waldorf charter schools challenged by PLANS have done particularly well
by objective measures used by the districts and the state. Both schools have
won awards for their programs, and this year the Yuba River Charter School
upper grades ranked first in their county on reading scores.
This is a particular victory for Waldorf, which has often been criticized
for delaying the teaching of reading until second or third grade. It also
won a grant to allow its model form of governance to be emulated by other
schools throughout the state. This unique system involves parents, teachers
and charter council to all have a say in running the school.
It is well to keep in mind that public education, and not just Waldorf, has
been subjected to court cases and public challenge on many of the same
issues, including religion. On the one side are some who think that their
religion is being suppressed and their children corrupted by tax-supported
educators who teach Darwinian atheism and deny them the right to pray. On
the other side are those who object to any religious connections, no matter
how toned down, remote or indirect.
ENDS
+ + + + +
Item reference number: N010919-01EN
Date: 19 September 2001
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:55:30 EDT
From: Tjgarr859 aol.com
Subject: Re: academic curriculum
--part1_51.21cf4083.2a7ad012_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 8/1/02 12:33:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
momof2gals mindspring.com writes:
) ) Your comments about how bad it was at your UK
) ) Waldorf
) ) school got me wondering, especially about the
) ) assertion expressed on this list that in
) ) Waldorf
) ) schools, spelling exercises and instruction are
) ) not
) ) healthy and are therefore discouraged.
) )
) ) So, I looked into the archives of the Waldorf
) ) discussion list for the last five years, and
) ) extracted
) ) the following bits of information. Since these
) ) are but
) ) isolated snippets of information, I suspect
) ) that there
) ) is a larger truth about the real relationship
) ) between
) ) Waldorf education and spelling hidden between
) ) the
) ) lines here:
) )
) ) 1) The Detroit Waldorf School has an annual
) ) school-wide spelling bee, and grade 4 (at
) ) least) has
) ) one every six weeks or so;
) )
) ) 2) The Detroit Waldorf School 4th grade classes
) ) have
) ) spelling homework every Monday night, involving
) ) a mix
) ) of drill and story problems. Spelling _rules_
) ) are
) ) emphasized;
) )
) ) 3) With two exceptions (both exceptions being
) ) parents), virtually 100% of the discussion over
) ) the
) ) last 5 years revolving around spelling and
) ) spelling
) ) bees was positive and supportive, by parents
) ) and
) ) teachers, in the context of a Waldorf
) ) education. The
) ) two exceptions mentioned supported the learning
) ) of
) ) spelling, but did not support the competitive
) ) nature
) ) of spelling bees;
) )
) ) 4) The Shining Mountain Waldorf School gives
) ) weekly
) ) spelling tests in the eighth grade;
) )
) ) 5) The Aurora Waldorf School of Alaska includes
) ) spelling exercises in the weekly homework,
) ) starting
) ) with 4th grade;
) )
) ) 6) The Austin Waldorf School hosts an annual
) ) spelling
) ) bee at the fall Michaelmas festival;
) )
) ) 7) The Austin Waldorf School fourth grade plays
) ) "spelling baseball" (a kind of spelling game);
) )
) )
) ) These examples were simply what was mentioned
) ) explicitly in a posting during this period. I
) ) suspect
) ) that similar orientations toward spelling are
) ) held by
) ) more than just these few mentioned Waldorf
) ) schools.
) )
) ) It appears that spelling instruction and drill
) ) is very
) ) much alive and well in Waldorf schools
) ) generally. I
) ) wonder what else is alive and well in Waldorf
) ) schools
) ) that might be getting a less than objective
) ) treatment
) ) here?
) )
) ) Coalesceus
)
Tom
I'm also very glad to hear that Waldorf actually participates in academics,
but agree that this is what they are supposed to do regardless of "what
Steiner says."
I think Coalesceus' point was to address the other side of the Waldorf
picture which none of the Waldorf rank in file seem willing to do even when
asked directly.
Again, I do not believe anyone believes that Waldorf is ALL esoteric mumbo
jumbo, but I do believe most of the experienced critics like myself have/had
a real problem with disclosing the very basis for "Waldorf Education."
If you remove Steiner and anthroposophy from Waldorf you might well call it
an "alternate education." Our problem is not whether they teach anything in
the school resembling basic skills, our problem is the deliberate misleading
of parents as to the very basis of Waldorf which is an anthroposophical cult
like religious order.
My objection involves truth in advertising and the emotional turmoil we
experienced when we became aware of what was really going on. Again, nothing
to worry about if you are aware, but I question anyone who wouldn't shutter
if suddenly you discovered you had unwittingly joined something you did not
want to.
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:55:59 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Mike
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C239A6.38C3B6E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Walden wrote:
This conversation speaks directly, IMO, to the nature of the
beast. Parents and teachers with the best of intentions find
themselves needing something to help them make sense of life.
Great post, Walden. You said exactly what I was thinking.
I read all this from people saying they are ok with Waldorf
because they are into Jung or Joseph Campbell or Noam Chomsky, or
they read Edgar Cayce 20 years ago, and I think, hello?
I can't even make nice about it anymore. Do your spiritual trip
ON YOUR OWN TIME and distinguish your own needs for spirituality or
purpose in life or a new group of friends or whatever it is, from
your child's need for a decent education and a healthy social
setting. Boundaries - what part is about the child, and what part is
about the parent?
I think our generation really suffers from this, and has to
struggle to keep clear on where our own personal trips that we've
been on, "seeking" and following one "path" after another for how
many decades now? - where these leave off and basic parental
responsibility starts. Waldorf schools are full of baby boomer
parents still trying to find themselves (I was one), and not noticing
what is happening to the kids. If I sound bitter, much of it is at
myself.
Sharon wrote to Mike:
You are a religious seeker trying out the Anthroposophic path
(Steiner's guess.) Sounds fair enough to me. You know exactly what
you are doing, you are an informed participant in Steiner's esoteric
mystery school.
Right, but his children don't know, they aren't informed
participants. Mike, they will be just like you and me (I also was
handed dogmatic theism as you put it) - it will be decades before
your children can make sense of what they were taught, figure out for
themselves what they believe, or start to untangle your motivations
for putting them through this. Trust me, this stuff is no less
twisted than the old-time religion. How about letting them grow up
first, and if they want to walk an anthroposophic path, they can
choose to do so?
Anthroposophy is not being imposed,
Not on Mike perhaps, but on his children.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to occur to people that if they
want to read Rudolf Steiner and evolve spiritually, they are always
free to do this *without* experimenting on the children at the same
time. We imagine we are freeing them, while we do to them *exactly*
what was done to us.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 08:17:16 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Mike
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3111121037_170441_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 8/1/02 6:55 PM, Diana Winters at Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net wrote:
Sharon wrote to Mike:
You are a religious seeker trying out the Anthroposophic path (Steiner's
guess.) Sounds fair enough to me. You know exactly what you are doing, you
are an informed participant in Steiner's esoteric mystery school.
Right, but his children don't know, they aren't informed participants.
Sharon: Yes of course, and neither do many parents know. That's what I hate
about esotericism. Thanks for making that point and bringing the
conversation back into the realm of the children. It's so important that
prospective parents understand that Waldorf is a religious training, a path
for teachers to walk in order to get their deeper Anthroposophic spiritual
jollies, while they disseminate the "outer form" to the children in their
class. Waldorf is just an Anthroposophic Sunday school for kids. They may
not learn about astral bodies, but they will learn that they came from the
stars and sing songs to Michael....all in the guise of "myths and stories
from around the world".
Anthroposophy is not being imposed,
Not on Mike perhaps, but on his children.
Sharon: True, and the class parents if they are Anthroposophically
uninformed. I type away on this list hoping to make Waldorf more forthright
and prospective parents more aware. Children in America don't have certain
rights. Parents are allowed to instill religious notions in their children,
it's OK in America for parents to force children into a certain faith. I
oppose this - I raised my own child religion-free, (before and after Waldorf
(G)) and have always told her that her faith, if she chooses one in future,
will be her own choice. Hopefully, Mike will understand one day that he is
doing the very thing to his class that was done to him.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 13:10:16 +0930
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Children and Spiritual Questing - was Re: Mike
Walden, I really wanted to applaud you for the following post.
I keep being reminded of my horror as the Anthroposophical "doctor" sat
there and told us that we were harming our daughter by giving her words to
use to describe her emotions.* I couldn't believe that, after having
demonstrated a noteworthy ignorance about my condition unmatched even by
the most hidebound of the allopathic MDs I've seen about my Environmental
Illness problems over the years, he was giving me some mumbo-jumbo about it
making her sickly later in life (deliberately scaring me with the spectre
of my worst fear, my daughter being crippled by the same sort of SEVERE
Environmental Illness problems that plague both of her parents) to have
words with which to express her feelings!
He'd already debunked the claims of "clumsiness" that the teachers had been
making in their attempts to explain my 5-year-old daughter's ongoing daily
injuries (from "trap-building" play in the sandpit, and other violent abuse
in the name of "play" - all in the context of the US gang-banger slang and
symbolism that they'd picked up from the "forbidden fruit" of the
TV-related play of one child's older neighbor - this, to the child of a
woman who had moved to this country partly to escape stalking by a violent
gang-banger in the US, and his contacts in the LA/Tacoma gangs), and had no
ground on which to hang his claim that my daughter's precocity in certain
intellectual areas (which was predictable, given that there are 4
generations of exceptional intellects that I know of, preceding her, on
several of the relevant family lines, including my own documented status as
a "child prodigy") was "bringing her too much into her head", and that she
needed to be "drawn more into her body", to prevent her from becoming ill
later in life.
* When I say "giving her words to use to describe her emotions", I am
referring to teaching my daughter language that she has demonstrated a need
for, and a capacity to grasp; not things like telling her "you feel mad
now". A better example of how we approach this would be something like
'You don't know how to describe how you're feeling? Well, are you feeling
grumpy and a little sad and mad because the thing you were working on isn't
going the way you wanted it to? It sounds like you feel
"frustrated". When I'm frustrated, I feel like I should be able to make
the thing do what I want, and it just won't cooperate with me, it won't
work right, and that makes me feel all muddled up sad and mad and
grumpy. Are you "frustrated"?'
How could anyone with any concern for THE CHILD, in this day and age,
discourage a child who has had to deal with such intense life experiences
(such as an intercontinental move, away from everyone she knows, combined
with the severe illness of both parents which has removed any possibility
of a "normal" life for anyone in our household) from being given words with
which to express their feelings, rather than being forced to the kind of
violent physical outbursts we'd seen in some of the other children there
(not so coincidentally, the ones with the greatest "forced retardation" of
their intellectual development)???? That is NOT an act of caring and
concern for the child.
This is also why my husband and I have SERIOUS questions about teaching ANY
child religious and spiritual beliefs as if they were matters of
*FACT*. What I believe may be based on the best assessment I can make, and
I've put a lot of thought and evaluation into it - but in the end, due to
their nature, such beliefs MUST address certain concepts and issues that
cannot be proven one way or the other - that is part of what defines them
as matters of BELIEF as opposed to matters of FACT.
I do not want my child to take ANYONE's word on matters of belief - I want
her to make her own evaluation, and work to give her the tools that will
enable her to do so. But, in the meantime, I want her to learn the *facts*
of life (chuckle) - the things that CAN be known, proven, established on
some basis other than taking someone else's word for it. And the last
thing I want is for the people in charge of teaching her those *facts* to
be teaching her ANYONE's *beliefs* under the label of *facts*.
This includes me - she is not a vessel into which I should be pouring my
own angst or any spiritual questing I may be undergoing, although I *do*
share my own process of "spiritual growth" with her by way of letting her
see the process that I go through in asking questions, and evaluating them,
and formulating my beliefs. For instance, I've taught her the basis for my
belief that it is wrong to cause unnecessary harm to anyone, and that
although it is sometimes inevitable that SOME harm will result from one's
choices, one is not only responsible for making the choice that involves
causing the least harm, but also responsible for the harm one *does* cause,
regardless of one's lack of better options. When I have faced other moral
dilemmas, I have walked her through my thinking and my decisions, all
simplified as necessary to make them comprehensible, so that she can
understand how those decisions and evaluations can be made and based in
reason and logic - while still understanding that they are matters of belief.
It must be working, because while she agrees with me on some of those
issues, she differs with me on others, and sees no problem with that. At
the same time, she does understand that *facts*, on the other hand, are
something on which perspective, though *relevant*, is *not* a defining
parameter.
So, when it comes to the schools, this rule of differentiating between fact
and belief holds true *regardless* of how hard they may work to make their
beliefs appear to resemble my own, whenever asked about them, point-blank.
I think a lot of this comes back to the oft-repeated Waldorf quote about
their goal being the well-rounded person at age 35, NOT the well-rounded
person at age 5, or age 13. I don't want my child in any school system
that thinks that the first 34 years of their life are some sort of larval
state, to be sacrificed in the name of the adult that they will become. My
child is a person. She is in early developmental stages, but she is a
person. She deserves to be treated like one, and to matter as one, to have
the fact that she is a person be considered *relevant*, ESPECIALLY by
anyone charged with her education, and/or with the maintenance of her
well-being for a large portion of her waking hours through the majority of
her formative years.
Anything else is, quite simply, cruel and unfair, both to the people that
the children are, and to the people that they will be when they reach
adulthood. How is a person of 35 to suddenly learn what it is to be a
person, and to matter as one, when they never have before, and they have
never been treated as relevant to their own life? Children learn that they
are important, and can make change in the world for good or ill, by being
treated that way, as the treasured, growing, people that they
are. Ideally, they should be treated as people who are important to their
parents, and to the people into whose care they are entrusted, and they
will NOT learn this lesson by having their safety left to the "angels",
especially after the first few times that they have been harmed while
supposedly in this "angelic" care. Physical safety is a matter of fact,
and should not be left to a belief-based method of ensuring it. Bullying
is a preventable, addressable problem, and should not be dismissed as a
matter of a child's "karma" from some other life.
Either we have a Zeno's Paradox-like eternal chain of non-culpability,
where nobody is culpable for their own actions, which are instead the
responsibility of the person who they were reacting to (in this life or
another), who was of course reacting to someone else, who was in turn
reacting to someone else... ...or else we accept that people are
responsible for their own actions, insofar as they have any power or
capacity to choose differently (diminished capacity is NOT a normal
condition of life). There is really no functional difference between
accepting bullying and accepting rape or murder, if you are going to accept
karma as an excuse for a person's choices and actions in their current (and
only *provable*) life.
This comes back to the notion of enforcing belief as fact.
Regardless of whether or not one believes in angels, when one has been
entrusted with the responsibility for ensuring the safety of other people's
children, one does not default on that responsibility, delegating it to
invisible spirit beings whose very existence or lack thereof is a matter of
belief, and NOT of provable fact. (This opinion has been confirmed for me
by the Christian angel-believers with whom I have discussed this problem,
one of whom added that it is her understanding that God gave children
parents for the purposes of looking after them, and that's what we're here
for - parents, teachers, child-care workers, and anyone who truly loves and
cares about children.)
Regardless of whether or not a person believes that the essential part of a
person's "self" is limited to a single life, one would *think* that the
life *actually being lived at the time* would be considered to be the most
relevant, not something to be subjugated to, or even discarded in the name
of, some putative "previous life" that cannot be established through any
objective means! I accept religious diversity in my child's teachers, and
really didn't care whether they believed in reincarnation, as I was assured
that it wasn't taught in the school, and that those beliefs would not
influence the way my child was treated. Yet the ongoing biography
workshops, now that I know more about the Waldorf "biography" as a vehicle
for speculation on multiple incarnations of a given individual's "essential
self", give the lie to that statement, as they verify the pervasive
acceptance of the reincarnationist beliefs - as a fundamental influence on
not only the teachers, but the school community as a whole - in *that
school*, not just in the school system as a whole.
*Regardless of their beliefs, or mine*, the school had no right either to
subjugate my child's present well-being to some incarnative process that
they believe her spirit to be undergoing, or to lie to me about their
motives, their approach, and the way that my child was being treated, in
order to have access to her.
Eugene Schwartz' statements are most detested by the Waldorf system, in my
opinion, because of the clear way in which they reveal the truly predatory
nature of the Waldorf Education system, and the way it deliberately
deceives parents for the purposes of gaining access to their children in
order to indoctrinate those children into a system of belief while they are
still young and impressionable.
Has anyone looked into bringing suit against the schools on the basis of
simple fraud, under the truth-in-advertising laws that apply to financial
transactions and purchases of goods and services? If not, perhaps it is
time that approach was used in order to give the WE system a wake-up call
as to their legal responsibilities under the laws of the nations in which
they are attempting to operate.
At 01-08-02 01:16 PM Thursday, you wrote:
)HI folks,
)
)This conversation speaks directly, IMO, to the nature of the
)beast. Parents and teachers with the best of intentions find themselves
)needing something to help them make sense of life. Searching... always
)searching. The magic and innocence of childhood turns into the reality of
)our mortality - many wonderful human beings seem to need a raison
)d'etre. Religion works for some - booze and drugs for others - various
)spiritual journeys for others - and perhaps even consumerism/materialism
)might be the answer for others. I am not here to judge another's chosen
)path. However...
)
)When I see these discussions on this list - or others - I often ponder
)this question: What about the children? What about *their* needs while
)we are all striving for whatever that *special something* is that always
)seems to be just out of reach? What about the children? Occasionally at
)our old school during the loooooong heavy conferences/meetings where we
)were *striving* for spiritual meaning or common ground - ostensibly with
)regards to the school, but we all knew it went deeper than that - a parent
)would stand up and ask "what does this have to do with the children?" You
)could hear a pin drop after those words. It has taken me years to
)understand that Waldorf really is not about the children. There is no
)respect for these beautiful beings as individuals. Very little,
)anyway. Until puberty, at least - they are simply in transition a la
)Steiner. Incarnating souls. "Form the class." Remember that
)concept? Four temperaments - put them into groups and "form them." Do
)not answer questions - or answer them with questions....We can dance
)around excuses for these theories forever - In my view this is a total
)lack of respect for children - respect which I believe only works 2
)ways. If young children actually do learn by example - I wonder what
)learning is happening in a Waldorf education?
)
)Why do people want to teach - in Waldorf or elsewhere? I would hope this
)very important question will be answered after a great deal of thought has
)gone into the well being and *needs of the children* the teacher will come
)in contact with - rather than by the *needs of the teacher* on whatever
)spiritual path they may have chosen.
)
)
)- Walden
)
)
)----- Original Message -----
)From: (mailto:mhelsher cheshire.net)Mike Helsher
)To: (mailto:waldorf-critics topica.com)waldorf-critics topica.com
)Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 10:48 PM
)Subject: Re: Mike
)
)----- Original Message -----
)From: (mailto:mysplum earthlink.net)mysplum
)To: (mailto:waldorf-critics topica.com)waldorf-critics topica.com
)Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:54 AM
)Subject: Re: Mike
)
)Mike:
)Yours in freedom of thought,
)I'll toast to that.
)
)Sharon: How can you have freedom of mind when the organization you
)support does not freely share important information with you?! How can
)you be free when there is an esoteric subtext and ulterior motive, of
)which you know little about, that feeds the system and informs all school
)activities and strivings? How can a child be free when a school is pumping
)them with Anthroposophy without their understanding or parental sanction?
)At the very least parents should understand that the school is based on
)Steiner's religious theories. Parents need to understand that Waldorf is a
)preparation for children's future reincarnations. To with-hold this kind
)of information is ethically and morally wrong!
)Mike: Your questions are difficult to answer because they stem into the
)very deep and
)controversial topic of human freedom. I personally would hope not impose
)my ideas about this subject on anyone. I will however share some brief
)experiences that have led me to where I'm at today.
)
) I think my perspective is bias because of my life experience to
) date: About 15 years ago I did some comparative religious studies
) coupled with the works of people like: C. G. Jung, Robert Bly (Iron John)
) and especially Joseph Campbell. Campbell spent his life studying myths
) and legends all around the world, throughout recorded history. He found
) many similarities in the myths of completely different cultures. This
) lead him to come to some interesting conclusions about the nature of
) human consciousness. I also studied Buddhism for a while, mostly as a
) cure for the dogmatic theism that was handed to my as a child. I spent
) many years as a flaming agnostic in a predominantly God orientated twelve
) Step fellowship (I survived the Regan era Ollie North CIA drug war :) My
) wife and I went to a therapist for a year and a half *before* we got
) married. I worked with a group of friends for a year or so on John
) Bradshaw's PBS series on "The Family". We also work shopped Bill Moyers
) series entitled "The Power of Myth". We attended a U.U. church for a
) little while to expose our children to a variety of different religious
) ideas. These are just a few examples. Suffuse it to say that I have been
) a seeker of self knowledge for some time now. I've always had what I call
) my 'anarchist inkling'; studying the huge realm of human consciousness
) has given me a clue as to why. I've never felt comfortable hanging out
) with any one group for to long.
)
)Jung's work with dreams coupled with my studies of mythology has caused me
)to lean toward a more metaphorical understanding of life. This is why I am
)not freaked out by some of RS's ideas. We all fall into a different aspect
)of consciousness when we sleep. Maybe RS could access that while he was
)awake; who knows? I've found some of his writings to be quite interesting
)thus far. I am especially looking forward to studying "The Philosophy of
)Freedom". Don't get me wrong, I have great interest in natural science as
)well i.e. "Steven Hawkings Universe", but because of the subjective nature
)of consciousness, science has only recently began to study it. I'm looking
)forward to reading Alan Wallace's new book "The Taboo of Subjectivity:
)Towards a new science of Consciousness". I may be fooling myself, but I'm
)just not ready to accept that I am an automaton made up of accidental
)biological activity. Nor am I willing to have to much faith anything. The
)scope of life and of human consciousness is to vast. And no human being or
)ideology, to my knowledge, has yet to come up with a good answer to the
)question: What is the source of life?
)
)I'm writing an essay entitled "Gnosticism in Modern Form, A Threshold to a
)Truly Humane Society" It will be derived from the works of people like
)Alan Wallace, Noam Chompsky, Herman Hesse, C. G. Jung, Joseph Campbell, a
)study of the Gnostic Gospels found in Egypt in 1945, The Band U2, The
)Indigo Girls, and even Alanis Morissette. It's part of an online
)Humanities program that I'm enrolled in that revolves around the evolution
)of human consciousness, with an emphasis on developing personal self
)knowledge. It involves the study of people Like: Nietzsche, Rembrandt,
)Blake, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, De-Vinci, Goethe, Ben Franklin, Dante, Mozart,
)Plato, Lincoln and even Rudolf Steiner, to name a few.
)
)I think I'm reasonably well informed, and all of the questions that I
)thought to ask were answered to my satisfaction. I think I have a pretty
)good understanding what you call the "esoteric subtext and ulterior
)motive", though I'm sure there is always more to learn. I understand
)your concern for the subtle aspects of WE that are not talked about to
)often. I think you make a good point about the ethics and morality
)revolving around the disclosure of the Anthroposophical underpinnings.
)Personally, I'm more concerned about the subtle aspects of compulsory
)education these days. I like to call it 'conditioning for insertion into
)the consumer matrix'.
)
)Maybe we can talk more about Freedom later, thats all the time I have today.
)
)Peace
)
)Mike
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 10:45:02 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
on 8/2/02 8:40 PM, Willow Firesong at willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
wrote:
Sharon: Thanks for your powerful, heart to heart post Willow. You wrote:
) Has anyone looked into bringing suit against the schools on the basis of
) simple fraud, under the truth-in-advertising laws that apply to financial
) transactions and purchases of goods and services? If not, perhaps it is
) time that approach was used in order to give the WE system a wake-up call
) as to their legal responsibilities under the laws of the nations in which
) they are attempting to operate.
Sharon: When I come across the same old "cover ups" in print, in papers
distributed by our ex-school, I often wonder what the statute of limitations
is ((G)rrrr). Yesterday, I picked up a few "Calyxs" from a friend. These are
news letters put out by our ex-school several times a year. In volume 23,
winter 2001-2002 I came across a teacher's denial that made me want to
respond. It is sooooo frustrating to read this kind of thing which I will
quote from, (and copy and send to Dan Dugan to add to his piles of
"Waldorf-denials-of-the-obvious".
It appears from reading the article that parents are having some
difficulties putting their fingers on "what is really going on" at their
esoteric mystery school. I remember this feeling well. Funny how
Anthroposophists can't say the word "religion" without going into deep
denial and emphasizing "the spiritual". If you asked a Buddhist if Buddhism
was their religion, I doubt they'd blush and deny such a thing. What is
wrong with being a religion? A religious school? Why can't Waldorf come out
and embrace their Theosophical/Rosicrucian religious tradition? I suppose it
all goes back to the old Rosicrucian proverb, "he who hides well, lives
well". Over the next few days, I will quote from the confused article and
respond to what is said, I hope others on the list will also chime in. I'd
like to send any responses to Maureen. The article is entitled "Pleasant
Ridge and Anthroposophy":
Maureen Karlstad, class teacher on sabbatical: "We are often asked at our
school about the spiritual nature of our curriculum. Is Pleasant Ridge a
Christian school? If not, then why do we celebrate Christian festivals? If
it is, then why do we celebrate non-Christian festivals? And what is
Anthroposophy? And what does it have to do with Waldorf Education? If it's
not a religion, then what could it possibly be? These are difficult
questions to address and many people in our school have endeavored to find
answers that seem to fit our unique situation as well as our standing in the
Waldorf Education movement. This short article cannot hope to address all of
these concerns. It can only offer a starting point to understanding the
relationship between Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education".
Sharon Lombard, ex-Pleasant Ridge parent responds: A short article can
easily get to the heart of the matter! Anthroposophy couldn't possibly be
anything but an esoteric religion Maureen! These questions are not difficult
to answer at all and can be easily addressed, especially by a teacher who
has done her homework! Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School is an Anthroposophic
school. Anthroposophy is an esoteric religion. Steiner led a schism from the
Theosophical Society in 1912 in order to establish his religion. Therefore,
one could say, "Anthroposophy is a schismatic branch of Madame Blavatsky's
Theosophy". Anthroposophy is also heavily steeped in Rosicrucianism. In
short, *Anthroposophy is an esoteric religion in the mystery tradition and
Waldorf is the parochial school for Anthroposophy - a magical mystery
school*. In Waldorf you celebrate *Anthroposophic* festivals, which may or
may not be, considered "Christian", depending on who is pondering such a
question. (For example, Mormons believe they are Christians, although some
Christians would say Mormon's are not Christian but Mormon). The festivals
celebrated in Waldorf are Anthroposophic initiations.
Waldorf education is based entirely on Anthroposophy with it's main tenet of
reincarnation. Steiner's "child development" model views the human as an
incarnating being with 9 bodies. These bodies incarnate in 7 year
increments. This 9 bodied model of the human being can be simplified to a 4
bodied man ie., Physical, Etheric, Astral and I. The school functions as a
place to carefully foster proper incarnations and as a preparation for death
and rebirth (future incarnations). Steiner's goal is to help people
remember who they worked with in life so that they can meet up in the after
world and reincarnate together in core groups scattered around the globe in
his proposed Sixth Epoch, when his cult will inhabit the world. These groups
will instruct those who haven't developed their "I" in what they may "think,
feel, will and do". The earth and all it shall yield will belong to those
who develop their "Is". Steiner has made many prophesies of what is to come.
More soon.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 21:40:50 +0000
From: (jones9876 cs.com)
Subject: Thank you to "Critics"
Thanks to Waldorf-Critics for all the information. It has helped us
realize that our situation was not an isolated one, and has given us the
courage to fight back against our former school. As our situation is
ongoing at this point, we do not want to give any details as to our
story until we have completely severed all ties to our school. Be
assured that we will share our story as soon as possible.
We have referred many people to this site in the hopes of preventing
others from suffering at the hands of Waldorf "education". Keep up the
good work Dan Dugan and all your supporters.
Jones9876
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 11:57:48 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: elena515 attbi.com
Subject: fan mail
)Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 21:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
)From: "elena" (elena515 attbi.com)
)To: (president waldorfcritics.org)
)Subject: Thank you, PLANS!
)
)Guys,
)
)You REALLY made my decision FOR Waldorf!
)
)I don't know much about Steiner, and nor do I care.
)But reading your stupid (sorry), propagandistic, FOX-like-attitude
)posts and articles about Waldorf, I
)really believe now that Waldorf, with all its deficiencies of
)marginal religious school is the best
)to choose if you likes so much hate it.
)
)There is ONLY hate in your stories and your articles, no single
)straightforward fact, no factual story,
)only hysterics, hate and propaganda.
)
)Thank you, zealous people!
)
)Elena
)Prospective Waldorf parent
Well, Elena, I guess we really pushed your buttons! I'm curious, you
say you're a prospective Waldorf parent, what makes you so sure that
Waldorf is what you think it is? What is your experience with
Anthroposophy and Waldorf education?
-Dan Dugan
Secretary, PLANS, Inc.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 19:34:09 EDT
From: Tjgarr859 aol.com
Subject: Re: fan mail
--part1_113.1537c948.2a7f13f1_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 8/4/2002 2:58:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dan dandugan.com writes:
) )Subject: Thank you, PLANS!
) )
) )Guys,
) )
) )You REALLY made my decision FOR Waldorf!
) )
) )I don't know much about Steiner, and nor do I care.
) )But reading your stupid (sorry), propagandistic, FOX-like-attitude
) )posts and articles about Waldorf, I
) )really believe now that Waldorf, with all its deficiencies of
) )marginal religious school is the best
) )to choose if you likes so much hate it.
) )
) )There is ONLY hate in your stories and your articles, no single
) )straightforward fact, no factual story,
) )only hysterics, hate and propaganda.
) )
) )Thank you, zealous people!
) )
) )Elena
) )Prospective Waldorf parent
)
) Well, Elena, I guess we really pushed your buttons! I'm curious, you
) say you're a prospective Waldorf parent, what makes you so sure that
) Waldorf is what you think it is? What is your experience with
) Anthroposophy and Waldorf education?
)
) -Dan Dugan
) Secretary, PLANS, Inc.
)
)
Tom
The stories we relate really happened. I believe Elena will ask a few
questions before she enrolls her children now that she knows that there is
much more.
Maybe PLANS should be mandatory reading for all prospective parents because
Waldorf sure won't do it.
Elena is probably hearing just what a lot of us heard in the
beginning........Nothing.
Later on she will be told the standard line about PLANS having "an ax to
grind" and that "anthroposophy is not taught in the school."
If Elena believes in anthroposophy I think PLANS is the best free advertising
waldorf could ever hope for. As for the rest of us who tripped over Steiner's
religion, I think it is clear that we feel a need to tell people what waldorf
won't.
In the end, it is up to Elena to make the best INFORMED DECISION she can make
for her children.
Keep up the good work PLANS.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:55:25 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Children and Spiritual Questing - was Re: Mike
Rondel wrote:
(snip) Has anyone looked into bringing suit against the schools on the
basis of
) simple fraud, under the truth-in-advertising laws that apply to financial
) transactions and purchases of goods and services? If not, perhaps it is
) time that approach was used in order to give the WE system a wake-up call
) as to their legal responsibilities under the laws of the nations in which
) they are attempting to operate.
Walden: Good post and question. I know more than a few people who have
asked the same question. I believe it would be a costly venture (legal)
and unless I am mistaken it is not possible to sue the *movement* as a
whole. One must look at each case individually although the recent legal
problems for the movement (see PLANS site) do seem to involve the philosophy
behind the Waldorf movement. I do not know whether or not a class action
suit has ever been taken against AWSNA or any Waldorf school. Perhaps a
lawyer or two on the list might offer an opinion? IMNSHO - this is clearly
a case of false advertising as anyone with a few hours of research will
understand. It took me only a few minutes of poking around the Net (I was
curious) when I mistakenly thought it was just our school that mislead
people. I wrote a brief blurb for the PLANS site with some of the research
I easily discovered.
The fact that THIS many parents feel swindled and betrayed by a *school
movement* - and strongly enough to engage in discussion after the fact via
the Internet speaks volumes to the enormity of the problem. I can only
imagine the *real* numbers of duped parents who have never heard of PLANS or
do not have access to the Internet or have no desire to walk down a
forgettable memory lane... like many of us do. Now there is an interesting
study in itself!
Perhaps there are many approaches to give WE a wake-up call.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:11:22 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: hard times hit Anthroposophy, too
The recession in the U.S. is affecting Anthroposophical initiatives,
too. I recently got a letter from the Anthroposophical Society
announcing that *Anthroposophy Worldwide-U.S. Edition* is ceasing
publication due to "financial constraints."
I also received an urgent appeal from The Rudolf Steiner Library
(Ghent, NY) announcing cutbacks in hours and services. It would be a
pity if the library had to close. Their newsletter is, in my opinion,
the best Anthroposophical publication in English.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 10:52:06 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Waldorf Art
We were told this is simply an arts based non-sectarian education. I was
pleased to know that my children would be painting and not sitting in front
of a computer at school. Little did I know what "art" really means in the
world of Waldorf/Anthroposophy. Now I look at the *art* my children
produced over the years and I begin to understand some of the subtleties
which, until recently, remained a mystery. I dream of the day when the
Waldorf Movement stands up and begins to understand the concept of
accountability. I dream of the day when Waldorf promotes itself honestly
and shares its occult belief system. I dream....
-Walden
From:
http://www.anthropress.org/BooksPages/ArtasaSpiritualActivity.htm
Art As Spiritual Activity
Rudolf Steiner's Contribution to the Visual Arts Selected
Lectures by Rudolf Steiner
Edited and Introduced by Michael Howard
This book introduces a new way for thinking about, creating, and viewing
art.
The most fundamental issue for the arts today ... is the spiritual
foundation of the arts.... Steiner demonstrates that our individual creative
activity is not solely a personal affair. Our creations do not originate out
of nowhere, nor solely out of ourselves, but from an objective world of
spirit with which we are intimately related in the depths of our being. He
shows that our creations have significance beyond ourselves and beyond the
recognition they receive: works of art are vehicles of spirit ual qualities.
In bringing these spiritual qualities into the sphere of human life, the
artist becomes responsible for the spiritual effects the work of art has on
the artist, other people, and ultimately on human evolution. -Michael
Howard, from the book
Rudolf Steiner saw his task as the renewal of the lost unity of science, the
arts, and religion; thus, he created a new, cognitive
scientific-and-religious art in anthroposophy. The implications of his
act -recognized by such diverse artists as Wassily Kandinsky and Joseph
Beuys -are only now coming fully to light.
In his introduction of more than 100 pages, Michael Howard takes the reader
through these thought-provoking chapters: Is Art Dead? To Muse or Amuse
Artistic Activity as Spiritual Activity "The Representative of Humanity"
Beauty, Creativity, and Metamorphosis New Directions in Art.
336 pages, paperback
ISBN 0-88010-396-5
$18.95
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:27:42 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Florida court cancels voucher program
California also has constitutional language that is more strict about
church-state separation than the federal constitution.
-Dan Dugan
***
Fla. Strikes Down Voucher Program
By DAVID ROYSE
.c The Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) - A judge's rejection of Florida's voucher law
could force a change in plans for 46 students attending private
schools under the program and hundreds of others who had planned to
use vouchers this year.
Jeffrey Dale said his seventh-grade daughter, Cecilia, has been
attending a Catholic school on a voucher since 1999. Without it, he
said he couldn't afford to send her there.
The judge's ruling Monday is going to ``bust her bubble,'' he said.
``I know she doesn't want to go to a public school. I don't know what
we're going to do.''
State Circuit Judge P. Kevin Davey said the state constitution
forbids the use of tax money to send youngsters to religious schools.
The ruling came just weeks before the start of the school year, and
could mean that the 46 students are forced to return to public school.
As of Monday, state officials said the parents of 659 children had
notified the state they intended to use vouchers for the coming
school year, which begins in mid- to late-August in many districts.
Gov. Jeb Bush, who promoted the 1999 voucher law as one of the main
accomplishments of his administration, said the state will appeal and
try to prevent the ruling from taking effect this school year.
``It's not fair to the parents who make these decisions. They think
it's the best choice for their children, and then to have that yanked
out,'' Bush said.
Just over a month ago, the U.S. Supreme Court swept aside a major
hurdle to voucher programs, ruling that such uses of tax dollars do
not violate the separation of church and state required by the U.S.
Constitution.
But Davey said the Florida Constitution is ``clear and unambiguous''
in prohibiting public money from going to churches or other
``sectarian institutions.''
``While this court recognizes and empathizes with the ... purpose of
this legislation - to enhance the educational opportunity of children
caught in the snare of substandard schools - such a purpose does not
grant this court authority to abandon the clear mandate of the people
as enunciated in the constitution,'' Davey wrote.
He barred students from using vouchers to attend private school this year.
``We knew when a judge looked at it that he would side with us,''
said Maureen Dinnen, president of the Florida Education Association,
the state's teachers union. ``It is absolutely wrong to divert tax
money to private schools. Now we can focus on public schools again.''
Other voucher programs are under way in Cleveland and in Milwaukee.
The 1999 Florida law allows students at public schools that earn a
failing grade two years out of four to get a voucher to attend
private schools, including religious schools.
On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Ohio voucher law, ruling
that state money could be spent on religious schools if parents can
freely choose what private school they want their children to attend.
But the Florida Constitution says more explicitly that no state money
can aid any church or religious institution. And states are free to
enact more far-reaching protections than the federal government.
Florida's voucher law was challenged by the teachers union, the
Florida PTA, the Florida League of Women Voters and several families
and educators.
After Monday's ruling, the governor said the state is prepared to
find private money to help children attend private schools.
Students at two Pensacola elementary schools were eligible for
vouchers in the first three years of the program and about 50
students have opted to use vouchers at five private schools.
Nearly 9,000 students at 10 public schools around the state became
eligible for the 2002-03 school year.
08/06/02 02:38 EDT
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. The information contained in the
AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The
Associated Press.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:04:23 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Anthroposophy for Beginners
The R.S. Library newsletter reviews an interesting book:
Tummer, Lia. *Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy for Beginners.*
Writers and Readers Publishing, Inc., 2001, pp. 178.
from the review by jes:
"...a sort of philosophical comic book, an illustrated 'Cliff Notes'
version of anthroposophy.
"Yet, though the new-age-y, rather lurid illustrations dominate, the
content is dynamic and covers a lot of material in an amazingly
succinct way. The tone is respectful and serious; the information is
largely accurate and clearly presented. The author was a Waldorf
student and works as a translator."
It's available from Amazon for $10, I've just ordered it (don't
forget to click through the PLANS page for all your Amazon shopping.
When you do that, we get a few cents on your purchases).
This might be a perfect gift for school board members contemplating a
Waldorf charter!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 06:59:12 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy for Beginners
)The R.S. Library newsletter reviews an interesting book:
)
)Tummer, Lia. *Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy for Beginners.*
)Writers and Readers Publishing, Inc., 2001, pp. 178.
I've seen this - it's really, really bizarre. I thought it was critical at
first, or at least ironic, but it's straightforward, and admiring of
Steiner. The illustrations are hideous and goofy. I'm sorry you spent money
on it, Dan.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 22:07:00 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy for Beginners
) )The R.S. Library newsletter reviews an interesting book:
))
))Tummer, Lia. *Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy for Beginners.*
))Writers and Readers Publishing, Inc., 2001, pp. 178.
)
DIANA
)I've seen this - it's really, really bizarre. I thought it was critical at
)first, or at least ironic, but it's straightforward, and admiring of
)Steiner. The illustrations are hideous and goofy. I'm sorry you spent money
)on it, Dan.
DAN
Bizarre, hideous, goofy? I'm really looking forward to it!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 08:51:16 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: More on Archangel Michael in Waldorf curriculum
Sharon: I wrote and sent this a few days ago but don't think it went through
to critics, so here it is again. Sorry if you've seen it already.
Waldorf Kindergarteners sing,
"The autumn wind blows open the gate,
O Michael, for you we wait,
We follow you, show us the way
With joy we greet this autumn day.
Good morning, good morning!"
Understand that in Anthroposophy, Michael is the Guardian of the Threshold
between life and death and "the only peaceful way to die is by crossing the
threshold of Michael". (p 2 The Task of the Archangel Michael, E.E.
Pfeiffer. Mercury Press, Spring Valley, NY).
A child at our ex-school wrote in a lesson book:
"In September Michael is here
He will help us overcome all fear".
Michael lives in the realm of thought. Anthroposophists say people have
thought in common with the spirit world. They teach that Michael cannot
descend to the physical but by perceiving Michael in the realm of thought we
can have immediate intercourse with the spiritual world. In Anthroposophy,
fear, materialism and evil are personified by Ahriman. Michael fights
against Ahriman, against fear, fear of death.
Third graders act out the annual ritual of Michael slaying the dragon.
Each year, the school children watch as Michael conquers the fear of death,
as he slays the dragon Ahriman. Anthroposophists teach that one of the first
Michael initiations is described in the apocryphal "Acts of Bartholomew".
Bartholomew had to fight against the dragon, he was afraid but Michael
helped him overcome his fears and conquer the dragon. This is an inner
experience of overcoming the fear of death. Once again, Waldorf the mystery
school reinforces the concept of death and reincarnation as the seasons
pass. Steiner's schools are mystery schools that stress
the concept of reincarnation against a backdrop of seasonal cycles. This is
traditional for certain mystery schools.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 788
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By dan dandugan.com
Re: a-s: The back beat in popular music
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: a-s: The back beat in popular music
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: a-s: The back beat in popular music
By Gary GoodWinter.com
RE: a-s: The back beat in popular music
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: a-s: The back beat in popular music
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: a-s: The back beat in popular music
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By mysplum earthlink.net
GAS 2001 Annual Report (including finances)
By dan dandugan.com
RE: a-s: The back beat in popular music
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: a-s: The back beat in popular music
By dan dandugan.com
Re: a-s: The back beat in popular music
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: a-s: The back beat in popular music
By dan dandugan.com
racist pamplet from NZ neo-Nazi
By dan dandugan.com
Re: racist pamplet from NZ neo-Nazi
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: racist pamplet from NZ neo-Nazi
By snell gv.net
Re: racist pamplet from NZ neo-Nazi
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Atlantic Monthly article on vaccines and Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: racist pamplet from NZ neo-Nazi
By dan dandugan.com
RE: a-s: The back beat in popular music
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Atlantic Monthly article on vaccines and Waldorf
By snell gv.net
Re: Atlantic Monthly article on vaccines and Waldorf
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Atlantic Monthly article
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 10:19:21 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
on 8/9/02 11:12 AM, mysplum at mysplum earthlink.net wrote:
Sharon: Continuing to quote from the Calyx adding my two cents, Volume 23,
Issue 2 Winter 2001-2002.
Waldorf teacher Maureen Karlstad continues:
"In everything that happens in our school, there is an acknowledgement of
the spiritual nature of the human being. We may have many different ways of
describing spirituality, and many different ways of incorporating this
knowledge into our work, but fundamentally, we acknowledge the spiritual
foundations of our existence. Many Waldorf charter schools have had to deal
with this issue as it relates to public schooling and the separation of
church and state. In maintaining our independent status, we can acknowledge
the spiritual nature of what we do without having to take on the
church/state issue. How can our curriculum be spiritual but not religious?
This is the question wee need to work with. This is an important
distinction to make, but not that easily made. The answers arise through
on-going study and self-examination."
Sharon, ex-Waldorf parent of Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School (Maureen's
school):
I'm very happy to see you openly admit in the Calyx that at Pleasant Ridge
Waldorf School, the human being is viewed as a spiritual being. But what
does this mean? What are the spiritual foundations of our existence?
Through ongoing study one learns that Waldorf and Anthroposophy are
inextricably linked. Since the school is based and fed
entirely by Steiner's esoteric Anthroposohic worldview, I don't think it's
honest to say that "we have many different ways of describing
spirituality", certainly this is not the case at Pleasant Ridge. Steiner's
"child development model", Waldorf's curriculum, and Waldorf's teacher
training schools are all based on Steiner's religion,
Anthroposophy. Steiner's religious system is quite specific and
Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School is specifically Anthroposophic. I ask that
you get more specific and let parent's know what the 'fundamental
acknowledgement of the spiritual foundations of our existence' means.
