return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Letters to the Editor of Salon
By john openwaldorf.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 00:02:32 +0000
From: John Holland (john openwaldorf.com)
Subject: Letters to the Editor of Salon
Letters to the Editor of Salon about the recent Waldorf story have been
posted here:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/letters/2004/06/01/waldorf/index.html
I'm relieved and surprised no one jumped all over my historical mistake
in the article... I was convinced it was a fatal error!
--
John Holland, john openwaldorf.com
OpenWaldorf.com, the Waldorf Education Super Site
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1363
-- Topica Digest --
RE: sorting through historical details
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: sorting through historical details
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By john openwaldorf.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By john openwaldorf.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: sorting through historical details
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: sorting through historical details
By john openwaldorf.com
Re: sorting through historical details
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
hagiography
By dan dandugan.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By dan dandugan.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By dan dandugan.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By john openwaldorf.com
Re: sorting through historical details
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By john openwaldorf.com
Re: sorting through historical details
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By john openwaldorf.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By john openwaldorf.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 08:15:26 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
I wrote:
)We are all "stepping up to the plate" in many ways, John, and most with
)good deal on those plates. PLANS has an agenda, yours is slightly
)different, and other groups are working on other projects. I think it's up
)to you to correct factual errors on your site, or draft statements
)explaining your views for your site.
John replied:
)That's funny, a lot of this stuff has been up on my site for over two
)years.
I don't know how this reply relates, since the factual error in question was
from last week - in the Salon article, and in a post you wrote on May 24,
2004. And I still think it's your responsibility, not anyone here's. Nor has
your site been up for 2 years, but whatever. I'm not aware of other factual
errors on your site.
I agree with all who have written that your site has many nice features
(especially the many links straight to Steiner; a great innovation) and no
doubt has been very helpful to some people researching Waldorf.
I think you've tried to create an image for yourself as reasonable and
middle-of-the-road, unlike either the fanatical critics or the wild-eyed
Steiner zealots. There's a difference between *really* being middle of the
road and objective on something, and cynically staking out a territory so as
to most effectively sell your message, and then making your points via
insinuation and implication. The latter reminds me of Waldorf's approach.
There is a lack of full disclosure of your agenda in my opinion. The
"Waldorf parent" discussion was too silly; you know very well most people
will assume a "Waldorf parent" has a child in a Waldorf school. This is not
a "factual error," but a question of your strategy. If people think the site
was set up by a current Waldorf parent, they approach with an entirely
different set of expectations than they would have approaching Waldorf
critics. You're taking advantage of Waldorf parents, who don't deserve to be
manipulated by either side. You've corrected this "error" now, but only
under public pressure, and calling yourself a "dumb schmuck" -- I don't
think so.
It feels no different to me than wrangling over the meaning of
"nonsectarian," or whether anthroposophy is a religion, which always gets
people posting dictionary or encyclopedia definitions or writing little
essays designed to show that if you stand on your head and squint sideways
for half an hour on Tuesdays, you'll see anthroposophy isn't a religion
after all, it's just so subtle. Conversations with you feel that way, John.
I understand why you want to disassociate yourself from critics. There are,
indeed, extreme statements posted here at times, and extreme anger, and it
turns people off. (Sounds like Waldorf teachers: Well, some of Steiner's
views are a little extreme, it turns people off. So we just don't mention
the connection . . .) You don't seem aware of the irony of this, John. I
just discovered there's another meaty thread on Waldorf over on the
Mothering.com forums (happens at least a couple of times a year). Lots of
good information, some wildly incorrect information, usual faint efforts by
Waldorf supporters to suggest things like "Research supports Waldorf,"
which, when questioned, the research isn't too relevant. (Stuff like,
experts agree, too much TV is bad.) Late in the thread, someone posts a link
to Sune Nordwall's site, where Peter Staudenmaier is portrayed as the
anti-Christ, and a poster exclaims, Oh my, I had no idea how evil PLANS
really is! Wow. Others repeat (incorrectly) that PLANS was founded by
Christians who didn't like the pagan elements in Waldorf. Obviously, critics
have a spotty reputation, some deserved for erratic behavior and some the
result of strenuous organized efforts such as Sune Nordwall's.
So I can understand why you'd prefer to strike out on your own. Buncha nuts
on both sides of the issue. Tiny little problem: ethics. It's *not right* to
pretend your own views are other than what they are, or to play coy when
asked, just to increase traffic at the site. No matter how objective you
believe your own "take" is, it's really only fair to your customers to
*explain yourself*. Everybody, all along the spectrum, thinks they're being
fair and reasonable on these issues, John. The only way to play fair is to
put your cards on the table. That's the bottom line for me. I can't ask
Waldorf to spill everything if I'm not willing to play by the same rules.
Finally: You're now misquoting me over on OW, I did not call any mistake of
yours "unforgiveable," about Steiner living in Nazi Germany or anything
else. It was NOT in reference to your mistake and the word was "inexcusable"
(you brought in the word "unforgiveable" yourself, sarcastically, and have
now convinced yourself that I said it). We were discussing the apparent
absence of fact checking (or even editing) at Salon. Considering we've
already discussed this once, and in response to my clarification you said,
"Thanks," let's hope it's super-duper double-triple clear now.
Are you going to go "edit" that post now? I wish you wouldn't bother, 'cus
when you do, you'll just add other insinuations.
(Maybe it's me, but I find that little "edit" function in the forums
unhelpful. It doesn't encourage dialogue, it allows people to pretend they
didn't say what they said. Reminds me of the anthroposophic presses running
off new editions of Steiner all the time leaving out the passages that cause
controversy.)
okay, as for the mistake itself, is it unforgiveable or inexcusable? I
couldn't say, since it is so difficult to have a clear conversation with
you, I can't get an idea how it actually happened. If you really thought
Steiner lived and worked in Nazi Germany, then your understanding of what
Waldorf is and where it came from is so far off the mark it would be hard to
take you seriously as a purveyor of objective information about Waldorf
education. The owner of the Waldorf Education Super Site shouldn't be
confused about when and where the founder lived, the historical origins of
the movement. It wasn't in Nazi Germany. If you think Steiner's racism is
"no big deal," sort of garden variety and harmless, it doesn't seem likely
you could just by mistake casually mention that he was actually living in
Nazi Germany when he wrote this stuff (trains rolling past his window to
Auschwitz, I suppose).
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:29:17 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
At 08:15 AM 6/2/2004, Diana Winters wrote:
)(Maybe it's me, but I find that little "edit" function in the forums
)unhelpful. It doesn't encourage dialogue, it allows people to pretend they
)didn't say what they said. Reminds me of the anthroposophic presses running
)off new editions of Steiner all the time leaving out the passages that cause
)controversy.)
Editing the history of a dialog is dishonest unless there is a note added
reporting the edit. Better, if there is an error or something said which is
no longer supportable, is simply a note to that effect. "I goofed, this was
incorrect, or could easily be misunderstood, or ...."
I'm reminded of my