Tell parents about Steiner's cosmology, let parents know about Saturn, Sun
and Moon existence. Tell parents that Steiner believed
that Anthroposophists are the descendents of advanced beings that were
saved from the Atlantis flood who continue to evolve and reincarnate,
eventually to inherit the earth during his proposed Sixth Epoch. Let
parents know that Steiner prophesied that Anthroposophists will be saved
from an apocalyptic war of all against all, when white humanity who has
taken the spirit deep into the skin will fight and destroy less advanced
black humanity. Let parents know that Waldorf is based on Steiner's concept
of the human as an incarnating being consisting of physical, astral,
etheric and I bodies, a spiritual being who has lived many lives
previously, and one who may strive to become more and more spiritually
advanced, becoming plant-like on Jupiter and giving birth by speaking
another into existence on Vulcan. Let parents know details of Steiner's
doctrine and religion-based "child development model". Be open about your
annual Michael initiations, tell parents that you teach reincarnation
to children at Pleasant Ridge. Explain to them why children walk the Advent
Spiral of reincarnation each year. Tell parent's about Steiner's teachings
on color, let them know that devoting yourself to color helps one see
spiritual beings. Tell them that devotion to the color on the walls helps
people see through the walls into the neighborhood and witness spiritual
beings which is why Waldorf classrooms are painted certain colors. Help
parents understand that depending on the color one devotes themselves to
depends on what beings are seen. It is your responsibility to help parents
understand the Anthroposophy in the classroom. Explain the esoteric meaning
of the Aryan initiation in fifth grade! Tell parents that the "morning
verse" is really a prayer to Christ the Sun Spirit and that according to
Steiner Jesus is the reincarnation of Zarathustra and Christian
Rosenkreutz, among others. Tell parents that Steiner deliberately veiled
Waldorf, instructing his disciples (the first Waldorf
teachers) to refer to the prayer as a morning verse, and to only give the
outer form of Anthroposophy in order to guard against prejudice. Inform
parents of Steiner's belief in elemental spirits, let
them know that Steiner taught his disciples that gnomes and fairies
actually exist which is why Pleasant Ridge teaches this to pupils. Tell
parents that the "Rainbow Bridge" story told to children on their birthdays
in the early grades is an Anthroposophic parable about the
bridge of reincarnation that children take from the stars to the earth when
they incarnate.
I see you mentioned the church/state issue. PLANS is making an impact.
True, Pleasant Ridge is not publicly funded, (although at one point the
school was trying to obtain public monies. If you remember, I wrote a
letter to Viroqua's superintendent warning him of PRWS's sectarian base).
Because PRWS is a private school, it is free to initiate children into
Steiner's Anthroposophic mysteries, but not without parental sanction.
PRWS has the responsibility of clarifying the religious underpinnings and
worldview of the school to parents before they enroll children or it could
be considered consumer fraud, there are truth in advertising laws. Tell
parents what Eurythmy really is (it is not merely "a form of dance").
Disclose these things to parents in your brochures. Be forthright! Your
curriculum cannot possibly be spiritual without being religious because it
is based entirely on the mystagogue Rudolf Steiner's religious perspective,
his occultism, Anthroposophy. Waldorf is informed by and promulgates a
specific religious worldview. I remember many instances when I was told by
faculty at Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School that what I was contributing was
not Anthroposophic. Faculty and certain parents were always trying to guide
me to be Anthroposophic because PRWS is an Anthroposophic School. It was a
confusing time for our family because in those days we didn't know what
Anthroposophy was. Embrace your Anthroposophic tradition, be openly
Anthroposophic. Despite the fact that Steiner veiled his mystery schools
in an outer form of "idealistic philosophy", his esoteric religious
worldview comes out thick and strong.
Before being fired, Anthroposophist Eugene Schwartz, once head of Waldorf
teacher training at Sunbridge, had this to say:
Eugene Schwartz: "I think we owe it to our parents to let them know that
the child is going to go through one religious experience after another.
And if any of the teacher trainees in the room feel that I?m not saying
that clearly enough to you, well here it is guys, if I haven?t said it to
you a hundred times already: when we deny that Waldorf schools are giving
children religious experiences, we are denying the whole basis of Waldorf
education"..
"To deny the religious basis of Waldorf education ? I would say it again ?
to satisfy public school superintendents, or a talk show host, or a
newspaper reporter is very, very wrong. And the Waldorf leadership , I
would say is waffling on this matter. I would say we are religious schools.
Religious schools plus; religious schools with a difference; religious
schools light ? whatever you want to call it".
"The time has come for us to stop pussyfooting around [theories] that will
sound too strange if we tell parents what we are really doing. Don?t say I
didn?t tell you guys?ten years ago ! Stop pussyfooting around. Tell
everybody what we are about. The day they walk into the school, let them
know then".
"If we are really to be a movement for cultural renewal, it is our
responsibility to share with the parents those elements of Anthroposophy
which will help them understand their children and fathom the mysterious
ways in which we work. Yes, we are giving the children a version of
Anthroposophy in the classroom; whether we mean to or not, it?s there".
(From the transcript of Eugene Schwartz?s talk given November 13, 1999.
Schwartz was at that time Director of Waldorf Teacher Training, Sunbridge
College. The talk was called, "Waldorf Education -- For Our Times Or
Against Them?" and a transcript is available in the "articles" (green
button) section on the PLANS site: www.waldorfcritics.org).
I will continue quoting from your article and responding over the next few
days. Hopefully you will become clearer about the controversy surrounding
Waldorf Schools and you will be able to present PRWS in a more honest and
forthright way.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 10:12:56 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
) Sharon: Continuing to quote from the Calyx adding my two cents, Volume 23,
) Issue 2 Winter 2001-2002.
Great rant! Did you send it to the Calyx?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:02:49 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: a-s: The back beat in popular music
I'm usually quiet over on anthropos-science, but I couldn't resist
chiming in on this one:
-Dan Dugan
*** (posting by Dan to anthropos-science)
Gerry Palo, you wrote,
)I believe the back beat began to appear in pop music some time in the late
)fifties and early sixties, and now it is almost universal, alongside other
)complex beat patterns. Even "normal" tune songs are accompanied by a back
)beat rhythm.
Right. Here's a more accurate transcription:
"Rock and roll music
Any old way you choose it
It's got a back beat, you can't lose it
Any old time you use it
It's gotta be rock and roll music
If you wanna dance with me
If you wanna dance with me"
GERRY PALO
)I have this private theory that the back beat is an insiduous development in
)music, having a kind of jarring anti-musical effect on the soul of the
)listener, but one that becomes addictive. It is as if it wants to do battle
)with the natural rhythmical gestures of the human being. Instead of being
)an exceptional device, it has become all pervasive, even in normal "tuneful"
)songs, such as country and western music.
DAN DUGAN
I think the key word is "dance," Jerry. The back beat emphasizes
syncopated motion, springing up after coming down on the beat. It's
energizing. Yes, much of the world has fallen in love with that
energy since the 50s. You're certainly not the first to call rock
music an evil influence, but you might look around to see who's
keeping you company.
I had an amusing experience with beats once. I went to an evangelical
Christian summer camp with my two sons who practiced that religion.
At an evening community sing, the Christians consistently clapped
-on- the beat, even for gospel songs to which no one remotely hip
would clap on the beat.
I'd suggest that Anthroposophists ought to clap on the beat, too. It
goes with the humorlessness of the fundamentalist.
Regarding the "natural rhythmical gestures of the human being," I
detect the aroma of spiritually-justified eurocentrism, maybe even
racism. The back beat comes from Afro-Cuban dance music. My
understanding is that Africans believe that their dance moves come
from the gods. Maybe you ought to take up with them what is "natural."
What I find interesting in U.S. pop music recently is the popularity
of beat patterns of Arabic origin. Madonna did a lot to popularize
the Middle-Eastern shuffle rhythms. The back beat is still there, but
now it's a jewel topping a constellation of minor beats. An evolution
toward refinement, one could even say delicacy.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 20:26:06 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
on 8/10/02 10:12 AM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
)) Sharon: Continuing to quote from the Calyx adding my two cents, Volume 23,
)) Issue 2 Winter 2001-2002.
)
) Great rant! Did you send it to the Calyx?
Sharon: When I'm finished quoting her article and responding I will send it
to the Calyx. The best is yet to come (G)...here's a sneak preview: "What
draws many people to Waldorf education is the deep spiritual foundation that
encourages us to put aside any dogmatic beliefs we have about the spiritual
world and come to a new study of the spiritual world based on a 20th century
scientific outlook".
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:03:51 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
) Sharon:
When I'm finished quoting her article and responding I will send it
) to the Calyx. The best is yet to come (G)...here's a sneak preview: "What
) draws many people to Waldorf education is the deep spiritual foundation
that
) encourages us to put aside any dogmatic beliefs we have about the
spiritual
) world and come to a new study of the spiritual world based on a 20th
century
) scientific outlook".
"...new study of the spiritual world based on a 20th century
scientific outlook". Twentieth Century?! This must be a typo - or does
it have something to do with the modern "America Work" Joel Wendt (past list
member and Anthro scholar) writes about - which I believe has to do with the
necessity of genocide involving First Nations in America. This *work* would
involve the 20th century though I don't understand where it might have a
scientific outlook. Too bad Mr. Wendt left so many questions unanswered
when he disappeared from the list. Perhaps the author of this piece in the
Calyx would care to elaborate? It's all mystery.
-Walden
(still striving to understand)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:36:18 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: a-s: The back beat in popular music
Oh my God, this is priceless, Dan.
.
)Right. Here's a more accurate transcription:
)"Rock and roll music
)Any old way you choose it
)It's got a back beat, you can't lose it
)Any old time you use it
)It's gotta be rock and roll music
)If you wanna dance with me
)If you wanna dance with me"
)GERRY PALO
)I have this private theory that the back beat is an insiduous development
)in music, having a kind of jarring anti-musical effect on the soul of the
)listener, but one that becomes addictive. It is as if it wants to do
)battle with the natural rhythmical gestures of the human being. Instead of
being
)an exceptional device, it has become all pervasive, even in normal
)"tuneful" songs, such as country and western music.
)DAN DUGAN
)I think the key word is "dance," Jerry. The back beat emphasizes
)syncopated motion, springing up after coming down on the beat. It's
)energizing. Yes, much of the world has fallen in love with that
)energy since the 50s. You're certainly not the first to call rock
)music an evil influence, but you might look around to see who's
)keeping you company.
)I had an amusing experience with beats once. I went to an evangelical
)Christian summer camp with my two sons who practiced that religion.
)At an evening community sing, the Christians consistently clapped
)-on- the beat, even for gospel songs to which no one remotely hip
)would clap on the beat.
)I'd suggest that Anthroposophists ought to clap on the beat, too. It
)goes with the humorlessness of the fundamentalist.
)Regarding the "natural rhythmical gestures of the human being," I
)detect the aroma of spiritually-justified eurocentrism, maybe even
)racism. The back beat comes from Afro-Cuban dance music. My
)understanding is that Africans believe that their dance moves come
)from the gods. Maybe you ought to take up with them what is "natural."
)What I find interesting in U.S. pop music recently is the popularity
)of beat patterns of Arabic origin. Madonna did a lot to popularize
)the Middle-Eastern shuffle rhythms. The back beat is still there, but
)now it's a jewel topping a constellation of minor beats. An evolution
)toward refinement, one could even say delicacy.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 01:42:58 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: a-s: The back beat in popular music
Anthros may claim to have an understanding of "soul", but they sure ain't
got "Soul"!!
...Gary
on 8/10/02 2:02 PM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
) I'm usually quiet over on anthropos-science, but I couldn't resist chiming in
) on this one:
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) *** (posting by Dan to anthropos-science)
)
) Gerry Palo, you wrote,
)
)) I believe the back beat began to appear in pop music some time in the late
)) fifties and early sixties, and now it is almost universal, alongside other
)) complex beat patterns. Even "normal" tune songs are accompanied by a back
)) beat rhythm.
))
) Right. Here's a more accurate transcription:
)
) "Rock and roll music
) Any old way you choose it
) It's got a back beat, you can't lose it
) Any old time you use it
) It's gotta be rock and roll music
) If you wanna dance with me
) If you wanna dance with me"
)
) GERRY PALO
)) I have this private theory that the back beat is an insiduous development in
)) music, having a kind of jarring anti-musical effect on the soul of the
)) listener, but one that becomes addictive. It is as if it wants to do battle
)) with the natural rhythmical gestures of the human being. Instead
of being an
)) exceptional device, it has become all pervasive, even in normal "tuneful"
)) songs, such as country and western music.
)
) DAN DUGAN
) I think the key word is "dance," Jerry. The back beat emphasizes syncopated
) motion, springing up after coming down on the beat. It's
energizing. Yes, much
) of the world has fallen in love with that energy since the 50s. You're
) certainly not the first to call rock music an evil influence, but you might
) look around to see who's keeping you company.
)
) I had an amusing experience with beats once. I went to an evangelical
) Christian summer camp with my two sons who practiced that religion. At an
) evening community sing, the Christians consistently clapped -on- the beat,
) even for gospel songs to which no one remotely hip would clap on the beat.
)
) I'd suggest that Anthroposophists ought to clap on the beat, too.
It goes with
) the humorlessness of the fundamentalist.
)
) Regarding the "natural rhythmical gestures of the human being," I detect the
) aroma of spiritually-justified eurocentrism, maybe even racism. The back beat
) comes from Afro-Cuban dance music. My understanding is that Africans believe
) that their dance moves come from the gods. Maybe you ought to take up with
) them what is "natural."
)
) What I find interesting in U.S. pop music recently is the popularity of beat
) patterns of Arabic origin. Madonna did a lot to popularize the Middle-Eastern
) shuffle rhythms. The back beat is still there, but now it's a jewel topping a
) constellation of minor beats. An evolution toward refinement, one could even
) say delicacy.
)
) -Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 06:48:22 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: a-s: The back beat in popular music
Percedol:
This is interesting (at least for this summer break)!
I've not followed well recent music events but Sting "...all this time",
Alicia Keys "songs in A minor", Sade "lovers live" and Norah Jones "come
away with me" are some of the best in 2002.
Then to cite influence from middle east and south America there is
Shakira, now very popular worldwide.
Still for middle eastern sounds my favorites are Lisa Gerrard ("the
Insider", "gladiator" and "duality"), and VAS (sunyata, in the garden of
souls)
In general for more relaxing muxic Trilok Gurtu & Angelique Didjo,
Carlos Nunez, David Benoit, TC, Clara Ponty, Mo'Horizons, Bob Janes,
Ottmar Liebert, Noa.
Still I haven't heard last Peter Gabriel album after ten years of
(almost-considering "OVO" released in 2000) silence.
Who says that As. ain't got soul?
It is funny how people always try to categorize the others.
In fact the description of A. given by critics on this list does not not
fit at all with what I know of it over many years. Maybe there are two
different anth.osophies?^
Gary Bonhiver wrote:
) Anthros may claim to have an understanding of "soul", but they sure
) ain't
) got "Soul"!!
)
) ...Gary
)
)
) on 8/10/02 2:02 PM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
)
) ) I'm usually quiet over on anthropos-science, but I couldn't resist
) ) chiming in
) ) on this one:
) )
) ) -Dan Dugan
) )
) ) *** (posting by Dan to anthropos-science)
) )
) ) Gerry Palo, you wrote,
) )
) )) I believe the back beat began to appear in pop music some time in the
) )) late
) )) fifties and early sixties, and now it is almost universal, alongside
) )) other
) )) complex beat patterns. Even "normal" tune songs are accompanied by a
) )) back
) )) beat rhythm.
) ))
) ) Right. Here's a more accurate transcription:
) )
) ) "Rock and roll music
) ) Any old way you choose it
) ) It's got a back beat, you can't lose it
) ) Any old time you use it
) ) It's gotta be rock and roll music
) ) If you wanna dance with me
) ) If you wanna dance with me"
) )
) ) GERRY PALO
) )) I have this private theory that the back beat is an insiduous
) )) development in
) )) music, having a kind of jarring anti-musical effect on the soul of the
) )) listener, but one that becomes addictive. It is as if it wants to do
) )) battle
) )) with the natural rhythmical gestures of the human being. Instead of
) )) being an
) )) exceptional device, it has become all pervasive, even in normal
) )) "tuneful"
) )) songs, such as country and western music.
) )
) ) DAN DUGAN
) ) I think the key word is "dance," Jerry. The back beat emphasizes
) ) syncopated
) ) motion, springing up after coming down on the beat. It's energizing.
) ) Yes, much
) ) of the world has fallen in love with that energy since the 50s. You're
) ) certainly not the first to call rock music an evil influence, but you
) ) might
) ) look around to see who's keeping you company.
) )
) ) I had an amusing experience with beats once. I went to an evangelical
) ) Christian summer camp with my two sons who practiced that religion. At
) ) an
) ) evening community sing, the Christians consistently clapped -on- the
) ) beat,
) ) even for gospel songs to which no one remotely hip would clap on the
) ) beat.
) )
) ) I'd suggest that Anthroposophists ought to clap on the beat, too. It
) ) goes with
) ) the humorlessness of the fundamentalist.
) )
) ) Regarding the "natural rhythmical gestures of the human being," I detect
) ) the
) ) aroma of spiritually-justified eurocentrism, maybe even racism. The back
) ) beat
) ) comes from Afro-Cuban dance music. My understanding is that Africans
) ) believe
) ) that their dance moves come from the gods. Maybe you ought to take up
) ) with
) ) them what is "natural."
) )
) ) What I find interesting in U.S. pop music recently is the popularity of
) ) beat
) ) patterns of Arabic origin. Madonna did a lot to popularize the
) ) Middle-Eastern
) ) shuffle rhythms. The back beat is still there, but now it's a jewel
) ) topping a
) ) constellation of minor beats. An evolution toward refinement, one could
) ) even
) ) say delicacy.
) )
) ) -Dan Dugan
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 07:08:27 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Children and Spiritual Questing -
mysplum wrote:
) on 8/9/02 11:12 AM, mysplum at mysplum earthlink.net wrote:
)
) Sharon: Continuing to quote from the Calyx adding my two cents, Volume
) 23,
) Issue 2 Winter 2001-2002.
)
) Waldorf teacher Maureen Karlstad continues:
)
) "In everything that happens in our school, there is an acknowledgement
) of
) the spiritual nature of the human being. We may have many different ways
) of
) describing spirituality, and many different ways of incorporating this
) knowledge into our work, but fundamentally, we acknowledge the spiritual
) foundations of our existence. Many Waldorf charter schools have had to
) deal
) with this issue as it relates to public schooling and the separation of
) church and state. In maintaining our independent status, we can
) acknowledge
) the spiritual nature of what we do without having to take on the
) church/state issue. How can our curriculum be spiritual but not
) religious?
) This is the question wee need to work with. This is an important
) distinction to make, but not that easily made. The answers arise through
) on-going study and self-examination."
)
) Sharon, ex-Waldorf parent of Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School (Maureen's
) school):
)
) I'm very happy to see you openly admit in the Calyx that at Pleasant
) Ridge
) Waldorf School, the human being is viewed as a spiritual being. But what
) does this mean? What are the spiritual foundations of our existence?
) Through ongoing study one learns that Waldorf and Anthroposophy are
) inextricably linked. Since the school is based and fed
) entirely by Steiner's esoteric Anthroposohic worldview, I don't think
) it's
) honest to say that "we have many different ways of describing
) spirituality", certainly this is not the case at Pleasant Ridge.
) Steiner's
) "child development model", Waldorf's curriculum, and Waldorf's teacher
) training schools are all based on Steiner's religion,
PERCEDOL:
INTERESTINGLY, RS DID NOT START A RELIGION, BUT QUITE THE OPPOSITE OF A
RELIGION. IN FACT A RELIGION TODAY IS DEAD STUFF IN FRONT OF THE
SPIRITUAL.
) Anthroposophy. Steiner's religious system is quite specific and
) Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School is specifically Anthroposophic. I ask that
) you get more specific and let parent's know what the 'fundamental
) acknowledgement of the spiritual foundations of our existence' means.
)
) Tell parents about Steiner's cosmology, let parents know about Saturn,
) Sun
) and Moon existence. Tell parents that Steiner believed
) that Anthroposophists are the descendents of advanced beings that were
) saved from the Atlantis flood who continue to evolve and reincarnate,
) eventually to inherit the earth during his proposed Sixth Epoch. Let
) parents know that Steiner prophesied that Anthroposophists will be saved
) from an apocalyptic war of all against all, when white humanity who has
) taken the spirit deep into the skin will fight and destroy less advanced
) black humanity.
PERCEDOL:
SO DISTORTED THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO COMMENT.
Let parents know that Waldorf is based on Steiner's concept
) of the human as an incarnating being consisting of physical, astral,
) etheric and I bodies, a spiritual being who has lived many lives
) previously, and one who may strive to become more and more spiritually
) advanced, becoming plant-like on Jupiter and giving birth by speaking
) another into existence on Vulcan. Let parents know details of Steiner's
) doctrine and religion-based "child development model". Be open about
) your
) annual Michael initiations, tell parents that you teach reincarnation
) to children at Pleasant Ridge. Explain to them why children walk the
) Advent
) Spiral of reincarnation each year. Tell parent's about Steiner's
) teachings
) on color, let them know that devoting yourself to color helps one see
) spiritual beings. Tell them that devotion to the color on the walls
) helps
) people see through the walls into the neighborhood and witness spiritual
) beings which is why Waldorf classrooms are painted certain colors. Help
) parents understand that depending on the color one devotes themselves to
) depends on what beings are seen. It is your responsibility to help
) parents
) understand the Anthroposophy in the classroom. Explain the esoteric
) meaning
) of the Aryan
PERCEDOL:
[SIC!]
initiation in fifth grade! Tell parents that the "morning
) verse" is really a prayer to Christ the Sun Spirit and that according to
) Steiner Jesus is the reincarnation of Zarathustra and Christian
) Rosenkreutz, among others. Tell parents that Steiner deliberately veiled
) Waldorf, instructing his disciples (the first Waldorf
) teachers) to refer to the prayer as a morning verse, and to only give
) the
) outer form of Anthroposophy in order to guard against prejudice. Inform
) parents of Steiner's belief in elemental spirits, let
) them know that Steiner taught his disciples that gnomes and fairies
) actually exist which is why Pleasant Ridge teaches this to pupils. Tell
) parents that the "Rainbow Bridge" story told to children on their
) birthdays
) in the early grades is an Anthroposophic parable about the
) bridge of reincarnation that children take from the stars to the earth
) when
) they incarnate.
)
) I see you mentioned the church/state issue. PLANS is making an impact.
PERCEDOL:
AGAINST A WALL?
) True, Pleasant Ridge is not publicly funded, (although at one point the
) school was trying to obtain public monies. If you remember, I wrote a
) letter to Viroqua's superintendent warning him of PRWS's sectarian
) base).
) Because PRWS is a private school, it is free to initiate children into
) Steiner's Anthroposophic mysteries, but not without parental sanction.
) PRWS has the responsibility of clarifying the religious underpinnings
) and
) worldview of the school to parents before they enroll children or it
) could
) be considered consumer fraud, there are truth in advertising laws. Tell
) parents what Eurythmy really is (it is not merely "a form of dance").
PERCEDOL:
E. IS MORE THAN DANCE.
) Disclose these things to parents in your brochures. Be forthright! Your
) curriculum cannot possibly be spiritual without being religious because
) it
) is based entirely on the mystagogue Rudolf Steiner's religious
) perspective,
) his occultism, Anthroposophy. Waldorf is informed by and promulgates a
) specific religious
PERCEDOL:
SHOULD BE "SPIRITUAL" NOT "RELIGIOUS".
worldview. I remember many instances when I was told by
) faculty at Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School that what I was contributing
) was
) not Anthroposophic. Faculty and certain parents were always trying to
) guide
) me to be Anthroposophic because PRWS is an Anthroposophic School. It was
) a
) confusing time for our family because in those days we didn't know what
) Anthroposophy was. Embrace your Anthroposophic tradition, be openly
) Anthroposophic. Despite the fact that Steiner veiled his mystery schools
) in an outer form of "idealistic philosophy", his esoteric religious
) worldview comes out thick and strong.
)
) Before being fired, Anthroposophist Eugene Schwartz, once head of
) Waldorf
) teacher training at Sunbridge, had this to say:
)
) Eugene Schwartz: "I think we owe it to our parents to let them know that
) the child is going to go through one religious experience after another.
) And if any of the teacher trainees in the room feel that I1m not saying
) that clearly enough to you, well here it is guys, if I haven1t said it
) to
) you a hundred times already: when we deny that Waldorf schools are
) giving
) children religious experiences, we are denying the whole basis of
) Waldorf
) education"..
)
) "To deny the religious basis of Waldorf education ? I would say it again
) ?
) to satisfy public school superintendents, or a talk show host, or a
) newspaper reporter is very, very wrong. And the Waldorf leadership ,
I
) would say is waffling on this matter. I would say we are religious
) schools.
) Religious schools plus; religious schools with a difference; religious
) schools light ? whatever you want to call it".
)
) "The time has come for us to stop pussyfooting around [theories] that
) will
) sound too strange if we tell parents what we are really doing. Don1t say
) I
) didn1t tell you guys-ten years ago ! Stop pussyfooting around. Tell
) everybody what we are about. The day they walk into the school, let them
) know then".
)
) "If we are really to be a movement for cultural renewal, it is our
) responsibility to share with the parents those elements of Anthroposophy
) which will help them understand their children and fathom the mysterious
) ways in which we work. Yes, we are giving the children a version of
) Anthroposophy in the classroom; whether we mean to or not, it1s there".
)
) (From the transcript of Eugene Schwartz1s talk given November 13, 1999.
) Schwartz was at that time Director of Waldorf Teacher Training,
) Sunbridge
) College. The talk was called, "Waldorf Education -- For Our Times Or
) Against Them?" and a transcript is available in the "articles" (green
) button) section on the PLANS site: www.waldorfcritics.org).
)
) I will continue quoting from your article and responding over the next
) few
) days. Hopefully you will become clearer about the controversy
) surrounding
) Waldorf Schools and you will be able to present PRWS in a more honest
) and
) forthright way.
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:06:00 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: a-s: The back beat in popular music
Just another perfect example of Anthroposophers/-ists taking themselves so
incredibly seriously.
"Joyless" doesn't even come close .....
LDE
) Anthros may claim to have an understanding of "soul", but they sure ain't
) got "Soul"!!
)
) ...Gary
)
)
) on 8/10/02 2:02 PM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
)
)) I'm usually quiet over on anthropos-science, but I couldn't resist
chiming in
)) on this one:
))
)) -Dan Dugan
))
)) *** (posting by Dan to anthropos-science)
))
)) Gerry Palo, you wrote,
))
))) I believe the back beat began to appear in pop music some time in the late
))) fifties and early sixties, and now it is almost universal, alongside other
))) complex beat patterns. Even "normal" tune songs are accompanied by a back
))) beat rhythm.
)))
)) Right. Here's a more accurate transcription:
))
)) "Rock and roll music
)) Any old way you choose it
)) It's got a back beat, you can't lose it
)) Any old time you use it
)) It's gotta be rock and roll music
)) If you wanna dance with me
)) If you wanna dance with me"
))
)) GERRY PALO
))) I have this private theory that the back beat is an insiduous
development in
))) music, having a kind of jarring anti-musical effect on the soul of the
))) listener, but one that becomes addictive. It is as if it wants
to do battle
))) with the natural rhythmical gestures of the human being. Instead of being
an
))) exceptional device, it has become all pervasive, even in normal "tuneful"
))) songs, such as country and western music.
))
)) DAN DUGAN
)) I think the key word is "dance," Jerry. The back beat emphasizes syncopated
)) motion, springing up after coming down on the beat. It's energizing. Yes,
much
)) of the world has fallen in love with that energy since the 50s. You're
)) certainly not the first to call rock music an evil influence, but you might
)) look around to see who's keeping you company.
))
)) I had an amusing experience with beats once. I went to an evangelical
)) Christian summer camp with my two sons who practiced that religion. At an
)) evening community sing, the Christians consistently clapped -on- the beat,
)) even for gospel songs to which no one remotely hip would clap on the beat.
))
)) I'd suggest that Anthroposophists ought to clap on the beat, too. It goes
with
)) the humorlessness of the fundamentalist.
))
)) Regarding the "natural rhythmical gestures of the human being," I detect the
)) aroma of spiritually-justified eurocentrism, maybe even racism.
The back beat
)) comes from Afro-Cuban dance music. My understanding is that Africans believe
)) that their dance moves come from the gods. Maybe you ought to take up with
)) them what is "natural."
))
)) What I find interesting in U.S. pop music recently is the popularity of beat
)) patterns of Arabic origin. Madonna did a lot to popularize the
Middle-Eastern
)) shuffle rhythms. The back beat is still there, but now it's a
jewel topping a
)) constellation of minor beats. An evolution toward refinement, one could even
)) say delicacy.
))
)) -Dan Dugan
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 12:07:11 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: a-s: The back beat in popular music
Percedol, you wrote,
)Who says that As. ain't got soul?
Well, hello! I thought you'd gone away.
)It is funny how people always try to categorize the others.
)In fact the description of A. given by critics on this list does not not
)fit at all with what I know of it over many years. Maybe there are two
)different anth.osophies?^
Anthroposophists I know are usually disagreeing with other
Anthroposophists about the meaning of this or that arcane
"indication." Half of 'em don't go to their local group because
they're fighting with somebody.
I'm glad you like music, Percedol. I just couldn't resist puncturing
Palo's pretense. He's taken the role of Anthroposophical authority on
the public Waldorf list for many years. I respect him as intelligent
and erudite.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:02:31 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
on 8/11/02 12:08 AM, Percedol netscape.net at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
)
) PERCEDOL:
) INTERESTINGLY, RS DID NOT START A RELIGION, BUT QUITE THE OPPOSITE OF A
) RELIGION. IN FACT A RELIGION TODAY IS DEAD STUFF IN FRONT OF THE
) SPIRITUAL.
Sharon: Hello Percedol my friend! Welcome back! Have you had a good summer
so far?
I love the way you guys think you can change the word "religion" to
"spiritual" and have a completely different thing! Of course Steiner started
a religion Percedol, that is a fact. After spending 10 years with the
Theosophical Society, he led a schism in 1912 to establish his own religion
Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy is a schismatic branch of Theosophy. In other
words, just another form of Blavatsky's Theosophy.
)
)
)) Anthroposophy. Steiner's religious system is quite specific and
)) Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School is specifically Anthroposophic. I ask that
)) you get more specific and let parent's know what the 'fundamental
)) acknowledgement of the spiritual foundations of our existence' means.
))
)) Tell parents about Steiner's cosmology, let parents know about Saturn,
)) Sun
)) and Moon existence. Tell parents that Steiner believed
)) that Anthroposophists are the descendents of advanced beings that were
)) saved from the Atlantis flood who continue to evolve and reincarnate,
)) eventually to inherit the earth during his proposed Sixth Epoch. Let
)) parents know that Steiner prophesied that Anthroposophists will be saved
)) from an apocalyptic war of all against all, when white humanity who has
)) taken the spirit deep into the skin will fight and destroy less advanced
)) black humanity.
)
) PERCEDOL:
) SO DISTORTED THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO COMMENT.
Sharon: Oh please comment, what is distorted?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 19:03:54 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: GAS 2001 Annual Report (including finances)
Here's an Adobe Acrobat file of the 2001 annual report of the General
Anthroposophical Society:
http://www.goetheanum.ch/society/ar2001.pdf
-Dan Dugan (thanks, Gary)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:22:27 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: a-s: The back beat in popular music
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Percedol, you wrote,
)
) )Who says that As. ain't got soul?
)
) Well, hello! I thought you'd gone away.
Percedol:
No, it was a summer break.
)
) )It is funny how people always try to categorize the others.
) )In fact the description of A. given by critics on this list does not not
) )fit at all with what I know of it over many years. Maybe there are two
) )different anth.osophies?^
)
) Anthroposophists I know are usually disagreeing with other
) Anthroposophists about the meaning of this or that arcane
) "indication." Half of 'em don't go to their local group because
) they're fighting with somebody.
Percedol:
Interesting.
)
) I'm glad you like music, Percedol. I just couldn't resist puncturing
) Palo's pretense. He's taken the role of Anthroposophical authority on
) the public Waldorf list for many years. I respect him as intelligent
) and erudite.
Percedol:
Although a lot of pop music was composed with support of some drugs the
result is good. After all rock'n'roll never pretended to be saint.
Rolling Stones I think got close to the Golden Dawn, Led's Jimmy Page
bought Crowley's house, Mr. Ozzy O. was singing "Mr. Crowley", Eagles
had some 'evil' hidden message on the anti-sense on their beautiful
"hotel California" as well as Led Zeppelin in their masterpiece "Starway
to heaven" (they lost in court in California about it, if I remember
well). Jefferson Airplane were praising the use of allucinogens in
"chasing rabbits", etc. etc.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:40:57 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: a-s: The back beat in popular music
The dialogue over on anthropos-science continues...
-Dan Dugan
***
) ) DAN DUGAN
)) I think the key word is "dance," Jerry. The back beat emphasizes
)) syncopated motion, springing up after coming down on the beat. It's
)) energizing. Yes, much of the world has fallen in love with that
)) energy since the 50s. You're certainly not the first to call rock
)) music an evil influence, but you might look around to see who's
)) keeping you company.
GERRY PALO
)I don't know if it is evil, but it does strike what I think are my healthy
)musical instincts as unhealthy.
Sounds to me, Jerry, as though you are labeling what doesn't appeal
to you as "unhealthy." De gustibus non est disputandum.
)Sort of like a continuous bouncing and
)jarring, non-stop. Perhaps it is more like an addiction. It clashes with
)the natural sense of rhythm.
You're going to declare a musical form that much of the world is
joyously in love with not "natural"? Can't you see that that makes
you look parochial and priggish? If you're right, you're going to
have to defend your position with more than feelings.
)I.e. I don't think these things are just
)abritrary, culturally relativistic things, but rather that they have their
)roots deep in the human psyche and perhaps even the physical constitution.
Physical constitution? Are you saying there's something in the bodies
of Africans that generates the back-beat? I'm more inclined to think
of it as a -meme- rather than a -gene-, and the world-wide appeal of
the back beat reinforces that idea.
***
DUGAN
) ) Regarding the "natural rhythmical gestures of the human being," I
)) detect the aroma of spiritually-justified eurocentrism, maybe even
)) racism. The back beat comes from Afro-Cuban dance music. My
)) understanding is that Africans believe that their dance moves come
)) from the gods. Maybe you ought to take up with them what is "natural."
PALO
)Welll, if you are a cultural relativist (an arguable point of view) then I
)can understand why you sense that. But even so, the Afro-Cuban music isn't
)so persistently that way. I would suspect that it is not the normal pattern.
I'm not at all a relativist, but some relativist arguments are true,
and I think this case is one of them. Can you explain how you know
what a "normal" rhythmic pattern is?
)In any case, it is a matter of proportion. I would agree with the Africans
)that dance does come from the gods,
So then the back beat comes from "adversarial" gods, like Lucifer?
)and that beat patterns and rhythm are
)not just arbitrary.
I agree. Dance rhythms are appealing because they are, pardon the
expression, -universally human-.
***
)One thing [European music] has
)achieved is a balanced maturation of all three elements of music -- melody,
)harmony and rhythm -- to a degree never realized before in any other music.
A Eurocentric attitude that reflects the early-20th-century
master-race attitude that Steiner promoted. That's why I'm needling
you about it. It's discordant with the increasing understanding of
world-wide culture that, thanks to electronic media, evolved in the
late 20th century.
)These things play an important role in the whole life of human
)consciousness. One doesn't have to make absolute judgements to acknowledge
)that they are not a matter of indifference, or that there can be healthy and
)unhealthy tendencies in music as well as other aspects of human cultural
)life and values.
OK, let's go back to defining just what is "unhealthy" about the back
beat. Besides the fact that you don't like popular music, which is
certainly your right.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:12:14 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: a-s: The back beat in popular music
) Percedol:
) Although a lot of pop music was composed with support of some drugs the
) result is good. After all rock'n'roll never pretended to be saint.
) Rolling Stones I think got close to the Golden Dawn, Led's Jimmy Page
) bought Crowley's house, Mr. Ozzy O. was singing "Mr. Crowley", Eagles
) had some 'evil' hidden message on the anti-sense on their beautiful
) "hotel California" as well as Led Zeppelin in their masterpiece "Starway
) to heaven" (snip)
STARway to heaven? Who but an Anthroposophist could stumble into such an
obvious Freudian Slip?! Stars... Heaven... for the record this classic Zepp
song is titled "Stairway to Heaven." Those were the days....
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:18:41 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: a-s: The back beat in popular music
More dialogue from anthropos-science:
-Dan Dugan
GERRY PALO
)I am aware of Dugan's tactics of posting from other lists without permission
)and compiling collections of statements from anthroposophists and Waldorf
)supporters out of context to illustrate "what they believe". I know that
)anything I say or any opinion I express is subject to be used by him in his
)campaign, whether it has anything to do with anthroposophy or not. That is
)more or less the e-world we live in.
DAN DUGAN
You're a respected Defender of the Faith, Gerry. I don't quote people
because I'm nasty and want to hurt them or their religion. There's a
very good reason why PLANS monitors Anthroposophical publications and
mailing lists. Steiner told his teachers to cover up the
Anthroposophy in his school (quotes on request), and that denial
continues to this day, except from rare, courageous individuals like
Eugene Schwartz (quotes on request). That, the denial, was scandal
one, a small one about consumer fraud. If Anthroposophists had been
up-front about confessing their faith, a skeptic like me would never
have become involved with a Waldorf school.
Then came scandal two. Anthroposophists started getting tax money for
their schools. Some of us who understood the religious nature of
Waldorf pointed out the problem with the U.S. constitution. At one of
the -public- schools we've filed suit against, the last teacher who
didn't accept Anthroposophy was pushed out a couple of years ago.
There's a problem here. It's causing a bright light to be turned on
Anthroposophy. So that's why I quote you, Gerry. You represent the
Waldorf orthodoxy. Knowledgeably and eloquently.
)...Now anthroposophists
)are among those in the world who do believe that there is something
)objective that we can call evil, as opposed to the prevailing modern point
)of view that claims that there is no such thing or that evil is at best a
)matter of relative cultural values...
As I understand it, the concept of evil in Anthroposophy has a lot of
relativism in it. In the A. view, things are evil when it's the wrong
-time-, right? For example, Ahrimanic materialism was a phase from
which humanity was supposed to learn, and then go on to a phase of
respiritualization, correct?
***
)Now, Dan (and several others in this discussion) have pointed out that our
)ideas of "normal" four four or two four music with the stress on the first
)and third beats are merely relative cultural values from our white male
)European culture (not heritage -- heritage only applies to non-white,
)non-affluent, non-Europeans. With Europeans it is not heritage but cultural
)bias), and that we ought to clap along in back beat, in order to show the
)ignorant fundamentalists that we are hip to their bigotry and don't agree
)with it. Sure, let's do it. But let's not be so quick to say "ought" or
)"ought not".
I'm not a postmodern thinker, Gerry, so injecting that rhetoric into
the discussion only muddies the waters.
)First, I believe that Dan's (and others' here) expression of the idea that
)musical and forms are expressions of different cultures is only one side of
)the coin. The other side is that musical forms are also the influencers of
)culture. They both express culture and the impress it, consciously and
)unconsciously on the listener. And music does this across cultural
)boundaries. It goes direct, through the ear to the heart and psyche (That's
)Greek for "soul". We use a Greek word when the English word makes us
)uncomfortable), and even into the physical-neurological organism. We know
)about the "Mozart effect", for example.
To divert the discussion momentarily to something actually on-topic
for this list, do you know that that one study, to the great
embarrassment of the original authors, has been exaggerated and
extrapolated beyond science and far beyond credibility? The study had
nothing to do with developing children's brains, and now there are
whole books claiming that it did.
)And we know about the fact that
)warlike peoples used music to stir up their courage and battle frenzy and
)bring terror into the hearts of their foes -- from the bagpipes to the
)Indian war dances to the fife and drums of the British red coats. It is
)interesting, too, that the essence of martial music exaggerates the beat
)over harmony and melody.
Yeah, well, Gerry, it's about -marching-, not singing or dancing!
***
)Now one of the cultural characteristics of "white male European" culture in
)music is that a new element has been introduced which was never there
)before. Between rhythm and melody, a new element, harmony, appeared,
)starting about five hundred years ago. Where it came from, or how (or even
)why) I don't know. It reached the peak of expression in the eighteenth and
)nineteenth centuries, and its characteristic quality is an enormous
)enlargement of the possibilities and range of human musical expression.
)American Indians, Polynesians, the Japanese, Chinese and other ancient
)musical cultures tend to separate rhythm oriented and melodically oriented
)(including singing) music in their forms (picture the war dance on the one
)hand and the Indian flute on the other). But in "western" music, you have
)the two elements united by this third element, harmony, which brings a whole
)new musical-spatial dimension into music. This is more than the expression
)of the soul of the culture. It is something that is also the educator of the
)culture.
Maybe, Gerry, maybe not. Ever talked with a musicologist about that?
It sounds a lot like Steiner's arguments that the German language is
best. It seems awfully convenient that -your- culture just happens to
be the pinnacle of evolution.
)So, when you have one of the elements coming to the four, changing the mix,
)so to speak, or distorting itself, you ask, what is the effect? How does it
)work back into the culture -- is it healthy (relatively or absolutely) or
)not? The overall trend has been for the middle element, harmony, to
)diminish, and the rhythm section to be exaggerated. This happened long
)before the introdution of the back beat, which is only a recent phenomenon
)in pop music. The harmonies of, say, sixties rock'n'roll became utterly
)simple, and repetetive, almost a drone. The rhythm section had long become
)primary, and the melodic element became crude. There is no comparison
)between what passes for melody today in pop music and the pure, unharmonised
)melodic forms of the Japanese flute or the east Indian sitar.
Gerry, you're just being cranky about music you don't like. It
appears you fall into the Anthroposophical trap of pretending that
your prejudices have cosmic significance. The plethora of "classic
rock" radio programming demonstrates that the sixties produced
hundreds of popular songs with appealing melodies and meaningful
lyrics, songs that have become "standards," nothing like what you
describe.
)And now, with
)the influence of rap, melody and harmony have disappeared altogether, and
)rap-influenced music that contains them diminishes their presence to almost
)nil. Such things have an effect, call it the Rap Effect, the counterpart,
)if you will, of the Mozart Effect.
Rap has sparked a renaissance of poetry writing and reading among young people.
)Similar could be said of the back beat, or bossa nova (remember that you old
)fogies?), or reggae -- which became popular as a kind of refreshing change,
)but ultimately could not be digested and assimilated into the main stream.
Quite the contrary, the reggae beat has been well-integrated into the
mainstream. You hear reggae beats everywhere. Listen to the
orchestrations at something like the Academy Awards show.
)Well, this is a long post, and there is a lot more to be said. But before we
)worry about good and evil, about the dangers of fundamentalism and other
)such stuff, I would still like to look at the relationship of this rather
)striking single musical element, the back beat, to human physiological,
)cultural, and social manifestations.
Go for it, Gerry.
)I have tried to clothe the discussion
)in non-anthroposophical terms, knowing that Mr. Dugan is listening...
Please don't. This is an Anthroposophical discussion list. Why avoid
the central theme?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:55:18 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: racist pamplet from NZ neo-Nazi
Holding my nose with one hand and my credit card at arm's length, I
got this pamphlet from a Neo-Nazi press in New Zealand:
Anonymous. Rudolf Steiner & the Mystique of Blood & Soil: The
Volkisch Views of the Founder of Anthroposophy. Paraparaumu Beach,
NZ: 1999.
"A lot of men will pretend to be free of all national or racial
solidarity and will say 'I want only to be a human and only a human,'
but one could answer: 'is not your family who made you what you are
in the world, a product of your nation or your race?' "
No citation for that one, anybody know where it's from?
"Really all history and all social life--including present day social
life--can only be understood if one goes into the characteristics of
the 'races.' And only if one first studies diligently how the
spiritual factor in man works especially by way of the complexion,
one may understand that spiritual factor correctly."
Another without citation.
The author's text about Jews, including Steiner quotes:
*** start quote
Jehovah works from the lunar sphere, therefore the Jews -reflect-
rather than create.
The Jews exist in the physical, the material, in contrast to the
Aryan who exists in the spiritual.
"The faculties having to do with reasoning not related to
clairvoyance, with evaluating the world by measure, number and
weight--faculties that aim not at seeing into the spritual world but
at an understanding of sensory phenomena--were first implanted by the
spiritual world in the individuality known as Abraham or Abram." (The
Universal Human, 1909).
Hence the Jewish preoccupation with 'measure, number and weight'
naturally finds their emphasis on pursuits of a commercial nature,
rather than those requiring spiritual impetus, such as the arts.
Judaism is therefore seen by Steiner as -materialistic-, rooted in
the physical, and its by-products are both capitalism and its mirror
image, Marxism/Communism. His connection of Marxism and materialism
with Judaism is another major belief he shared with the volkisch
movement of the time.
"The fact that Jehovah could not free himself from the spirits he had
evoked led the transition of the Old Testament thinking into the
atheistic science of the modern age. This in the field of social
thinking has become Marxism or something similar." (The Challenge of
the Times, 1918).
Steiner's belief that the Jews are an obsolete people is a
re-statement of a popular assumption among the German Romanticists of
the 19th Century, as forcefully expressed by the composer Richard
Wagner. It also found a contemporary echo in the eminent British
historian Arnold Toynbee, who generated a lot of Jewish hostility
when he wrote of the Jews as the "remnants of a fossil civilization"
(A Study of History, Vol. 5).
Steiner similarly states:
"Really, Jewry as such has been outliving itself for a long time. It
does not have the right to exist in the modern life of nations. That
it has survived nonetheless is a mistake of world history, of which
the consequences were bound to come."
*** end quotation pp. 11-12
In a concluding chapter on the present day:
*** start quotation
In 1994 the Dutch Government investigated allegations of racism at
the Waldorf schools. One irate mother had seen her daughter's
exercise book on 'racial ethnography' which included the Steinerite
classification of races: "black race--baby, yellow race--adolescent,
white race--adult, red race--old age."
While Dutch anti-fascist groups went into action and Steiner
officials attempted to backtrack, the other Dutch parents and
teachers have remained firm in their adherence to Steiner's racial
views.
For e.g. Waldorf teacher J van Wettum writes in the jubilee issue of
the Dutch Waldorf school magazine -The Art of Pedagogy-:
"The black child is not yet an equal partner in the development of humanity."
A similar attitude at the Milwaukee Waldorf that black children have
evolutionary limits resulted in an outcry in the USA. Since Steiner
education is based on trying to bring out what is already within the
child, rather than trying to give false expectations and implant what
can never be (the liberal dictum of every child as a potential
Beethoven or Newton), taking ethnic account of a child's potential is
surely more realistic and humane in the long term.
In the midst of this controversy certain German Anthroposophists
started self-agonising, stating in their magazine:
"There are indeed some statements by Steiner which one cannot justify
in any way. One should unequivocally dissociate from these
statements."
Other Anthroposophists are more forthright, for as we have seen
racial evolution is the very basis of Anthroposophical teachings on
human spiritual development.
In a lecture before the Anthroposophical Study Center in the
Netherlands in 1985 on the subject of 'racial problems,' answering a
question posed by the anti-fascist Comite van Waakzaamheid on whether
the major threat to Europe was the atomic bomb or the mixing of
cultures, the reply was: 'the mixing of cultures.' The lecturer
continued that those races such as the Amerindian that are 'outmoded'
in evolutionary terms will be extinguished. 'That is a law.'
*** end quote pp. 13-14
I'll go wash my hands now.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:03:48 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: racist pamplet from NZ neo-Nazi
Sorry if I didn't make it clear, the first two unidentified quotes
are Steiner, but he doesn't cite the sources.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:08:43 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
Sharon: Continuing to quote from the Calyx adding my responses, Volume 23,
Issue 2 Winter 2001-2002.
Waldorf teacher Maureen Karlstad continues:
"Rudolf Steiner frequently described Anthroposophy as a living, spiritual
being. The word "being" can also be translated as "force". It's important
for people to think of this spiritual being or force in a way that feels
free and allows them to decide for themselves if this is something that
resonates with their own perceptions of the world. In Anthroposophical
Leading Thoughts (1924), Steiner described Anthroposophy as a path of
knowledge, as one way for the spiritual in the human being to find its way
to the Spiritual in the Universe".
Sharon: Now you are referring to your Guru and his religious doctrine. The
"force" or "being" that you refer to is also called an egregore in magic
circles, (pun intended). Usually, there's a grand wizard who channels these
"beings" which are believed to be actual spiritual entities. I wonder if
Anthroposophy has a grand wizard who channels these Anthroposophic beings?
It wouldn't surprise me in the least! When you mention that people must
decide for themselves if Anthroposophy resonates with their own perceptions
of the world, you are basically saying that people are free to choose
Anthroposophy as their religion or not. Usually, due to the separation of
church and state in this country, a person comes to Mormonism, Buddhism,
Christianity, Scientology or any other religion in that way way. If a
religion fits a person's worldview, they are free to choose it and become a
believer. (Sometimes religious worldviews are imposed on people or children
without their sanction, as was done to my family by Pleasant Ridge Waldorf
School. Propping up Anthroposophy while my child attended PRWS was not a
free, conscious choice in our case. We found Steiner's dogma defined and
enforced by his disciples to be very oppressive).
Steiner's religious path helps people see spiritual beings such as gnomes
and fairies in the elemental world, and angels in a higher world.
Anthroposophy will also help people communicate with the dead and remember
those that they worked with during their past lives so that they might
reincarnate together in core groups that will be spread around the earth.
Steiner taught that the human being has astral, etheric and I bodies which
can leave the physical body during sleep and initiation to commune with
beings in the spirit world. Maureen, above you begin to hint at Steiner's
micro-macrocosmic doctrine when you talk about the spiritual in the human
being finding its way into the spirit world via Steiner's path. This of
course, is Steiner's religion, no two ways about it.
Steiner: " My friends, when you begin to experience the inside of your
bones, you are really no longer in the body! If you hold your finger a few
inches in front of your nose, then what you are holding there is not in you.
You go inwards, it is true; nevertheless, you go out of yourself. (Steiner,
"Rosicrucianism and Modern Initiation" 67).
Steiner: " A person lives in his physical body in the physical world around
him. When he comes away from it and has experiences outside the physical
body, he is having those experiences in his etheric body with the elemental
world around him; and when he comes out of that world as well, he is
experiencing the spiritual realm in his astral body (Steiner, "Secrets of
the Threshold" 99).
Steiner: "When this astral body detaches itself from the true ego?it is not
like a snake slipping off its skin but rather a loosening on every side, a
growing larger and larger until the astral body becomes one with the whole
cosmic sphere. In doing this, it becomes ever thinner, while being absorbed
by the whole surrounding world" (Steiner, "Secrets of the Threshold"
(139-40).
Steiner: "The choleric man has a stronger inclination to merge with beings
living in the ?fire? of the Elementary World than with the others; the
sanguine man is more inclined to merge with the beings living in the element
of ?air?; and the phlegmatic man with the beings living in the element of
?water?; and the melancholic man with the beings living in the element of
?earth? ( Steiner, Macrocosm and Microcosm, 118).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:27:13 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: racist pamplet from NZ neo-Nazi
)
)I'll go wash my hands now.
)
)-Dan Dugan
I think you'd better sage your house too. :+)
-ds
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:44:23 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: racist pamplet from NZ neo-Nazi
Here's what I don't get: When this mean spirited nonsense - draped and
disguised in ancient spiritual garb and passed as part of an enlightening
message for our troubled times - is available for all to read... how can a
school still be proud to display Steiner's photograph and open meetings with
some of his more innocent, palatable verses? Surely, there must be more
than a few of us who see this stuff for what it is? I hope I see the day
when the seed is planted for a more gentle -and dare I say *natural* form of
education that does not call itself "Waldorf."
But then again - perhaps what this is all about... planting seeds.
-Walden
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Dugan" (dan dandugan.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 11:55 PM
Subject: racist pamplet from NZ neo-Nazi
) Holding my nose with one hand and my credit card at arm's length, I
) got this pamphlet from a Neo-Nazi press in New Zealand:
)
) Anonymous. Rudolf Steiner & the Mystique of Blood & Soil: The
) Volkisch Views of the Founder of Anthroposophy. Paraparaumu Beach,
) NZ: 1999.
)
) "A lot of men will pretend to be free of all national or racial
) solidarity and will say 'I want only to be a human and only a human,'
) but one could answer: 'is not your family who made you what you are
) in the world, a product of your nation or your race?' "
)
) No citation for that one, anybody know where it's from?
)
) "Really all history and all social life--including present day social
) life--can only be understood if one goes into the characteristics of
) the 'races.' And only if one first studies diligently how the
) spiritual factor in man works especially by way of the complexion,
) one may understand that spiritual factor correctly."
)
) Another without citation.
)
) The author's text about Jews, including Steiner quotes:
)
) *** start quote
)
) Jehovah works from the lunar sphere, therefore the Jews -reflect-
) rather than create.
)
) The Jews exist in the physical, the material, in contrast to the
) Aryan who exists in the spiritual.
)
) "The faculties having to do with reasoning not related to
) clairvoyance, with evaluating the world by measure, number and
) weight--faculties that aim not at seeing into the spritual world but
) at an understanding of sensory phenomena--were first implanted by the
) spiritual world in the individuality known as Abraham or Abram." (The
) Universal Human, 1909).
)
) Hence the Jewish preoccupation with 'measure, number and weight'
) naturally finds their emphasis on pursuits of a commercial nature,
) rather than those requiring spiritual impetus, such as the arts.
)
) Judaism is therefore seen by Steiner as -materialistic-, rooted in
) the physical, and its by-products are both capitalism and its mirror
) image, Marxism/Communism. His connection of Marxism and materialism
) with Judaism is another major belief he shared with the volkisch
) movement of the time.
)
) "The fact that Jehovah could not free himself from the spirits he had
) evoked led the transition of the Old Testament thinking into the
) atheistic science of the modern age. This in the field of social
) thinking has become Marxism or something similar." (The Challenge of
) the Times, 1918).
)
) Steiner's belief that the Jews are an obsolete people is a
) re-statement of a popular assumption among the German Romanticists of
) the 19th Century, as forcefully expressed by the composer Richard
) Wagner. It also found a contemporary echo in the eminent British
) historian Arnold Toynbee, who generated a lot of Jewish hostility
) when he wrote of the Jews as the "remnants of a fossil civilization"
) (A Study of History, Vol. 5).
)
) Steiner similarly states:
)
) "Really, Jewry as such has been outliving itself for a long time. It
) does not have the right to exist in the modern life of nations. That
) it has survived nonetheless is a mistake of world history, of which
) the consequences were bound to come."
)
) *** end quotation pp. 11-12
)
) In a concluding chapter on the present day:
)
) *** start quotation
)
) In 1994 the Dutch Government investigated allegations of racism at
) the Waldorf schools. One irate mother had seen her daughter's
) exercise book on 'racial ethnography' which included the Steinerite
) classification of races: "black race--baby, yellow race--adolescent,
) white race--adult, red race--old age."
)
) While Dutch anti-fascist groups went into action and Steiner
) officials attempted to backtrack, the other Dutch parents and
) teachers have remained firm in their adherence to Steiner's racial
) views.
)
) For e.g. Waldorf teacher J van Wettum writes in the jubilee issue of
) the Dutch Waldorf school magazine -The Art of Pedagogy-:
)
) "The black child is not yet an equal partner in the development of
humanity."
)
) A similar attitude at the Milwaukee Waldorf that black children have
) evolutionary limits resulted in an outcry in the USA. Since Steiner
) education is based on trying to bring out what is already within the
) child, rather than trying to give false expectations and implant what
) can never be (the liberal dictum of every child as a potential
) Beethoven or Newton), taking ethnic account of a child's potential is
) surely more realistic and humane in the long term.
)
) In the midst of this controversy certain German Anthroposophists
) started self-agonising, stating in their magazine:
)
) "There are indeed some statements by Steiner which one cannot justify
) in any way. One should unequivocally dissociate from these
) statements."
)
) Other Anthroposophists are more forthright, for as we have seen
) racial evolution is the very basis of Anthroposophical teachings on
) human spiritual development.
)
) In a lecture before the Anthroposophical Study Center in the
) Netherlands in 1985 on the subject of 'racial problems,' answering a
) question posed by the anti-fascist Comite van Waakzaamheid on whether
) the major threat to Europe was the atomic bomb or the mixing of
) cultures, the reply was: 'the mixing of cultures.' The lecturer
) continued that those races such as the Amerindian that are 'outmoded'
) in evolutionary terms will be extinguished. 'That is a law.'
)
) *** end quote pp. 13-14
)
) I'll go wash my hands now.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:58:46 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Atlantic Monthly article on vaccines and Waldorf
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C24314.98F38BE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
The Sept. issue of the Atlantic Monthly has an article called
"Bucking the Herd" (by Arthur Allen) on the anti-vaccination
movement, focusing on the Shining Mountain Waldorf School in Boulder,
Colorado. (Unfortunately the article is not on-line.)
I recommend it! They've almost made up for their laudatory piece
about Waldorf a couple of years ago. Describes the fallacies of the
anti-vaccine arguments, and makes clear that those who don't
vaccinate are taking advantage of the "herd immunity" of the
vaccinated population, and that their actions put other people at
risk. (And that, simply put, "when vaccination rates drop, disease
returns.") It makes clear what I have come to believe about the whole
vaccination question - that the anti-vaccine stance, though
supposedly avant-garde, is actually "pretty primitive," in the
author's words.
The focus is on whooping cough, which is a "constant presence" in the
Boulder area, thanks to the Waldorf community, and there are a couple
of gruesome stories exposing the fact that parents who think it is
good for a baby to be unable to sleep because she is coughing and
throwing up continuously, are not really nice mommies and daddies
after all.
And for once here is an article in the mainstream press by someone
who found out a little something about Steiner! Rather than assuming
that it's all just about a New Age interest in "holism" or natural
remedies, the author must have actually cracked a Steiner text or
two, because he reports that "Steiner (who was not a medical doctor)
believed that children's spirits benefited from being tempered in the
fires of a good inflammation."
Hurrah! Finally that's put out there - the basis of not vaccinating,
at least in Waldorf, is a religious belief that says suffering is
good for children.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:00:08 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: racist pamplet from NZ neo-Nazi
)Anonymous. Rudolf Steiner & the Mystique of Blood & Soil: The
)Volkisch Views of the Founder of Anthroposophy. Paraparaumu Beach,
)NZ: 1999.
)
)"A lot of men will pretend to be free of all national or racial
)solidarity and will say 'I want only to be a human and only a
)human,' but one could answer: 'is not your family who made you what
)you are in the world, a product of your nation or your race?' "
)
)No citation for that one, anybody know where it's from?
Peter Staudenmaier found it! Knowledge of Higher Worlds. Here's the
quote from my 1947 edition:
"Many, no doubt, will say: 'Oh, I have entirely freed myself from all
lineal and racial conncections: I only want to be a human being and
nothing but a human being.' To those one must reply: 'Who, then,
brought you to this freedom? Was it not your family who placed you in
the world where you now stand? Have you not your lineage, your
nation, your race to thank for being what you are?'" [Steiner, 1918,
KHW p. 242]
)"Really all history and all social life--including present day
)social life--can only be understood if one goes into the
)characteristics of the 'races.' And only if one first studies
)diligently how the spiritual factor in man works especially by way
)of the complexion, one may understand that spiritual factor
)correctly."
)
)Another without citation.
There's no official tranlation of this one. It's Steiner in Dornach,
1923, GA 349 p. 352 (in German). The chapter, "Color and the Human
Races," was omitted from the 1999 "Limestone to Lucifer" English
translation.
Peter says he'll be back soon!
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:11:54 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: a-s: The back beat in popular music
Three people started ad-homineming away on this thread on
anthropos-science, so the discussion is over. Here's the final dialog:
-Dan
*** start quoted message
Does anybody know how to clean spittle off the inside of a computer
screen? Just kidding.
The discussion with me is obviously finished, ending, as it has many
times before (in other places), with the Anthroposophist(s) screaming
ad hominems and exiting with dramatic door-slamming. This is in
response to persistent efforts to get them to justify their position
with evidence and reason.
GERRY PALO:
)You're hopless. If you showed even the slightest evidence of any sense or
)understanding for music, I might be moved to try to straighten you out. But
)it is hopeless. Go on looking for grist for your propaganda mill.
FYI I've been involved with music since childhood. In my teens I sang
in at least three choirs or choruses at any given time, and I built a
positiv pipe organ from scratch. After a career in theater lighting
design, I changed to sound engineering. One of my current activities
is mastering custom CDs for dance companies (ballet, modern, ethnic,
and ice skating), a job that brings every imaginable musical style
through my studio.
DAN DUGAN:
) There's a very good reason why PLANS monitors Anthroposophical
) publications and mailing lists. Steiner told his teachers to cover up the
) Anthroposophy in his school ...
SUNE NORDWALL:
)Some hypocrisy.
STEINER:
"Never call the verse a 'prayer' but a 'school opening verse'. Do see
to it that people do not hear the expression 'prayer' used by a
teacher. " [Steiner, 1919, CT-1 p. 45]
EUGENE SCHWARTZ:
"I know every morning [my daughter] says a verse, and, as Dan pointed
out, it's a verse that speaks to God. I would call it a prayer:
that's what I used to tell my class. You're speaking a prayer. I want
you to stand still, I don't want you to move around, I want you to
really be respectful because we're talking to God now. And a child
said, "You mean we're praying?", and I said yes, we're praying."
[Sunbridge College, 1999]
SUNE NORDWALL:
)Under what false name do _you_ _personally_ cover up
)your identity on the private Ark mailing list with no public list
)archive, that you clearly 'monitor' too as a mole, to then twist
)postings on it in 'quoting' and commenting on them on your own WC-list
)in your demagogical anti-Waldorf and anti-anthroposophy campaign?
DAN DUGAN:
I'm not a subscriber to the Ark list, under any name.
SUNE NORDWALL:
)http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?107 shows how others already
)in 1990 noted your demagogical talents regarding 'consumer fraud' long
)before you jumped on Waldorf education.
DAN DUGAN:
Thanks for noticing that, Sune. I didn't know that the Stereophile
article was on the web. I've always been proud that my fraud-busting
at the '91 Audio Engineering Society convention merited a 9-page
diatribe in Stereophile! On-topic for anthropos-science: the root
issues in the audio consumer fraud and in my disagreements with
Goethean Science come down to the same thing, epistemology (how is
reliable knowledge obtained?).
SUNE NORDWALL:
)I still lack a comment from you on the demonstrable hypocrisy in your
)use of the slogan 'Truth in advertising', with regard to your creations
)WC and site of PLANS.
DAN DUGAN:
Sune, you had months of dialogue with me and others on the
waldorf-critics list, and these issues were thoroughly addressed. (Go
to http://www.waldorfcritics.com, click "search" and enter
"Nordwall.") Sadly, it ended when you descended into ad hominems and
had to be banned.
STARMAN:
)*******Well, I'm sorry this subject has since been somewhat abused
)by a "troll" who clearly knows nothing of anthroposophy
DAN DUGAN
I've read about 50 volumes of Steiner, every word; (sarcasm) but of
course, since I don't read him reverently, I can't possibly
understand him (/sarcasm).
)and also little of music---but as an anthroposophist and musician
)I'll ignore that and respond as if such interference had not
)happened...
Challenging someone's position is "interference" in church, of
course, but not in science, where it's encouraged.
)which is the proper Net treatment of "trolls', BTW, I'm told. (For
)those not into the lingo, a 'troll' is someone who comes onto a
)discussion list not to participate but to cause arguments and direct
)attention to himself (like a pagan intruding into a born-again
)Christian list, an alcoholic onto an AA list---
You're right, it's not nice to stand up in someone's church and start
disagreeing. Sorry.
)or an open-minded person onto one of Mr. Dugan's, I imagine).
Sune Nordwall, Tarjei Straume, Detlef Hardorp, and other defenders of
the faith were never accused of being trolls when they were
subscribers to waldorf-critics.
STARMAN (in another message):
)*******This has no relation to any reality in any Waldorf School
)where I've taught. A lot of the teachers in the ones I've been in
)were not members of the Society and often knew little of
)anthroposophy. They were hired because they were creative and loved
)kids.
DAN DUGAN:
Yes. The Waldorf movement is expanding faster than teachers can be
trained. Many learn on the job. Waldorf schools are a principal
recruiting ground for Anthroposophy; among the teachers, by coercion
(get with the program or be squeezed out), among the parents, by
invitation.
)The training for a teacher is almost entirely the arts, not
)book-learning or dogma of any kind.
Belied by the teacher training reading lists posted at:
http://www.waldorfcritics.com/active/articles.html#WalTeach
) Moreover, Steiner explicitly condemned hiding the basis of the
)educational movement as if we were ashamed of it, like attracting
)people to the school first and then bringing it up later. It's right
)in the teacher training talks.
Steiner told the teachers to make the lessons as Anthroposophical as
possible without mentioning Anthroposophy per se, and that many
things they talked about in private had to be kept from the parents.
But this is OT for a-s, please subscribe to w-c and we can have a
battle of the quotations, and our interpretations thereof.
)Clearly this person knows nothing of real Waldorf schools.
In your dreams, Starman. A typical elitist ad hominem (sarcasm) "If
you don't agree with me, you obviously don't know what you're talking
about" (/sarcasm).
I am a former Waldorf parent, I've visited many Waldorf schools, I've
read scores of books about Waldorf, and I subscribe to many Waldorf
periodicals. The problem is, I know -too much- about Waldorf.
I'll be quiet now. Sorry I disturbed you.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:54:20 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article on vaccines and Waldorf
--============_-1182785632==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Wow! Off to the book store to buy it later. Time to send letters of
*support* for a change. Who wrote the article?
-ds
)The Sept. issue of the Atlantic Monthly has an article called
)"Bucking the Herd" (by Arthur Allen) on the anti-vaccination
)movement, focusing on the Shining Mountain Waldorf School in
)Boulder, Colorado. (Unfortunately the article is not on-line.)
)
)I recommend it! They've almost made up for their laudatory piece
)about Waldorf a couple of years ago. Describes the fallacies of the
)anti-vaccine arguments, and makes clear that those who don't
)vaccinate are taking advantage of the "herd immunity" of the
)vaccinated population, and that their actions put other people at
)risk. (And that, simply put, "when vaccination rates drop, disease
)returns.") It makes clear what I have come to believe about the
)whole vaccination question - that the anti-vaccine stance, though
)supposedly avant-garde, is actually "pretty primitive," in the
)author's words.
)
)The focus is on whooping cough, which is a "constant presence" in
)the Boulder area, thanks to the Waldorf community, and there are a
)couple of gruesome stories exposing the fact that parents who think
)it is good for a baby to be unable to sleep because she is coughing
)and throwing up continuously, are not really nice mommies and
)daddies after all.
)
)And for once here is an article in the mainstream press by someone
)who found out a little something about Steiner! Rather than assuming
)that it's all just about a New Age interest in "holism" or natural
)remedies, the author must have actually cracked a Steiner text or
)two, because he reports that "Steiner (who was not a medical doctor)
)believed that children's spirits benefited from being tempered in
)the fires of a good inflammation."
)
)Hurrah! Finally that's put out there - the basis of not vaccinating,
)at least in Waldorf, is a religious belief that says suffering is
)good for children.
)Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:34:58 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article on vaccines and Waldorf
on 8/14/02 10:54 AM, Debra Snell at snell gv.net wrote:
) Wow! Off to the book store to buy it later. Time to send letters of
) *support* for a change. Who wrote the article?
) -ds
)
)
)) The Sept. issue of the Atlantic Monthly has an article called
)) "Bucking the Herd" (by Arthur Allen) on the anti-vaccination
)) movement, focusing on the Shining Mountain Waldorf School in
)) Boulder, Colorado. (Unfortunately the article is not on-line.)
I don't know if this is the entire article, but I found it on another
discussion forum...somebody apparently scanned or keyed it in...
...Gary
) Bucking the Herd
)
) [From the September 2002 Atlantic Monthly. Written by Arthur Allen. Not
) available online. Thanks to M. Blaxill.]
)
) Parents who refuse vaccination for their children may be putting the entire
) comminutes at risk. Boulder, Colorado, a university town of 96,000, lies in a
) sequestered valley on the western edge of the Great Plains. Both
) geographically and culturally it is a place apart. Ralph Nader won more than
) 1O percent of Boulder's vote in the most recent presidential elections.
) Natural-food groceries outnumber Safeways; chiropractors offices
line the main
) drag ~ and the city council recently declared that dog owners would
henceforth
) be referred to us dog guardians. A popular bumper sticker reads. WELCOME TO
) BOULDER, 20 SQUARE MILES SURROUNDED BY REALITY. Boulder is, in short an
) experiment-oriented city.
)
) A particularly interesting experiment, from a public health perspective, has
) taken shape at the Shining Mountains Waldorf School. A campus of one-story
) wooden buildings set amid cottonwood and willow trees hard by the
foothills of
) the Rockies. By their parents choosing, nearly half of the 292 students at
) Shining Mountain have received only a few, and in some cases none, of the
) twenty-one childhood vaccinations mandated by Colorado state law in
accordance
) with federal guidelines. The shunning of one of the vaccines, against
) diphtheria, tetnus, and pertussis has resulted in a revival of
whooping cough,
) the illness that occurs when colonies of the bacteria Bardatelle pertussis
) attach to the lining of the upper respiratory passages, releasing toxins that
) cause inflammation and a spasmodic cough. The high-pitched whoop is a symptom
) heard mainly in younger children; it's the sound of a desperate attempt to
) breathe.
)
) Shining Mountain exemplifies a growing movement in American life: the
) challenge to childhood vaccination. According to a survey published in the
) November 2000 issue of Pediatrics, one fourth of all parents are skeptical of
) some or all of the standard vaccines. Some states grant exemptions to the law
) so that parents can refuse vaccinations for their children. In Colorado
) parents who don't want their children vaccinated have only to sign a card
) stating as much. In Oregon the rate of religious exemptions - which are
) granted to all parents who choose not to have their children immunized for
) philosophical reasons, tripled from 0.9 percent in the 1996 - 1997
school year
) to 2.7 percent in 2001.
)
) Those skeptical of vaccines have various reasons. Some believe that vaccines
) are responsible for otherwise unexplained in conditions such as autism,
) asthma, and multiple sclerosis. Still others, including the conservative
) activist Phyllis Schlafly, see government attempts to track and enforce
) immunization as an intrusion on privacy. Still others - parents whose
) recollections of their own bouts of chickenpox or measles are bathed in
) nostalgia - argue the elimination of traditional childhood illnesses is an
) attack on childhood itself. The parents at Shining Mountains are
influenced by
) the philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, a turn-of-the-century Austrian philosopher
) who founded the Waldorf movement. Steiner (who was not a medical doctor)
) believed that children's spirits benefited from being tempered in
the fires of
) a good inflammation.
)
) The critics have concluded that the dangers of vaccination outweigh the risks
) of vaccine-preventable disease. Like all medical interventions, vaccination
) entails some risk, although the extent and gravity of potential side effects
) are matters of debate. For example, febrile seizures occur in roughly one in
) 10,000 children perhaps 1,000 a year in the United States - who receive the
) current whooping cough vaccine. Such seizures rarely, if ever, lead to
) permanent brain damage. However, and in any case, febrile seizures are
) triggered just as easily by a run-of-the-mill infection as by a vaccine.
) Suspicions that mercury preservatives used in vaccines inflicted neurological
) damage on children are worrisome but unproved (mercury has largely
been phased
) out of vaccines over the past three years [sic]).
)
) To some extent vaccination is a victim of it's own success. Owing to
) vaccination campaigns, smallpox no longer exists in man and polio has been
) driven from the Western Hemisphere. Measles, diphtheria, and invasive
) hemophilus bacterial disease (such as meningitis) are rare in the United
) States, and even whooping cough is unusual enough that few parents
consider it
) a threat. All these diseases, with the exception of smallpox, still infest
) various corners of the world, but in most of the United States even those who
) have been vaccinated against them, or in whom the vaccine is not
effective are
) protected because most of the people we meet have been vaccinated.
) Epidemiologists call this phenomenon herd immunity: the more vaccinated the
) sheep are, the safer an unvaccinated one is. When vaccination rates drop,
) disease returns.
)
) Precisely at what point herd immunity fails is difficult to calculate. but
) there is ample evidence that it does. Since the collapse of the Soviet public
) health system diphtheria has returned to Russia with a vengeance, killing
) thousands. Sweden suspended vaccination against whooping cough from 1979 to
) 1996 while testing a new vaccine. In a study of the moratorium
period that was
) published in 1993, Swedish physicians found that 60 percent of the country's
) children got whooping cough before they were ten. However, close medical
) monitoring kept the death rate from whooping cough at about one per year
) during that period.
)
) Boulder, which has the lowest school wide vaccination rate in Colorado, has
) one of the highest per capita rates of whooping cough in the United States.
) The problem started in 1993 when fifty-two people in Boulder County
contracted
) the disease. Since then the county has seen an average of eighty-one cases a
) year. Although unvaccinated children are six times as likely as vaccinated
) children to get whooping cough during an outbreak, about half the cases in
) Colorado have involved vaccinated children; the whooping cough vaccine
) sometimes fails to produce effective immunity. And even successful pertussis
) immunity generally wanes by age ten. At first we called it an outbreak, then
) we started calling it a sustained outbreak; now we just say it's endemic, &
) Ann Marie Bailey, the county nurse epidemiologist when I visited 8oulder last
) year, told me.
)
) To many in Boulder, endemic pertussis is no cause for alarm. Shining
) Mountain's director, Robert Schiappacasse says that his daughter,
who had been
) immunized, got whooping cough but suffered no lasting effects. He became a
) little concerned, he told me, when the baby of one of the school's
secretaries
) "coughed himself into a hernia after visiting the school during an outbreak.
) Still, "parents here" Schiappacasse said, apparently including himself in the
) category, "are more likely to be worried about fumes from a new carpet than
) they are about any infectious disease.
)
) I also spoke with Johnnie Egars, a Shining Mountain parent whose three
) children, all unvaccinated, got whooping cough in 1994. Her
youngest child was
) particularly sick. Egars description of the experience was
harrowing. It was a
) loud cough that went down to her toes, and the whoop was a sharp intake of
) breath," she recalled. She coughed and coughed until she threw up
and then she
) slept an hour or two. Then she'd wake up and start over again." The daughter,
) who was two at the time, was undergoing treatment for cancer she was
) hospitalized for three days in the infectious-diseases ward of Children's
) Hospital in Denver. Nonetheless, Egars is comfortable with her
decision not to
) vaccinate her children. A niece was hospitalized with febrile seizures
) following a pertussis vaccination, and in her view, "immunization
just weakens
) the immune system. She adds, "We have a history of cancer in my family, so we
) try to do everything we can to strengthen the immune system."
)
) From its reservoir in the under-vaccinated population of Boulder
pertussis has
) branched out: neighboring Jefferson and Denver Counties had more
cases in 2000
) than Boulder did. Some of the people who live near Boulder are angry. "There
) is a constant presence of whooping cough here, and it's because of Boulder
) Valley." says Kathy Keffeler, the chief school nurse for Longmont, a growing
) city just north of Boulder.
)
) Pertussis is on the rise and not just in Colorado but across the country:
) there were 7,600 cases last year, as compared with 4,600 in 1994. it can be
) fatal, especially in countries like ours - with spotty health-care coverage.
) In 2000 it killed seventeen people in the United States, including two
) Colorado babies, both of whom were taken to the hospital too late. "It was
) very sad," Tina Albertson, a pediatric resident who cared for one of the
) infants, told me. "She was a six-week-old girl with a sister and a brother,
) four and six. The family had chosen not to immunize, and the week she was
) born, her siblings both had whooping cough. When they're real little, the
) babies don't whoop - they just stop breathing. This little girl was septic by
) the time they got her here."
)
) Like most in Boulder, Ann Marie Bailey, the nurse epidemiologist, is tolerant
) of the alternative health-care scene, she cedes non-vaccinating parents the
) right to decide what's best for their children. But she gently
points out that
) they're fooling themselves if they think no one else is affected by their
) decisions. We've been able to show very definitely that whooping
cough spreads
) from these pockets in small communities. If they lived in a vacuum at Shining
) Mountain - if they never went out to go swimming or to church or
the YMCA, the
) Boy Scouts - it would he a different ba11 game, she told me.
)
) Jim Gottlieb, a family practitioner who offers acupuncture and breathing
) exercises along with traditional medicine said, When I get parents who don't
) vaccinate. I tell them, "When your boy gets a vaccination he takes on a risk
) for the public good, just like the firemen [at the World Trade Center] who
) went back into the building. But Gottlieb's words usually tall on deaf ears.
) These are probably people who donate a lot of money to good causes, he said,
) but their view is "I'm going to let everyone else's child take a risk but not
) my own. That's not avant-garde. That's not enlightened. It's pretty
primitive.
) And ironically, in a town like Boulder the selfish strategy is
probably not in
) the best interests of your child either.
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:40:34 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Atlantic Monthly article
Arthur Allen, "Bucking the Herd," Sept. 2002 Atlantic Monthly.
Yes, let's write letters of support. Let's thank them for being one
of the few to look just below the surface charm of Waldorf, for
asking, "So who is Rudolf Steiner?" and actually reading at least a
few relevant paragraphs that actually *explain* rather than gloss
over a Waldorf practice with New Age platitudes. I had to pinch
myself this morning, and check the magazine again, afraid I had
embarrassed myself posting something here that was really just a
delirious episode resulting from heat exhaustion. Yes, a major
magazine published a piece with critical remarks about Waldorf and
Rudolf Steiner - what's more, *linking* the two - juxtaposing the
fact that pertussis is endemic in the Boulder area, with the
religious philosophy behind the practice, Steiner's belief that these
devastating illnesses are good for children's spirits.
But it's all so beautiful, isn't it? Except for the baby with a
hernia resulting from all the coughing from whooping cough, except
for the 2-year-old with cancer who got whooping cough *on top* of
that, whose mother still thinks she did the right thing despite the
2-year-old being hospitalized for 3 weeks with a life-threatening
infection on top of cancer treatment. Except for the two Colorado
babies who died from whooping cough, including a 6-week-old girl
whose unvaccinated siblings had whooping cough the week she was born.
Preventable illnesses, preventable deaths.
Karma?
To quote the mother of the 2-year-old with cancer, "It was a loud
cough that went down to her toes, and the whoop was a sharp intake of
breath . . . She coughed and coughed until she threw up; then she
slept an hour or two. Then she'd wake up and start over again." Or to
quote the doctor who cared for one of the infants who died, "When
they're real little, the babies don't whoop - they just stop
breathing."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 17:07:39 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
The Waldorf school mother of an unvaccinated child with cancer tells us, in
an article centering around those who choose not to vaccinate their children
at the Shining Mountain Waldorf School in Boulder, Colorado that:
"It was a loud cough that went down to her toes, and the whoop was a sharp
intake of breath . . . She coughed and coughed until she threw up; then she
slept an hour or two. Then she'd wake up and start over again."
Lisa here: Was anyone else just absolutely horrified by this? This woman's
two year old has cancer, and then ends up hospitalized with whooping cough
on top of that? And she still defends not having allowed her child to be
immunized?
Thank goodness the child did end up in a hospital where evidence-based
medicine (read "Western, science-based medicine) was practiced. I shudder to
think of what would have likely happened had the child been "treated" by a
so-called "anthroposophic doctor." The parents would probably have been told
to prepare themselves for death, to say various Steiner verses at sundown
and that it was the child's karma to go now, and in this way.
The whole thing reminded me of other news accounts I have read over the
years of other religiously zealous parents (Christian Scientists, Jehovah's
Witnesses, etc.) whose children either came close to death or actually died
because the parents either believed the illness was "God's will" or that the
treatment that might have saved them was evil in some way.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 17:13:58 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
)Lisa here: Was anyone else just absolutely horrified by this? This woman's
)two year old has cancer, and then ends up hospitalized with whooping cough
)on top of that? And she still defends not having allowed her child to be
)immunized?
She is so confused she believes she did the right thing. She says, "We have
a history of cancer in my family, so we try to do everything we can to
strengthen the immune system"! Not vaccinating your children will not help
protect them against or recover from cancer.
Diana
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 789
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By momof2gals mindspring.com
For the smart readers
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By sarinamcdonald msn.com
RE: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: For the smart readers
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By snell gv.net
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By mysplum earthlink.net
re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By arisgin2 yahoo.com
Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By mysplum earthlink.net
Children and Spiritual Questing
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
re: Atlantic Monthly article/choosing not to vaccinate
By momof2gals mindspring.com
re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By juliarda hotmail.com
re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By arisgin2 yahoo.com
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By deerone mindspring.com
re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By snell gv.net
Re: Atlantic Monthly Article
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
A slight problem...
By foncteur yahoo.fr
Re: A slight problem...
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
Re: A slight problem...
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 17:47:06 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
)
))Lisa here: Was anyone else just absolutely horrified by this? This woman's
))two year old has cancer, and then ends up hospitalized with whooping cough
))on top of that? And she still defends not having allowed her child to be
))immunized?
)
) She is so confused she believes she did the right thing. She says, "We have
) a history of cancer in my family, so we try to do everything we can to
) strengthen the immune system"! Not vaccinating your children will not help
) protect them against or recover from cancer.
) Diana
)
Lisa: That's not how they see it, apparently. I vividly recall attending a
"Parents' Informational Evening" at our former Waldorf school, during which
an anthro physician talked about his belief that vaccinations were, indeed,
responsible for the rising rates of both childhood ear infections *and*
cancer.
He said that vaccinations "deprive" the children of the opportunity to
become stronger through routine childhood illnesses (as if whooping cough is
routine!), and that the spiraling number of ear infections were nature's way
of creating opportunities for the child's immune system to beef up. He
mentioned the possible connections between cancer rates in adulthood and
being vaccinated as a child.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 03:11:42 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: For the smart readers
Percedol:
Among the many distortions available on the w-c- list there is this
thing about vaccinations.
I know A. doctors and they do not suggest to avoid vaccinations. There
may be A. doctors who do that, but is not a universal phenomenon.
I am pro vaccinations, cum grano salis (meaning that I would check all
the available sources as every person should do. For instance in Italy
there is still around the Sabin vaccine, when only the Salk should be
used today, as it happens in the US - (the Salk gives immunity but it
does not prevent the release of viruses in the environment from the
infected patient).
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Hurrah! Finally that's put out there - the basis of not vaccinating, at
) least in Waldorf, is a religious belief that says suffering is good for
) children.
) Diana
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:40:03 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarinamcdonald msn.com)
Subject: Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
Yeah, and I'm still here, too, Sharon, believe it or not. Why can't I
leave this list?! LOL
Sarina "old habits die hard" McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 05:04:49 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Children and Spiritual Questing -
mysplum wrote:
) on 8/11/02 12:08 AM, Percedol netscape.net at Percedol netscape.net
) wrote:
)
) )
) ) PERCEDOL:
) ) INTERESTINGLY, RS DID NOT START A RELIGION, BUT QUITE THE OPPOSITE OF A
) ) RELIGION. IN FACT A RELIGION TODAY IS DEAD STUFF IN FRONT OF THE
) ) SPIRITUAL.
)
) Sharon: Hello Percedol my friend! Welcome back! Have you had a good
) summer
) so far?
Percedol:
Very good.
)
) I love the way you guys think you can change the word "religion" to
) "spiritual" and have a completely different thing! Of course Steiner
) started
) a religion Percedol, that is a fact. After spending 10 years with the
) Theosophical Society, he led a schism in 1912 to establish his own
) religion
) Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy is a schismatic branch of Theosophy. In
) other
) words, just another form of Blavatsky's Theosophy.
Percedol:
You need to represent A. as a religion to stop public funding to charter
schools. I can understand your position. Since you need that you will
always insist the 'A. is a religion' mantram.
You need that to put forth your case in court.
Unfortunately, so far you did not understand anything of what A. is.
You can read hundreds of books and get nothing but what you want to see.
You have a representation of A. Others may have a different
representation of it. What is important is to experience representing in
itself. To experience that representing that gives the ability to choose
which representation is correct. Beyond any representation since is the
ability to represent.
To follow this or that dogma is a limitation due to the incapability to
experience what in ourself can think and decide to follow this or that
dogma.
When A. becomes a sum of representations (cosmic history, human
structure, karma, etc.) is dead. Is not A. anymore. Is a corpse in our
memory.
What the w-c do on this list is not describing A. but performing
autopsies.
) )
) )
) )) Anthroposophy. Steiner's religious system is quite specific and
) )) Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School is specifically Anthroposophic. I ask that
) )) you get more specific and let parent's know what the 'fundamental
) )) acknowledgement of the spiritual foundations of our existence' means.
) ))
) )) Tell parents about Steiner's cosmology, let parents know about Saturn,
) )) Sun
) )) and Moon existence. Tell parents that Steiner believed
) )) that Anthroposophists are the descendents of advanced beings that were
) )) saved from the Atlantis flood who continue to evolve and reincarnate,
) )) eventually to inherit the earth during his proposed Sixth Epoch. Let
) )) parents know that Steiner prophesied that Anthroposophists will be saved
) )) from an apocalyptic war of all against all, when white humanity who has
) )) taken the spirit deep into the skin will fight and destroy less advanced
) )) black humanity.
) )
) ) PERCEDOL:
) ) SO DISTORTED THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO COMMENT.
)
) Sharon: Oh please comment, what is distorted?
Percedol:
White against black? Maybe against asians, that would make more sense.
If diseases continues spreading like today there will be very few black
soon.
This is an example of where representation lead to and why one needs
some humour to get some relief!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:14:22 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: For the smart readers
)Percedol:
)Among the many distortions available on the w-c- list there is this
)thing about vaccinations.
)I know A. doctors and they do not suggest to avoid vaccinations. There
)may be A. doctors who do that, but is not a universal phenomenon.
There are exceptions to everything, but given that Steiner taught
that childhood diseases are a necessary part of child development,
avoiding vaccinations as much as possible is a well-known policy of
Anthroposophical medicine.
"Fever is an expression of the ego organization working into the
physical body to make it its own. Redness of the skin is a physical
expression of the ego.
"Whooping cough is a way to help the airy organism to fit into the
body. It is a disease of the astral body fitting into the airy
organism.
"Mumps are an expression of the watery forces being transformed.
In rubella the lymph nodes swell up (watery organism). With mumps
there is a swelling of the salivary glands. With these the ether
body modifies its home in the fluid organism of our bodies.
"In measles we see fever and redness with the watery transformation.
"Chickenpox is a disease where the physical forces become
transformed (temporary scarring).
"We can ask the question, 'What is the child gaining when he or
she gets a particular disease?' Rudolf Steiner tells us that
smallpox, for example, is easy to obtain by people who had trouble
loving others in their last lifetime. Disease is a healing process
for what was not accomplished previously.
"Dr. Christa noted that is seems that children who are immunized
against childhood diseases get more ear infections. In this way they
develop the fever they need." [van Tellingen, Dr. Christa.
"Childhood Illnesses." A Deeper Understanding of the Waldorf
Kindergarten: Articles from the Waldorf Kindergarten Newsletter 1981
to 1992 Volume Two. Silver Spring, MD: Waldorf Kindergarten
Association of North America, 1993, p. 50 ]
"If someone regards humans as machines, then vaccinations are fine.
But if one has a spiritual view, and mainly one that involves the
concepts of reincarnation and k'rma, then the situation is completely
different. In this case, sicknesses should not be consider as evil,
on the contrary, they are a blessing - they contribute to our
adjusting our past to our present or our present to our future. In
this sense, vaccinations produce sicknesses (albeit weak) which
eventually should not be present in a certain moment; on the other
hand, they may prevent some necessary sickness in a later time in
life. The typical situation is with children's diseases. Steiner
called the attention to the fact that they involve the skin or organs
close to it (as in the case of Mumps). He said the child uses these
sicknesses to adapt her/his inherited body to her/his k'rma. It is
like changing the skin. In general, if one lets the disease manifest
itself properly, after it the child becomes stronger, has more
apetite, etc. On the other hand, attacking an infantile disease with
hard drugs may produce all sorts of complications (I have a nice
story about this if you are interested)." [Subj: Re: An ask the
doctor question; Date: Sat, Apr 15, 1995; From:
STEINER SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU; To: STEINER SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU (Multiple
recipients of list STEINER)] (Setzer's wife is an A. Physician)
"[B]ack in the 80's, based on data from the Jacques Beneviste [sic],
MD laboratory in France, I developed a protocol that works to get
vaccine out of the body. That was easy." [Levine, MD, Rosemary Rau.
"The Doctor Speaks: Warmth." Lilipoh: Spring/Summer 2001, p. 4]
"From a spiritual perspective, childhood illnesses are the means by
which the individual adapts her inherited body to her own needs. As
a result, her body can become an increasingly adapted and adequaate
instrument for the tasks which she has set herself on earth and which
will unfold in the future. Obviously, immunization weakens or may
even prevent this adaptation.
***
It is part of the nature of human beings that they seek--or are
susceptible to--illnesses which they need assist their development,
either through overcoming or coming to terms with the disease. Anyone
who takes seriously the supersensory nature of the human being may
also trust that human beings bring their distiny with them. Serious
complications in a childhood illness which produce permanent damage
or even death are probably deeply founded in the destiny of the
person concerned. Whether someone dies early or late is no chance
event, but has meaning in the wider context of her overall
development.
***
What can we give children to balance the vaccinations which have
deprived the body of a developmental opportunity?" [Glockler,
Michaela. "Immunizations." Natural Childhood. by John Thompson,
chapter 18, pp 276-278]
"We were told that Michaela Glockler was the expert on arthrosophycal
medicine. We were also told that what all this meant was NO
vaccinations. Giving children vaccinations was preventing them from
getting the childhood diseases and they needed childhood diseases to
grow. We were also told that some children would have permanent
damage or die from getting the childhood illnesses, but if they did,
it was supposed to happen. Karma, they said." [To:
waldorf-critics topica.com; From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com);
Subject: [anonymous 2] Immunizations; Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001]
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:20:22 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Children and Spiritual Questing -
Percedol, you wrote,
)What the w-c do on this list is not describing A. but performing
)autopsies.
I'll agree much of the thought in Anthroposophy was already dead in the 1920's!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 00:09:42 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
)Yeah, and I'm still here, too, Sharon, believe it or not. Why can't I
)leave this list?! LOL
)
)Sarina "old habits die hard" McDonald
Well, I want *all* the news on the new baby. How on earth is he
doing? *What* is he doing now, and it's been too long since a photo.
(sigh)
-ds
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:44:21 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
Lisa wrote:
)I vividly recall attending a "Parents' Informational Evening" at our former
)Waldorf school, during which an anthro physician talked about his belief
)that vaccinations were, indeed, responsible for the rising rates of both
childhood ear infections *and*
)cancer.
Well, I'm not a doctor, but I have a family member who has cancer. He asked
his doctor for dietary advice - should he take supplements? Should he go on
a raw foods diet etc.? because he was sure that "boosting his immunity"
would help fight any disease. His doctor was not encouraging about this,
said there was no evidence of any diet affecting this cancer.
He was not happy with this advice - thought perhaps this doctor just was not
well informed about nutrition -so he consulted with one of our cousins, who
is a doctor - albeit not an oncologist - who explained to
us all very painstakingly that improving one's immunity was not going to
affect the cancer in any way - it was even possible that if you boost your
immunity, you could be helping the cancer - You may just as well be helping
the cancer cells fight pathogens. Although most likely it will simply be
irrelevant.
(I will note that the family member did not care to hear this -
understandably - and continues trying various alternative treatments.)
Even if "boosting immunity" in a general way could help you fight cancer,
exposing yourself to various infections on purpose would be particularly
stupid. The 2-year-old in the article was put through an indescribable hell,
by her parents' choice.
We're going to hear from these kids some day, though it'll be awhile till
they can put these experiences in perspective.
) He said that vaccinations "deprive" the children of the opportunity to
)become stronger through routine childhood illnesses
I've heard this argument, but I've never understood the logic. There
seems to be a leap from 1) the fact that once you've had one of the
childhood diseases, you are thereafter immune to it, to 2) an idea that you
are generally stronger after having had any sort of dreadful thing happen to
you physically. It's very strange thinking. It is bizarre to be grateful to
have immunity to something you've already had. I mean, it's at best a
consolation prize - you can't get it twice. It's sort of a twist on the word
"immunity" to say you're immune *afterwards*. More like you are ravaged
afterwards.
It makes even less sense to generalize from there to actual
*benefits* to your health from having gone through a horrible ordeal. -
unless, of course, you understand it as a religious belief, that God made
you suffer for a reason, or it's your karma. The supposed benefits are
spiritual, not physical; there's just no science behind such claims.
The opposite is more likely to be true. Many people suffered lifeling ill
effects, ranging from mild to quite severe, from these illnesses. That's not
even touching the emotional or psychological scars, don't get me started on
the mindset of people who think it is "good for" children to suffer this
way.
I have a friend who is a survivor of childhood cancer. There is nothing
about her experience that she feels benefited her life in any way. It's easy
for other people to romanticize it. She is grateful she survived it, though
she is partially disabled -and she is
statistically at higher risk of various other cancers. Is it possible she is
a stronger person than she would have been otherwise? Who is to say? Who has
a right to make this decision for another person? I think of her as a pretty
tough person, but maybe she'd have been even tougher if she had not nearly
died, and had had a normal adolescence instead of one disrupted by hospital
stays and the terror of facing death. Naturally she would have had more
varied life experiences if she had not had to cope with the disability ever
since.
She is grateful to her parents for the way they turned their own lives
upside down to get her the best treatment possible at the time. Imagine how
she would feel if they had been able to prevent all this, and yet had
deliberately not done so!
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:06:51 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
on 8/14/02 10:04 PM, Percedol netscape.net at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
)
) Percedol:
) You need to represent A. as a religion to stop public funding to charter
) schools. I can understand your position. Since you need that you will
) always insist the 'A. is a religion' mantram.
) You need that to put forth your case in court.
) Unfortunately, so far you did not understand anything of what A. is.
) You can read hundreds of books and get nothing but what you want to see.
Sharon: No Percedol, I don't need to represent A as a religion in court, the
judge already knows that A is a religion because it is one! In court, PLANS
needs to show that taxpayers can sue a school district for violation of the
First Amendment. I'm just going on about A as religion because Maureen was
trying to pretend that it's not.
) Percedol:
) White against black? Maybe against asians, that would make more sense.
) If diseases continues spreading like today there will be very few black
) soon.
) This is an example of where representation lead to and why one needs
) some humour to get some relief!
Sharon: Why would a war make more sense against Asians? Are you talking
about Aids?
Steiner:
"White humankind is still on the path of absorbing the spirit deeper
and deeper into its own essence. Yellow humankind is on the path of
conserving the era when the spirit will be kept away from the body,
when the spirit will only be sought outside of the human-physical
organization. But the result will have to be that the transition from
the fifth cultural epoch to the sixth cultural epoch cannot happen in
any other way than as a violent battle of white humankind against
colored humankind in myriad areas. And that which precedes these
battles between white and colored humankind will occupy world history
until the completion of the great battles between white and colored
humankind. Future events are frequently reflected in prior events.
You see, we stand before something colossal that - when we understand
it through spiritual science - we will in the future be able to
recognize as a necessary occurrence." (Rudolf Steiner, Die geistigen
Hintergr?nde des Ersten Weltkrieges. Dornach, 1974 (GA 174b) p. 38).
-----
Steiner: "When Negroes go to the west, they cannot absorb as much light and
heat any more as they were used to in their Africa. (...) That is why they
turn
copper red, they become Indians. That is because they are forced to reflect
a part of the light and heat. They turn shiny copper red. They cannot keep
up this copper red shining. That is why the Indians die out in the West,
they die because of their own nature which does not get enough light and
heat, they die because of the earthly factor." (...) "Really, it is the
whites who develop the human factor within themselves. Therefore they have
to rely on themselves. When whites do emigrate, they partly take on the
characteristics of other areas, but they die more as individuals than as a
race. The white race is the race of the future, the race that is working
creatively with the spirit." (Steiner, March 3 1923, lecture to the workmen
(GA 349 p. 67)
-----
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anne Risgin (arisgin2 yahoo.com)
Subject: re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
Hi Everyone...I am a relatively new listmember emerging from lurkdom
(at my peril, I am sure).
I am a bit confused by the amount of vigorous head-nodding this
vaccination article has produced. Does PLANS take a stance on
vaccination? Or is it just glee at negative statements about Steiner in
the mainstream press (fair enough)? Is there anyone out there who would
go so far as to remove the right of parents not to vaccinate, or do we
just agree to condemn those who don't do it?
The Anthroposophical arguments against vaccination sound kooky to me,
but so does a lot of the pro-vaccination logic. The idea that
unvaccinated children are germ bombs that infect the innocent herd
(moo) is ridiculous. I can't speak for Boulder, but in the Boston area
where I live, there are outbreaks of pertussis every year,
predominantly in the *vaccinated* population. How the unvaccinated can
be blamed for this is unknown to me. The vaccination is evidently
imperfect and would not eliminate the disease even if every single
person were vaccinated. My understanding is that an unvaccinated person
is more likely to come down with the disease if exposed, but that a
vaccinated person who does get sick will likely have a more severe
case. (FWIW, I had pertussis when I was in graduate school and it
really sucked...at one point I remember sobbing to a nurse-practitioner
that this was how Jim Henson died.)
I was a non-vaccinating parent (except for tetanus) before I ever heard
of Steiner, not for religious or philosophical reasons, but because I
think it's what is best for my children's overall health and
well-being. Do I think I am endangering the herd? No. But even if I
did, under no circumstances would I ever put the good of the herd above
the good of my family if I thought the two were in conflict.
Moo away at me, I can take it...
Anne
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:03:26 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
on 8/14/02 9:40 PM, Sarina McDonald at sarinamcdonald msn.com wrote:
) Yeah, and I'm still here, too, Sharon, believe it or not. Why can't I
) leave this list?! LOL
Sharon: LOL! Sometimes I wonder what happened to you! I unfortunately can't
leave this list because of my sense of duty, because I feel passionately
about being duped and the issues surrounding the Waldorf controversy. My
family's lives (4 generations of us) were irreversibly altered because
Waldorf did not say who they are and what their mission is. I just think it
is all so unnecessary. I'm also rather fond of the folks on this list, even
Percedol! (G) (This summer some of the women of PLANS met in person and had
a ball). I couldn't desert them. I have also vowed on list that I will work
to make Waldorf open and forthright with parents, so I can't leave until
that happens. Sigh...I wish Anthroposophists would take a hint from the
*successful* Mormons and have Michael appear in Dornach with a message in
the bottom of a tea cup or something! It'd be great if Michael would recant
Steiner's racist doctrine and recommend that the the powers-that-be present
Waldorf as being based on Steiner's esotericism.
Nice to hear from you.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:28:06 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Children and Spiritual Questing
Sharon: Continuing to quote from the Calyx adding my rants, Volume 23,
Issue 2 Winter 2001-2002.
Maureen: "At our school, faculty and staff are asked to be open to the ideas
of Anthroposophy, not to be anthroposophists. That means to be willing to
look at, and sometimes have lively debate about, the educational ideas that
have arisen out of Steiner's relationship to Anthroposophy. These ideas are
the philosophical (not religious) foundation upon which the pedagogical work
of Waldorf schools is based. Talking about Anthroposophy as a philosophy and
not a religion may be interpreted as doublespeak, but the spiritual realm is
about much more than religious dogma. What draws many people to Waldorf
education is the deep spiritual foundation that encourages us to put aside
any dogmatic beliefs we have about the spiritual world and come to a new
study of the spiritual world based on a 20th century scientific outlook. It
can be incredibly freeing to look at one's religious heritage with new,
non-dogmatic eyes. There are people who have used Anthroposophy as their new
religion and want it to be a dogmatic belief system - but that is their own
limitation, not one put on them by the ideas of Anthroposophy".
Sharon, an ex-Waldorf parent who was once a part of the school that Maureen
teaches at:
Come on Maureen, get real. What you wrote above *is* "double speak" and your
denials of Anthroposophy not being a religion - fodder for a law suit. OK,
as teachers and staff you're supposed to be open to Steiner's ideas - that
means you're supposed to be accepting of his religious teachings, even
though they are based on racist ideology, are outdated, and often extremely
way out. (BTW Neo nazis are also open to Steiner's racist ideas). As
teachers, you are expected to teach from Steiner's Anthroposophical
perspective and initiate children in Steiner's mysteries because you are
open to his ideas. You are also expected to study Anthroposophy because you
must be open to Steiner's ideas. When you train as Waldorf teachers, you
read Steiner and Anthroposophy books because you must be open to Steiner's
ideas. But what about the parents? Surely parents should be asked to be
"open to the ideas of Anthroposophy" before they enroll children? Shouldn't
the school ask parents to "be open to Steiner's esoteric religion that
informs all classroom activity?" Don't you think it behooves your school to
inform parents about who Steiner was and to tell them about Steiner's
esoteric doctrine before they enroll children? Don't you think your school
should tell parents that the school views the child as a reincarnating being
with astral, etheric, physical and I bodies? Shouldn't you let parents know
that Steiner worked for Blavatsky's Theosophical Society for ten years until
leading a schism to establish Anthroposophy, after a doctrinal tiff with
Annie Besant over the supposed incarnation of Christ into the body of
Krishnamurti? It would have been great if I had known that PRWS revolves
around Steiner's esoteric beliefs before I moved across states with extended
family! If the school had been forthright, I would not be here today working
to get Waldorf to be open about their esoteric base! There was *no* mention
of Anthroposophy in the brochure I received in the mail! NO MENTION of it! I
only learned all about Steiner's occultism after we left the school, only
after writing in our exit letter that -
"We feel that a clearer distinction should be made to prospective parents on
the sectarian nature of Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School. It would be helpful
if the institution were more responsible in clarifying the "mystic
Christian" character of the school. Had we known that the curriculum and
operation of the school were based exclusively on Rudolf Steiner's insight,
clairvoyance, aesthetics, eurocentricity, and religious beliefs (as
interpreted by his disciples) Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School would not have
been our choice for X".
I wrote the above after our experiences as parents at PRWS. I wrote the
above before I delved into Steiner's esoteric doctrine. Before knowing that
there are hundreds upon hundreds of Steiner's sermons printed and
distributed from within the Anthroposophical world. I wrote this before
knowing that Steiner built underground Rosicrucian temples, before knowing
that there is an enormous mystical temple in Dornach! Before seeing
Steiner's apocalyptic seals and planetary seals. Before realizing that
Waldorf is Anthroposophy's missionary wing. Before learning about Steiner's
cosmology and prophesies. Before reading Theosophy and Rosicrucianism.
Before understanding Steiner's racist doctrine. Before learning about the
Sixth and Seventh Epochs and Jupiter, Venus and Vulcan! Before hearing about
PLANS. Before meeting with other duped parents from around the country!
Don't you think PRWS owes it to parents to be forthright? Isn't that the
responsible, ethical and moral stance a "deeply spiritual" school should
take? Think about all the people in your community who were not informed
about the school's esoteric base, who were duped, who left the school all
upset. Think about the people who's lives are irreversibly altered because
of Waldorf's deception and double speak! When I was seeking an "art based
nonsectarian, progressive school" why was I not informed of the school's
religious base? Why did the school claim to be nonsectarian? Why was Steiner
portrayed as a scientist, and philosopher instead of an occult scientist and
mystagogue?! Anthroposophy is a religion, unquestionably so! Go check out a
few encyclopedias of religion and look under A or S. Anthroposophy has been
classified as an esoteric religion for decades so it baffles me as to why
you refuse to see it as such! What's wrong with being a religion? You act as
if PRWS isn't dogmatic. The school reeked of dogma when we were there.
Steiner's "child development model", the color of the walls, with-holding
lines, talisman-making, with-holding black crayons, no free artistic
expression, faceless dolls in one style only, no pencils in KG, no
computers, no slides, no films, no overhead projectors, no sugar, alters,
the lessons, singing songs to Michael, the rituals, the demand for
reverence, the lack of books, late reading, the changing of left handedness,
the aesthetics, the Weleda, the Anthroposophic font, the Eurythmy, the silk,
the bees wax, the water color paper, the morning prayer, the lighting of
candles, the no vaccine stance, circle time, etc., etc. This *is*
Anthroposophic dogma Maureen! You act as if your religion is above any other
religion, all religions have dogma Maureen!! People use Anthroposophy as
their "new religion" because Anthroposophy is a religion! Sorry, but no
matter how hard you believe, Anthroposophy will always be limited because
it's a specific religious worldview.
I'm assuming that your "20th century scientific outlook" is a typo. Please
be clear, Steiner's religion is not scientific, and I sure as heck was not
drawn to Waldorf education because of the 'deep spiritual foundation
encouraging me to put aside any dogmatic beliefs I have about the spiritual
world to come to a new study of the spiritual world based on a 20th century
scientific outlook"...what on earth are you saying!? Hear yourself! Are you
trying to put ideas into people's heads? Are you saying that Steiner
developed a religious system based on his clairvoyance? A religion based on
his notions of spiritual beings in the cosmos...his notions of Christ the
Sun Spirit, Ahriman, Lucifer, Zarathustra, Michael, gnomes, sylphs,
salamanders and undines? A spiritual system incorporating Cabalism and white
magic? A Rosicrucian / Theosophical hodge podge going back to the Middle
Ages and beyond? Good grief, I didn't even know that the school was a
Mystery school based on Steiner's occult science until after my family
*left* Waldorf, I knew nothing of the "deep spiritual foundation" until
after we left! Like many others at PRWS, I was led to believe that it was an
art-based,progressive, nonsectarian school! For our family, it was *leaving*
PRWS that was very "freeing". Our time there was an oppressive, depressing
experience. Imaagine if you can what it was like trying to function in an
Anthroposophic environment without any esoteric knowledge! Please, do the
right thing, quit the double speak, be forthright about the school's
religious tradition, and while you're at it, work to get the-powers-that-be
to recant Steiner's racist doctrine.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:31:06 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
Hi Anne,
)Hi Everyone...I am a relatively new listmember emerging from lurkdom
)(at my peril, I am sure).
)I am a bit confused by the amount of vigorous head-nodding this
)vaccination article has produced. Does PLANS take a stance on
)vaccination?
No, I don't think so. PLANS takes the stand that Waldorf schools should
inform parents before their children are enrolled that Steiner's esoteric
principles underlie virtually everything that will happen to a child in a
Waldorf school. Parents should realize that the vaccination advice is a
religious teaching - nothing to do with "natural immunity" etc. but based on
Steiner's belief that illnesses are good for children spiritually, and that
if a child dies from such an illness, it was their karma.
)Or is it just glee at negative statements about Steiner in
)the mainstream press (fair enough)?
Yeah, basically. He deserves the negative statements, and usually he gets a
pass.
Most journalists who have looked at Waldorf have not looked closely beneath
the surface, have not bothered to read any Steiner, and take at face value
the things teachers say, like, "It's all about enhancing children's
imaginations." Waldorf is so, so much more than this - practically
everything that is done in a Waldorf school is based on some esoteric
indication of Steiner's. The public does not have the true picture about
this.
I would say, personally, I do feel something like "glee" seeing negative
statements about Steiner in the mainstream press. Maybe I should be a bigger
person, or I should restrain myself so as to sound always "balanced," but if
you don't feel there are a lot of positives to outweigh the negatives, and
you see a lot of people fooled by things that look positive but have a
darker underside - the perhaps "glee" is appropriate at seeing it come out?
)Is there anyone out there who would go so far as to remove the right of
parents not to vaccinate,
No. Speaking for myself, I probably would not remove the right of the
parents to make the decision, because removing parental rights is a slippery
slope. Still, there are already plenty of areas where parents don't have the
"right" to do what they please to their children, where the children are
demonstrably hurt by it. Laws against child abuse. Seat belt laws. There
isn't a perfect system. In my personal view, taking away the vaccination
decision from parents would probably be going too far. Parents need to have
basic control over health care, especially where there is controversy.
)or do we just agree to condemn those who don't do it?
A tricky one. Probably condemning people isn't helpful. Educating them is
more useful. Still, when you hear a story like what that two-year-old went
through, it's hard not to feel pretty angry at those parents. I was also
raised in a religion in which children routinely still suffer from their
parents' failing to seek medical treatment for them. Sadism is beneath this.
Sometimes you do have to condemn things that you believe are wrong.
Many parents believe in the holistic route *until* they encounter an
emergency like this, then they quickly wake up and do what they have to do
to help their children. Those who don't - well, again forgive me if
condemning them makes me a less than forgiving person sometimes.
)The Anthroposophical arguments against vaccination sound kooky to me,
)but so does a lot of the pro-vaccination logic. The idea that
)unvaccinated children are germ bombs that infect the innocent herd
)(moo) is ridiculous.
Not sure why that's ridiculous. It's clearly established that the
unvaccinated are putting other people at risk. Didn't you get the point of
the article? The rates are higher in Boulder because of the unvaccinated
population. The author also notes that "since the collapse of the Soveit
public-health system diphtheria has returned with a vengeance, killing
thousands." (Not sure where the phrase "germ bomb" came from.)
)I can't speak for Boulder, but in the Boston area
)where I live, there are outbreaks of pertussis every year,
)predominantly in the *vaccinated* population. How the unvaccinated can
)be blamed for this is unknown to me.
Outbreaks are predominantly in the vaccinated population because that's most
of the population.
Let's be clear too, not to blame the "the unvaccinated" - that would refer
to the children.
)The vaccination is evidently imperfect
Evidently!!! Truer words could not be spoken. It's a lot better than the
disease, however.
)and would not eliminate the disease even if every single
)person were vaccinated.
Nop, it probably wouldn't. It reduces it. Best we can do.
)My understanding is that an unvaccinated person
)is more likely to come down with the disease if exposed, but that a
)vaccinated person who does get sick will likely have a more severe
)case.
I don't know, but it sounds right. It's a question of figuring out the odds.
Odds are better if you're vaccinated.
)I was a non-vaccinating parent (except for tetanus) before I ever heard
)of Steiner, not for religious or philosophical reasons, but because I
)think it's what is best for my children's overall health and
)well-being.
)Do I think I am endangering the herd? No. But even if I
)did, under no circumstances would I ever put the good of the herd above
)the good of my family if I thought the two were in conflict.
)Moo away at me, I can take it...
What did you think of this comment, in the article we were discussing?
One of the doctors quoted says he tells parents, "When your boy gets a
vaccination he takes on a risk for the public good, just like the firemen
[at the World Trade Center] who went back into the buildings."
Just wondering. Food for thought. Of course the risks of a DPT shot aren't
nearly as bad as the risk the firefighters took going into those buildings.
One of those things where, it seems to make sense to put your family first -
yet if everyone did this, if no one would sign up to fight fires, for
instance, a lot more of us would die in fires. It's going to be somebody's
family, isn't it?
And, as the physician quoted in the article also notes, "Ironically, in a
town like Boulder the selfish strategy is probably not in the best interests
of your child either."
Because when you stop vaccinating, disease returns . . .
Welcome to the list, Anne! Looking forward to hearing more from you.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:28:12 EDT
From: Tjgarr859 aol.com
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
--part1_d0.2b7a07d1.2a8d309c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tom
Well said and logical. However, the question before us is linking the threads
of Anthroposophy and Waldorf which are one in the same.
If you are a Steinerite and believe in your religion the answer is easy, you
don't do it because "Steiner said."
If you are a free thinker (which sounds like it is the case) you look into
all the information available and make a decision which you feel is best for
your children (Logical).
In Waldorf the threads of Anthroposophy secretly woven into everything they
do. Because this is more of a lifestyle than a well rounded education (notice
how I left out the word "choice" after lifestyle), there is great social
preasure to conform to the Steiner dogma.
In short, the problem is not the vacination itself, but the whole Waldorf
experience which always points directly back to Steiner's occult religion.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:35:55 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
) Hi Everyone...I am a relatively new listmember emerging from lurkdom
) (at my peril, I am sure).
Walden: Hi Anne and welcome. Nice to see you emerge from the depths of
lurkdom. No danger here... really!
) I am a bit confused by the amount of vigorous head-nodding this
) vaccination article has produced. Does PLANS take a stance on
) vaccination? Or is it just glee at negative statements about Steiner in
) the mainstream press (fair enough)? Is there anyone out there who would
) go so far as to remove the right of parents not to vaccinate, or do we
) just agree to condemn those who don't do it?
Walden: I am certainly not here to condemn anyone over this issue. I
believe parents make choices based on information gleaned from various
sources. My hunch is that parents use *science* as one source. *Religion*
can be another source and a *gut feeling* might be yet another. The latest
scientific data is only as reliable as this moment in time makes it but it
seems to be the only way to make sense of issues like vaccines. Religion,
on the other hand, is what this article was about and the connection to this
list. There are non-Anthro doctors, btw, who do not support vaccinations.
BUT - when families are influenced or feel pressured by many members of the
*community* NOT to vaccinate because "Steiner says" - there is a problem.
We cannot simply ignore situations like Boulder and that school.
By discussing the issue here we can all learn - I am learning all the time.
) I was a non-vaccinating parent (except for tetanus) before I ever heard
) of Steiner, not for religious or philosophical reasons, but because I
) think it's what is best for my children's overall health and
) well-being. Do I think I am endangering the herd? No. But even if I
) did, under no circumstances would I ever put the good of the herd above
) the good of my family if I thought the two were in conflict.
)
) Moo away at me, I can take it...
)
) Anne
No "moos" from this corner (g) but I am curious - why did you choose *not*
to vaccinate your children?
- Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:51:02 -0400
From: (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
A new list member makes the statement:
(( ... and would not eliminate the disease even if every single person were
vaccinated.))
Lisa here: Not completely accurate, evidently. Smallpox is virtually
non-existent anymore, and epidemiologists and health experts attribute this
largely to the fact that people were vaccinated against it for so many years.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:29:35 EDT
From: Tjgarr859 aol.com
Subject: Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
--part1_10c.161e4e05.2a8d4d0f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 8/15/02 1:52:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
momof2gals mindspring.com writes:
) A new list member makes the statement:
)
) (( ... and would not eliminate the disease even if every single person were
) vaccinated.))
)
) Lisa here: Not completely accurate, evidently. Smallpox is virtually
) non-existent anymore, and epidemiologists and health experts attribute this
) largely to the fact that people were vaccinated against it for so many years
)
Tom writes:
In my informed personal opinion, would that not be more of a reason to
vaccinate?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:22:50 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: Atlantic Monthly article/choosing not to vaccinate
Hello, everyone, with a particular "Hello" and "welcome" to our newest
member, Anne -- (I noticed, by the way, that you spell "Anne" with the "e,"
a la one of my all-time favorite childrens' books, "Anne of Green Gables."
Ever since I read that in third grade, I have felt that Ann with no "e"
seems somehow, well, naked! (g))
Regarding the discussion on the "Bucking The Herd" article in this month's
Atlantic, I just wanted to relate a conversation I had some years back with
a doctor who came of age during World War II and treated many, many people
in the epidemic years after the war.
(Background: the doctor is named Hiltgunt Margaret Zassenhaus, and she was
born and raised in Hamburg, Germany. As a teenager, she got into trouble in
school for refusing to say "Heil, Hitler!" every morning in class. Her
father, a German intellectual and school headmaster, was relieved of his job
by the Nazis for differences of "philosophy." Zassenhaus was forced to work
as a translator of Scandinavian languages -- she had an advanced degree in
them -- for the Third Reich, and used her position visiting political
prisoners from Norway, Denmark, etc. to bring food, vitamins and emotional
sustenance to them. She also kept track of where the prisoners were moved,
enabling her to save the lives of more than 2,000 political prisoners when,
toward the end of the war, the Nazis planned a mass extermination of them.
She was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and has received countless
international honors and accolades for her bravery and selflessness. I met
Hiltgunt when I was doing a story on her, and we became immediate friends.
She is my younger daughter's god mother. Read her book, which won the
Christopher Prize: Walls.)
Sorry that got so lengthy. She's my personal hero. Anyway, one day some
years ago, I was discussing with Hiltgunt the fact that so many families I
knew at our former Waldorf school (how she felt about Waldorf is another
subject entirely ... suffice to say she was a big proponent of critical
thinking skills and tough academic standards) chose not to have their
children receive all or even some of their vaccinations.
She told me, quite bluntly, that she found the anti-vaccination point of
view almost impossible to understand. I am paraphrasing here, but to the
best of my knowledge she said something like "Only those who have been lucky
enough to have good health and fortunate circumstances would refuse
vaccinations for their children. If you had seen the things that I saw
during and after WWII -- children and adults stricken by polio and dying
from other diseases we can prevent today, you would have a hard time
questioning the value of vaccinations."
My children's pediatrician feels similarly. In fact, he feels so strongly
about the value of immunizations that he tells patients who choose not to
vaccinate their children that perhaps they need another doctor. (Please do
note, however, that he is not referring to situations in which vaccinations
are medically contraindicated. He is talking about a blanket condemnation of
vaccinations.)
This doctor is, in no way, close minded. He, in fact, often recommends
patients explore "alternative" therapies, such as nutrition, etc. (as long
as it is well balanced and makes sense. He would not recommend, for
instance, eating only grapefruit for days! (g))
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:16:40 +1000
From: "Julia rda" (juliarda hotmail.com)
Subject: re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
I have also been following the vaccination discussions with interest.
This is a reasonably lengthy posting that would classed as anti-vaccination,
so perhaps some people might like to decide here not to continue reading it.
Like Anne, I have chosen not to vaccinate my children, but before I heard of
anything Steiner said about the issue. After my first child was born I
knew little more than what I had read in the media about vaccincation.
Although I had some concerns about the possible side effects of vaccination,
I thought better to risk side effects than the disease itself. I did
mention my concerns about side effect to our infant health nurse at one
stage. She acknowledged my concerns, said she had had similar concerns with
her own children, but gave me her personal folder full of information so
that I could read and decide for myself if I was making the right decision.
I read her collection of, what I later realised to be, all pro-vaccination
material, niavely believing that as a parent first, and infant health nurse
second, she had sought to obtain a range of literature on the subject. I
felt reassured about our decision to vaccinate.
A few months later, my elder son contracted what I now believe was
pertussis. Medical practitioners seem to discount pertussis on finding out
that he was fully vaccinated. I can relate to the story of the child
coughing and coughing until he/she vomitted. My son would cough and cough,
gasping for air, until finally he vomitted a white substance. This went on
daily, for two months. I lost count of how many steamy bathrooms I sat in
with him, running the hot water until we emptied the hot water service, as
steam seemed to be the only thing that helped at all. The nights were
particularly bad, as he repeated this process every two hours, for weeks.
A bad case of croup was diagnosed, but at about the five week stage my GP
asked me to see a paediatrician for a second opinion. She also discounted
pertussis, but admitted him to the children's hospital for tests. What
happened in there, before I left two days later, with the paedatrician's
support but incurring the anger of the specialist who had taken on our case,
is a story in itself.
I returned to the GP who was very supportive all the way through. As he
reassured me, the fact that my son was still active and happy, in between
the bouts of terrible coughing, was a good sign. If he was to become
lethargic, there would be concern that the coughing was having a weakening
effect on his heart, and I was to take him to emergency immediately. I
began reading everything I could find, and sometimes found it mentioned that
a feature of pertussis was the vomitting of a white substance. I had
thought that my son was vomitting as a natural response to violent and
prolonged coughing, and that what he was bringing up was milk, and he was
still breastfeeding, and even more so during his illness. I turned up to
the GP for what had become my regular every second day appointment (he
wanted to continue to monitor), and talked about what I had read. He said
that he also now believed that it was pertussis, but was still waiting on
the results of the tests from the hospital. He rang the hospital lab while
I was with him, rang when I returned the next day, but was unable to get the
results as they had been mislaid. He tracked them down after a week of
persistent calling, but although the test for croup was negative, they had
overlooked testing for pertussis and the swab had since been distroyed (the
paediatrician had requested the swab be examined for a number of diseases
including pertussis). I wasn't willing for my son to have another swab
taken - the first process had involved him being held down by two people to
obtain the sample - and my pro-vaccination GP assured me that he was
confident my son had pertussis. He also said that he wanted to continue to
monitor every second day, and for me to watch for any sign of lethargy, but
that the coughing should last for a total of 3 1/2 months and then pass.
(He said the Chinese call it the 100 day cough). He also said that
pertussis was usually not a serious illness in children over one year old -
and that the first six months was the real danger period. He said that as
the child matured, and the lungs became stronger, the disease lost the real
"whoop" on the inward cough, and that a lot of adults only experienced it as
a persistent severe cough, having no idea that they had pertussis.
I began reading more about vaccination. I found a lot of information that
shocked me. My partner also began reading the information. (With his PhD
background he is better than me at distinguishing "good" research from
poorly conducted studies that are inconclusive.
We had no trouble coming to the decision not to vaccinate further.
I believe that this is a very personal decision, and that every parent has
to decide for themself what is best for their child. I still worried at
times, but would go back and begin re-reading the literature we had
collected, including studies published in reputable journals such as the New
England Journal of Medicine ( I think that's the name). I just wish that
parents had access to a range of information before making this sometimes
very difficult decision. What I found changed my beliefs. For example,
some pro-vaccination literature showed graphs demonstrating how the
incidence of diseases such as diptheria and polio had dropped drastically
since the introduction of vaccinations. But then I found more detailed
statistics that showed that the incidence had dropped dramatically prior to
the introduction of vaccination, and that the drop was in line with the
introduction of better hygiene practises. The decline that occurred after
the introduction of the vaccine, was only the tail end of a decline that had
begun much earlier. I found a number of studies citing the incidence of
diseases in vaccinated vs non-vaccinated people during epidemics. Only one
study showed a statistically significant difference. I can understand that
sometimes, for various reasons, a vaccination may be ineffective, but surely
there would still be evidence that, at least during some epidemics, there
was a much lower incidence of the disease in the vaccinated people. Why do
epidemics continue to occur in some fully-vaccinated populations? AGain,
maybe this is due to widespread vaccine failure, but it really got me
questioning.
Anyway, I hope this may add something to the discussion. Also, I don't
mean to criticise parents who do vaccinate - I believe most parents do what
they think is best for their children in this area. In any case, if it
will be one of the few cases of not being able to be bothered, they would
fall into the non-vaccinating group. However, I initially thought that
those who didn't vaccinate were hippies and bucking the system just for the
sake of it - unfortunately at the expense of their children - I obviously
think quite differently now and cringe when I remember telling parents that
maybe it was okay that they had decided not to vaccinate their child - but
what about "herd immunity"? and what they were exposing other children to.
Sorry this is so long. I just want to end by saying that my son came out
of this really well - and it has been a blessing in many ways for us. We
decided that never again would we accept anything for our children without
closely examining it. This has led us to making a number of significant
choices in our lives, that we are very happy with, but that we probably
would not have made if we had not started really examining our options and
choices.
Julie
)From: anne risgin (arisgin2 yahoo.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
)Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
)
)Hi Everyone...I am a relatively new listmember emerging from lurkdom
)(at my peril, I am sure).
)
)I am a bit confused by the amount of vigorous head-nodding this
)vaccination article has produced. Does PLANS take a stance on
)vaccination? Or is it just glee at negative statements about Steiner in
)the mainstream press (fair enough)? Is there anyone out there who would
)go so far as to remove the right of parents not to vaccinate, or do we
)just agree to condemn those who don't do it?
)
)The Anthroposophical arguments against vaccination sound kooky to me,
)but so does a lot of the pro-vaccination logic. The idea that
)unvaccinated children are germ bombs that infect the innocent herd
)(moo) is ridiculous. I can't speak for Boulder, but in the Boston area
)where I live, there are outbreaks of pertussis every year,
)predominantly in the *vaccinated* population. How the unvaccinated can
)be blamed for this is unknown to me. The vaccination is evidently
)imperfect and would not eliminate the disease even if every single
)person were vaccinated. My understanding is that an unvaccinated person
)is more likely to come down with the disease if exposed, but that a
)vaccinated person who does get sick will likely have a more severe
)case. (FWIW, I had pertussis when I was in graduate school and it
)really sucked...at one point I remember sobbing to a nurse-practitioner
)that this was how Jim Henson died.)
)
)I was a non-vaccinating parent (except for tetanus) before I ever heard
)of Steiner, not for religious or philosophical reasons, but because I
)think it's what is best for my children's overall health and
)well-being. Do I think I am endangering the herd? No. But even if I
)did, under no circumstances would I ever put the good of the herd above
)the good of my family if I thought the two were in conflict.
)
)Moo away at me, I can take it...
)
)Anne
)
)__________________________________________________
)Do You Yahoo!?
)HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
)http://www.hotjobs.com
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anne Risgin (arisgin2 yahoo.com)
Subject: re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
--- momof2gals mindspring.com wrote:
) A new list member makes the statement:
)
) (( ... and would not eliminate the disease even if every single
) person were
) vaccinated.))
)
) Lisa here: Not completely accurate, evidently. Smallpox is virtually
) non-existent anymore, and epidemiologists and health experts
) attribute this
) largely to the fact that people were vaccinated against it for so
) many years.
Ah, but that's because the smallpox vaccine was so effective that the
natural virus died out. Same thing with polio...there hasn't been a
case of wild polio in the Western Hemisphere since the late 70s (every
case since then has been a result of the vaccine itself, which is why
they have stopped giving it.) The pertussis vaccine isn't that
effective...vaccinated people get sick every year. Not to mention the
vaccine wears off, so unless you are getting regular boosters
throughout your adulthood, you are as much a "threat" as an
unvaccinated child.
Anne
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:13:12 -0400
From: "Karen Sandburg" (deerone mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
A pediatrician I know told me that it is unwise to bombard such young babies
to so many various toxins. He said the reason babies are subjected to these
rather intense series of vaccinations is because the doctors "have their
hands on" the little babies and that the parents bring their children in
less frequently as they get older making a vaccination series hard to
complete. Meanwhile, their immune systems aren't fully developed and he
suspects that this unnatural bombardment of the immune system at such a
young age deranges the immune system possibly causing a host of auto"immune"
diseases later on.
I believe other countries, such as Japan and Sweden have stopped vaccinating
until the child is 2 years old because of adverse reactions.
---- Original Message -----
From: "Julia rda" (juliarda hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 7:16 PM
Subject: re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
) I have also been following the vaccination discussions with interest.
)
) This is a reasonably lengthy posting that would classed as
anti-vaccination,
) so perhaps some people might like to decide here not to continue reading
it.
)
) Like Anne, I have chosen not to vaccinate my children, but before I heard
of
) anything Steiner said about the issue. After my first child was born I
) knew little more than what I had read in the media about vaccincation.
) Although I had some concerns about the possible side effects of
vaccination,
) I thought better to risk side effects than the disease itself. I did
) mention my concerns about side effect to our infant health nurse at one
) stage. She acknowledged my concerns, said she had had similar concerns
with
) her own children, but gave me her personal folder full of information so
) that I could read and decide for myself if I was making the right
decision.
) I read her collection of, what I later realised to be, all
pro-vaccination
) material, niavely believing that as a parent first, and infant health
nurse
) second, she had sought to obtain a range of literature on the subject. I
) felt reassured about our decision to vaccinate.
)
) A few months later, my elder son contracted what I now believe was
) pertussis. Medical practitioners seem to discount pertussis on finding
out
) that he was fully vaccinated. I can relate to the story of the child
) coughing and coughing until he/she vomitted. My son would cough and
cough,
) gasping for air, until finally he vomitted a white substance. This went
on
) daily, for two months. I lost count of how many steamy bathrooms I sat
in
) with him, running the hot water until we emptied the hot water service, as
) steam seemed to be the only thing that helped at all. The nights were
) particularly bad, as he repeated this process every two hours, for weeks.
)
) A bad case of croup was diagnosed, but at about the five week stage my GP
) asked me to see a paediatrician for a second opinion. She also
discounted
) pertussis, but admitted him to the children's hospital for tests. What
) happened in there, before I left two days later, with the paedatrician's
) support but incurring the anger of the specialist who had taken on our
case,
) is a story in itself.
)
) I returned to the GP who was very supportive all the way through. As he
) reassured me, the fact that my son was still active and happy, in between
) the bouts of terrible coughing, was a good sign. If he was to become
) lethargic, there would be concern that the coughing was having a weakening
) effect on his heart, and I was to take him to emergency immediately. I
) began reading everything I could find, and sometimes found it mentioned
that
) a feature of pertussis was the vomitting of a white substance. I had
) thought that my son was vomitting as a natural response to violent and
) prolonged coughing, and that what he was bringing up was milk, and he was
) still breastfeeding, and even more so during his illness. I turned up to
) the GP for what had become my regular every second day appointment (he
) wanted to continue to monitor), and talked about what I had read. He
said
) that he also now believed that it was pertussis, but was still waiting on
) the results of the tests from the hospital. He rang the hospital lab
while
) I was with him, rang when I returned the next day, but was unable to get
the
) results as they had been mislaid. He tracked them down after a week of
) persistent calling, but although the test for croup was negative, they
had
) overlooked testing for pertussis and the swab had since been distroyed
(the
) paediatrician had requested the swab be examined for a number of diseases
) including pertussis). I wasn't willing for my son to have another swab
) taken - the first process had involved him being held down by two people
to
) obtain the sample - and my pro-vaccination GP assured me that he was
) confident my son had pertussis. He also said that he wanted to continue
to
) monitor every second day, and for me to watch for any sign of lethargy,
but
) that the coughing should last for a total of 3 1/2 months and then pass.
) (He said the Chinese call it the 100 day cough). He also said that
) pertussis was usually not a serious illness in children over one year
old -
) and that the first six months was the real danger period. He said that
as
) the child matured, and the lungs became stronger, the disease lost the
real
) "whoop" on the inward cough, and that a lot of adults only experienced it
as
) a persistent severe cough, having no idea that they had pertussis.
)
) I began reading more about vaccination. I found a lot of information
that
) shocked me. My partner also began reading the information. (With his
PhD
) background he is better than me at distinguishing "good" research from
) poorly conducted studies that are inconclusive.
)
) We had no trouble coming to the decision not to vaccinate further.
)
) I believe that this is a very personal decision, and that every parent has
) to decide for themself what is best for their child. I still worried at
) times, but would go back and begin re-reading the literature we had
) collected, including studies published in reputable journals such as the
New
) England Journal of Medicine ( I think that's the name). I just wish that
) parents had access to a range of information before making this sometimes
) very difficult decision. What I found changed my beliefs. For example,
) some pro-vaccination literature showed graphs demonstrating how the
) incidence of diseases such as diptheria and polio had dropped drastically
) since the introduction of vaccinations. But then I found more detailed
) statistics that showed that the incidence had dropped dramatically prior
to
) the introduction of vaccination, and that the drop was in line with the
) introduction of better hygiene practises. The decline that occurred
after
) the introduction of the vaccine, was only the tail end of a decline that
had
) begun much earlier. I found a number of studies citing the incidence of
) diseases in vaccinated vs non-vaccinated people during epidemics. Only
one
) study showed a statistically significant difference. I can understand
that
) sometimes, for various reasons, a vaccination may be ineffective, but
surely
) there would still be evidence that, at least during some epidemics, there
) was a much lower incidence of the disease in the vaccinated people. Why
do
) epidemics continue to occur in some fully-vaccinated populations? AGain,
) maybe this is due to widespread vaccine failure, but it really got me
) questioning.
)
) Anyway, I hope this may add something to the discussion. Also, I don't
) mean to criticise parents who do vaccinate - I believe most parents do
what
) they think is best for their children in this area. In any case, if it
) will be one of the few cases of not being able to be bothered, they would
) fall into the non-vaccinating group. However, I initially thought that
) those who didn't vaccinate were hippies and bucking the system just for
the
) sake of it - unfortunately at the expense of their children - I obviously
) think quite differently now and cringe when I remember telling parents
that
) maybe it was okay that they had decided not to vaccinate their child - but
) what about "herd immunity"? and what they were exposing other children to.
)
) Sorry this is so long. I just want to end by saying that my son came out
) of this really well - and it has been a blessing in many ways for us. We
) decided that never again would we accept anything for our children without
) closely examining it. This has led us to making a number of significant
) choices in our lives, that we are very happy with, but that we probably
) would not have made if we had not started really examining our options and
) choices.
)
) Julie
)
)
) )From: anne risgin (arisgin2 yahoo.com)
) )Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) )To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) )Subject: re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
) )Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
) )
) )Hi Everyone...I am a relatively new listmember emerging from lurkdom
) )(at my peril, I am sure).
) )
) )I am a bit confused by the amount of vigorous head-nodding this
) )vaccination article has produced. Does PLANS take a stance on
) )vaccination? Or is it just glee at negative statements about Steiner in
) )the mainstream press (fair enough)? Is there anyone out there who would
) )go so far as to remove the right of parents not to vaccinate, or do we
) )just agree to condemn those who don't do it?
) )
) )The Anthroposophical arguments against vaccination sound kooky to me,
) )but so does a lot of the pro-vaccination logic. The idea that
) )unvaccinated children are germ bombs that infect the innocent herd
) )(moo) is ridiculous. I can't speak for Boulder, but in the Boston area
) )where I live, there are outbreaks of pertussis every year,
) )predominantly in the *vaccinated* population. How the unvaccinated can
) )be blamed for this is unknown to me. The vaccination is evidently
) )imperfect and would not eliminate the disease even if every single
) )person were vaccinated. My understanding is that an unvaccinated person
) )is more likely to come down with the disease if exposed, but that a
) )vaccinated person who does get sick will likely have a more severe
) )case. (FWIW, I had pertussis when I was in graduate school and it
) )really sucked...at one point I remember sobbing to a nurse-practitioner
) )that this was how Jim Henson died.)
) )
) )I was a non-vaccinating parent (except for tetanus) before I ever heard
) )of Steiner, not for religious or philosophical reasons, but because I
) )think it's what is best for my children's overall health and
) )well-being. Do I think I am endangering the herd? No. But even if I
) )did, under no circumstances would I ever put the good of the herd above
) )the good of my family if I thought the two were in conflict.
) )
) )Moo away at me, I can take it...
) )
) )Anne
) )
) )__________________________________________________
) )Do You Yahoo!?
) )HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
) )http://www.hotjobs.com
) )
) )
)
)
)
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:11:16 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
)Hi Everyone...I am a relatively new listmember emerging from lurkdom
)(at my peril, I am sure).
)
)I am a bit confused by the amount of vigorous head-nodding this
)vaccination article has produced. Does PLANS take a stance on
)vaccination? Or is it just glee at negative statements about Steiner in
)the mainstream press (fair enough)? Is there anyone out there who would
)go so far as to remove the right of parents not to vaccinate, or do we
)just agree to condemn those who don't do it?
Debra:
Welcome! PLANS has no official opinion on vaccinations, one way or
the other. Personally, *I* had my children vaccinated. (True, I
waited until my babies were a few months older than was recommended.
Guess I thought that the extra weight they gained between two and
four months would help guard them against side affects.
(Non-scientific and purely emotional decision alert).
My decision was personal. My nephew caught whooping cough when he was
7 weeks old. He almost died. My parents, born long before
vaccinations were invented, told horrific stories about how many
babies/children died *before* the invention of vaccinations. Two of
my friends had polio when they were young. They too, are
pro-vaccinations. Living your life with an arm that doesn't function
or a leg that is shorter, that eventually causes chronic pain in your
joints from walking around crooked for years on end just didn't seem
appealing. I felt that vaccinating my children was an act of greater
good, of sorts. Even though I was a bit nervous about it.
)
)The Anthroposophical arguments against vaccination sound kooky to me,
)but so does a lot of the pro-vaccination logic. The idea that
)unvaccinated children are germ bombs that infect the innocent herd
)(moo) is ridiculous.
Debra:
I don't live in Boulder, but I live in a county in California with
the largest population of unvaccinated children. Our local newspaper
wrote an article a year or so ago after a very young baby died of
whooping cough. The parents believed in vaccinations, their other
children were vaccinated, but the baby caught whooping cough
somewhere. Well, it turned out that the public funded Waldorf school
had the highest number of vaccination waivers and had just
experienced an outbreak of whooping cough.
)I can't speak for Boulder, but in the Boston area
)where I live, there are outbreaks of pertussis every year,
)predominantly in the *vaccinated* population.
Debra:
Interesting! Do they (health professionals, etc.) think the
vaccinations wore off? I have heard that *if* one gets whooping cough
*after* they have been vaccinated, it's not as intense of a case, but
I don't really know. My mother said if one ever held a baby who was
with whooping cough or other such (supposedly preventable) illnesses,
you would line up for shots. Infant death rate was pretty high before
vaccinations/antibiotics were invented.
I wasn't living close to my nephew when he had whooping cough, so I
didn't hear the cough, but my sister was as frightened as I have ever
heard her. My nephew was transferred to three different hospitals -
ending up in a large pediatric trauma center - where they saved him.
He was very young.
) How the unvaccinated can
)be blamed for this is unknown to me. The vaccination is evidently
)imperfect and would not eliminate the disease even if every single
)person were vaccinated. My understanding is that an unvaccinated person
)is more likely to come down with the disease if exposed, but that a
)vaccinated person who does get sick will likely have a more severe
)case. (FWIW, I had pertussis when I was in graduate school and it
)really sucked...at one point I remember sobbing to a nurse-practitioner
)that this was how Jim Henson died.)
Debra:
Were you vaccinated? I am not sure that any vaccination can be
perfect, but my sister's other three kids (all vaccinated) didn't get
whooping cough, nor did the other children in the local family
featured in the paper.
)
)I was a non-vaccinating parent (except for tetanus) before I ever heard
)of Steiner, not for religious or philosophical reasons, but because I
)think it's what is best for my children's overall health and
)well-being. Do I think I am endangering the herd? No. But even if I
)did, under no circumstances would I ever put the good of the herd above
)the good of my family if I thought the two were in conflict.
)
)Moo away at me, I can take it...
Hopefully I didn't moo away too much. I understand the fear of having
your children vaccinated. Been there, done that. I learned to be very
skeptical of all the information I read. How reliable was the
information, etc. I decided to vaccinate and I'm glad I did.
Debra,
who, in hindsight, wishes I had considered circumcision too. . . (
Maybe my boys could pee straight and I wouldn't be forever cleaning
the toilet, floors and walls. . .)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:04:47 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly Article
Whooping cough is bacterial - Bordetella pertussis. Could whooping cough be
physically embodied demons generated by lies? Unfortunately Steiner doesn't
say what "the certain bacilli" are....
Steiner: "The individual human being, membered as he is within mankind as a
whole, has an effect upon the whole world according to whether he speaks the
truth or lies; for beings created by truth or by lies produce quite
different effects. Imagine a people which is composed entirely of liars, the
astral plane would be populated solely by the corresponding demons and these
demons would be able to express themselves in constitutional tendency to
epidemics. Thus there is a certain species of bacilli who are the carriers
of infectious diseases; these beings are the progeny of the lies told by
human beings; they are nothing else than physically embodied demons
generated by lies" (Rudolf Steiner, 68-69. Theosophy of the Rosicrucian,
Rudolf Steiner Press. London. Reprint 1981).
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:38:35 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
Lisa:
)Smallpox is virtually non-existent anymore, and epidemiologists and health
)experts attribute this largely to the fact that people were vaccinated
against it
)for so many years.
Anne:
)Ah, but that's because the smallpox vaccine was so effective that the
)natural virus died out.
Aren't you saying the same thing as Lisa? I don't understand.
)Same thing with polio...there hasn't been a case of wild polio in the
)Western Hemisphere since the late 70s )(every case since then has been a
)result of the vaccine itself, which is why they have stopped giving it.)
This is exactly where this argument gets mixed up. I have heard this
fallacious argument repeated many times - that the vaccines are now more
dangerous than the diseases.
It's not that "every case since has been a result of the vaccine," as if the
disease somehow, all on its own, became less dangerous and stopped infecting
people, while the vaccine took on a life of its own. The disease became less
dangerous
*because of the vaccine*.
Then, the statement also appears to imply that the vaccine started veering
out of
control and giving people the very disease it was supposed to prevent. So of
course you'd want to stop that. But what happened is, after the rates of
disease drop, the few cases which are, in fact, caused by the vaccine,
appear to take on a significance they would not have if the disease
were still endemic. Which it would be without the vaccine. Get it?
The risk/benefit ratio of the vaccine changed because the vaccination
campaign
was successful. As the author of the Atlantic Monthly article put it, the
vaccination campaign is a victim of its own success. Largely because people
don't understand these causes and effects.
The bad effects of the vaccine appear in bold relief only when the disease
has been brought under control - by the vaccine. Few people have experience
of the diseases, only of the vaccines, so they have only the emotional
experience of holding down a crying child while he is jabbed with a needle,
and meanwhile he wasn't sick in the first place, but could get sick from the
jab? This seems like an unreasonable thing to do, but as Lisa pointed out,
it looks very reasonable if you know what the alternatives are.
)The pertussis vaccine isn't that effective...vaccinated people get sick
)every year.
This too, I think I addressed earlier. Vaccinated people get sick - many
more vaccinated people than unvaccinated people get sick, yes - because
*most people are vaccinated*. Anybody who gets sick for any reason at all,
is statistically far more likely to be a vaccinated person. I know it is
counterintuitive, but it's nevertheless a fact that even if many more
vaccinated people than unvaccinated people get the disease, this does not
tell you about the effectiveness of the vaccine.
It seems strange to me that people feel the vaccine is bad because it is not
perfect. It fails sometimes, and it can have ill effects occasionally, even
very bad ones. But why is this unacceptable, and the potentially fatal
diseases are acceptable?
Well, again because of the success of the vaccine campaign. A kid's odds of
getting the disease are slim - because most people are vaccinated . . .
)Not to mention the vaccine wears off, so unless you are getting regular
)boosters throughout your adulthood, you are as much a "threat" as an
)unvaccinated child.
Well, probably not, because adults do not interact in the ways children do
in schools, at the YMCA, swim club, Boy Scouts (examples mentioned in the
article). We try generally not to sneeze on each other, spit at each other,
bite each other, we wash our hands even when grown-ups aren't looking, etc.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:34:40 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
Sharon: You just got to smile....
Steiner: "Illnesses calmly born often appear in the next life as great
physical beauty; great physical beauty in a human being is acquired at the
cost of illnesses in the preceding life"
(Steiner, 65. Theosophy of the Rosicrucian, lectures from 1907. Rudolf
Steiner Press, London. Reprint 1981).
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:07:23 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
Julie wrote:
)some pro-vaccination literature showed graphs demonstrating how the
)incidence of diseases such as diptheria and polio had dropped drastically
)since the introduction of vaccinations. But then I found more detailed
)statistics that showed that the incidence had dropped dramatically prior to
)the introduction of vaccination, and that the drop was in line with the
)introduction of better hygiene practises.
The reasoning is faulty. If both these things - better hygiene; vaccination
campaign - happened in a similar time frame as the declining disease rates,
why are you willing to assume that one is the cause of the decline, but for
the same reason, you dismiss the other as the potential cause?
Little graphs like that are very seductive, whichever "side" of the debate
uses them. Two parallel lines, dropping together, look so convincing. (My
point being, the graph may be simply irrelevant.)
Most importantly the hygiene argument is belied by the fact that when
vaccination rates drop, the disease returns. If it were only a question of
hygiene, this wouldn't be the case, assuming our hygiene now is at least as
good as it was 50 years ago.
I don't know, but I wonder if the fact that they are largely *childhood*
diseases is relevant. Hygiene with children isn't nearly as amenable to
change via a public health campaign - vaccination makes more sense. They are
going to put their mouths on things, eat dirt, and drool on each other
anyway, even if parents wash their hands every 5 minutes. In other words,
maybe hygiene *could* make a bigger difference than it does, if we could
*really* make little kids not swap germs so readily. When I worked in the
preschool, I swear I washed my hands 500 times a day. I was still sick all
the time.
Still, there is plenty of evidence that hygiene is not the whole story.
I wish I had more time to respond to Julie's really heartfelt, harrowing
story. Although I don't think it actually argues against vaccination, it
must have been a horrible thing to go through, and I'm really glad your son
came out of it okay. What a nightmare, from the lab screwing up big-time, to
the doctors not getting the diagnosis, to the sleepless nights . . .
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:28:06 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
)Sharon: You just got to smile....
)
)Steiner: "Illnesses calmly born often appear in the next life as great
)physical beauty; great physical beauty in a human being is acquired at the
)cost of illnesses in the preceding life"
I didn't know about this part. Do you get the good karmic effects if you
*don't* bear it calmly . . . if you just, like - survive it? If you scream
and cry a lot?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:51:39 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: A slight problem...
Is Anthroposophy racist ?
Well, if this is so, then anthroposophy must be forbidden.
I live in France where we have a very strong law against racism , since
1972 . And I am sorry to say to you that anthroposophy is not forbidden
: so there must be something false in your charge of racism.
There was indeed in 2000 and 2001 a campaign in France against Steiner
schools : but it did not succeed. And if it did not succeed in France,
the country of laicity, i don't think it will succeed in USA, the
country of televangelists and of "scientology is a religion".
Do you know that there are many point of views in and about
anthroposophy ? there is pluralism , and freedom of thought and
religious belief (including atheism) is a cardinal value in
anthroposophy. The real predecessor of Steiner was Max Stirner : not a
very religious thinker, don't you think ?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:13:05 EDT
From: Tjgarr859 aol.com
Subject: Re: A slight problem...
In a message dated 8/16/02 12:10:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
foncteur yahoo.fr writes:
) Is Anthroposophy racist ?
) Well, if this is so, then anthroposophy must be forbidden.
) I live in France where we have a very strong law against racism , since
) 1972 . And I am sorry to say to you that anthroposophy is not forbidden
) : so there must be something false in your charge of racism.
) There was indeed in 2000 and 2001 a campaign in France against Steiner
) schools : but it did not succeed. And if it did not succeed in France,
) the country of laicity, i don't think it will succeed in USA, the
) country of televangelists and of "scientology is a religion".
) Do you know that there are many point of views in and about
) anthroposophy ? there is pluralism , and freedom of thought and
) religious belief (including atheism) is a cardinal value in
) anthroposophy. The real predecessor of Steiner was Max Stirner : not a
) very religious thinker, don't you think ?
)
)
Tom
Your arguement is false. Anthroposophy has racist overtones from what Steiner
is quoted as saying on the subject. Whether France recognizes this or not
does not add or subtract to this arguement. (By the way, don't the French
think Jerry Lewis is a comic genious? ) Let's consider the source.
Also, whether anthroposophy is racist or not has nothing to do with the fact
that Waldorf has a pattern of non-disclosure of its beliefs (right/wrong)
which is the real issue. I think even the "open minded" French would object
to an organization that portrays itself as non sectarian, but was based on a
very defined religious/occult idea without your knowledge or approval. Open
your mind to the possiblity that we are on this site because we object to
being duped.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:01:27 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: A slight problem...
Bonjour Foncteur,
Perhaps there is are various interpretations of your word "racist." I do
not think this word necessarily has to do with "mean-spirited, horrible
people." I don't even think those who adhere to racist beliefs consider
themselves odd or out of touch with humanity. I do not understand, however,
how one can categorically deny the racist elements of Anthroposophy. The
foundation of this belief system stems from Theosophy, root races and
reincarnation. Or do you disagree? Do we need to display all the
Steiner/race quotes yet again?
I think that various forms of racism exist everywhere. France is certainly
no different despite any "law" you might have. What are your thoughts on Le
Pen? Is he banned from speaking? I doubt it. One cannot ignore the stench
of racism - no matter how much perfume we soak it in.
Welcome and I look forward to your comments.
-Walden
) Is Anthroposophy racist ?
) Well, if this is so, then anthroposophy must be forbidden.
) I live in France where we have a very strong law against racism , since
) 1972 . And I am sorry to say to you that anthroposophy is not forbidden
) : so there must be something false in your charge of racism.
) There was indeed in 2000 and 2001 a campaign in France against Steiner
) schools : but it did not succeed. And if it did not succeed in France,
) the country of laicity, i don't think it will succeed in USA, the
) country of televangelists and of "scientology is a religion".
) Do you know that there are many point of views in and about
) anthroposophy ? there is pluralism , and freedom of thought and
) religious belief (including atheism) is a cardinal value in
) anthroposophy. The real predecessor of Steiner was Max Stirner : not a
) very religious thinker, don't you think ?
)
)
)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 790
-- Topica Digest --
Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By juliarda hotmail.com
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By juliarda hotmail.com
Re: Atlantic Monthly article on vaccines and Waldorf
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Bella Freud on Waldorf
By dan dandugan.com
Rudolf Steiner recognized as opponent of anti_Semitism and
nationalism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By dan dandugan.com
Re: A slight problem...
By dan dandugan.com
RE: A slight problem...
By foncteur yahoo.fr
RE: A slight problem...
By foncteur yahoo.fr
RE: A slight problem...
By foncteur yahoo.fr
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
vaccine site
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
question for Julia
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: A slight problem...
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: A slight problem...
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: A slight problem...
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: A slight problem...
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
Re: A slight problem...
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
Re: A slight problem...
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: A slight problem...
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
By arisgin2 yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 18:02:45 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
) Sharon: You just got to smile....
)
) Steiner: "Illnesses calmly born often appear in the next life as great
) physical beauty; great physical beauty in a human being is acquired at the
) cost of illnesses in the preceding life"
)
) (Steiner, 65. Theosophy of the Rosicrucian, lectures from 1907. Rudolf
) Steiner Press, London. Reprint 1981).
)
Lisa here: Gee, I can't wait for my next life. I'm gonna look like Christie
Brinkley ....
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:54:13 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
)Lisa here: Gee, I can't wait for my next life. I'm gonna look like Christie
)Brinkley ....
Darn. I'm too healthy. I'm afraid I may have had a long string of very
healthy lifetimes. :(
But there's that attitude thing, too, Lisa - have you borne all your
illnesses calmly?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:59:21 +1000
From: "Julia rda" (juliarda hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
When I viewed more comprehensive graphs, they showed diseases that had had a
very high incidence, but still with peaks and troughs within that high
range. Towards the end of the 19th Century/start of 20th, the incidence
dropped dramatically until, by the time widespread vaccination was
introduced the line was petering out anyway. So a decline in incidence did
occur after introduction of vaccination, approximately 50+ years after the
decline commenced, but it appeared to be the very tail-end of a consistent
drop that had been occurring since around the turn of the century. It
looked like vaccination contributed nothing to the decline.
My understanding of the argument citing return of some (not all) of the
diseases once the numbers in a population that a vaccinated drops, is that
some diseases such as measles and pertussis are cyclical, and will occur
regardless of vaccination levels. E.g. just for memory, I think measles in
meant to work on a cycle of approx. 7 years, so every 7 years you would
expect a much greater incidence, perhaps even epidemic. Some diseases,
such as polio do not work in this cyclical nature, and have virtually been
eradicated. Some diseases, such as diptheria, were almost eradicated in
say Russia, but now that conditions are much worse than they have been for
some time, and nutrition levels have dropped, we are seeing a return of
diptheria.
I am no expert - this is just what I have gathered from reading lots of
different sources and obviously I may be wrong. However, I became
convinced that enough of the argument against vaccincation was valid enough
to deter me from vaccination further. If I have had different experiences
in my past, I might have chosen a different path. My father is strongly
pro-vaccination and critical of my decision (although I must say he never
got around to reading the material I left him, or watching the video of the
pro and anti- "expert" produced by a local university). However, I
understand that he grew up in a period that saw people severely crippled by
polio. Even he, however, talks about how he, and others he knew,
contracted polio mildly and had no on-going effects - he doesn't have any
muscle weakness at all. He also talks about how, growing up in a very
poor area, they often played in the gutters with their paper boats,
oblivious to sanitation issues.
I would welcome anyone's arguments against what I have talked about in the
first two paragraphs. If I have made the wrong decision, I would very much
like to discover this - it wouldn't be the first time I believed strongly in
some only to later alter my beliefs - but I really can't see any reason to
change my anti-vaccination stance at the moment. I would welcome emails
off-list, if this is more appropriate than continuing this discussion
on-list - I'm not sure if I'm not getting a bit away from the purpose of the
list.
Lastly, I'd just like to say that I welcome the opportunity to be able to
discuss issues and beliefs openly. I did think after my posting that
perhaps I should have said that obviously my son contracting whooping cough
was a very emotive experience for me, but I hope this wouldn't result in
anyone hesitating to reply, outlining their arguments against my stance
regarding vaccination. Thank-you for what you offer in this list.
Julie
)From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net)
)
)
)The reasoning is faulty. If both these things - better hygiene; vaccination
)campaign - happened in a similar time frame as the declining disease rates,
)why are you willing to assume that one is the cause of the decline, but for
)the same reason, you dismiss the other as the potential cause?
)
)Little graphs like that are very seductive, whichever "side" of the debate
)uses them. ....
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 10:32:44 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
Please read the information at the following web page, and then see how you
feel about your arguments that you presented below...
Center for Disease Control (CDC)
Six Common Misconceptions about vaccination and how to respond to them
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/6mishome.htm
...Gary
on 8/17/02 2:59 AM, Julia rda at juliarda hotmail.com wrote:
) When I viewed more comprehensive graphs, they showed diseases that had had a
) very high incidence, but still with peaks and troughs within that high
) range. Towards the end of the 19th Century/start of 20th, the incidence
) dropped dramatically until, by the time widespread vaccination was
) introduced the line was petering out anyway. So a decline in incidence did
) occur after introduction of vaccination, approximately 50+ years after the
) decline commenced, but it appeared to be the very tail-end of a consistent
) drop that had been occurring since around the turn of the century. It
) looked like vaccination contributed nothing to the decline.
)
) My understanding of the argument citing return of some (not all) of the
) diseases once the numbers in a population that a vaccinated drops, is that
) some diseases such as measles and pertussis are cyclical, and will occur
) regardless of vaccination levels. E.g. just for memory, I think measles in
) meant to work on a cycle of approx. 7 years, so every 7 years you would
) expect a much greater incidence, perhaps even epidemic. Some diseases,
) such as polio do not work in this cyclical nature, and have virtually been
) eradicated. Some diseases, such as diptheria, were almost eradicated in
) say Russia, but now that conditions are much worse than they have been for
) some time, and nutrition levels have dropped, we are seeing a return of
) diptheria.
)
) I am no expert - this is just what I have gathered from reading lots of
) different sources and obviously I may be wrong. However, I became
) convinced that enough of the argument against vaccincation was valid enough
) to deter me from vaccination further. If I have had different experiences
) in my past, I might have chosen a different path. My father is strongly
) pro-vaccination and critical of my decision (although I must say he never
) got around to reading the material I left him, or watching the video of the
) pro and anti- "expert" produced by a local university). However, I
) understand that he grew up in a period that saw people severely crippled by
) polio. Even he, however, talks about how he, and others he knew,
) contracted polio mildly and had no on-going effects - he doesn't have any
) muscle weakness at all. He also talks about how, growing up in a very
) poor area, they often played in the gutters with their paper boats,
) oblivious to sanitation issues.
)
) I would welcome anyone's arguments against what I have talked about in the
) first two paragraphs. If I have made the wrong decision, I would very much
) like to discover this - it wouldn't be the first time I believed strongly in
) some only to later alter my beliefs - but I really can't see any reason to
) change my anti-vaccination stance at the moment. I would welcome emails
) off-list, if this is more appropriate than continuing this discussion
) on-list - I'm not sure if I'm not getting a bit away from the purpose of the
) list.
)
) Lastly, I'd just like to say that I welcome the opportunity to be able to
) discuss issues and beliefs openly. I did think after my posting that
) perhaps I should have said that obviously my son contracting whooping cough
) was a very emotive experience for me, but I hope this wouldn't result in
) anyone hesitating to reply, outlining their arguments against my stance
) regarding vaccination. Thank-you for what you offer in this list.
)
) Julie
)
)) From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net)
))
))
)) The reasoning is faulty. If both these things - better hygiene; vaccination
)) campaign - happened in a similar time frame as the declining disease rates,
)) why are you willing to assume that one is the cause of the decline, but for
)) the same reason, you dismiss the other as the potential cause?
))
)) Little graphs like that are very seductive, whichever "side" of the debate
)) uses them. ....
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
) http://www.hotmail.com
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 11:30:15 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
) Lastly, I'd just like to say that I welcome the opportunity to be able to
) discuss issues and beliefs openly. I did think after my posting that
) perhaps I should have said that obviously my son contracting whooping
cough
) was a very emotive experience for me, but I hope this wouldn't result in
) anyone hesitating to reply, outlining their arguments against my stance
) regarding vaccination. Thank-you for what you offer in this list.
)
) Julie
Welcome Julie.
I agree. With regards to Waldorf/Anthroposophy this list seems to be the
only place where people can discuss issues and beliefs openly. More than a
few people have found answers to questions/concerns about
Waldorf/Anthroposophy here. As nice and warm and fuzzy *other* lists might
seem - reasonable debate and the search for understanding can only happen,
IMO, in a place where fear, denial and censorship are not the norm. A place
where questions do not have to be prefaced with apologies and "blessings" in
order to be heard. Etc.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 15:58:22 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
))Lisa here: Gee, I can't wait for my next life. I'm gonna look like Christie
))Brinkley ....
)
)
) Darn. I'm too healthy. I'm afraid I may have had a long string of very
) healthy lifetimes. :(
) But there's that attitude thing, too, Lisa - have you borne all your
) illnesses calmly?
)
) Diana
)
Lisa (laughing, rolling on the floor): Well, "calmly" might be stretching
it. "Long sufferingly" would come closer, though I am pretty sure I made
that word up from remnants of other words. (g)
I only have one "illness," anyway: migraine headaches. Must I endure
them with a smile and gentleness in order to be a great physical beauty next
time around?
If so, I may end up looking more like Miss Trunchbull from "Matilda"
than Christie Brinkley.
Drats.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 10:46:13 +1000
From: "Julia rda" (juliarda hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
)From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary GoodWinter.com)
)
)Please read the information at the following web page, and then see how you
)feel about your arguments that you presented below...
)
)Center for Disease Control (CDC)
)Six Common Misconceptions about vaccination and how to respond to them
)
)http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/6mishome.htm
)
)...Gary
)
I agree with the statements re. misconception 2, 3 and 5 (although I do not
agree with all of the argument that follows each statement).
Re. statement 1: This grap is similar to the graph shown by one of the three
pro-vaccincation speakers in the university debate I mentioned. When this
"tail-end" is viewed in light of a second graph (presented by one of the
three anti-vaccination speakers), showing incidence from about the end of
19th Century, the first graph was shown to be just a "tail-end". The
complete graph demonstrated that the very major decline in incidence
occurred before vaccincation was introduced. The continued decline after
the the introduction of vaccination looked relatively insignificant.
Re. statement 4: I agree that the incidence of deaths and major damage
evident soon after the vaccincation is relatively small. I do wonder about
the many possible side-effects, some long-term, that are still being
investigated.
Furthermore, there are studies that show that there is a greater incidence
of unexplained cot death in the weeks following the DTP vaccine
administration. (I accept there are also studies don't show this). SIDS
has almost disappeared in Japan since they raised the age for administration
of DTP to 2+ years.
I think a lot more information is needed before misconception 4 can be shown
to be likely true or likely to be false.
I agree that you have to weight risks associated with vaccine against risks
associated with the disease itself. I do not believe we are yet in a
position to accurately assess either.
There are so many questions that are inadequately answered:
If the vaccines are so effective, why are there epidemics in fully
vaccinated populations. Why is the incidence of the disease virtually the
same in vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals when an epidemic occurs in
a partially vaccinated population?
How accurate are the statistics for incidence of disease in vaccinated
individuals? Same, re incidence of side-effects, incl. death, following
vaccination. Whilst only anecdotal, my son is not recorded as having had
pertussis following complete vaccination - as the lab overlooked conducting
the requested test for same. I have two friends (at least two that I know
of) who have been "reassured" that the fact that their child suffered site
redness, high fever and irritability in the days following vaccination was
only conincidental. I was present when one baby had symptoms of an adverse
reaction - convulsions followed by limpness and partial loss of
consciousness, about 10 mins. after DTP. She rushed him back upstairs to
the GP, and an ambulance was called. Fortunately the baby soon recovered.
The GP "reassured" the mother that the incident was not related to the
vaccine. Surely, the GPs have to at least record that these MAY be
vaccine-related side effects?
At this stage, I don't think there is sufficient information to agree or
disagree with misconception 6.
My articles, books, and video of the uni. debate, etc. are out on what is
virtually permanent loan, passing from one friend to another, but I could
get them back if anyone wants the details of some of the journal articles.
I still think it's important to look at all the original good research that
you can find, first-hand, for yourself, as obviously I'm just one of many
people arguing my particular beliefs, whether I use a couple of dozen
articles to back up my claims or not. I agree with Diana, graphs and
research can be used out of context. I wouldn't like to think that anyone
changed their opinion based on a selection of research that I cited.
However, if it was to lead to somebody possibly reevaluating their stance
(no matter the outcome of the reevaluation) or just wanting to reassure
themselves that they don't need to reevaluate their stance, I'd be happy to
do so.
I think the best way to go is a literature search of some of the major
journals; British Journal of Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine and
Lancet are three that come to mind. Such a search provides plenty of
articles, and although it takes quite some time - wading through lots of
articles - I think it is really the only way to make up your own mind as to
what the existing, well-conducted research does say, and to find what areas
have not been thoroughly researched and thus are relatively inconclusive.
Again, if this discussion is too off-topic for this list, I'm happy to
continue it off-list (and if it's me who ends up having to change my stance,
report this back to the list).
Kind regards,
Julie
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:11:10 +0930
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article on vaccines and Waldorf
At 14-08-02 11:34 AM Wednesday, you wrote:
)I don't know if this is the entire article, but I found it on another
)discussion forum...somebody apparently scanned or keyed it in...
)
)...Gary
)
) ) Bucking the Herd
) )
) ) [From the September 2002 Atlantic Monthly. Written by Arthur Allen. Not
) ) available online. Thanks to M. Blaxill.]
In my opinion, the only really important thing missing from this article
was the following concept:
Although there exist legitimate medical reasons for a given child not to
receive one or another of the standard set of vaccines, it is very rare for
the decision to withhold these standard forms of preventative medicine to
be as black and white as many parents appear to believe, particularly
within the alternative medicine community.
A parent who has never seen or experienced whooping cough, or other
childhood illness, may dismiss that risk as significant, if there is even
the slightest risk that the vaccine itself might harm their child, which of
course there is WHENEVER a foreign substance is introduced into the body by
way of a needle, although that risk may be microscopic, and dwarfed by the
risk that the illness (and/or treatments for the illness) would pose to
their child. They tell themselves that if their child DOES contract the
illness, they won't die from it "in this day and age" - forgetting that the
treatment agents themselves carry risks that often significantly exceed
those of the preventative vaccine that they are attempting to avoid. Thus
they wind up minimizing the risks posed by the illness, and those posed by
the treatment, while exaggerating to themselves the risks posed by the
vaccination; this is a common tendency that I suspect arises in part from
the fact that it is easier for us to assess and feel responsible for the
risks posed by our choice of action than those posed by our inaction.
Most parents are making their decisions based on hype, rather than an
accurate assessment of the risks to their child, because hype is what
predominates the information available on this subject. Unfortunately, in
the commercial model of medicine, this includes much of the information
presented to the doctors by the manufacturing companies involved in the
production of the medicines they use, vaccines included. There has been
repeated research showing that pharmaceutical company advertisements are a
significant factor in physicians' choice of which medicines to use to treat
or prevent a given condition, which is not surprising in this
advertising-driven era, as physicians are busy people, and are only human,
and the medicine advertisements are presented to them in the very
publications that they turn to in order to maintain their awareness of new
developments in their field. Regardless of their profession, it is very
common for people to mingle the advertising on a subject, in their memory,
with the journal articles with which it is interspersed, if both are on the
same subject.
Few parents read the original studies done on the subject, and those that
do rarely have the training that would allow them to accurately interpret
and fully comprehend the risks and benefits those studies demonstrate. So,
they rely on others to interpret that information for them, which may not
be as helpful as one might expect, even when the one doing that
interpretation is scrupulously honest and accurate in their presentation of
the risks and benefits. (For instance, recent headlines in Australia,
highlighting a 26% *increase* in women's chances of developing breast
cancer if they were given Hormone Replacement Therapy, resulted in a
barrage of phone calls (to both doctors and media outlets) from
intelligent, educated, professional women, who had become confused and
believed that the studies showed, instead, that their chance of developing
breast cancer rose *to* 26% if they took Hormone Replacement Therapy. As a
result, the Media Watch programming here began an intensive
counter-education campaign, in order to make sure people understood that
the initial risk was low enough that increasing it *by* 26% resulted in
126% of a "very low risk", which remained "very low" after the increase -
NOT suddenly increasing to 1 in 4.)
Regardless of which direction the information is slanted, if and when they
discover the discrepancy, whether it is the existence of any risk, where a
frustrated doctor had assured them that there was none, in order to get
them to vaccinate their child, or the loss or suffering of a child from an
illness that they were assured was a trifling "normal part of childhood
development", the parent is apt to become distrustful. This misinformed
over-reaction is unlikely to be in anyone's best interests.
For many, the natural tendency when distrustful is to dig in their heels,
do nothing, and let nature take it's course. For others, it is to retreat
to the safety of placing their trust in an outside authority, whether that
authority is a doctor or a spiritual leader. One course is likely to lead
them to non-vaccination through inaction, the other to an abdication of all
responsibility for educating themselves on health matters affecting their
children. They may choose ignorant vaccination, or ignorant
non-vaccination, but once that decision is made in blind faith, they are
unlikely to be dissuaded from it, either by facts or by argument.
However, due to the impact that this particular choice carries with it, the
community has exercised its right to set standards for its members,
standards from which the members have the right to deviate only with
adequate justification, and not through ignorance. We have the right to
choose in ignorance to comply with those standards, but we don't have the
right to choose to deviate from it for anything short of very good reason,
because of the way our decision affects others without their consent.
While the vaccines themselves do carry certain risks, and those risks are
higher for some children than others (though in few cases could they be
described as a severe and immediate threat), in a high-risk environment,
even an at-risk child may be at lower risk of medical problems from
receiving the vaccine than they would face from the increased risk of
contracting the condition itself, particularly when we factor in the
increased antibiotic-resistance of many common infective agents in this age
of "superbugs". On the other hand, those children who are not vaccinated
are benefiting from the herd immunity of their community, and that
community can more safely honor the legitimate medical needs of those
people with genuine medical reasons that argue against allowing them to
risk the vaccines if we encourage those who CAN safely be vaccinated to do so.
If there are concerns about the safety of the vaccines, then those need to
be addressed, as we have done with the risks posed by the use of mercury
preservatives, by changing the way the vaccines are created and/or
administered - not by eliminating this useful tool from our medical arsenal
for combatting the most intimate of "homeland menaces": infectious
illness. And in the meantime, although the tools we have may not be
perfect, we cannot afford to simply decide to side-step the issue by
trading science for superstition, and declaring life-threatening illness to
be good for a child's spiritual development.
Perhaps the larger community needs to allow the freedom to "opt out" of the
responsibility to the community that is represented by our federal
vaccination policies *only* when parents will choose to accept instead the
responsibility of likewise "opting out" of those forms of interactions
which impose the consequences of their choices upon others in the
community. If they wish not to vaccinate (or perhaps only in cases where
that non-vaccination is for reasons considered inadequate justification by
a community which does assume certain risks on the behalf of its medically
compromised members, in other words reasons other than strict medical need
as certified and accepted by the wider medical community), allow them to do
so only if they agree to both isolate themselves from the larger community,
so as not to spread the contagious illnesses they may be carrying, and
isolate themselves from one another, in the event of an outbreak, so as not
to create a concentrated pocket of unvaccinated individuals, which would
act as a perfect culture medium for the disease.
I would personally advise this policy to any individual or group of
unvaccinated individuals, regardless of the reason - if a group of people
who are all sensitive to the vaccines (say a mercury-sensitive
eco-community whose residents are primarily individuals who live there due
to severe health problems from mercury poisoning, for instance) are all
living in close proximity, the disease organisms don't care WHY those
people are non-vaccinated, and if they don't want to be a disease breeding
ground, they MUST quarantine themselves in the face of any potential
exposure to contagious disease. Before anyone claims that my example is
perhaps a bit far-fetched, I should point out that more such groups are
being formed all the time, by individuals with Environmental Illnesses such
as my own.
Perhaps this bumper-sticker-happy community needs to be reminded to "think
globally, act locally", when it comes to the issue of deaths from
infectious childhood illness. There is nothing spiritually or ethically
superior about being a disease vector for the suffering and/or deaths of
children.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 10:41:04 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Bella Freud on Waldorf
There's a mention of Waldorf in a New York Times article by S.S. Fair
about designer Bella Freud, Sigmund's granddaughter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/magazine/magazinespecial/18FREU.html?tntemail0
"She attended a Rudolf Steiner school, Steiner being an occult
theosophist as far removed from Sigmund as anyone could be while
still occupying the same planet. 'There were three things we weren't
allowed at school,' Bella remembers. 'No right angles, no wearing
black and no football. All the things a girl would really want.'"
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 11:31:55 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Rudolf Steiner recognized as opponent of anti_Semitism and
nationalism
Joseph George Caldwell, thanks for writing to PLANS. I'm answering
your note on the waldorf-critics discussion list, and I suggest that
you subscribe to the list if you want to participate in any
subsequent discussion. You wrote,
)To: Waldorf Critics:
)
)On your website,
)(http://www.waldorfcritics.com)www.waldorfcritics.com, you appear to
)be attempting to paint Rudolf Steiner as an antisemite. A large
)study was conducted in the Netherlands on this issue, and the
)conclusion reached was that this was not the case. A summary of the
)conclusions of this study are attached. In the interest of
)fairness, it would be worthwhile to add this conclusion and
)reference to the list of quotations on your site.
)
)Joseph George Caldwell
)Lusaka, Zambia
It's http://www.waldorfcritics.ORG. We maintain the .com connection
for people who make this mistake.
The document to which you refer can be found at:
http://www.uncletaz.com/steinerrace.html; note that though the page
is titled "report," the text is only the summary of the report put
out for the press. The complete report was never translated into
English.
The Dutch study was a whitewash conducted by Anthroposophists. Even
they had to admit that sixteen statements of Steiner that they found
would violate current Dutch anti-racism laws. Not long ago Peter
Staudenmaier noted on this list that the Dutch committee also omitted
many racist statements that they simply missed, or didn't see as
racist.
from this list, 10/24/01:
*** start quoted message from Staudenmaier
Dottie refers to the Dutch anthroposophist commission that
investigated charges of racism in Waldorf schools:
)When an anti RS group brought charges against AP for
)racist ideas in another country
The charges were not brought by an anti-Steiner group. The concern
was originally raised by a Waldorf parent who found racist passages
in her child's school notes. After the press got their hands on some
of this, the Anthroposophical Society in the Netherlands eventually
decided to appoint a commisssion to investigate the matter, in order
to quell the growing public uproar.
)he was found to not
)have been promoting racist ideas, to the consternation
)of those who believed so.
What a surprise. Since all of the commission members are devout
anthroposophists, any other outcome would have been remarkable indeed.
)However in all the works of
)RS they did find 16 quotes out of thousands and
)thousands of pages.
The commission designated 16 Steiner quotes that, in their opinion,
could be punishable for racial discrimination under Dutch law today.
They found a further 67 quotes that they considered potentially
discriminatory but not legally questionable. Aside from these two
groups, they examined nearly 100 more Steiner quotes about race and
declared them "unobjectionable". Examples of this last category
include Steiner's claim that "Negroes" are "decadent" and "completely
cut themselves off from the spiritual world", among many other
similarly "unobjectionable" pronouncements...
)I wonder if any on this list could
)pass that kind of test.
All of us could easily pass this test. The commission examined
Steiner's published work, not his locker-room chat. Their report is
also conspicuously incomplete; for example, the commission
deliberately excluded Steiner's writings on "root races", thus
relieving themselves of the burden of assessing the bulk of his
racist teachings. They also somehow overlooked such gems as his claim
that "concepts hurt the Asian's brain" and his argument that the
presence of African troops in Europe would cause a "racial
deterioration of the French people", not to mention his prediction of
a racial "war between white humankind and colored humankind" etc. etc.
Those are only a few of the Dutch report's more obvious
inadequacies. The document is a whitewash, not a serious study.
Peter S.
*** end quoted message
And later, on 12/9/01, Staudenmaier wrote:
*** start quoted message
[Sharon Lombard]
)I do think there's
)something very wrong with a movement that will deliberately edit out hard
)core racism (proof that they know Steiner is racist) and still pretend
)Steiner isn't racist. This is really revolting. Peter, do you know if the
)Dutch Report used new translations when they did their study in order to
)avoid some of the hard core racist Steiner?
[Peter Staudenmaier]
No, the Dutch commission accurately reproduced those Steiner quotes
that they deemed suitable for inclusion, and as Peter Z pointed out,
they gave the quotes in the original German. They did avoid a lot of
the racist material in two other ways, which I'll describe below. But
it is very interesting indeed to see how they tried to make sense of
the passage from GA 349 that I posted a couple days ago. Because the
Dutch report apparently continues to enjoy high regard among
anglophone anthroposophists, this might be a good opportunity for a
little case study on the report's scholarly worthlessness.
The Dutch commission devoted 15 pages to examining this one chapter
from GA 349 (the one that magically disappeared from the English
edition of the book), and they excerpted and commented on 15 quotes
from it. They say that Steiner "exaggerated" in this lecture, because
he was talking to workers (who are presumably too dumb to follow an
unexaggerated presentation); they point out that Steiner "was not the
only person" who considered "negro" influences on European culture to
be a bad thing; they warn that what he says here can easily lead to
"misunderstandings" and that in any case his claims are "of a
supernatural nature, and their verification is not one of the tasks
of this report"!
When they get to the paragraph that I posted a couple days ago,
they explain that Steiner felt compelled to point out that black
people are human because otherwise his audience might have thought he
was talking about a black-colored object! (I am not making this up.)
They do allow that "Steiner's formulations appear odd", but they go
on to insist that the processes he describes (about black people's
rear-brains, their absorbence of light, their powerful drives etc
etc) "can only be understood within the framework" of supernatural
perception, since Steiner based his claims on "his own supernatural
research." Thus those of us who lack the privileged perspective of
clairvoyance cannot possibly determine whether Steiner's racist
mumbo-jumbo is accurate or not.
So you see that even when anthroposophists are fully aware of just
what egregious nonsense issued from Steiner's mouth and pen, they
typically wave it away and pretend that only the spiritually elect
can presume to interpret it properly. But while we're at it, it's
worth pointing out that the Dutch commission didn't shy away from
using rather more mundane tactics in order to whitewash Steiner's
reputation. As I mentioned, they employed two other devices to
minimize the full effect of Steiner's enormous output of racist
teachings:
1) They completely excluded nearly all of his writings on "root
races". This was deliberate; the Dutch commission claimed, falsely,
that these texts are not about race at all. They also excluded a
number of other racist passages that appear to have simply escaped
their attention (at least in the first version of the report, the one
that I've read).
2) They sometimes removed quotes from their context in a way that
changes, even reverses, Steiner's meaning. On one particularly brazen
occasion they simply cut the quote short before the worst of the
racist content. That case can be found on p. 275 of the German
edition of the report:
Their "quote no. 120" reads (in my translation): "The terrible
cultural brutality of transplanting black people to Europe is a
horrible deed that the French have inflicted on others. It will have
even worse effects on France itself." (Steiner, GA 300b p. 282)
That's it for how the quote appears in the report; they don't even
comment on it.
But the original quote goes on for three more sentences from the
point where the Dutch commission cuts it off. Here are the three
missing sentences from Steiner: "The effects [of black people in
Europe] on the blood, on the race, will be unbelievably strong. This
will substantially contribute to French decadence. The French people
will be moved backwards as a race."
You might think that these sentences would be of interest to a
commission studying Steiner's views on race, but somehow they didn't
make it into the report. And to top it all off, the Dutch commission
complains about Steiner's critics taking his quotes out of context!
Despite all of these deficiencies, I still think it would have a
salutary effect if some enterprising anthroposophist would take the
time to translate the Dutch report into English. The mere
preponderance of quotes from Steiner about racial issues would serve
to rebut the foolish notion that such topics formed a marginal part
of his teachings, and many many racist Steiner passages would finally
become available in English.
Peter S.
*** end quoted message
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:57:00 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
Julia, I think it's appropriate to discuss the safety and efficacy of
particular vaccines, but dismissing "vaccinations" as a category is
always based on ideology or misinformation. Just consider the
destruction of smallpox, or the ending of the polio epidemics in my
lifetime. One might have a lot to say about the cost/benefit analysis
of a particular vaccine, but there's no doubt about the theory and
practice of immunizations in general.
Anthroposophists dismiss immunization categorically because Steiner
said childhood diseases were good for children, and besides, he
argued against germ theory! The anti-vaccination movement seems to be
grounded in conspiracy theories about the medical establishment,
supported by quacks and chiropractors who want a piece of the action.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 13:08:19 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
Karen Sandburg, you wrote,
)A pediatrician I know told me that it is unwise to bombard such young babies
)to so many various toxins.
Immunizations aren't "toxins." They contain dead or attenuated
disease organisms that stimulate the body to produce antibodies to
those organisms.
)He said the reason babies are subjected to these
)rather intense series of vaccinations is because the doctors "have their
)hands on" the little babies and that the parents bring their children in
)less frequently as they get older making a vaccination series hard to
)complete.
A very good reason for immunizing early is that serious complications
and death from communicable diseases are much higher for babies.
)Meanwhile, their immune systems aren't fully developed and he
)suspects that this unnatural bombardment of the immune system at such a
)young age deranges the immune system possibly causing a host of auto"immune"
)diseases later on.
Babies are "bombarded" with all kinds of exposures that cause immune
system reactions from day one.
)I believe other countries, such as Japan and Sweden have stopped vaccinating
)until the child is 2 years old because of adverse reactions.
"Finally, we can look at the experiences of several developed
countries after they let their immunization levels drop. Three
countries - Great Britain, Sweden, and Japan - cut back the use of
pertussis vaccine because of fear about the vaccine. The effect was
dramatic and immediate. In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis
vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000
cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same
time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump
in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and
41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis
per 100,000 children 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in
1981 to 3,200 in 1985. It seems clear from these experiences that not
only would diseases not be disappearing without vaccines, but if we
were to stop vaccinating, they would come back."
[http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/6mishome.htm]
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:27:21 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: A slight problem...
Foncteur, you wrote,
)Is Anthroposophy racist ?
) Well, if this is so, then anthroposophy must be forbidden.
Not in the U.S.A.
) I live in France where we have a very strong law against racism , since
)1972 . And I am sorry to say to you that anthroposophy is not forbidden
): so there must be something false in your charge of racism.
Or nobody's gotten around to pointing out the racism in
Anthroposophical publications.
) There was indeed in 2000 and 2001 a campaign in France against Steiner
)schools : but it did not succeed.
Are you referring to the government's anti-cult commission listing
Anthroposophy as a cult? And to the subsequent prosecution of one of
the parliamentarians of the commission?
)And if it did not succeed in France,
)the country of laicity, i don't think it will succeed in USA, the
)country of televangelists and of "scientology is a religion".
It's true that the U.S. is a much more religious country than France,
and we have very liberal laws about who can declare themselves a
religion, but I don't understand what that has to do with racism.
) Do you know that there are many point of views in and about
)anthroposophy ? there is pluralism , and freedom of thought and
)religious belief (including atheism) is a cardinal value in
)anthroposophy.
In Anthroposophy you're free to believe anything you want as long as
you believe Steiner; otherwise, what's the point of being an
Anthroposophist?
)The real predecessor of Steiner was Max Stirner : not a
)very religious thinker, don't you think ?
A silly statement, Foncteur. Steiner's predecessor was Madame
Blavatsky, and his writing and speeches swim with references to
supernatural beings.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 07:12:49 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: RE: A slight problem...
Dear Tom,
There are two distinct parts in your post : first part on racism,
second part about Waldorf schools wihich would "dupe" people.
About "racism" :
I'll just say that it is obvious for me that Steiner and anthroposophy
is the real antidote to the poison of racism : does not he say that it
is a chararcteristic of our time (epoch) that in the future , race and
nationality will become less and less important in the relations between
men and women. The main feature of modern times, after Enlightenment of
eighteenth century (in western countries) is individualism.
Individualism is good. I am an "extremist individualist" : i do not
define myself as a "French", or a "white", or a "man" (as opposed to
"woman"), or a "jew" (born from a jewish family) or an "anthroposophist"
: I define myself as.."I". Me, myself, and I.
And if you really accept the idea of reincarnation, you can't be
racist, since it is sure for you that in past of future incarnations,
you will be a woman if you are a man at present time) , a black, an
arab, etc..etc..I don not say that I completely accept this idea : thre
is no certainty for me. I accept it as an hypothesis, and this
hypothesis is obviously a protection against racism.
About Waldorf schools :
I was not in a waldorf school, and my children were not. But i can't
believe that people who involve their children in those schools totally
ignore that Waldorf schools have a relation with Steiner and
anthroposophy. I do not agree with you about the "sectarian" nature of
those schools, or of anthroposophy : I met much people who were in
Wladorf schools, and obviously those people are not "sectarian". The
word "sectarian" has , as the words "racist" or such, very bad
implications. Would you say that a catholic or a muslim school have
"sectarian" features, since they are based on religious beliefs?
We need here a very precise definition of "sect" and "religion", or
else it will be possible to charge any one with accusation of
"sectarian"
TJGarrity wrote:
) Your arguement is false. Anthroposophy has racist overtones from what
) Steiner
) is quoted as saying on the subject. Whether France recognizes this or
) not
) does not add or subtract to this arguement. (By the way, don't the
) French
) think Jerry Lewis is a comic genious? ) Let's consider the source.
)
) Also, whether anthroposophy is racist or not has nothing to do with the
) fact
) that Waldorf has a pattern of non-disclosure of its beliefs
) (right/wrong)
) which is the real issue. I think even the "open minded" French would
) object
) to an organization that portrays itself as non sectarian, but was based
) on a
) very defined religious/occult idea without your knowledge or approval.
) Open
) your mind to the possiblity that we are on this site because we object
) to
) being duped.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 07:28:22 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: RE: A slight problem...
Hi dear Walden,
Anthroposophy stems from many things : Blavatsky and theosophy of
course, but also christianism, Zoroastrianism, manicheism, philosophy of
Hegel, Schelling and Fichte, darwinism and Haeckel...and you know that
Steiner was very critical about much aspects of theosophy, considered as
having a "materialistic" conceptions of evolution : in anthroposophy,
"root races" are "cultural epochs"
Anyway I agree with you that we need a cautious reflexion and thinking
about "racism" : in Durban in 2001, just before the horrible criminal
attacks against World Trade center, there was a great "congress"
"against racism" : and in this congress we saw muslim fanatics charging
all jews of the world,(not only israelis soldiers) as "nazis and
racists", and with posters inciting to kill jews : not only muslims but
also africans from South Africa.
There is obviously a problem with the struggle against racism.
In France we have Le Pen which is obviously a racist (but not his
organization) : but from October 2000 to now we saw hundreds of
synagogues and jewish schools burning, jewish children and women or men
brutally attacked by young french muslims born in France from muslim
families coming from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia ; those victims of the
racism of Le Pen became racist and antisemitic!!
So I think we must be very cautious with this word of "racism" : in
Qur'an, verse 5 of Surah 9; it is said :"kill all infidels anywhere you
will find them" ...not very politically correct don't you think ? will
you say that muslim religion is racist ?
walden wrote:
) Bonjour Foncteur,
)
) Perhaps there is are various interpretations of your word "racist." I
) do
) not think this word necessarily has to do with "mean-spirited, horrible
) people." I don't even think those who adhere to racist beliefs consider
) themselves odd or out of touch with humanity. I do not understand,
) however,
) how one can categorically deny the racist elements of Anthroposophy.
) The
) foundation of this belief system stems from Theosophy, root races and
) reincarnation. Or do you disagree? Do we need to display all the
) Steiner/race quotes yet again?
)
) I think that various forms of racism exist everywhere. France is
) certainly
) no different despite any "law" you might have. What are your thoughts
) on Le
) Pen? Is he banned from speaking? I doubt it. One cannot ignore the
) stench
) of racism - no matter how much perfume we soak it in.
)
) Welcome and I look forward to your comments.
)
) -Walden
)
)
) ) Is Anthroposophy racist ?
) ) Well, if this is so, then anthroposophy must be forbidden.
) ) I live in France where we have a very strong law against racism , since
) ) 1972 . And I am sorry to say to you that anthroposophy is not forbidden
) ) : so there must be something false in your charge of racism.
) ) There was indeed in 2000 and 2001 a campaign in France against Steiner
) ) schools : but it did not succeed. And if it did not succeed in France,
) ) the country of laicity, i don't think it will succeed in USA, the
) ) country of televangelists and of "scientology is a religion".
) ) Do you know that there are many point of views in and about
) ) anthroposophy ? there is pluralism , and freedom of thought and
) ) religious belief (including atheism) is a cardinal value in
) ) anthroposophy. The real predecessor of Steiner was Max Stirner : not a
) ) very religious thinker, don't you think ?
) )
) )
) )
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 07:55:07 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: RE: A slight problem...
Dear Dan,
) It's true that the U.S. is a much more religious country than France,
) and we have very liberal laws about who can declare themselves a
) religion, but I don't understand what that has to do with racism.
*********** this has to do with racism because we can't rely on a
definition of "racism" which would be restricted to "pure races" ...
what would be the scientific definition of those "races" ? obviously,
the "racist" do not refer to a scientific definition, but to a fuzzy
conception where colour, language, culture religion are mixed to define
the "difference" : and French law punishes any incitation to hate "in
function of race, religion, philosophical beliefs and sexual
comportment"...so wether a group is a religion or not is very important
: if it is a religion, islam for instance) any critical point of view
will be perceived as an "incitation to hate", and can be punished !
don't laugh, we have an example with "antimuslim" writers such as Michel
Houellebecq or Oriana Fallaci who are involved in trials by muslim
organizations...well, this is a progress "par rapport ? " Salman
Rushdie!!!
) In Anthroposophy you're free to believe anything you want as long as
) you believe Steiner; otherwise, what's the point of being an
) Anthroposophist?
************* well, i don't know what it means to be an
"anthroposophist" : if that means that you must accept without critical
exam all that Steiner said, then I'm not an anthroposophist !! even
christians have critical positions toward the pope, so you see taht even
religions are not as you say...and anthroposophy is a a more
philosophical nature than religious.
) )The real predecessor of Steiner was Max Stirner : not a
) )very religious thinker, don't you think ?
)
) A silly statement, Foncteur. Steiner's predecessor was Madame
) Blavatsky, and his writing and speeches swim with references to
) supernatural beings.
)
************oh i am sorry, dear Dan to be so "silly and stupid" : but,
thanks to you,the Great Light of northern hemisphere, i am "enlightened"
and perhaps in 2 or 3 months talking with you, I become a little more
intelligent...not as intelligent as you, of course ! oh no !
but there is a slight problem, perhaps you can help me to understand
..."God" is a supernatural being, do you agree ? and such philosophers
as Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Emerson ,
Peirce, Levinas, Whitehead, etc..speak of "God"...even Bill Clinton !
will you charge all those brilliant men and women with the accusation of
"sectarian" ?(oh sorry there is no woman in my list...i am surely a
litlle racist and sexist...so I add our french "Simone Weil", the
philosopher, not the modern political woman, and also Hannah Arendt, the
friend of Heidegger...perhaps also Monica Lewinsky, the good friend of
Clinton ?)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 06:26:53 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
Julia:
)Why is the incidence of the disease virtually the same in vaccinated and
)non-vaccinated individuals when )an epidemic occurs in a partially
)vaccinated population?
Do you remember what your source is for this? "Incidence" is often confused
with plain old "numbers" in the anti-vacc. rhetoric. The site Gary provided
debunked this one also. In straight numbers, of course vaccinated people are
more likely to get the disease.
)Whilst only anecdotal, my son is not recorded as having had pertussis
)following complete vaccination - as the lab overlooked conducting the
)requested test for same.
Good point. I also suspect the anti-vacc. people are right that side effects
are probably underreported, and some effects not recognized at all. OTOH,
effects that are so unclear as to be not widely noticed or reported probably
aren't as malevolent as the diseases the vaccines are preventing. We really
would notice if thousands of children were sickened in a devastating way by
vaccines, unless some kind of vast conspiracy is going on. (I realize this
is exactly what some anti-vacc. people claim, but I presume the paranoia of
this doesn't warrant comment. The government wants to control you, or
perhaps even kill your children. And the government doesn't want us to know
about the space aliens that landed in New Mexico in the '50's . . . )
) I have two friends (at least two that I know of) who have been
)"reassured" that the fact that their child suffered site redness, high
)fever and irritability in the days following vaccination was
)only conincidental.
Most of us who don't have a real grasp of statistics and probability and the
like (including me) are apt to deduce cause and effect from things that are,
actually, coincidence. It is counterintuitive to the
parent of a sick child, but the fact is, redness, high fever and
irritability, in the days following vaccination, are
highly likely to be coincidental and unrelated to the vaccine. There are 6
million reasons young infants run a fever and act irritable. In an infant
under, say, 1 or 2 years of age, *any* symptom, behavior, sign or change at
all will have occurred not long after a vaccination if the child has
received any. Did you ever know of an infant, vaccinated or otherwise, who
*didn't* turn red or run an unexplained fever sometime in the first few
months of life? Babies cry and turn red and cannot tell us what is wrong;
this didn't start with vaccines.
Put it this way: What about all the babies who act normal, smile and coo at
their mothers in the hours following vaccination? Is that a vaccine
reaction? Since it is more typical, far more likely statistically, why don't
we conclude that vaccines cause happiness and smiling and cooing?
Now - increase that to the babies who act normal and happy *anytime in the
few weeks or months* following a vaccine, not just the first few hours. This
is the huge, overwhelming, incontrovertible majority. So it's "proof,"
right, that the vaccines cause happiness? This is exactly the type of
argument the anti-vacc. people believe "proves" that vaccines cause bad
reactions.
And, obviously, the overwhelming majority of vaccinated babies don't get the
diseases they were vaccinated against. "Proof"? No. Determining their
effectiveness doesn't work that way, and determining the rate of reactions
just isn't about moms reporting, "He ran a fever the next day."
The simple fact is that most of these vaccine beliefs are emotional - we
WANT an explanation when our child is not feeling well, dammit. We just do
not want to hear that a fever is unexplained. If a doctor at least acts like
our story is worth being reported to authorities, we are mollified. (Darn
good bedside manners.)
)I was present when one baby had symptoms of an adverse
)reaction - convulsions followed by limpness and partial loss of
)consciousness, about 10 mins. after DTP. She rushed him back upstairs to
)the GP, and an ambulance was called. Fortunately the baby soon recovered.
)The GP "reassured" the mother that the incident was not related to the
)vaccine.
Again, it's counterintuitive, but it would probably be unethical of him to
tell her it was anything but remotely likely to be related, when his
understanding of the literature on vaccine reactions tells him it is not.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 06:28:20 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
Julia wrote:
)So a decline in incidence did occur after introduction of vaccination,
)approximately 50+ years after the decline commenced, but it appeared to be
)the very tail-end of a consistent drop that had been occurring since around
)the turn of the century.
I think the CDC page Gary found addresses this effectively, so I won't
comment.
Another answer to the proposition that "hygiene-did-it-not-vaccination" is
that if hygiene were the whole story, there would be corresponding drops in
diseases for which there is no effective vaccine, but that is not the case.
Diarrhea from rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus. Plain old chicken pox,
which we all had as kids because there was no vaccine.
Furthermore, if the vaccine had had no major effect, the diseases wouldn't
rebound when vaccination rates drop.
Of course, a rebuttal to my own point might be that in pockets of resistance
to vaccination - like some Waldorf communities - hygiene may not be so great
either. Steiner believed the germ theory of disease was wrong. We had a
"communal" washbowl in the kindergarten, which started in the a.m. with
warm, sudsy water but by noon was filthy. (The point was to have an
experience of "warmth," not get your
hands clean.)
So if they don't care about hygiene either - and they certainly don't try
for containment, as Willow suggested - what's up? To get to the bottom of it
in anthroposophy, you have to understand that the diseases are actually
considered beneficial. There's no need to stop them spreading. You won't
find these arguments about "what actually caused the drop in infectious
diseases" among anthroposophists, because they aren't really happy the
incidence dropped at all.
Julia, I realize your reasons for not vaccinating didn't come from
anthroposophy. But it may be worth digging deeper still to see that some
people behind the anti-vaccination lobby have some pretty weird agendas that
aren't in their literature or on their websites.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 07:04:09 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: vaccine site
Here's another possibly useful site. I think the guy's for real. Note
that he is both sympathetic to alternative medicine and in favor of
vaccination..
http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 07:47:28 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: question for Julia
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C24754.AAD1DB20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Julia, you wrote:
)This grap is similar to the graph shown by one of the three
)pro-vaccincation speakers in the university debate I mentioned. When this
")tail-end" is viewed in light of a second graph (presented by one of the
)three anti-vaccination speakers), showing incidence from about the end of
)19th Century, the first graph was shown to be just a "tail-end". The
)complete graph demonstrated that the very major decline in incidence
)occurred before vaccincation was introduced. The continued decline after
)the the introduction of vaccination looked relatively insignificant.
Julia, I missed this previously. Can you tell us where to find this
other graph you refer to, that you were shown by the anti-vaccination
speaker, showing that the declining incidence of measles shown on the
graph on the CDC web page is a "tail end" of a bigger decline? Thanks,
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:07:36 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: The Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
on 8/16/02 7:28 AM, Diana Winters at Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net wrote:
))
)) Steiner: "Illnesses calmly born often appear in the next life as great
)) physical beauty; great physical beauty in a human being is acquired at the
)) cost of illnesses in the preceding life"
)
)
) I didn't know about this part. Do you get the good karmic effects if you
) *don't* bear it calmly . . . if you just, like - survive it? If you scream
) and cry a lot?
) Diana
Sharon: Not sure, the mystagogue doesn't say much more about it in the book
from which I quoted. When I stop to think of these hidden, (peculiar)
perspectives embraced by the believers at my daughter's ex-Waldorf school, I
shake my head. All the unspoken, hidden stuff, the condescending looks, the
all-knowing smiles.... What a nightmare it was trying to function in an
Anthroposophic environment without Steiner's esoteric knowledge.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:37:24 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: A slight problem...
on 8/19/02 12:12 AM, Foncteur at foncteur yahoo.fr wrote:
) I'll just say that it is obvious for me that Steiner and anthroposophy
) is the real antidote to the poison of racism : does not he say that it
) is a chararcteristic of our time (epoch) that in the future , race and
) nationality will become less and less important in the relations between
) men and women.
Sharon: Here's what he says, (Like Blavatsky, Steiner promulgated the Aryan
myth, which is racist to the core)...
Steiner: "Something similar also took place during the transition from the
fourth epoch to ours. When one who with spiritual vision can review the
course of time has passed back through the ages we have considered, the
Greco-Roman,
the Babylonian-Egyptian, the ancient Persian and the ancient Indian and
beyond the time of the great flood, he comes into the Atlantean epoch. We
need not now consider it in detail but we must at least understand how this
Atlantean civilization passed over into our own. There, too, the greater
part of the Atlantean population was not sufficiently mature to develop
further, it was incapable of coming over into our epoch. A smaller part,
living in a region near to our present Ireland, developed to the highest
flower of the civilization of Atlantis and then journeyed towards the East.
We must clearly understand that this was only the principal stream. There
were always peoples who emigrated from the West to the East, and all the
later peoples of Europe, of northern and central Europe, proceeded from the
stream which then went from the West to the East. Now that most advanced
part of the Atlantean population was under the guidance of a great leader of
humanity and eventually settled down as a very small tribe of chosen
individuals in Central Asia. From this point the colonists migrated to the
various regions of civilization mentioned, to ancient India, to Persia,
Egypt, Greece, etc.
You might now be inclined to say: Is it not an extremely bitter thought
that
whole bodies of peoples remain immature and do not develop their capacities;
that only a small group becomes capable of providing the germ for the next
civilization? This thought will no longer disquiet you if you distinguish
between race-development and individual soul-development, for no soul is
condemned to remain in one particular race. The race may fall behind; the
community of people may remain backward, but the souls progress beyond the
several races. If we wish to form a true conception of this we must say that
all the souls now living in bodies in civilized countries were formerly
incarnated in Atlantean bodies. A few developed there in the requisite
manner, and did not remain in Atlantean bodies. As they had developed
further they could become the souls of the bodies which had also progressed
further. Only the souls which as souls had remained backward had to take
bodies which as bodies had remained at a lower stage. If all the souls had
progressed, the backward races would either have decreased very much in
population, or the bodies would be occupied by newly incoming souls at a low
stage of development. For there are always souls which can inhabit backward
bodies. No soul is bound to a backward body if it does not bind itself to
it.
The relation between soul-development and race-development is preserved to
us in a wonderful myth. Let us imagine race following race, civilization
following civilization. The soul going through its earth mission in the
right way is incarnated in a certain race; it strives upward in this race,
and acquires the capacities of this race in order next time to be incarnated
in a higher one. Only the souls which sink in the race and do not work out
of the physical materiality, are held back in the race by their own weight,
as one might say. They appear a second time in the same race and eventually
a third time in bodies in similarly formed races. Such souls hold back the
bodies of the race. This has been wonderfully described in a legend. We
know, indeed, that man progresses further in the fulfillment of the mission
of the earth by following the great Leaders of humanity who point out the
goals to be attained; if he rejects them, if he does not follow them, he
must remain behind with his race, for he cannot then get beyond it. Let us
think of a personality who has the good fortune to meet a great Leader of
humanity, let us suppose such a personality confronting Christ Jesus
himself,
for example; he sees how all his deeds are evidence for leading humanity
forward, but he will have nothing to do with this progress, he rejects the
Leader of humanity. Such a personality, such a soul would be condemned to
remain in the race. If we follow this thought to its conclusion such a soul
would have to appear again and again in the same race, and we have the
legend of Ahasuerus who had to appear in the same race again and again
because he rejected Christ Jesus. Great truths concerning the evolution of
humanity are placed before us in such a legend as this."
Rudolf Steiner, The Apocalypse of St. John, pp. 78-81.
-----
Foncteur:
The main feature of modern times, after Enlightenment of
) eighteenth century (in western countries) is individualism.
) Individualism is good. I am an "extremist individualist" : i do not
) define myself as a "French", or a "white", or a "man" (as opposed to
) "woman"), or a "jew" (born from a jewish family) or an "anthroposophist"
) : I define myself as.."I". Me, myself, and I.
) And if you really accept the idea of reincarnation, you can't be
) racist, since it is sure for you that in past of future incarnations,
) you will be a woman if you are a man at present time) , a black, an
) arab, etc..etc..I don not say that I completely accept this idea : thre
) is no certainty for me. I accept it as an hypothesis, and this
) hypothesis is obviously a protection against racism.
Sharon: Foncteur, "Individualism" in Anthroposophy is a veiled word. I'm
afraid you've been duped. If you accept Steiner's ideas on reincarnation,
then you accept a racist world view.
Steiner: "If the blondes and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will
become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intelligence
that is independent from blondeness. In the case of fair people, less
nourishment is driven into the eyes and hair: it remains instead in the
brain and endows it with intelligence. Brown-and dark ?haired people drive
nourishment into their eyes and hair that the fair people retain in their
brains?." (Steiner, Rudolf, Health and Illness, 86)
-----
Steiner: "It can certainly not be denied, that today Jewry still appears as
a closed totality, and as such many times has intervened in the development
of the present situation in a way that has been less than positive for
Western
cultural ideas. But Jewry as such has long since outlived itself, and has no
justification any more within modern life of the peoples, and that it
nevertheless has preserved itself is a mistake of world history, whose
consequences have been inevitable." [Rudolf Steiner, from his review of
"Homunculus" by Hammerling (1888) published in the German Weekly]
-----
Steiner: "No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the
French language...It is also possible at the present time that the French
will even ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept their
language going
as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to other
people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black people to
Europe. It affects France itself worst of all. This has an incredibly strong
effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially add to French
decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race." [Steiner, Rudolf.
*Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart 1922 to
1923: Volume Three: Being the end of the Fourth Year*. (1923) Trans. Pauline
Wehrle. Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications, 1988,
pp..
87-88.]
----
Steiner: "When Negroes go to the west, they cannot absorb as much light and
heat any more as they were used to in their Africa. (...) That is why they
turn
copper red, they become Indians. That is because they are forced to reflect
a part of the light and heat. They turn shiny copper red. They cannot keep
up this copper red shining. That is why the Indians die out in the West,
they die because of their own nature which does not get enough light and
heat, they die because of the earthly factor." (...) "Really, it is the
whites who develop the human factor within themselves. Therefore they have
to rely on themselves. When whites do emigrate, they partly take on the
characteristics of other areas, but they die more as individuals than as a
race. The white race is the race of the future, the race that is working
creatively with the spirit." (Steiner, March 3 1923, lecture to the workmen
(GA 349 p. 67)
) About Waldorf schools :
) I was not in a waldorf school, and my children were not. But i can't
) believe that people who involve their children in those schools totally
) ignore that Waldorf schools have a relation with Steiner and
) anthroposophy.
Sharon: We moved across states to give our child an art based, nonsectarian,
progressive education. Steiner is not well known in America. Anthroposophy
is not a household word here. Parents such as my husband and I did not enter
the occult world of Waldorf knowingly. We were in an information void,
lacking occult knowledge. We thought Steiner was a scientist, educator and
philosopher as the Waldorf booklet claimed. We assumed that the school would
adhere to contemporary education standards and scientific studies. The
booklet on Waldorf that we were sent did not mention Anthroposophy once.
There was no reference as to the school's religious base. We only discovered
Steiner's numerous books containing his doctrine *after* we left the school.
I know this must seem hard to believe, but it's true! There are many people
like us who were duped because we'd never dabbled in occultism.
Foncteur: I do not agree with you about the "sectarian" nature of
) those schools, or of anthroposophy : I met much people who were in
) Wladorf schools, and obviously those people are not "sectarian". The
) word "sectarian" has , as the words "racist" or such, very bad
) implications. Would you say that a catholic or a muslim school have
) "sectarian" features, since they are based on religious beliefs?
) We need here a very precise definition of "sect" and "religion", or
) else it will be possible to charge any one with accusation of "sectarian".
Sharon: Yes of course Muslim schools, Catholic schools, Buddhist schools,
Fundamentalist Christian schools, etc., are sectarian. "Sectarian" is not a
bad word in America, "cult" has more negative connotations in our society.
Anthroposophy is a schismatic branch of Blavatsky's Theosophy, a sect of a
sect. Waldorf schools advertise that they are "nonsectarian". When you study
other cultic groups you see similar patterns of deception. For example, TM
also advertises that they are "nonsectarian", although in court it was
determined that TM is a religious worldview. It would be much more honest if
Waldorf schools would inform prospective parents of their religious
affiliation. There is no denying that Waldorf schools are based on Steiner's
esotericism. People interested in Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, Free Masonry,
Anthroposophy, Gnosticism, Magic, occult science, etc. would do well to
choose Waldorf for their children's education. Some of the people that I met
in Waldorf were hopelessly sectarian (Anthroposophic), although there were
people like me who were just plain ignorant when it comes to occultism. (I
acted as a veil for Anthroposophy).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:27:41 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: A slight problem...
Steiner, quoted by Sharon:
)The race may fall behind; the community of people may remain backward, but
the souls progress beyond
)the several races.
The heart of why Steiner is still racist despite/because of (depending on
your point of view) the reincarnation thing. Say you are born black, you can
still progress as an individual. If you have progressed, this will be
evidenced by the fact that next time around, you aren't black anymore.
Blacks cannot progress *as blacks*, however.
It's got these neat little loopholes, but it's inherently racist. They claim
not to be racist because they can - without contradicting Steiner - make
statements such as, "We don't judge an individual by his/her color or race."
No, but they judge the color or race per se - offensive statements about the
entire race can be made, apparently as long as it's seen that individuals
can sometimes make a sort of escape from the demeaned, inferior group. But
statements judging an entire race or skin color - or attributing any meaning
or valuation to race or skin color at all - are per se racist.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:53:04 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: A slight problem...
Foncteur wrote:
(snip)
) So I think we must be very cautious with this word of "racism" : in
) Qur'an, verse 5 of Surah 9; it is said :"kill all infidels anywhere you
) will find them" ...not very politically correct don't you think ? will
) you say that muslim religion is racist ?
Walden:
I don't understand the analogy. Are you saying that there *is* racism in
Athroposophy - just as there is in other religions? The only religion I am
interested in these days is Anthroposophy - and only because it was such a
large part of my children's education for many years - without my consent or
understanding. Maybe I was negligent in not attempting to decipher the
goings on at the school. Or maybe I was simply one more well intentioned,
trusting parent who believed the Anthroposophists and their
handbook/pamphlets/websites when I was told that Anthroposophy was not in
the classroom and that the education was non-sectarian. Maybe I should have
clued in and listened to my instincts when I heard that first prayer/chant
in grade one. But I didn't listen. I believed them. "Morning verse."
"Eurythmy is a form of dance." Etc. Maybe I wanted to believe the public
relations angle. Funny creatures - us humans. We can convince ourselves of
anything - at least until the inevitable reality check. So now I need to
understand what my kids went through and I feel a need to share that hidden
information with prospective new Waldorf parents.
I hope you took the time to read Dan Dugan's post and the piece by Peter
Staudenmaier regarding the Dutch study. And can you comment of the Steiner
quotes Sharon posted? There is simply no denying the racist elements of
Anthroposophy - no matter who or by what means anyone attempts to rearrange
history or facts. It seems that by distancing oneself from the more
*uncomfortable* Steiner quotes the more one simply must distance oneself
from Anthroposophy itself - to the point of having little or no interest in
following that path in the first place. You start pulling at the annoying
loose ends (racism, future incarnations, Vulcan, developing internal
organs....) and the big old cozy wool sweater starts unravelling until you
are left with...yourself. It's a start. And it is real.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:59:40 EDT
From: Tjgarr859 aol.com
Subject: Re: A slight problem...
--part1_1ab.706b278.2a92a82c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 8/19/02 3:14:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
foncteur yahoo.fr writes:
)
) Dear Tom,
) There are two distinct parts in your post : first part on racism,
) second part about Waldorf schools wihich would "dupe" people.
) About "racism" :
) I'll just say that it is obvious for me that Steiner and anthroposophy
) is the real antidote to the poison of racism : does not he say that it
) is a chararcteristic of our time (epoch) that in the future , race and
) nationality will become less and less important in the relations between
) men and women. The main feature of modern times, after Enlightenment of
) eighteenth century (in western countries) is individualism.
) Individualism is good. I am an "extremist individualist" : i do not
) define myself as a "French", or a "white", or a "man" (as opposed to
) "woman"), or a "jew" (born from a jewish family) or an "anthroposophist"
) : I define myself as.."I". Me, myself, and I.
) And if you really accept the idea of reincarnation, you can't be
) racist, since it is sure for you that in past of future incarnations,
) you will be a woman if you are a man at present time) , a black, an
) arab, etc..etc..I don not say that I completely accept this idea : thre
) is no certainty for me. I accept it as an hypothesis, and this
) hypothesis is obviously a protection against racism.
) About Waldorf schools :
) I was not in a waldorf school, and my children were not. But i can't
) believe that people who involve their children in those schools totally
) ignore that Waldorf schools have a relation with Steiner and
) anthroposophy. I do not agree with you about the "sectarian" nature of
) those schools, or of anthroposophy : I met much people who were in
) Wladorf schools, and obviously those people are not "sectarian". The
) word "sectarian" has , as the words "racist" or such, very bad
) implications. Would you say that a catholic or a muslim school have
) "sectarian" features, since they are based on religious beliefs?
) We need here a very precise definition of "sect" and "religion", or
) else it will be possible to charge any one with accusation of
) "sectarian"
)
)
Tom
Believe it! It happened to my family, and it has happened to many others (the
very "incarnation" of this Web site).
Waldorf has not/will not/ and for some reason can not admit that this school
is tied directly to Steiner and his occult religious beliefs called
Anthroposophy.
It is said time and time again that anthroposophy is not taught in the
classrooms, and from what I saw it was not, however every lesson plan, play,
festival, etc is 100% Steiner's beliefs. If you remove anthroposophy from
Waldorf you would not have a Waldorf school.
I admit we were duped, but I am not silly enough to believe for one second
that anthroposophy is not connected to religious thoughts or words, it is. As
far as Catholic schools, the subtle differerance is that Catholic schools do
not hide the fact that if you attend you are being exposed to Catholic
religious training. They say it up front, put it in their literature, and are
fairly proud to do so, so why can't more Waldorf educators like Eugene
Schwartz do likewise?
Again, we do not have the slightest problem with anthroposophy or with your
choice to follow it. Our problem is that Waldorf seems to have a nasty habit
of keeping these facts from prospective, or existing parents.
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:11:19 EDT
From: Tjgarr859 aol.com
Subject: Re: A slight problem...
) :"kill all infidels anywhere you
) will find them" ...not very politically correct don't you think ? will
) you say that muslim religion is racist ?
) walden wrote:
) ) Bonjour Foncteur,
)
Tom
This is clearly racist, but it also started as a mear idea or thought that
one group is better or more just than another.
We only read about it when people start disappearing in the middle of the
night.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:34:01 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: A slight problem...
Slightly off topic, perhaps, but I am curious...
Foncteur wrote in his first post:
I live in France where we have a very strong law against racism , since
1972.
And later wrote:
In France we have Le Pen which is obviously a racist.
Walden asks: What are these "very strong laws" doing about the French
politician, Le Pen - the "racist?" Were you surprised at how well Le Pen
did - I think he is at 17%? Do you see any similarities between Le Pen's
warnings with regards to France and North African immigration and Steiner's
similar concerns - or Le Pen's description of the holocaust as a "detail of
history?"
Still striving to understand.
-Walden
From: "Foncteur" (foncteur yahoo.fr)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 12:28 AM
Subject: RE: A slight problem...
) Hi dear Walden,
) Anthroposophy stems from many things : Blavatsky and theosophy of
) course, but also christianism, Zoroastrianism, manicheism, philosophy of
) Hegel, Schelling and Fichte, darwinism and Haeckel...and you know that
) Steiner was very critical about much aspects of theosophy, considered as
) having a "materialistic" conceptions of evolution : in anthroposophy,
) "root races" are "cultural epochs"
) Anyway I agree with you that we need a cautious reflexion and thinking
) about "racism" : in Durban in 2001, just before the horrible criminal
) attacks against World Trade center, there was a great "congress"
) "against racism" : and in this congress we saw muslim fanatics charging
) all jews of the world,(not only israelis soldiers) as "nazis and
) racists", and with posters inciting to kill jews : not only muslims but
) also africans from South Africa.
) There is obviously a problem with the struggle against racism.
) In France we have Le Pen which is obviously a racist (but not his
) organization) : but from October 2000 to now we saw hundreds of
) synagogues and jewish schools burning, jewish children and women or men
) brutally attacked by young french muslims born in France from muslim
) families coming from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia ; those victims of the
) racism of Le Pen became racist and antisemitic!!
) So I think we must be very cautious with this word of "racism" : in
) Qur'an, verse 5 of Surah 9; it is said :"kill all infidels anywhere you
) will find them" ...not very politically correct don't you think ? will
) you say that muslim religion is racist ?
) walden wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Perhaps there is are various interpretations of your word "racist." I
) ) do
) ) not think this word necessarily has to do with "mean-spirited, horrible
) ) people." I don't even think those who adhere to racist beliefs consider
) ) themselves odd or out of touch with humanity. I do not understand,
) ) however,
) ) how one can categorically deny the racist elements of Anthroposophy.
) ) The
) ) foundation of this belief system stems from Theosophy, root races and
) ) reincarnation. Or do you disagree? Do we need to display all the
) ) Steiner/race quotes yet again?
) )
) ) I think that various forms of racism exist everywhere. France is
) ) certainly
) ) no different despite any "law" you might have. What are your thoughts
) ) on Le
) ) Pen? Is he banned from speaking? I doubt it. One cannot ignore the
) ) stench
) ) of racism - no matter how much perfume we soak it in.
) )
) ) Welcome and I look forward to your comments.
) )
) ) -Walden
) )
) )
) ) ) Is Anthroposophy racist ?
) ) ) Well, if this is so, then anthroposophy must be forbidden.
) ) ) I live in France where we have a very strong law against racism ,
since
) ) ) 1972 . And I am sorry to say to you that anthroposophy is not
forbidden
) ) ) : so there must be something false in your charge of racism.
) ) ) There was indeed in 2000 and 2001 a campaign in France against
Steiner
) ) ) schools : but it did not succeed. And if it did not succeed in France,
) ) ) the country of laicity, i don't think it will succeed in USA, the
) ) ) country of televangelists and of "scientology is a religion".
) ) ) Do you know that there are many point of views in and about
) ) ) anthroposophy ? there is pluralism , and freedom of thought and
) ) ) religious belief (including atheism) is a cardinal value in
) ) ) anthroposophy. The real predecessor of Steiner was Max Stirner : not a
) ) ) very religious thinker, don't you think ?
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) )
) )
) )
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:37:24 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Children and Spiritual Questing -
Sharon: Continuing to quote from the Calyx (the article that never ends
(G)) adding my responses, Volume 23, Issue 2 Winter 2001-2002.
Maureen: "At our school, we have a range of beliefs, from Agnosticism to
Buddhism and Orthodox Christianity. As faculty, our openness to
Anthroposophy provides the basis for bridging our differences and working
together in a spiritual manner. It can be argued that Anthroposophy is
neither religious nor secular. It is a spiritual Idea trying to find a new
place in our thinking that transcends either/or categories."
Sharon: There was a time at your school when you could boast having a family
of Freethinkers as well, this was when my family was being duped - used and
manipulated to prop up Anthroposophy without our understanding or sanction.
This was before we twigged on to the school's esoteric subtext. In public
schools and nonsectarian schools people work together, not so in segregated
faith schools. Orthodox Christians do not usually believe in reincarnation
which is an important tenet of Anthroposophy, orthodox Christians usually
reject the occult...I wonder if the orthodox Christians at your school have
read much Steiner? Do they understand Steiner's "child development model"
which is based on reincarnating bodies? Do the Buddhists understand the
centrality of Christ the Sun spirit in Anthroposophy or Christian
Rosenkreutz, or the mystery of Golgotha? Do they understand why you
reverence Michael at PRWS? Have they an inkling of Steiner's Rosicrucian
temples? Do the Christians know that Steiner channeled Zarathustra? Have the
Buddhists seen Steiner's Apocalyptic Seals copied from Eliphas Levi? How
many people at your school are privy to Steiner's prophesies? How many know
about the "war of all against all", when white humanity who has taken the
spirit deep into the flesh will destroy black humanity? How many know about
Steiner's doctrine of the spiritual progression of the white race, and the
spiritual digression of the black race? How many know about the Sixth Epoch,
when Anthroposophists will reincarnate into core groups spread around the
globe to instruct the rest in what they may "think, feel, will and do"? How
many know about Jupiter, Venus and Vulcan? How many know about becoming
plant-like on Jupiter? How many understand that on Vulcan the larynx will
become an organ of regeneration and man will give birth by speaking? Who
knows about Steiner's Atlantis doctrine, when Steiner (with his
clairvoyance) goes back in history thousands of years before that recorded
by academics, and teaches that Manu led an advanced portion of humanity out
of the Atlantis flood? How many at your school know that Anthroposophy is a
schismatic branch of Blavatsky's Theosophy?
The only way that it could possibly be argued "that Anthroposophy is neither
religious nor secular" would be if the arguers were completely ignorant,
drunk, on drugs, confused or parroting occultists trying to stay hidden. It
*cannot* possibly be argued that Anthroposophy is neither religious nor
secular because Anthroposophy is entirely religious and completely
non-secular. Anthroposophy is a specific religious system, an esoteric
religion. Only those who delve into Steiner's religious teachings really
understand this. Lift the veil and you will see that Anthroposophy is an old
religious notion trying to find a place in our increasingly secular,
scientific world. Anthroposophy does not transcend either/or categories
because Anthroposophy is hopelessly sectarian, an occult religion in the
mystery tradition.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:19:35 EDT
From: Tjgarr859 aol.com
Subject: Re: A slight problem...
--part1_182.d057a27.2a93c617_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 8/19/02 3:56:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
foncteur yahoo.fr writes:
) ************oh i am sorry, dear Dan to be so "silly and stupid" : but,
) thanks to you,the Great Light of northern hemisphere, i am "enlightened"
) and perhaps in 2 or 3 months talking with you, I become a little more
) intelligent...not as intelligent as you, of course ! oh no !
) but there is a slight problem, perhaps you can help me to understand
) ..."God" is a supernatural being, do you agree ? and such philosophers
) as Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Emerson ,
) Peirce, Levinas, Whitehead, etc..speak of "God"...even Bill Clinton !
) will you charge all those brilliant men and women with the accusation of
) "sectarian" ?(oh sorry there is no woman in my list...i am surely a
) litlle racist and sexist...so I add our french "Simone Weil", the
) philosopher, not the modern political woman, and also Hannah Arendt, the
) friend of Heidegger...perhaps also Monica Lewinsky, the good friend of
) Clinton ?)
)
Tom
WOW! Time to switch to decaf.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anne Risgin (arisgin2 yahoo.com)
Subject: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
Hi, new member here again...
There seems to be a lot of quoting and discussion of Steiner's
unfortunate statements regarding the races. Is the contention that
today's Waldorf schools are hotbeds of these same views? I was under
the impression that they were embarrassed by and disavowed them. If
not, I would like to know about it. Steiner's own wack job comments are
of less interest to me than the current Waldorf philosophy.
I should mention that it is amazing and impressive to me that so many
of you have apparently read so much of Steiner's writing. I find that
more than a paragraph at a time induces near terminal narcolepsy.
Perhaps I should introduce myself, too: I have a 2 3/4 year old
daughter (and another due in November) and have been researching
educational philosophies. We are planning to homeschool. I was
initially attracted to Waldorf and subscribed to a Waldorf
homeschooling list, but was put off by some of the groupthink (for
example, a woman wrote that she was worried about starting a first
grade curriculum for her 7 year old because she also had a 3 year old
who would overhear her sister's lessons and might learn the alphabet.
Another had heard that black crayons were bad and wanted to know if it
was okay to use black yarn for doll's hair. Another wanted to know how
to keep her 2 year old from learning the colors when she seemed to be
inclined to do so). I do think there are some attractive aspects to
Waldorf early education philosophy, but I am definitely not on board
with their rigid reliance on numerical age as the determining factor in
when a child can or should learn something. I get the feeling that it
is not the best environment for an intellectually precocious child.
That being said, we are going to take a parent/tot class at our local
Waldorf school this fall...it's not a big investment, either of time or
money, and I think Elsa will enjoy it. In the long run we will be
following a rather classical curriculum with real science and
everything =)
So I guess I differ from many of you in that I am not a disgruntled
former Waldorf parent, but someone who is at the information gathering
stage. Please correct me if this is a wrong assumption.
Cheers,
Anne
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 791
-- Topica Digest --
Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
By sandra.schlick balcab.ch
Re: question for Julia
By juliarda hotmail.com
RE: A slight problem...
By dan dandugan.com
RE: A slight problem...
By dan dandugan.com
Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
re: clarification on Steiner racism
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
By mysplum earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 22:41:04 +0100
From: Sandra Schlick (sandra.schlick balcab.ch)
Subject: Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
Hi
I only know, that they say, that certain quotations of steiner - meaning
his racist statements - must be understood in the context. This is not
disavouving, it is like they approve anything Steiner ever said without
any critics.
May be somebody else knows more about that.
anne risgin wrote:
) Hi, new member here again...
)
) There seems to be a lot of quoting and discussion of Steiner's
) unfortunate statements regarding the races. Is the contention that
) today's Waldorf schools are hotbeds of these same views? I was under
) the impression that they were embarrassed by and disavowed them. If
) not, I would like to know about it. Steiner's own wack job comments are
) of less interest to me than the current Waldorf philosophy.
)
) I should mention that it is amazing and impressive to me that so many
) of you have apparently read so much of Steiner's writing. I find that
) more than a paragraph at a time induces near terminal narcolepsy.
)
) Perhaps I should introduce myself, too: I have a 2 3/4 year old
) daughter (and another due in November) and have been researching
) educational philosophies. We are planning to homeschool. I was
) initially attracted to Waldorf and subscribed to a Waldorf
) homeschooling list, but was put off by some of the groupthink (for
) example, a woman wrote that she was worried about starting a first
) grade curriculum for her 7 year old because she also had a 3 year old
) who would overhear her sister's lessons and might learn the alphabet.
) Another had heard that black crayons were bad and wanted to know if it
) was okay to use black yarn for doll's hair. Another wanted to know how
) to keep her 2 year old from learning the colors when she seemed to be
) inclined to do so). I do think there are some attractive aspects to
) Waldorf early education philosophy, but I am definitely not on board
) with their rigid reliance on numerical age as the determining factor in
) when a child can or should learn something. I get the feeling that it
) is not the best environment for an intellectually precocious child.
) That being said, we are going to take a parent/tot class at our local
) Waldorf school this fall...it's not a big investment, either of time or
) money, and I think Elsa will enjoy it. In the long run we will be
) following a rather classical curriculum with real science and
) everything =)
)
) So I guess I differ from many of you in that I am not a disgruntled
) former Waldorf parent, but someone who is at the information gathering
) stage. Please correct me if this is a wrong assumption.
)
) Cheers,
) Anne
)
) __________________________________________________
) Do You Yahoo!?
) HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
) http://www.hotjobs.com
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 06:48:27 +1000
From: "Julia rda" (juliarda hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: question for Julia
Hi Diana,
I'm getting my material back this weekend - then I'll be able to give you
the sources.
Julie
Can you tell us where to find this other graph you refer to, that you were
shown by the anti-vaccination speaker, showing that the declining incidence
of measles shown on the graph on the CDC web page is a "tail end" of a
bigger decline? Thanks,
)
)Diana
)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:05:16 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: A slight problem...
Foncteur, you said to Tom,
) I'll just say that it is obvious for me that Steiner and anthroposophy
)is the real antidote to the poison of racism : does not he say that it
)is a chararcteristic of our time (epoch) that in the future , race and
)nationality will become less and less important in the relations between
)men and women.
He said that, and he also detailed how "savage" races were degenerate
and destined to die out.
)The main feature of modern times, after Enlightenment of
)eighteenth century (in western countries) is individualism.
)Individualism is good. I am an "extremist individualist" : i do not
)define myself as a "French", or a "white", or a "man" (as opposed to
)"woman"), or a "jew" (born from a jewish family) or an "anthroposophist"
): I define myself as.."I". Me, myself, and I.
I'm not sure Steiner agrees with you on that;
"Many, no doubt, will say: 'Oh, I have entirely freed myself from all
lineal and racial conncections: I only want to be a human being and
nothing but a human being.' To those one must reply: 'Who, then,
brought you to this freedom? Was it not your family who placed you in
the world where you now stand? Have you not your lineage, your
nation, your race to thank for being what you are?'" [Steiner, 1918,
KHW p. 242]
) And if you really accept the idea of reincarnation, you can't be
)racist, since it is sure for you that in past of future incarnations,
)you will be a woman if you are a man at present time) , a black, an
)arab, etc..etc..I don not say that I completely accept this idea : thre
)is no certainty for me. I accept it as an hypothesis, and this
)hypothesis is obviously a protection against racism.
Not at all. Steiner taught that the soul evolved through "higher and
higher" races, and that if the good gods hadn't been thwarted,
degenerate races would all have died out.
) About Waldorf schools :
) I was not in a waldorf school, and my children were not. But i can't
)believe that people who involve their children in those schools totally
)ignore that Waldorf schools have a relation with Steiner and
)anthroposophy.
Since you have no experience with Waldorf schools, I suggest you
listen to those who do.
)I do not agree with you about the "sectarian" nature of
)those schools, or of anthroposophy : I met much people who were in
)Wladorf schools, and obviously those people are not "sectarian".
Most of the parents in Waldorf schools aren't Anthroposophists and
know little about it. The schools couldn't survive without the
patronage of outsiders.
)The
)word "sectarian" has , as the words "racist" or such, very bad
)implications. Would you say that a catholic or a muslim school have
)"sectarian" features, since they are based on religious beliefs?
) We need here a very precise definition of "sect" and "religion", or
)else it will be possible to charge any one with accusation of
)"sectarian"
This is just a language problem. In French, a cult is called a secte.
In English we call separate religious groups "sects," and this is a
neutral term. The perjorative term for a group we don't like is
"cult." Cults aren't just religious. There are political, commercial,
and psychological cults. Anthroposophy is a religious and political
cult.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:23:48 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: A slight problem...
DAN DUGAN
) ) It's true that the U.S. is a much more religious country than France,
)) and we have very liberal laws about who can declare themselves a
)) religion, but I don't understand what that has to do with racism.
FONCTEUR
)*********** this has to do with racism because we can't rely on a
)definition of "racism" which would be restricted to "pure races" ...
) what would be the scientific definition of those "races" ?
There is no scientific definition of "race" any more. It's a social
and cultural category based on appearance.
)obviously,
)the "racist" do not refer to a scientific definition, but to a fuzzy
)conception where colour, language, culture religion are mixed to define
)the "difference" : and French law punishes any incitation to hate "in
)function of race, religion, philosophical beliefs and sexual
)comportment"...so wether a group is a religion or not is very important
): if it is a religion, islam for instance) any critical point of view
)will be perceived as an "incitation to hate", and can be punished !
)don't laugh, we have an example with "antimuslim" writers such as Michel
)Houellebecq or Oriana Fallaci who are involved in trials by muslim
)organizations...well, this is a progress "par rapport ? " Salman
)Rushdie!!!
In the U.S. it's ok to criticize a religious group, unless the
criticism is associated with a destructive act, when it might come
under the definition of "hate crime."
)
)) In Anthroposophy you're free to believe anything you want as long as
)) you believe Steiner; otherwise, what's the point of being an
)) Anthroposophist?
)
)************* well, i don't know what it means to be an
)"anthroposophist" : if that means that you must accept without critical
)exam all that Steiner said, then I'm not an anthroposophist !! even
)christians have critical positions toward the pope, so you see taht even
)religions are not as you say...and anthroposophy is a a more
)philosophical nature than religious.
I'd say, rather, that as religions go, Anthroposophy is more
philosophical. It's more concerned with ideas than with worship.
) ) )The real predecessor of Steiner was Max Stirner : not a
) ) )very religious thinker, don't you think ?
))
)) A silly statement, Foncteur. Steiner's predecessor was Madame
)) Blavatsky, and his writing and speeches swim with references to
)) supernatural beings.
))
)************oh i am sorry, dear Dan to be so "silly and stupid" : but,
)thanks to you,the Great Light of northern hemisphere, i am "enlightened"
)and perhaps in 2 or 3 months talking with you, I become a little more
)intelligent...not as intelligent as you, of course ! oh no !
Since you're new here, I ought to explain that "ad hominem" arguments
are against the rules here. Note that I said your statement was
silly, not that you were silly.
) but there is a slight problem, perhaps you can help me to understand
)..."God" is a supernatural being, do you agree ? and such philosophers
)as Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Emerson ,
)Peirce, Levinas, Whitehead, etc..speak of "God"...even Bill Clinton !
)will you charge all those brilliant men and women with the accusation of
)"sectarian" ?(oh sorry there is no woman in my list...i am surely a
)litlle racist and sexist...so I add our french "Simone Weil", the
)philosopher, not the modern political woman, and also Hannah Arendt, the
)friend of Heidegger...perhaps also Monica Lewinsky, the good friend of
)Clinton ?)
Again, you misunderstand the English meaning of "sectarian," which is
descriptive, not negative.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:38:45 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
Anne wrote:
) There seems to be a lot of quoting and discussion of Steiner's
) unfortunate statements regarding the races. Is the contention that
) today's Waldorf schools are hotbeds of these same views? I was under
) the impression that they were embarrassed by and disavowed them. If
) not, I would like to know about it. Steiner's own wack job comments are
) of less interest to me than the current Waldorf philosophy.
Walden: Wrong. "Steiner's own wack job comments" (lol) *are* the bulk of
the current Waldorf philosophy. That is the whole point of this exercise.
It takes a while (and plenty of reading) to understand this.
) I should mention that it is amazing and impressive to me that so many
) of you have apparently read so much of Steiner's writing. I find that
) more than a paragraph at a time induces near terminal narcolepsy.
Walden: I can relate. Call it a morbid fascination at this point (g)
) Perhaps I should introduce myself, too: I have a 2 3/4 year old
) daughter (and another due in November) and have been researching
) educational philosophies. We are planning to homeschool. I was
) initially attracted to Waldorf and subscribed to a Waldorf
) homeschooling list, but was put off by some of the groupthink (for
) example, a woman wrote that she was worried about starting a first
) grade curriculum for her 7 year old because she also had a 3 year old
) who would overhear her sister's lessons and might learn the alphabet.
) Another had heard that black crayons were bad and wanted to know if it
) was okay to use black yarn for doll's hair. Another wanted to know how
) to keep her 2 year old from learning the colors when she seemed to be
) inclined to do so). I do think there are some attractive aspects to
) Waldorf early education philosophy, but I am definitely not on board
) with their rigid reliance on numerical age as the determining factor in
) when a child can or should learn something. I get the feeling that it
) is not the best environment for an intellectually precocious child.
) That being said, we are going to take a parent/tot class at our local
) Waldorf school this fall...it's not a big investment, either of time or
) money, and I think Elsa will enjoy it. In the long run we will be
) following a rather classical curriculum with real science and
) everything =)
Walden: Hint: Stay away from a real Waldorf school if this Waldorf
homeschool groupthink annoys you.
) So I guess I differ from many of you in that I am not a disgruntled
) former Waldorf parent, but someone who is at the information gathering
) stage. Please correct me if this is a wrong assumption.
Walden: We Waldorfed for many years - in a real Waldorf school. Then we
Waldorf homeschooled (in a way) for a year. The W homeschool list is very
defensive, heavily censored and downright creepy, IMO. Then one day I
wondered what we were doing? I woke up - my kids helped. Read your own
very good post again. Why do you need anything Waldorf? I am sorry to
repeat this but it deserves a listen: Waldorf does not have a monopoly on
goodness - knitting, counting, baking, etc. You can do all of this - and
include *real* science with *earthy* things, as well. Talk about gnomes if
you wish but don't tell your kids they are real beings (they learn this in
school) and that you must ask permission to walk in their woods, etc.
Create your own program - there are plenty of ideas/resources on the
Internet. Our family blossomed when we climbed out of the Waldorf World. I
know countless other families in the same position - real families in our
area as well as those elsewhere.
In short - leave Waldorf behind and enjoy your time with your children.
They deserve it. I admire your willingness to homeschool. I cannot state
strongly enough - most people choose Waldorf for the wrong reasons - they
think it is better than the alternatives. Low stress, lack of heavy
academics/tests, no tv/computers, etc. How attractive Waldorf seems to many
families. There is so much more behind the silk curtains.
On the other hand... if you can overcome your anxiety with regards to
Steiner and his schools and are ready for an amazing adventure in occultism
where you will be considered a necessary part of a greater plan (unbeknownst
to you) whereby your children (souls) chose you as a parent from a past
life... waiting patiently for their chance to be with an enlightened Waldorf
teacher so as to increase their odds of climbing the spiritual ladder in
subsequent lives....and if you are prepared to either join in and strive
with the other parents on this spiritual path or drop your kids off and hope
for the best knowing that at least there is no coke machine in *your* school
even it does seem a little odd....
Decisions. Not always easy - or are they? (g)
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:40:25 EDT
From: Tjgarr859 aol.com
Subject: Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
) So I guess I differ from many of you in that I am not a disgruntled
) ) former Waldorf parent, but someone who is at the information gathering
) ) stage. Please correct me if this is a wrong assumption.
) )
) ) Cheers,
) ) Anne
)
Tom
Anne, you have been given more insight to Waldorf than many of us. Your
right, the group think and other weird traditions are just out there. Like
you, we were attracted by the calm natural setting and the seemingly holistic
approach to education, however you cannot get too far from the way out stuff
becuase to do so would not make it a Waldorf School.
If many of us sound hysterical it is because we were not given the advantages
you have in seeing both sides. I would bet you that your Waldorf school did
not help you gain this insight. Like us, you did not know what to look for
based only on a gut feeling that something just did not feel right.
Thankfully you found PLANS and will continue asking tough questions. This is
afterall your right as a parent.
Good luck
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:06:11 +0930
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
Ugh. You sure are catching the short end of the stick, but, I think the
PLANS motto applies here - you can't change their minds, all you can do is
make sure that they have the requisite information to make an informed
decision. Unfortunately, reactionary behaviour is common in people who
have been sold a bill of goods on a subject (as the burned Waldorf parents
have), and it's just as ideological as the ideology to which it is
reacting. (sigh) And, you may have noticed my views on ideological
beliefs on this subject - they are unlikely to be changed by argument.
I just wanted you to know, that although I feel compelled every once in a
while to speak up on this subject on this list, I try to stick to
attainable goals - like getting people to acknowledge that there ARE such
things as legitimate medical reasons for a parent not to vaccinate. I also
think it's vital that people distinguish between a pro-disease stance (such
as that taken by Steiner) and an anti-vaccine stance, such as is taken by
many informed parents, as well as many uninformed, poorly informed, and
misinformed ones. On the other hand, I'm personally rather tired of being
confused with the ones who have bought into rhetoric on this subject, from
either side of the debate, as I would expect you are, as well.
Anyway, I wanted to write to you and let you know that you aren't
completely alone against the masses on this point, and reassure you that my
silence on the list on this subject is a matter of personal policy (I have
health problems that are exacerbated by stress, and as I'm sure you've
figured out by now, there is stress that goes with speaking up to certain
issues on this list), and NOT of complicity with the vocal minority.
Best wishes toward your continuing efforts to be an informed parent, even
when it means going against the vocal masses.
Rondel
P.S. Don't you hate it when organizations like the CDC participate in
propaganda campaigns, even well-meaning ones, that mistake medicine as
practised (we treat the sick if it looks like it's likely to help, even if
we're not quite sure all of why) for hard science (understanding fully the
risks posed by each ingredient in the medicine as used, see also "who
thought it was a good idea preserving injectables with mercury, anyway???")?
P.P.S. Have you had a chance to have a look at my site, yet? I know life
keeps us busy enough without additional web-based interactions, so I don't
expect it to be high on your priority list, but I have found in you an
intelligent, informed, and articulate voice on this subject, and one whom I
would like very much to quote.
At 18-08-02 10:46 AM Sunday, you wrote:
))From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary GoodWinter.com)
))
))Please read the information at the following web page, and then see how you
))feel about your arguments that you presented below...
))
))Center for Disease Control (CDC)
))Six Common Misconceptions about vaccination and how to respond to them
))
))http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/6mishome.htm
))
))...Gary
)I agree with the statements re. misconception 2, 3 and 5 (although I do
)not agree with all of the argument that follows each statement).
)
)Re. statement 1: This grap is similar to the graph shown by one of the
)three pro-vaccincation speakers in the university debate I
)mentioned. When this "tail-end" is viewed in light of a second graph
)(presented by one of the three anti-vaccination speakers), showing
)incidence from about the end of 19th Century, the first graph was shown to
)be just a "tail-end". The complete graph demonstrated that the very
)major decline in incidence occurred before vaccincation was
)introduced. The continued decline after the the introduction of
)vaccination looked relatively insignificant.
)
)Re. statement 4: I agree that the incidence of deaths and major damage
)evident soon after the vaccincation is relatively small. I do wonder
)about the many possible side-effects, some long-term, that are still being
)investigated.
)
)Furthermore, there are studies that show that there is a greater incidence
)of unexplained cot death in the weeks following the DTP vaccine
)administration. (I accept there are also studies don't show this). SIDS
)has almost disappeared in Japan since they raised the age for
)administration of DTP to 2+ years.
)
)I think a lot more information is needed before misconception 4 can be
)shown to be likely true or likely to be false.
)
)I agree that you have to weight risks associated with vaccine against
)risks associated with the disease itself. I do not believe we are yet in
)a position to accurately assess either.
)
)
)There are so many questions that are inadequately answered:
)If the vaccines are so effective, why are there epidemics in fully
)vaccinated populations. Why is the incidence of the disease virtually
)the same in vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals when an epidemic
)occurs in a partially vaccinated population?
)
)How accurate are the statistics for incidence of disease in vaccinated
)individuals? Same, re incidence of side-effects, incl. death, following
)vaccination. Whilst only anecdotal, my son is not recorded as having had
)pertussis following complete vaccination - as the lab overlooked
)conducting the requested test for same. I have two friends (at least
)two that I know of) who have been "reassured" that the fact that their
)child suffered site redness, high fever and irritability in the days
)following vaccination was only conincidental. I was present when one
)baby had symptoms of an adverse reaction - convulsions followed by
)limpness and partial loss of consciousness, about 10 mins. after
)DTP. She rushed him back upstairs to the GP, and an ambulance was
)called. Fortunately the baby soon recovered.
) The GP "reassured" the mother that the incident was not related to the
) vaccine. Surely, the GPs have to at least record that these MAY be
) vaccine-related side effects?
)
)At this stage, I don't think there is sufficient information to agree or
)disagree with misconception 6.
)
)My articles, books, and video of the uni. debate, etc. are out on what is
)virtually permanent loan, passing from one friend to another, but I could
)get them back if anyone wants the details of some of the journal articles.
)I still think it's important to look at all the original good research
)that you can find, first-hand, for yourself, as obviously I'm just one of
)many people arguing my particular beliefs, whether I use a couple of dozen
)articles to back up my claims or not. I agree with Diana, graphs and
)research can be used out of context. I wouldn't like to think that
)anyone changed their opinion based on a selection of research that I cited.
)However, if it was to lead to somebody possibly reevaluating their stance
)(no matter the outcome of the reevaluation) or just wanting to reassure
)themselves that they don't need to reevaluate their stance, I'd be happy
)to do so.
)
)I think the best way to go is a literature search of some of the major
)journals; British Journal of Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine and
)Lancet are three that come to mind. Such a search provides plenty of
)articles, and although it takes quite some time - wading through lots of
)articles - I think it is really the only way to make up your own mind as
)to what the existing, well-conducted research does say, and to find what
)areas have not been thoroughly researched and thus are relatively
inconclusive.
)
)Again, if this discussion is too off-topic for this list, I'm happy to
)continue it off-list (and if it's me who ends up having to change my
)stance, report this back to the list).
)
)Kind regards,
)Julie
)
)
)
)_________________________________________________________________
)Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
)http://www.hotmail.com
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 20:55:32 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: clarification on Steiner racism
New member Anne says:
((There seems to be a lot of quoting and discussion of Steiner's
unfortunate statements regarding the races. Is the contention that
today's Waldorf schools are hotbeds of these same views? I was under
the impression that they were embarrassed by and disavowed them ...))
Lisa here: Calling Steiner's statements about the various races of humankind
"unfortunate" is sugar-coating the issue! "Unfortunate" is the kind of word
that Waldorf teachers and ardent Anthroposophers tend to use when confronted
(by a critic or even just a curious or concerned parent) with Steiner's
racist drivel in black and white.
Anne, your impression that Waldorf schools (and by this I guess we mean
Waldorf *teachers*) are "embarrassed by" Steiner's racism is wrong. (Or if
the teachers *are* embarrassed, they aren't admitting it!) Indeed, far from
"disavowing" these terrible statements, Waldorf teachers and anthros.
oftentimes just give a longsuffering look and accuse the person doing the
asking of "not understanding" either Steiner himself or "the context" in
which Steiner made the statements.
DIn fact, when Waldorf critic list owner Dan Dugan confronted the folks
at his son's former Waldorf school with the fact that the school bookstore
was selling a Steiner book containing blatantly racist statements (if I am
recalling correctly, statements saying that blonde, blue eyed people are
intellectually superior to darker people and that blonde hair and blue eyes
"bestow" intelligence), the teachers there refused to take the book off the
shelf or even distance themselves from the statements therein!
(Good examples of the anthro defense about Steiner's racist statements
can even be found in this list's archives. Check them out. They are
alternately entertaining and nauseating.)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:33:14 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
) anne risgin wrote:
)
))
)) There seems to be a lot of quoting and discussion of Steiner's
)) unfortunate statements regarding the races. Is the contention that
)) today's Waldorf schools are hotbeds of these same views?
Sharon: Hi Anne, it wasn't just a few unfortunate statements, Steiner's
doctrine is centered on a racist premise. When Dan Dugan tried to get his W
school to disavow Steiner's racist ideology that was published by
Anthroposophists with recent dates of republication, with no disclaimers,
and sold at his child's school store, Dan's family was kicked out of the
school. In Waldorf today, children are initiated into specific religious
mysteries, what Steiner taught was the spiritual path of the Aryan. Some
Waldorf schools teach Aryan mysticism such as Manu's trek out of Atlantis
with the advanced and chosen, and in Holland parents have complained about
racist stereotypes in ethnology lessons. Grown Waldorf students have
reported racist lessons. An African American W teacher has filed a suite
against an old Waldorf school here in America, charging racism...
Waldorf leadership has not publicly acknowledged and disavowed Steiner's
racism. On April fools day 2000, the "Anthroposophy and the Question of Race
Commission" presented a 720 page final report to the public. The commission
was comprised of a panel of Anthroposophists. In the publication
"Anthroposophy Worldwide", No. 4 May 2000 p 3, Anthroposophists claimed that
the report found that there is "no question of a racial doctrine" and
"Steiner's complete works contain neither a racial doctrine nor racist
comments", although "16 racist remarks" by Steiner would be "illegal in the
Netherlands if proclaimed publicly by anyone today" and in the future the 16
racist quotes they found as well as "67 other, easily misunderstood remarks"
should "be published only with accompanying explanations". Anthroposophists
tried to whitewash the racist Steiner doctrine in this report, also known as
the "Dutch Report", which has not been published in English. Critics who
read Dutch have made mincemeat of the report, pointing out that the panel
failed to include certain very racist lectures as well as miss racist
remarks in the books that they did look at.
)) I should mention that it is amazing and impressive to me that so many
)) of you have apparently read so much of Steiner's writing. I find that
)) more than a paragraph at a time induces near terminal narcolepsy.
))
Sharon: Yes, many of us have read many SWA books. I own shelves of them and
have checked out stacks from the University of Iowa. Lisa has lent me a huge
box of books she bought and read. Diana was a Waldorf KG aid and read a lot
of Steiner - she was planning on becoming a W teacher. I've been reading
Steiner for about 3 1/2 years now. I spent last year studying Anthroposophy
and cults at the University of Miami, religious studied department. Dan has
an impressive Anthroposophy library and has read over 50 Steiner books. He
has an amazing database of Steiner quotes that he has compiled over the
years, I've seen it. Hardly anyone can stand to read Steiner except true
believers and those of us who were duped and burned enough to have the
determination to get through his veiled texts and verbosity. There are only
a few serious scholars of Anthroposophy from outside the Anthroposophical
movement, you can count them on one hand.
I was
)) initially attracted to Waldorf and subscribed to a Waldorf
)) homeschooling list, but was put off by some of the groupthink (for
)) example, a woman wrote that she was worried about starting a first
)) grade curriculum for her 7 year old because she also had a 3 year old
)) who would overhear her sister's lessons and might learn the alphabet.
Sharon: Yes, this kind of craziness surfaces frequently in Waldorf schools,
although when I was involved, nobody would answer my questions or explain
the reasons for such nonsense. Teachers would condescendingly smile at me
and say, "It's Steiner's philosophy" or "In Anthroposophy we do it this way"
or "Steiner said". This is one reason why I started forcing myself to read
and study Steiner, I could not rely on others to tell me outright, and the
more I read, the more I understood. Steiner worked in the mystery tradition,
his work is deliberately veiled, if you read enough, it starts to become
comprehensible, (but crazy).
)) Another had heard that black crayons were bad and wanted to know if it
)) was okay to use black yarn for doll's hair. Another wanted to know how
)) to keep her 2 year old from learning the colors when she seemed to be
)) inclined to do so). I do think there are some attractive aspects to
)) Waldorf early education philosophy, but I am definitely not on board
)) with their rigid reliance on numerical age as the determining factor in
)) when a child can or should learn something. I get the feeling that it
)) is not the best environment for an intellectually precocious child.
)) That being said, we are going to take a parent/tot class at our local
)) Waldorf school this fall...it's not a big investment, either of time or
)) money, and I think Elsa will enjoy it. In the long run we will be
)) following a rather classical curriculum with real science and
)) everything =)
Sharon: You've figured out the rigidity fed by Steiner's esoteric doctrine.
The further up the grades you go the wackier it becomes! Although there were
many red flags in KG and first grade such as: no black; no lines; no pencils
in the KG classrooms; no book; no free artistic expression; no reading;
talisman-making; learning that gnomes and fairies are real; praying to
Christ the Sun spirit; Galenic classification; singing songs to Michael;
attempts to change left handedness...
)) So I guess I differ from many of you in that I am not a disgruntled
)) former Waldorf parent, but someone who is at the information gathering
)) stage. Please correct me if this is a wrong assumption.
Sharon: We are activists, trying to get the word out about Waldorf so that
others looking for an art-based, progressive, diversity oriented,
nonsectarian education for their children won't be unwittingly included in
Steiner's religious movement without their understanding or sanction. We are
working to get Waldorf to be forthright about who they are, and what their
mission is. People's lives are irreversibly altered when organizations
aren't forthright. When I was gathering information about Waldorf, I relied
on *their* booklets, PLANS did not exist, and I did not have, or know how to
use, a computer. I was also esoterically ignorant and fell for the
deliberate scam of "Anthroposophy in the guise of idealistic philosophy". I
knew nothing about the esoteric subtext until after we left, we left with an
accumulation of peculiar experiences that I did not understand and had
trouble articulating. Times have changed. With knowledge comes
responsibility. We are activists.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 792
-- Topica Digest --
Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By foncteur yahoo.fr
Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
By kateabooth yahoo.com.au
Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 07:12:57 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
Dear friends,
I have no time enough to answer to all your posts about my initial one.
There are obviously contradictions in some of my arguments, due to that
lack of time..i'll just say that there is no contradiction about Le Pen
: as an individual, he is obviously a racist, but he always was clever
enough so as to avoid that his organization has "too visible" racist
program and be forbidden. The main contradiction or weakness in my
argument is that french law against racism, yet very strong, is not a
sufficient protection against it : there are in France muslim
organizations who incite to racial murder of jews, and they are not
forbidden. So my argument does not work, ok : anthroposophy COULD be
racist and not forbidden in France.
BUT anthroposophy and Steiner is not racist, this is my opinion. I
shall not answer and analyse all the quotes from Steiner you put on this
site. This would be too long, and would not result in anything
concluding..those quotes must be replaced in a context.
We need another method to answer to the question : "is anthroposophy
and Steiner racist ?"
We need to have a grasp of the totality , or synthesis, of the
"message" of anthroposophy, or a "vue d'ensemble" in French. This is an
hermeneutic task : we need first for that to have read a sufficient
number of anthroposophical books, and to understand them in a synthetic
way.
I'll take an example : to decide wether or not the nazi movement was
racist, would you put some isolated quotes of "Mein Kamps" of Hitler ?
no, of course.
Nazism was racist, obviously, because his "weltanschauaung" was, all
his conception of mankind and history, as it appears in the books of the
intellectuals of the nazi movement, ("Myth of 20th century" of Alfred
Rosenberg, for instance) was racist : racism was the cornerstone of nazi
philosophy.
In anthroposophy this is just the contrary. What is the
anthroposophical conception of history and universe ? this is the first
question we must ask to ourselves...ask it to yourself, if you have a
real knowledge of Steiner and anthroposophical books (thoses of instance
of Kuhlewind, Prokofieff, and others).
Ask to YOURSELF this question in your heart and you will understand, i
have no doubt about that. The anthroposophical conception of man as a
spiritual being is in complete opposition of the nazi conception of man
as "member of a racial group".
I have no time enough today to expose what i understood of
anthroposophy, and i don't even know if i can do it : I respect too much
anthroposophy and also the members of this site to try it in five
minutes..
waiting for your commentaries..
Jean-Pierre
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:16:12 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Kate=20Booth?= (kateabooth yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
Spot on Walden...
I always enjoy your posts.
Kate
Waldorf does
) not have a monopoly on
) goodness - knitting, counting, baking, etc. You can
) do all of this - and
) include *real* science with *earthy* things, as
) well. Talk about gnomes if
) you wish but don't tell your kids they are real
) beings (they learn this in
) school) and that you must ask permission to walk in
) their woods, etc.
) Create your own program - there are plenty of
) ideas/resources on the
) Internet. Our family blossomed when we climbed out
) of the Waldorf World. I
) know countless other families in the same position -
) real families in our
) area as well as those elsewhere.
)
) In short - leave Waldorf behind and enjoy your time
) with your children.
) They deserve it. I admire your willingness to
) homeschool. I cannot state
) strongly enough - most people choose Waldorf for the
) wrong reasons - they
) think it is better than the alternatives. Low
) stress, lack of heavy
) academics/tests, no tv/computers, etc. How
) attractive Waldorf seems to many
) families. There is so much more behind the silk
) curtains.
)
or
) drop your kids off and hope
) for the best knowing that at least there is no coke
) machine in *your* school
) even it does seem a little odd....
)
) Decisions. Not always easy - or are they? (g)
)
) -Walden
)
)
)
http://digital.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Digital How To
- Get the best out of your PC!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 06:30:10 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
Jean-Pierre:
)The anthroposophical conception of man as a spiritual being is in complete
opposition of the nazi )conception of man as "member of a racial group".
There it is again.
This can be a correct statement, yet anthroposophy can still be racist. The
part to notice is, there is no problem in anthroposophy making derogatory
statements about racial groups. What you aren't supposed to do is make a
derogatory statement about an individual based on his/her membership in the
racial group. With effort over many lifetimes, he/she can escape the racial
group.
Do you think you can say, "Yes, he's black, and blacks are inferior, but
maybe he won't always be black," and consider yourself not a racist?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 06:38:30 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
Hi Anne,
)There seems to be a lot of quoting and discussion of Steiner's
)unfortunate statements regarding the races. Is the contention that
)today's Waldorf schools are hotbeds of these same views?
No, hardly, if you are talking about the parent body; most Waldorf parents
have no idea Steiner said these things. The teachers would like to keep it
that way. Some Waldorf teachers know little about his racial views either;
others - the devout, who tend to be running the school - will tell you
repeatedly that "Steiner is difficult." That's what you get if you press
them on these questions; draw your own conclusions.
)I was under the impression that they were embarrassed by and disavowed
)them.
Embarrassed, sometimes. Disavow them, no. That seems to be the
tricky part. Because Waldorf teachers -not all, but many - revere Steiner as
a
guru, it is next to impossible to get them to explicitly disagree with
anything the man said. They want to have this both ways - in private, they
study Steiner feverishly, and analyze every word of the most obscure texts
in study groups, meditate on Steiner every night. In public, to prospective
parents especially, they say breezily that all that stuff was a long time
ago and Steiner is so
difficult, don't trouble yourself, really you don't need to know much about
Steiner's many thousands of lectures. (Meanwhile they are often carrying
copies of Steiner lectures around in their pockets like talismans.)
)I should mention that it is amazing and impressive to me that so many
)of you have apparently read so much of Steiner's writing. I find that
)more than a paragraph at a time induces near terminal narcolepsy.
LOL! You're so right. Somebody's got to do it, and it doesn't seem right if
it's only his devotees and not his critics who actually have any idea what
the man said.
)Perhaps I should introduce myself, too: I have a 2 3/4 year old
)daughter (and another due in November) and have been researching
)educational philosophies. We are planning to homeschool. I was
)initially attracted to Waldorf and subscribed to a Waldorf
)homeschooling list, but was put off by some of the groupthink (for
)example, a woman wrote that she was worried about starting a first
)grade curriculum for her 7 year old because she also had a 3 year old
)who would overhear her sister's lessons and might learn the alphabet.
)Another had heard that black crayons were bad and wanted to know if it
)was okay to use black yarn for doll's hair. Another wanted to know how
)to keep her 2 year old from learning the colors when she seemed to be
)inclined to do so). I do think there are some attractive aspects to
)Waldorf early education philosophy, but I am definitely not on board
)with their rigid reliance on numerical age as the determining factor in
)when a child can or should learn something. I get the feeling that it
)is not the best environment for an intellectually precocious child.
)That being said, we are going to take a parent/tot class at our local
)Waldorf school this fall...it's not a big investment, either of time or
)money, and I think Elsa will enjoy it. In the long run we will be
)following a rather classical curriculum with real science and
)everything =)
You are on the right track. Take whatever appeals to you out of the Waldorf
methods, but stay away from the actual schools.
What you have heard on that list is exactly what goes on in the schools - I
can attest that every example you gave is orthodoxy in many Waldorf schools,
in situations I have seen first hand (I worked in Waldorf kindergartens).
A Waldorf teacher will indeed advise you that a 3-year-old should not be
overhearing her 7-year-old sibling learning the alphabet, because the
alphabet will "damage" the 3-year-old. The people on the homeschoolers list
are not mixed up, they have been told this by Waldorf teachers or reading
Waldorf literature.
Black crayons are absent in most Waldorf kindergartens, because black is
"damaging" to small children. Black is an image of death in anthroposophy -
spiritless, lifeless. Children under age 7 are not yet "in their bodies"
fully, the theory goes - they will be "brought to earth" too quickly by the
"grounding," "incarnating" influence of black, symbolizing mortality, the
limitations of the physical body. (Though if I'm on the subject I should be
honest and say that our kindergartens did have dolls with black hair.)
We could dispute forever whether this little fetish about the color black
(did they also tell you "black isn't found in nature" - and that supposedly
explains why it is important to remove it from the crayon boxes?) has any
relationship to Steiner's outrageous comments about darker-skinned races, or
is evidence that Waldorf teachers today are racist. Decide for yourself. IMO
most Waldorf teachers are very well intentioned but I am not comfortable
sending my child somewhere where the founder's philosophy is overtly racist,
and the teachers just can't cope with addressing that and moving on.
And yes, most Waldorf teachers would advise against this teaching
preschoolers the names of the colors. I could go into the explanation if you
like but you can see it's ridiculous.
Anne, you are doing the right thing. Like most people newly encountering
Waldorf, you have no idea - no reason you should - what this is all about -
keep it that way! If you want to use natural materials, read fairy tales,
teach your daughter to knit, have a nature table, go for it.
From the critics' point of view, it might be nice if you would avoid telling
other people that you are doing "Waldorf" at home. You will inadvertently
promote Waldorf *schools* if you do this, and you can see that Waldorf
schools are not something you necessarily want to promote.
Diana
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 793
-- Topica Digest --
Re: clarification on Steiner racism
By owenapp suscom-maine.net
Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By Gary GoodWinter.com
RE: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By foncteur yahoo.fr
RE: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By foncteur yahoo.fr
RE: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By foncteur yahoo.fr
Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Waldorf school corporation stated purpose
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By juliarda hotmail.com
Re: A slight problem...
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
By dlawrenz hinklelawfirm.com
A Waldorf parent's comments and some quotes
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By foncteur yahoo.fr
RE: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By foncteur yahoo.fr
RE: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By foncteur yahoo.fr
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:09:36 -0400
From: "Owen Appraisal" (owenapp suscom-maine.net)
Subject: Re: clarification on Steiner racism
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
To: "waldorf-critics" (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 8:55 PM
Subject: re: clarification on Steiner racism
)
)
) New member Anne says:
)
) ((There seems to be a lot of quoting and discussion of Steiner's
) unfortunate statements regarding the races. Is the contention that
) today's Waldorf schools are hotbeds of these same views? I was under
) the impression that they were embarrassed by and disavowed them ...))
)
Once we knew enough to confront our son's teacher about Steiner's recaist
philosophy, he merely addressed my husband with a pained, all knowing look
and said "I've been studying Steiner for over 20 years, and I can assure you
he is not a racist". This was not a man who was embarassed about anything
Steiner said. Jane.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:41:17 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
on 8/21/02 3:38 AM, Diana Winters at Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net wrote:
)
) We could dispute forever whether this little fetish about the color black
) (did they also tell you "black isn't found in nature" - and that supposedly
) explains why it is important to remove it from the crayon boxes?)
Sharon: When I asked my daughter's teacher how an African American chould
draw themselves, she told me that she would give them an assortment of
crayons and teach them how to "smudge" their color!! There is this peculiar
belief that colors are the living organ of spiritual beings and that the way
to see spirit beings is through devotion to color. When my child was very
ill the Anthroposophic doctor told me to give her red, yellow and orange
crayons to color with, evidently, these colors would draw down certain
healing beings. In Steiner's magic system, one invokes certain beings
depending on the color used. Steiner taught that if you devote yourself to
specific colors applied to walls (usually applied with a technique known as
"lazuring"), then you will learn to see through the walls, into the
neighborhood and you will see spiritual beings! (Not kidding). When you
study Rosicrucian based secret societies such as Golden Dawn, you find that
there is a long tradition of using color to draw down the Akasha and
planetary forces/beings in the cosmos . Black is the spiritual image of the
lifeless.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:38:32 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
I wrote:
)Black crayons are absent in most Waldorf kindergartens, because black is
)"damaging" to small children. Black is an image of death in anthroposophy -
)spiritless, lifeless. Children under age 7 are not yet "in their bodies"
)fully, the theory goes - they will be "brought to earth" too quickly by the
)"grounding," "incarnating" influence of black, symbolizing mortality, the
)limitations of the physical body.
Of course, a serious illness suffered in childhood would have the same
effect writ large - "grounding" a child, bringing them "to earth," making
them prematurely aware of mortality, no? In a somewhat more dramatic fashion
than the black crayon in their crayon box.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:41:44 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
Jean-Pierre writes:
) Dear friends,
)I have no time enough to answer to all your posts about my initial one.
)There are obviously contradictions in some of my arguments,
(snip)
) I shall not answer and analyse all the quotes from Steiner you put on
this
)site. This would be too long, and would not result in anything
(snip)
) I have no time enough today to expose what i understood of
)anthroposophy, and i don't even know if i can do it : I respect too much
)anthroposophy and also the members of this site to try it in five
)minutes..
) waiting for your commentaries
What are we supposed to comment on? All you said is you don't have time and
don't want to discuss it.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:14:33 EDT
From: Tjgarr859 aol.com
Subject: Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
--part1_18e.ccddfce.2a94ec39_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 8/21/02 3:13:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
foncteur yahoo.fr writes:
) Ask to YOURSELF this question in your heart and you will understand, i
) have no doubt about that. The anthroposophical conception of man as a
) spiritual being is in complete opposition of the nazi conception of man
) as "member of a racial group".
) I have no time enough today to expose what i understood of
) anthroposophy, and i don't even know if i can do it : I respect too much
) anthroposophy and also the members of this site to try it in five
) minutes..
)
Tom
No doubt spiritual, but how does one ignore the subtle reincarnation idea
which states all races will move "upward" toward the white race? It is
clear that the core to anthroposophy suggests eventually blacks, yellow skin
people Steiner considered low in the incarnation loop such will eventually
move closer to whites who are further advanced in this loop.
Am I missing something?
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:06:42 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
on 8/21/02 8:41 AM, Diana Winters at Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net wrote:
) Jean-Pierre writes:
)
)
)) Dear friends,
)) I have no time enough to answer to all your posts about my initial
one. There
)) are obviously contradictions in some of my arguments,
) (snip)
)
)) I shall not answer and analyse all the quotes from Steiner you put on this
)) site. This would be too long, and would not result in anything
) (snip)
)
)) I have no time enough today to expose what i understood of
anthroposophy, and
)) i don't even know if i can do it : I respect too much anthroposophy and also
)) the members of this site to try it in five minutes..
)) waiting for your commentaries
)
)
) What are we supposed to comment on? All you said is you don't have time and
) don't want to discuss it.
) Diana
In my experience on this list for the past couple years, Jean-Pierre's
excuse for not continuing the dialogue is typical of Anthros when the issues
get tough...deflect, ignore, disappear.
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:13:38 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: RE: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
NO.
Nobody in anthro never said that "all races move upward towards the
white race"
Steiner speaks of civilizations, not races.
And actual western civilization is NOT the end of evolution..
It is from some point of view the lowest point of man's evolution : the
point where materialism is in all minds.
BUT it is also the civilization who developed most the individual
autonomy.
I affirm that "western european civilization" born from the
Enlightenment of eighteenth century is superior to all others because it
developed that individual autonomy.
But from other point of views ancient african or asian civilizations
are superior to european civilization...and it is of no interest that
most europeans are "white"...
and there will be other civilization, very superior to the european
one...will those civilizations be "black", "asian" ? this has no
importance...but I think that with mixing of people and globalisation,
colour will be somewhat uniform on all Earth. And i am pleased with that
) Tom
) No doubt spiritual, but how does one ignore the subtle reincarnation
) idea
) which states all races will move "upward" toward the white race? )
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:16:18 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: RE: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
NO ,there are no "derogatory statements" about blacks or asian.
It is not a derogatory statement to say that modern scientific
rationality was developed in Europe from the period of "Renaissance" (15
th century)
Science and Reason is not "owned" by Europe or USA : they are
universal.
I think that your HATE makes you blind.
Diana Winters wrote:
) Jean-Pierre:
) )The anthroposophical conception of man as a spiritual being is in
) )complete
) opposition of the nazi )conception of man as "member of a racial
) group".
)
)
) There it is again.
) This can be a correct statement, yet anthroposophy can still be racist.
) The
) part to notice is, there is no problem in anthroposophy making
) derogatory
) statements about racial groups. What you aren't supposed to do is make a
) derogatory statement about an individual based on his/her membership in
) the
) racial group. With effort over many lifetimes, he/she can escape the
) racial
) group.
) Do you think you can say, "Yes, he's black, and blacks are inferior, but
) maybe he won't always be black," and consider yourself not a racist?
) Diana
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:20:15 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: RE: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
this was not an excuse, and i never said i would not continue the
dialog
Why do you feel the need to insult those men who do not agree with you
?
Are you lacking self-confidence or control ?
There is absolutely no tough issue here for me.
What i am saying is clear : I shall NOT lose my time to answer post by
post, Steiner's quote by Steiner's quote.
I explained why this method won't work
) In my experience on this list for the past couple years, Jean-Pierre's
) excuse for not continuing the dialogue is typical of Anthros when the
) issues
) get tough...deflect, ignore, disappear.
)
) ...Gary
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:36:22 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
on 8/21/02 9:13 AM, Foncteur at foncteur yahoo.fr wrote:
) NO.
) Nobody in anthro never said that "all races move upward towards the
) white race"
Steiner: "Really, it is the whites who develop the human factor within
themselves. Therefore they have to rely on themselves. When whites do
emigrate, they partly take on the characteristics of other areas, but they
die more as individuals than as a race. The white race is the race of the
future, the race that is working creatively with the spirit." (Steiner,
March 3 1923, lecture to the workmen GA 349 p. 67)
Steiner: "If we wish to form a true conception of this we must say that
all the souls now living in bodies in civilized countries were formerly
incarnated in Atlantean bodies. A few developed there in the requisite
manner, and did not remain in Atlantean bodies. As they had developed
further they could become the souls of the bodies which had also progressed
further. Only the souls which as souls had remained backward had to take
bodies which as bodies had remained at a lower stage. If all the souls had
progressed, the backward races would either have decreased very much in
population, or the bodies would be occupied by newly incoming souls at a low
stage of development. For there are always souls which can inhabit backward
bodies. No soul is bound to a backward body if it does not bind itself to
it". (Rudolf Steiner, The Apocalypse of St. John, pp. 78-81).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:07:15 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
Jean-Pierre says of Steiner:
) NO, there are no "derogatory statements" about blacks or asian.
According to Steiner, when the spirit is "retarded, when it takes on a
demonic character and does not fully penetrate the flesh, then white skin
color does not appear, because atavistic powers are present that do not
allow the spirit to achieve complete harmony with the flesh." (p. 38, Die
geistigen Hintergr?nde des Ersten Weltkrieges, Dornach, 1974 (GA 174b), p.
38).
Retarded spirits, demonic characters, atavistic powers . . . nothing
derogatory there eh? Native Americans looking around for someone to
exterminate them, aborigines who are devolving into apes, the poor Asians
who if they think too hard, their brains hurt?
Anyone remember Harvey Bornfield, a devout anthroposophist who once told us
Judaism was "3000 years of megalomania"?
Jean-Pierre to me again:
) I think that your HATE makes you blind.
*My* hate? Where did you notice me expressing hate?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:46:12 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
) Dear friends,
) I have no time enough to answer to all your posts about my initial one.
) There are obviously contradictions in some of my arguments, due to that
) lack of time..i'll just say that there is no contradiction about Le Pen
) : as an individual, he is obviously a racist, but he always was clever
) enough so as to avoid that his organization has "too visible" racist
) program and be forbidden.
Walden: Thank-you for that clarification. Le Pen...clever enough not to be
too visible as a racist. What/who does that remind me of?
)The main contradiction or weakness in my
) argument is that french law against racism, yet very strong, is not a
) sufficient protection against it : there are in France muslim
) organizations who incite to racial murder of jews, and they are not
) forbidden. So my argument does not work, ok : anthroposophy COULD be
) racist and not forbidden in France.
Walden: I am glad you see that it was a weak argument. And this law is
clearly not "very strong." In any case, I do not believe any *law* can stop
racism. It might be a start or it might be smoke and mirrors by
politicians. That's another subject.
) BUT anthroposophy and Steiner is not racist, this is my opinion. I
) shall not answer and analyse all the quotes from Steiner you put on this
) site. This would be too long, and would not result in anything
) concluding..those quotes must be replaced in a context.
) We need another method to answer to the question : "is anthroposophy
) and Steiner racist ?"
Walden: Stop! It would not take too long and it might result in something
very valuable. Put the quotes in whatever "context" you choose but DEAL
WITH THEM - PLEASE! There might not be a right or wrong or good or bad -
who knows? Many of us are simply trying to understand the appeal of
Anthroposophy and make sense of the racist element.
) We need to have a grasp of the totality , or synthesis, of the
) "message" of anthroposophy, or a "vue d'ensemble" in French. This is an
) hermeneutic task : we need first for that to have read a sufficient
) number of anthroposophical books, and to understand them in a synthetic
) way.
Walden: Are you suggesting that unless I have read a sufficient number of
Anthroposophic books (3 - 4 - 8 -26??) I will never understand what Steiner
means when he says things like:
"Even the savage is affected by nature, but the laws of nature reveal
themselves only to the thoughts fructified by intuition of the more highly
developed man." (Steiner, 1922, T p. 31)
Or...
"You see, when we really study science and history, we must conclude that if
people become increasingly strong, they will also become increasingly
stupid. If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will
become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intelligence
that is independent of blondness. Blond hair actually bestows intelligence.
... It is indeed true that the more the fair individuals die out the more
will the instinctive wisdom of humans vanish." (Steiner, 1922, HI-1, p. 86)
Or...
"No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the French
language...It is also possible at the present time that the French will even
ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept their language going
as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to other
people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black people to
Europe. It affects France itself worst of all. This has an incredibly strong
effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially add to French
decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race." (Steiner, 1923,
CT-3 pp. 87-88)
Walden: Are there any particular books you could recommend for me to make
sense of this stuff?
) What is the anthroposophical conception of history and universe ? this is
the first
) question we must ask to ourselves...ask it to yourself, if you have a
) real knowledge of Steiner and anthroposophical books (thoses of instance
) of Kuhlewind, Prokofieff, and others).
) Ask to YOURSELF this question in your heart and you will understand, i
) have no doubt about that.
Walden: How can I understand a subject when my questions go unanswered? I
am not saying the Anthroposophic view of man is wrong - I do not know if
Steiner was on to something - or not. My mind is open - as is my heart.
Well - to be honest much of Steiner's writing does not appeal to me and I
find his predictions and racial views quite disturbing. When I read Steiner
I have questions that cannot possibly be answered or accepted *in my heart*
by meditation alone. I look to those more learned than myself. My heart
seems to be connected to my brain and my entire *I* thinks something is not
quite right here - especially when this world view was part of my children's
lives in a Waldorf school - without my consent. I look for understanding.
I value dialogue and communication.
) I have no time enough today to expose what i understood of
) anthroposophy, and i don't even know if i can do it : I respect too much
) anthroposophy and also the members of this site to try it in five
) minutes..
) waiting for your commentaries..
) Jean-Pierre
Walden: Since I have been on this list I have never seen an
Anthroposophically inclined member take the time to explain things in words
I can understand. Please feel free to take more than five minutes,
Jean-Pierre. I look forward to your response.
Merci.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:01:09 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Waldorf school corporation stated purpose
[from an anonymous correspondent]
I have read with interest many of the posts and testimonials on the
Waldorf Critics page and they helped me make a decision regarding my
son's education..
We found an interesting place to look for the "true" purpose of a
school - on its incorporation papers filed with the state!
One local waldorf school specifically says that its purpose is "To
promote anthroposophy and the work of Rudolf Steiner"
(http://www.corps.state.ri.us/corp_detail1.ASP?CORP_ID=105119&Rn=The+New+School+Initiative)http://www.corps.state.ri.us/corp_detail1.ASP?CORP_ID=105119&Rn=The+New+School+Initiative
This seems pretty unequivocal, but there is no mention of this in the
school literature! It certainly gave me pause for thought!
Thanks for all your efforts,
[name withheld]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:57:57 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
on 8/21/02 10:07 AM, Diana Winters at Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net wrote:
) Jean-Pierre to me again:
)
)) I think that your HATE makes you blind.
)
)
)
) *My* hate? Where did you notice me expressing hate?
Sharon: 'Tis more like his religious beliefs are making Jean-Pierre blind.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:15:42 +1000
From: "Julia rda" (juliarda hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
I think what Karen (or the paediatrician) was referring to, re. toxins, are
some of the materials included in the vaccine. Apart from some
vaccinations being whole killed organisms, which are said to contain
proteins of varying natures and possible toxicity, there is a mercury
derivative used as a preservative, and some vaccines also use "adjuvants"
which can contain substances such as aluminium, and are used to boost immune
response. Mercury may not be an issue any more, because there have been
requests, from govt. health bodies to remove it, however it was still
present in 1999, and I'm not sure that it has been removed because I haven't
continued following the issue over the last couple of years.
Julie
)
)Karen Sandburg, you wrote,
)
))A pediatrician I know told me that it is unwise to bombard such young
))babies
))to so many various toxins.
)
Dan Dugan:
)Immunizations aren't "toxins." They contain dead or attenuated disease
)organisms that stimulate the body to produce antibodies to those organisms.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:29:16 EDT
From: Tjgarr859 aol.com
Subject: Re: A slight problem...
--part1_1b8.52c0500.2a956e3c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tom
It seems to me that our ongoing "chat" about Waldorf seems to be centered
around several brave anthroposophist who know little about Waldorf who are
willing to put their beliefs about anthroposophy right out in the open.
I have been around this site since May and have not read one letter from a
current Waldorf teacher/student...........Are you out there guys?
I would like to hear from anyone presently associated with this school to
chime in anytime.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:18:51 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Atlantic Monthly article/Waldorf
It is also a misconception to say that babies' immune systems can't "handle"
toxins. Babies' immune systems are truly assaulted with a gazillion toxins
from the enivronment from the day they are born; vaccines are the least of
it. I'm sure most of the people passing along these rumors about "toxins"
believe what they're saying, but it's scare tactics.
(And as I keep pointing out, in my experience - back yard full of
neighborhood boys as I write! - they eat dirt! They eat bugs, grass - their
immune systems are pretty hardy. I'd lose my mind if I worried about all
that. Instead I'm going to worry about something administered in the
doctor's office, after years of testing and research?
Diana
)I think what Karen (or the paediatrician) was referring to, re. toxins, are
)some of the materials included in the vaccine. Apart from some
)vaccinations being whole killed organisms, which are said to contain
)proteins of varying natures and possible toxicity, there is a mercury
)derivative used as a preservative, and some vaccines also use "adjuvants"
)which can contain substances such as aluminium, and are used to boost
immune
)response. Mercury may not be an issue any more, because there have been
)requests, from govt. health bodies to remove it, however it was still
)present in 1999, and I'm not sure that it has been removed because I
haven't
)continued following the issue over the last couple of years.
)
)Julie
)
))
))Karen Sandburg, you wrote,
))
)))A pediatrician I know told me that it is unwise to bombard such young
)))babies
)))to so many various toxins.
))
)Dan Dugan:
))Immunizations aren't "toxins." They contain dead or attenuated disease
))organisms that stimulate the body to produce antibodies to those
organisms.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:19:36 +0000
From: David (dlawrenz hinklelawfirm.com)
Subject: RE: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
Anne wrote:
) There seems to be a lot of quoting and discussion of Steiner's
) unfortunate statements regarding the races. Is the contention that
) today's Waldorf schools are hotbeds of these same views? I was under
) the impression that they were embarrassed by and disavowed them. If
) not, I would like to know about it.
David here: At the Waldorf school my child attended, the College of
Teachers and the Board of Trustees actually did issue a statement that
disavowed any statements by Steiner that may be construed as racist. I
have the statement somewhere, and will post it later. This official
statement was helpful but it probably caused confusion rather than
reassure parents and the school community about the racist underpinnings
of Steiner's views on reincarnation, Folk Souls, etc, because most
parents have no idea of what Steiner actually said in such writings as
Mission of Folk Souls. Moreover, the Board and College did nothing to
educate parents about what Steiner actually wrote and said. So the
problem again (as so many people often say on this list) is that Waldorf
schools won't disclose the true nature of their founder's philosophy.
In the case of this Waldorf school I am describing, I don't believe that
most of the Board members (who were primarily parents of students) even
knew what it was that was being disavowed in the statement issued by the
Board. One Board member even declared that he had not read any of
Steiner's writings and was not interested in doing so. The same could
probably be said of most parents. When confronted by some outspoken
parents who raised concerns about Steiner's racial views, most parents
at this Waldorf school seemed to assume that that there could not really
be any racist content in Steiner's philosophy because they could not see
it racism played out in the day-to-day activities in the school.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:36:26 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: "Ellen Harold" (eharold acedsl.com)
Subject: A Waldorf parent's comments and some quotes
Ellen Harold, thanks for your thoughtful message. Forgive me for
taking so long to answer, I wanted to do it justice. I'm replying on
the waldorf-critics discussion list, and I encourage you to subscribe
if you want to be in on any subsequent discussion. You can subscribe
from the PLANS web site.
)Dear Mr. Dugan,
)
) I think you are barking up the wrong tree. My spouse and I consider
)ourselves secular humanists who believe in art and science and we
)are quite happy with Waldorf education.
I'm a secular humanist too, also interested in art and science. I
found Waldorf very attractive--before I encountered the
Anthroposophical elements of the science curriculum, and started
reading what the teachers study.
)Our daughter, now fifteen, has attended a Waldorf school since four
)years old - with a brief foray into public education in second and
)third grade. She attended two years of kindergarten and skipped
)first grade. She entered directly into second grade in the NYC
)public school from Waldorf kindergarten at the age of seven, not
)knowing how to read very well, except for what she had picked up on
)her own, and by the end of the year she received the highest reading
)score in the entire second grade of her public school (in which
)there were about 10 or so classes) on the city-wide tests. (She also
)did Suzuki violin, starting at 6, and is now an advanced violinist
)and pianist) We left the public school after a year and a half
)because we were unhappy with the curriculum, which consisted mostly
)of mimeographed puzzles and other pointless busywork, such as
)correcting each others' exercises.
Sounds like your daughter is exceptionally talented. You're lucky parents.
)I put her back in a Waldorf school so that she could have the
)benefit of a curriculum that has a full year of the Bible. Since,
)although I am not a believer, I still think the Bible is beautiful -
)and much better than mimeographed puzzles - as well as vital for
)one's cultural literacy. The teacher read Bible stories to the the
)class from the silver-bound Hebrew/English volume her husband had
)used for his Bar Mitzvah.
I agree that both the Bible language and the Bible stories are
essential parts of cultural literacy, no matter what your religion.
)As far as diversity - in my daughter's class of 25 also are several
)Israeli children whose home language is Hebrew and also a Muslim
)student of mixed Egyptian and Scandinavian parentage, an East
)Indian, and a Chinese (we used have a Korean and a Japanese and our
)Brooklyn school had two Sikhs). Our school in Garden City has a
)higher percentage of students and teachers of color than her former
)public school did in Brooklyn. In addition, they are the only school
)that participates in the all-Long-Island-German-language Sprachfest
)competition (against 17 public and private schools) that has any
)African-American and Afro-Caribbean students, and our miniscule
)Waldorf School routinely wins in virtually every category it enters
)- scored on merit.
There aren't many schools in America that study German. Don't you
find that a little odd? No one has said that Waldorf doesn't admit
people of all races and nationalities; the question is, are children
of different races treated differently by the teachers?
) As far as racism in the writings of Rudolf Steiner - I have no
)doubt you will find some. He died in 1925 and a racist outlook was
)embedded in the world view of almost all educated Europeans and
)Americans. If you look in the writings of the eminent people of the
)day, including such liberals and progressives as Franklin and
)Eleanor Roosevelt, you will certainly find evidence of white
)supremacy and often, of anti-semitism. You could even find
)anti-semitism among leftists and progressives up until World War II,
)since it was socially quite acceptable then and Jews were excluded
)from almost every field of endeavor. I myself remember going to the
)museum of natural history in NY when I was young and seeing a
)hierarchic arrangement of busts -- first of apes, then the races
)(so-called) of man, with Neanderthal at the bottom, and then an
)Australian aborigine, then an African, then a "Mediterranean" and
)finally, a very idealized Grecian statue of a "white" man topping
)them all. That was the establishment outlook at the time, and it
)persisted into the 1960s. Also fashionable, in the early part of the
)20 C. was eugenics, which was universally considered desirable and
)the latest thing, and not just by Nazis. (I don't think all this was
)a preoccupation of Rudolf Steiner, however.)
Other institutions, like the United States Government and the
Lutheran Church, for example, have repudiated the racism in their
past. Anthroposophy, however, refuses to say that Steiner was wrong
about anything.
) Another thing that trips you and other Waldorf critics up is the
)use of the word "spirit" - which in the English language connotes
)the supernatural, but in German, as "geist," also means worldview or
)culture (as in zeitgeist) - when Hegel used the word "spirit" he
)referred strictly to what man had made, especially history, law,
)art, music, and poetry, as I understand it. Steiner, who had a Ph. D
)(in German philosophy) also uses it in this way - and that is how I
)interpret it.
You know, Steiner's PhD wasn't granted in the ordinary way. It was
given to him by one professor for independent study.
Steiner plays on the common use of "geist" in German. In Germany,
philosophy is known, literally, as "spiritual science." But this is
-not- what Steiner meant by "spirit" (geist) in his books and
lectures. What do you think he means by "spirit" here:
"White humankind is still on the path of absorbing the spirit deeper
and deeper into its own essence. Yellow humankind is on the path of
conserving the era when the spirit will be kept away from the body,
when the spirit will only be sought outside of the human-physical
organization. But the result will have to be that the transition from
the fifth cultural epoch to the sixth cultural epoch cannot happen in
any other way than as a violent battle of white humankind against
colored humankind in myriad areas. And that which precedes these
battles between white and colored humankind will occupy world history
until the completion of the great battles between white and colored
humankind. Future events are frequently reflected in prior events.
You see, we stand before something colossal that - when we understand
it through spiritual science - we will in the future be able to
recognize as a necessary occurrence." [Rudolf Steiner, 1915, Die
geistigen Hintergr?nde des Ersten Weltkrieges. Dornach, 1974 (GA
174b) p. 38, trans Peter Zegers, w-c 11/18/01.]
Do you really think I am being "tripped up," by Steiner using
"spirit" for "culture," into thinking that this passage is racist
when really it isnt? German has perfectly good words for culture and
world-view, and if that was what Steiner had meant, that was what he
would have said. It's a common Anthroposophical rhetorical technique
to say that the special vocabulary of Anthroposophy is just another
way of stating commonly held concepts. It's a diversion, and you fell
for it.
"According to Rudolf Steiner, there are two dimensions of reality.
One is the physical, material world that the human being perceives
with the physical senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste.
The other is the invisible and impalpable spiritual realm that lies
behind the physical world. This is comprised of the subtle energies,
elemental nature beings, and higher spiritual beings that have
brought the physical world into being and tha animate, influence, and
direct it." [Poplawski, Thomas. "Out of Anthroposophy: A Modern Path
of Meditation and Inner Development." Renewal: A Journal for Waldorf
Education. Fall-Winter 2001, 10:2, p. 36.]
)Scientists nowadays accept cultural evolution as a fact - cultural
)evolution is what the Waldorf curriculum teaches, mostly in the form
)of the religious outlooks of the world (whether culture is advancing
)or regressing right now, I can't say).
The Waldorf curriculum teaches a sectarian doctrine of cultural
evolution; the evolution of the Aryan race according to the
Theosophical world-view. Steiner's "post-atlantean cultural epochs"
are identical to Theosophy's "sub-races" of the Aryan "root-race,"
and form the outline of ancient history in the fifth and sixth grades.
As you say, history is taught "mostly in the form of religious
outlooks." No distinction is made between fact and mythology.
Children are immersed in an occultist version of the religious
beliefs of each period, often taken from fiction.
)Similarly, the word "science" for us denotes strict empiricism,
)whereas in German, it meant disciplined investigation (or knowledge)
)- its older meaning in English, too.
Both meanings are current in English today. "Spiritual Science" isn't
a science by either definition.
)German scholars (who invented the Ph. D.) excelled in texual and
)linguistic analysis, which is an exacting science, albeit not an
)experimental one. As far as the kookier aspects of anthroposophy -
)incarnation, karma, the etheric/astral bodies, and so forth, taken
)over from Theosophy, I ignore them and so does my daughter, who is
)as much a rationalist and you or I.
You and your daughter may not realize how much of the
Anthroposophical world-view she has been taught. How about we put
some of her lesson books on a web site so we can discuss them? Do you
have her fourth-grade "man and animal"? We've discussed that block
here before and it would be interesting to have a look at it.
) I find the prayers (or invocations) inoffensive - I think they
)enhance concentration and at least have the merit of being tasteful.
)Children like them and so I don't object.
Waldorf's spirituality is pleasing to many families. Obviously you've
found what you want.
) Actually, I have no interest in Steiner's writings, myself,
)especially the "occult" side. (Borrowed from Goethe's interest in
)the Cabala.) However, I don't think there is anything sinister in
)them either.
If you don't mind indoctrinating children, unbeknownst to their
parents, in a new religion.
) As far as I can see, the worst things about Steiner's writings are
)his habit of not giving credit for ideas borrowed from other
)thinkers (which is most of them) and also that he wrote everything
)that came to his head without revising (so it appears).. However,
)this was very common at the time he wrote, and lots of other German
)thinkers did it as well. ss
Most of the Steiner books are lecture transcripts, he certainly does
talk off the top of his head.
)In Germany also, it was also the usual thing for professors to have
)"schools'" or followings - it does not denote a sinister cult, but
)reflected the way their universities were organized - this is why we
)have Marxists, Freudians, and Jungians. Influenced by Goethe,
)virtually all German thinkers repudiated empiricism (which we would
)call the "scientific outlook") and wrote from "inspiration"
)(scorning footnotes - paradoxically -- since they invented
)footnotes). This was often very bad, but it was sometimes very good
)- say, in the case of Einstein and of Wolfgang Kohler, the founder
)of Gestalt psychology.
Sorry, but Einstein's theories were testable and have been tested
extensively. That's real science. But Steiner makes fun of him:
"The time is now that we ought to speak of such things, all the
brilliant nonsense which is called relativity theory through which
Einstein became a great man. This would be able to be rejected if one
were to have clear concepts about things, concepts which really
correspond to the reality. ... This idea doesn't have the slightest
relationship to reality. This whole unhealthy idea lives today as the
theory of relativity and enjoys the widest acclaim." [Rudolf Steiner,
The True Nature of Substance & Energy, August 7, 1917 (Rick Mansell
translation, tape SL266, Rudolf Steiner Research Foundation, Redondo
Beach, California) The lecture of 7 Aug 1917 is the second lecture in
the KARMA OF MATERIALISM.]
) I strongly recommend that you get your hands on an issue of
)Daedalus Magazine (the magazine of the American Academy of Science)
)from several years ago that featured a lead article about the
)influence of Goethe on German education and on Albert Einstein in
)particular. It is written by an eminent historian of science from
)Harvard (whose name I forget at the moment, but it is a wonderful
)article). Much of what you and others object to in Waldorf education
)comes right out of Goethe - the meanings and use of colors, the
)nature table, the idea of the archetype, fairytales, symbolism,
)importance of singing, and so forth. There is nothing sinister or
)satanic about it, on the contrary, it is very lovely, for the most
)part. Goethe also was the greatest influence on the English Romantic
)poets and on the American transcendentalists, particularly Emerson,
)the father of them all, so I think an education inspired by his
)writings is very appropriate for an American child. (Emerson quit
)the Unitarian ministry in Massachusetts because he felt that Christ
)was not sufficiently interesting in Art and Science. On the fourth
)of July he and his wife draped their house in black crepe to protest
)slavery. The Chapel Hill, North Carolina Waldorf School is called
)the Emerson school, and the Waldorf College in the UK is also named
)after Emerson).
I'm glad you mentioned the Nature Table. It does indeed come from
Goethe, who calls it "an altar to nature." People say I'm
exaggerating when I show pictures of altars in Waldorf classrooms!
(see http://www.waldorfcritics.com)
In my son's school, it wasn't just the "meanings and uses" of color.
They taught that Goethe was right and Newton was wrong about the
physics of color. This wasn't just a failure of one school; I have
the teacher training materials. Goethe claimed to have refuted
Newton, and Steiner amplified that claim. Scientists laughed at
Goethe for that, and they laugh at Steiner, too. No, it isn't
sinister or satanic to teach Steiner's mistakes, just stupid and
cult-like.
) Also very illuminating for me, anyway, in understanding Steiner's
)milieu (and therefore Waldorf) were several books by Fritz Stern:
)Dreams and Delusions and The Politics of Cultural Despair about the
)cultural atmosphere of Germany at the time of Einstein (and Rudolf
)Steiner). Stern was a professor of German at Columbia, whose Jewish
)grandfather invented poison gas, in a patriotic effort to help
)Germany in World War I. The writers he analyses were truer
)precursors to Nazism than Rudolf Steiner (and just as flaky - if not
)more so). Stern also points out that on the positive side, the both
)the Germans and the Jews had this in common - their educational
)systems were geared to promoting high achievement in young people.
)Of course all that came to an end with Hitler's regime, which either
)destroyed or at least caused the best and most creative minds to
)leave Germany forever.
Sounds interesting, thanks for the reference. I'll trade you another:
Harrington, Anne. Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from
Hilhelm II to Hitler. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Granted that Steiner was a minor influence in preparing for the
holocaust, nonetheless he was there on the podium preaching the
racist theory of history (Aryans from Atlantis and all that) that
became part of the Nazi philosophy. What's weird is that instead of
repudiating that crap, Anthroposophists are -still- teaching that
proto-Nazi theory.
)As I indicated, after many years, we have very few complaints about
)Waldorf education. We particularly like its emphasis on creating a
)finished and attractively presented body of work. Our daughter often
)works happily on her projects until the wee hours.
The lesson books can be very impressive. I would expect Waldorf
graduates to have a superior ability to present their ideas with
illustrations. Often the content, however, reflects the
Anthroposophical world-view.
)My chief complaint is that they don't offer more than first year
)Latin (spread over two years), so the children don't get to read
)Latin authors in the original. Also, they don't offer Ancient Greek,
)though it is called for in the curriculum. I also feel that they
)paid lip service to learning an instrument, but didn't really devote
)the time needed to learn it well (i.e., an hour a day - minimum). We
)solved this by sending our daughter to a music school. Also, they
)should have a minimum of 3 hours a week, not 2, of German and French
)instruction in elementary school. Since in high school they only
)learn one language, at her request, we are sending our daughter to a
)(non-waldorf) summer language camp to continue her French.
In many Waldorf schools years of language instruction produce nothing
in the way of accomplishment. Many features of the Waldorf curriculum
sound good but are so shallow they're really lip service.
It's not clear to me what lesson you intended to teach me by
appending a lengthy Whitman quote to your message; you'll have to
spell it out for me. I hope I haven't distorted it too much by
editing out some of the excess of blank lines you included.
-Dan Dugan
) *************************
)I'm an atheist, thank God! -Malachi McCourt
)
)******************************
)
) From: Leaves of Grass -by Walt Whitman
)
)I accept (http://www.bartleby.com/142/1001.html#14.478)reality, and
)dare not question it;
)
)Materialism first and last imbuing.
)
)Hurrah for positive science! Long live exact demonstration!
)
)Fetch stonecrop, mixt with cedar and branches of lilac;
)
)This is the lexicographer - this the chemist-this made a grammar of
)the old cartouches;
)
)These mariners put the ship through dangerous unknown seas;
)
)This is the geologist - this works with the scalpel - and this is a
)mathematician.
)
)Gentlemen! to you the first honors always:
)
)Your facts are useful and real - and yet they are not my dwelling;
)
)(I but enter by them to an area of my dwelling.)
)
)
)I do not despise you, priests, all time, the world over,
)
)My faith is the greatest of faiths and the least of faiths,
)
)Enclosing worship ancient and modern and all between ancient and modern,
)
)Believing I shall come again upon the earth after five thousand years,
)
)Waiting responses from oracles, honoring the gods, saluting the sun,
)
)Making a fetish of the first rock or stump, powwow-ing with sticks
)in the circle of obis,
)
)
)Helping the llama or brahmin as he trims the lamps of the idols,
)
)Dancing yet through the streets in a phallic procession, rapt and
)austere in the woods a gymnosophist,
)
)
)Drinking mead from the skull-cap, to Shastas and Vedas admirant,
)minding the Koran,
)
)Walking the teokallis, spotted with gore from the stone and knife,
)beating the serpent-skin drum,
)
)Accepting the Gospels, accepting him that was crucified, knowing
)assuredly that he is divine,
)
)To the mass kneeling or the Puritan's prayer rising, or sitting
)patiently in a pew,
)
)Ranting and frothing in my insane crisis, or waiting dead-like till
)my spirit arouses me,
)
)Looking forth on pavement and land, or outside of pavement and land,
)
)Belonging to the winders of the circuit of circuits.
)
)
)One of that centripetal and centrifugal gang
)
)I turn and talk like man leaving charges before a journey.
)
)
)Down-hearted doubters dull and excluded,
)
)Frivolous, sullen, moping, angry, affected, dishearten'd, atheistical,
)
)I know every one of you, I know the sea of torment, doubt, despair
)and unbelief.
)
)
)How the flukes splash!
)
)How they contort rapid as lightning, with spasms and spouts of blood!
)
)Be at peace bloody flukes of doubters and sullen mopers,
)
)
)I take my place among you as much as among any,
)
)The past is the push of you, me, all, precisely the same,
)
)And what is yet untried and afterward is for you, me, all, precisely the same.
)
)
)I do not know what is untried and afterward,
)
)But I know it will in its turn prove sufficient, and cannot fail.
)
)Each who passes is consider'd, each who stops is consider'd, not
)single one can it fall.
)
)
)It cannot fall the young man who died and was buried,
)
)Nor the young woman who died and was put by his side,
)
)Nor the little child that peep'd in at the door, and then drew back
)and was never seen again,
)
)Nor the old man who has lived without purpose, and feels it with
)bitterness worse than gall,
)
)Nor him in the poor house tubercled by rum and the bad disorder,
)
)Nor the numberless slaughter'd and wreck'd, nor the brutish koboo
)call'd the ordure of humanity,
)
)Nor the sacs merely floating with open mouths for food to slip in,
)
)Nor any thing in the earth, or down in the oldest graves of the earth,
)
)Nor any thing in the myriads of spheres, nor the myriads of myriads
)that inhabit them,
)
)Nor the present, nor the least wisp that is known.
)
)****************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:47:50 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: RE: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
well, as I said to you, my family is jewish, so I shall tell nothing bad
about judaism and "chosen seed" (Milton, "Paradise lost").... "mais je
n'en pense pas moins" (as we say in French, that means : "but I think
deep in my heart")
anyway, I can say that : "Islam is a 1400 years paranoia"
That does not make of me a racist...and even more : this is because I
hate racism that I say that..
As for the quote :
It should be replaced in context...have you read all the book or just
that quote on a "anti-anthroposophy" racist Internet site like this one
?
Admitting that Steiner really said that :
-first we must interpret the terms "demonic" and "retarded"...as you
know, "demonic" comes from "daimon" , a word that appears in Plato (the
"daimon " of Socrat) and which is not at all derogatory : a daimon is a
spiritual entity , not at all a "devil" as it became in christian minds.
"retarded" : if there is a sense of evolution in the actual "cultural
epoch", which goes from east (in Anthroposophy : indian civilization,
then chaldean, then greco roman, then modern european) to west and from
" tribal spirituality but no individual freedom" to "materialistic mind
and individual freedom"), so "retarded" means simply that the most
"modern" people according to this sense of evolution are the people
living in western countries (so a majority of "white") : this is simply
a tautology !
-second : Steiner is a man. He is not God, nor a guru. He is fallible.
He was no doubt influenced by the culture of his time and his
country..so , speaking of "white flesh color" (I repeat : if he really
said that) is a mistake...and so ?
Flesh color has no importance...and I can find many many quotes where
Steiner says that race and flesh color will be of less and less
importance in the future
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Jean-Pierre says of Steiner:
)
)
) ) NO, there are no "derogatory statements" about blacks or asian.
)
) According to Steiner, when the spirit is "retarded, when it takes on a
) demonic character and does not fully penetrate the flesh, then white
) skin
) color does not appear, because atavistic powers are present that do not
) allow the spirit to achieve complete harmony with the flesh." (p. 38,
) Die
) geistigen Hintergr?nde des Ersten Weltkrieges, Dornach, 1974 (GA 174b),
) p.
) 38).
)
) Retarded spirits, demonic characters, atavistic powers . . . nothing
) derogatory there eh? Native Americans looking around for someone to
) exterminate them, aborigines who are devolving into apes, the poor
) Asians
) who if they think too hard, their brains hurt?
)
) Anyone remember Harvey Bornfield, a devout anthroposophist who once told
) us
) Judaism was "3000 years of megalomania"?
)
)
)
) Jean-Pierre to me again:
)
) ) I think that your HATE makes you blind.
)
)
)
) *My* hate? Where did you notice me expressing hate?
)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:57:53 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: RE: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
For the first quote : did you read all this book (GA 349) ? or did you
simply read that quote on an "anti-anthroposophy" racist site like this
one ?
Admitting that Steiner really said that:
if we interpret "human" as : completely autonom and free from spiritual
direction from higher worlds, due to development of a materialistic
mind, and "white race" as "european modern nations" then this is simply
the actual sense of evolution described by anthroposphy...you may agree
or not, you can say that this is oversimplification (and i can agree
with that) but there is no racism in it
For the second quote : I see no racism in it...this is a very complex
quote anbd as I have the book at my home, I'll try to check it and to
interpret it in the more general context of all the book : because here,
in that form, I do understand nothing in that quote...excuse me, I am a
silly boy, my mom says that to me every morning
mysplum wrote:
) on 8/21/02 9:13 AM, Foncteur at foncteur yahoo.fr wrote:
)
) ) NO.
) ) Nobody in anthro never said that "all races move upward towards the
) ) white race"
)
) Steiner: "Really, it is the whites who develop the human factor within
) themselves. Therefore they have to rely on themselves. When whites do
) emigrate, they partly take on the characteristics of other areas, but
) they
) die more as individuals than as a race. The white race is the race of
) the
) future, the race that is working creatively with the spirit." (Steiner,
) March 3 1923, lecture to the workmen GA 349 p. 67)
)
)
) Steiner: "If we wish to form a true conception of this we must say that
) all the souls now living in bodies in civilized countries were formerly
) incarnated in Atlantean bodies. A few developed there in the requisite
) manner, and did not remain in Atlantean bodies. As they had developed
) further they could become the souls of the bodies which had also
) progressed
) further. Only the souls which as souls had remained backward had to take
) bodies which as bodies had remained at a lower stage. If all the souls
) had
) progressed, the backward races would either have decreased very much in
) population, or the bodies would be occupied by newly incoming souls at a
) low
) stage of development. For there are always souls which can inhabit
) backward
) bodies. No soul is bound to a backward body if it does not bind itself
) to
) it". (Rudolf Steiner, The Apocalypse of St. John, pp. 78-81).
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:07:26 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: RE: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
Dear Walden,
I agree with you that no law can overcome racism...and don't be too
afraid about Le Pen : he is under control, and he always was...I 'll
tell you the "big secret" of French political life in the years 1980-
1990 : it is the left of Fran?ois Mitterand (the former french
president, before Chirac) who tried and succeeded to cause the influence
of Le Pen, just to weaken the "classical" democratic right...I you say
that it is a dangerous game, I agree with you..but the game is now over.
And Le Pen is back in his little box.
About your quotes:
First, same question that in the preceding posts : have you read those
quotes on a "anti-anthroposophy" site like this one, or have you read
personally the totality of the books you are quoting ? In that last
case, can you be more precise about the references, because I want to
buy those books : what means : Steiner, 1922, T p. 31), or :Steiner,
1922, HI-1, p. 86) or : Steiner, 1923,
CT-3 pp. 87-88) ? what means T, HI-1 and CT, so as I can buy the books
at amazon or elsewhere ?
The first quote is not racist : it means simply that scientific
development aims at "explanation" of natural phenomena, and succeeds in
it .
The second quote : well, if Steiner said that, he said bullshit
...perhaps he was drunk the day he said that..who knows ?
The third quote : oh my God ! SHOKING ! he did not like french people
!! so he was a precursor of those contemporary americans (the former
maire of New York, Koch, for instance) who say that "French are stupid
bastards, antisemitic, arrogants, dirty, drunkards , for them Jerry
Lewis is a real comic, etc..etc.."..you must have hear of that ! I heard
of sites like "fuckfrance.com" and all that..but I did not read them :
my mom said me not to.. (hey : I don't laugh at Jerry Lewis films!!!)
More seriously : do you remember that France was a colonial country,
and that all this immigration of people from Africa and North Africa was
not for the good of those poor people, but for economic exploitation of
them by french enterprises ?
So : you don't like Steiner, you find his predictions disturbing. Ok. No
problem. This is our privilege of modern men and women to have plenty of
resources for our spiritual and cultural life...Thoreau for instance....
Jean-Pierre
) "Even the savage is affected by nature, but the laws of nature reveal
) themselves only to the thoughts fructified by intuition of the more
) highly
) developed man." (Steiner, 1922, T p. 31)
)
) Or...
)
) "You see, when we really study science and history, we must conclude
) that if
) people become increasingly strong, they will also become increasingly
) stupid. If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will
) become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intelligence
) that is independent of blondness. Blond hair actually bestows
) intelligence.
) ... It is indeed true that the more the fair individuals die out the
) more
) will the instinctive wisdom of humans vanish." (Steiner, 1922, HI-1, p.
) 86)
)
) Or...
)
) "No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the French
) language...It is also possible at the present time that the French will
) even
) ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept their language
) going
) as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to
) other
) people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black people
) to
) Europe. It affects France itself worst of all. This has an incredibly
) strong
) effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially add to French
) decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race." (Steiner,
) 1923,
) CT-3 pp. 87-88)
) Walden: How can I understand a subject when my questions go unanswered?
) I
) am not saying the Anthroposophic view of man is wrong - I do not know if
) Steiner was on to something - or not. My mind is open - as is my heart.
) Well - to be honest much of Steiner's writing does not appeal to me and
) I
) find his predictions and racial views quite disturbing. When I read
) Steiner
) I have questions that cannot possibly be answered or accepted *in my
) heart*
) by meditation alone. I look to those more learned than myself. My
) heart
) seems to be connected to my brain and my entire *I* thinks something is
) not
) quite right here - especially when this world view was part of my
) children's
) lives in a Waldorf school - without my consent. I look for
) understanding.
) I value dialogue and communication.
)
) ) I have no time enough today to expose what i understood of
) ) anthroposophy, and i don't even know if i can do it : I respect too much
) ) anthroposophy and also the members of this site to try it in five
) ) minutes..
) ) waiting for your commentaries..
) ) Jean-Pierre
)
) Walden: Since I have been on this list I have never seen an
) Anthroposophically inclined member take the time to explain things in
) words
) I can understand. Please feel free to take more than five minutes,
) Jean-Pierre. I look forward to your response.
)
) Merci.
)
) -Walden
)
)
)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 794
-- Topica Digest --
Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
By mysplum earthlink.net
Why is anthroposophy racist?
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: Why is anthroposophy racist?
By foncteur yahoo.fr
quotes and contexts
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: A Waldorf parent's comments and some quotes
By dan dandugan.com
Re: A Waldorf parent's comments and some quotes
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
Re: Why is anthroposophy racist?
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
Re: quotes and contexts
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By Tjgarr859 aol.com
Re: quotes and contexts
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: quotes and contexts
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: quotes and contexts
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: quotes and contexts
By foncteur yahoo.fr
definition of racism ?
By foncteur yahoo.fr
RE: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By foncteur yahoo.fr
RE: Is Anthroposophy racist ? my answer is "NO"
By foncteur yahoo.fr
RE: quotes and contexts
By foncteur yahoo.fr
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:10:39 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
on 8/21/02 4:19 PM, David at dlawrenz hinklelawfirm.com wrote:
When confronted by some outspoken
) parents who raised concerns about Steiner's racial views, most parents
) at this Waldorf school seemed to assume that that there could not really
) be any racist content in Steiner's philosophy because they could not see
) it racism played out in the day-to-day activities in the school.
Sharon: Yes, the curriculum appears at first to be so "multicultural"
(though lately I'm more for diversity. Multiculturalism is more about
separate groups). Most people in Waldorf are clueless which is probably not
a good thing. Children are initiated into Steiner's occultist selection of
Indian, Persian, Greco-Roman, Norse, Germanic mysteries. (His false and
pseudo-scientific idea of the spiritual evolution of the Aryan). People like
me, ignorant as I *was*, who have never entered the world of occultism
consciously before, at first blindly go along with the program because we
believe that our children are just hearing wonderful, multicultural stories
from around the world, after all, everyone is so kind, peaceful, and caring
as they "strive" for a better world. We don't understand that this is Aryan
mysticism, we don't get that it's Teutonic. Even though I grew up in
Apartheid South Africa, my knowledge of the Volkisch movement *was*
practically nil.
After a while, it starts to sink in that Ol' Michael is being "reverenced"
every year with great seriousness and children are walking the Advent spiral
annually.... and there is no space for other festivals. There is only one
aesthetic, one way of doing things. Only one kind of toy, one kind of
crayon, one kind of fabric, one kind of modeling clay, one kind of "verse",
one kind of puppet....etc.... It was made very clear to me that everything
had to be "Anthroposophic". Things didn't smell right, something was "off".
One keeps wondering "what the hell is Anthroposophy?" Then you leave the
school because you are sick of all the hidden, unspoken shit that you can
sense, and force yourself, as I did, to read Steiner, and your chin hits
your chest! At first you can't fathom what he is saying, but you force
yourself to read more and more, often with tears welling up because you
realize just how duped you were. Then you read other occultists work, you
enter Steiner's secret world, his secret societies and you start to make
heads and tails of things. Then you go through a horrible time of deep
despair as you try to figure out what is true or untrue, what is real or
unreal. You grapple with the metaphysical like never before. And you try to
climb out of the nightmare of a hole that you find yourself in. Then you get
mad that you were used and manipulated to prop up such nonsense. Then you
realize that so many good people are propping up such nonsense. You want the
schools to be forthright, you want the schools to distance themselves from
Steiner's doctrine. Then you realize that's an impossibility.
The more you learn, the better you feel. After familiarizing oneself with
Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, Aryan mysticism, secret societies, magic etc.
then looking at the Waldorf curriculum, and checking out kids lesson books
with an occult understanding, then bingo, it's all there, Steiner's
Anthroposophy in the lesson books as clear as day. It may be true that the
Holocaust has stigmatized Aryanism, Apartheid as well, but I just can't prop
that ideology up, I am compelled to make a stand against it. Perhaps it's
because I'm acutely aware of what it is to grow up in a racist, fascist
state with only one way of doing things, and one side of the story told?
Like the people blindly and happily going along with the program at Waldorf,
the esotericism in the guise of "idealistic philosophy", Apartheid too was
quite nice for some people!
I guess what it comes down to - I just feel that it's more important that
children are taught to try to discern historical fact, than to believe in
myths or Steiner's hagiology.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:49:04 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Why is anthroposophy racist?
Hello waldorf critics,
looks like I picked a good time to drop back into the discussion: right in
the middle of a debate on anthroposophy and racism. In a moment I'll post
some more concrete and specific responses to several of Jean-Pierre's recent
queries, but first I'd like to offer a more general reflection on why this
topic constantly recurs. Why are the racist components of anthroposophy so
central to Steiner's overall worldview, and why do latter-day
anthroposophists have such a difficult time coming to terms with them?
The answer to the first question lies, I think, in the peculiar nature of
Steiner's immediate sources. It is definitely not the case, as both
Jean-Pierre and Ellen Harold (whose interesting letter Dan forwarded to the
list) surmise, that all educated Europeans of Steiner's generation held
overtly racist views. Anyone acquainted with the work of the great
anthropologist Franz Boas (who was, by the way, trained in the German
tradition) knows that racist views were under sustained attack from many
quarters already at the turn of the 20th century. Or, since we're focusing
on French examples, consider the anti-racist scholarship of the Frenchman
Jean Finot from 1906, which systematically dismantled the myth of an "Aryan
race" that Steiner so vigorously promoted. (On this topic, I recommend the
fine book *Evangelist of Race* by Geoffrey Field.) Thus Steiner did not
simply absorb a set of unquestioned racist assumptions shared by his peers;
that would be to deny Steiner's own agency and intellectual self-direction.
Instead, we ought to take Steiner's ideological choices seriously, and trace
their pedigree. The three most important influences on Steiner's thinking in
this regard were German nationalism, classical Theosophy, and Haeckel's
social Darwinism (I'm happy to include Jean-Pierre's hero Stirner in this
list as well, though his influence on Steiner was of limited duration).
Given this cultural matrix, it is not at all surprising that Steiner's
mature worldview incorporated so many aggressively racist elements, since
his primary formative influences were deeply and explicitly committed to
racism. That is how come so much racist content got carried over into
anthroposophy, not just because 'everyone was doing it' at the time.
The answer to the second question has to do, I think, with the fact that
anthroposophy is a relatively young body of ideas, as well as with its
cherished self-understanding as an esoteric doctrine. If anthroposophy is
going to continue developing as a belief system, then its practitioners will
at some point inevitably engage in substantial re-interpretations of its
founding texts. Once this process gets underway (I don't see many signs of
it occuring any time soon, but it will have to happen eventually), it is
likely that anthroposophists will begin to more or less systematically
filter out and neutralize the racism in Steiner's works, in the same way
that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others have attempted to
re-interpret and defang the various genocidal narratives of divinely
sanctioned ethnocentric violence that mar so many sacred scriptures. But
anthroposophy hasn't gotten that far yet; it is still in the stage of simple
denial, of circling the wagons against external scrutiny, of
self-absorption. Perhaps this is inevitable for esoteric doctrines; maybe
the transition to a mature, responsible engagement with its own origins and
assumptions can only take place once the esoteric gives way to the exoteric.
In any case, anthroposophists who sincerely oppose racism would do well to
lift their heads out of the sand and start wrestling with the unpleasant
aspects of Steiner's writings.
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:46:00 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: clarification on Steiner racism & Intro
)David here: At the Waldorf school my child attended, the College of
)Teachers and the Board of Trustees actually did issue a statement that
)disavowed any statements by Steiner that may be construed as racist.
) I have the statement somewhere, and will post it later.
Please do, I'm interested. I've seen a couple of these and they are often
very carefully worded - and cleverly worded, if you know your Steiner. Which
99% of the parents don't, so they are impressed with statements about unity
and respecting the spiritual individuality of everyone regardless of race,
which are plentiful in Steiner's writing, and - none of which actually
repudiates the racist statements he made.
Or they will say, something like, they reject any racist connotations that
may be considered to be derived from Steiner's work, and then note for the
umpteenth time that Steiner made statements which are easily misconstrued
out of context and which may be considered offensive when considered
according to present-day sensibilities yada yada.
Insiders will understand that "present day sensibilities" are wrong - but
the parents won't get that.
You have to understand that it is not a few statements here and there - it's
not just about the significance of the color "peach blossom," for instance.
it is the cornerstone of his theory of the entire evolution of the cosmos
and human history. They have to be extremely careful repudiating any little
piece of it, or the entire structure is called into question. You'd wind up
with whole eras of history mixed up, Michael and Gabriel and the rest of the
archangels would be in a tailspin with their ranks and missions out of
order - We'd hardly know what planet we were heading for in our next stage
of evolution . . .
Moreover Steiner's "clairvoyance" is called into question if he was wrong
about even minor details. You make a big stink about colors having all these
"meanings," you can't just start switching them around, whoops did we say
peach blossom was the color of the spiritual - we meant, er, brown.
They are right to feel they are on a damn slippery slope if they start
repudiating things.
I hope you can find your school's statement!
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:19:10 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: RE: Why is anthroposophy racist?
Dear Peter,
I do not agree with you about Steiner's racism, I have not the time
today to answer
But do you really think that a majority of muslims or hindus have
attempted (and succeeded) to re-interpret their scriptures and their
genocidal narratives and incitation to violence and war? if you say yes,
I think that we don't live in the same world .
Jean-Pierre
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) it occuring any time soon, but it will have to happen eventually), it is
)
) likely that anthroposophists will begin to more or less systematically
) filter out and neutralize the racism in Steiner's works, in the same way
)
) that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others have attempted to
) re-interpret and defang the various genocidal narratives of divinely
) sanctioned ethnocentric violence that mar so many sacred scriptures. But
)
) anthroposophy hasn't gotten that far yet; it is still in the stage of
) simple
) denial, of circling the wagons against external scrutiny, of
) self-absorption. Perhaps this is inevitable for esoteric doctrines;
) maybe
) the transition to a mature, responsible engagement with its own origins
) and
) assumptions can only take place once the esoteric gives way to the
) exoteric.
) In any case, anthroposophists who sincerely oppose racism would do well
) to
) lift their heads out of the sand and start wrestling with the unpleasant
)
) aspects of Steiner's writings.
)
) Peter Staudenmaier
)
)
)
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
) http://www.hotmail.com
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:44:38 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: quotes and contexts
Hi Jean-Pierre,
I'm glad to see that you are, after all, willing to discuss particular
Steiner passages with us. I think that is the best way to figure out why
some people see racism as central to much of Steiner's thinking. Diana and
Sharon, among others, offered you several unambiguous quotes from Steiner's
published works. In reply, you said:
) As for the quote :
) It should be replaced in context...have you read all the book or just
)that quote on a "anti-anthroposophy" racist Internet site like this one
)?
and:
)For the first quote : did you read all this book (GA 349) ? or did you
)simply read that quote on an "anti-anthroposophy" racist site like this
)one ?
As it happens, both of those quotes are taken from Steiner texts that are
unavailable to English-speaking readers because they have never been
translated. Apparently the anthroposophists who make decisions about which
Steiner texts to translate and which to ignore didn't want these particular
pieces to garner publicity, a very interesting fact in its own right. But I
have read both books (GA 174b and GA 349) in the original, and I am deeply
familiar with the context within which they arose. Yes, "Steiner really said
that", as well as a whole lot more of equally noxious content. If you read
German, I can tell you exactly where to look for these passages and their
surrounding context. I think that if you read them in their entirety, you
will change your conclusions about these quotes:
) -first we must interpret the terms "demonic" and "retarded"...as you
)know, "demonic" comes from "daimon" , a word that appears in Plato (the
)"daimon " of Socrat) and which is not at all derogatory : a daimon is a
)spiritual entity , not at all a "devil" as it became in christian minds.
Steiner's mind in 1915 (when this lecture from GA 174b was given) was a
christian mind, and he clearly meant "demonic" in its pejorative sense. In
the quoted passage he contrasts the progressive evolution of "the spirit"
with the competing "atavistic powers" which impose a "demonic character", a
sort of spiritual malformation, by obstructing the proper course of
spiritual development. He ties these competing forces directly to skin
color; tha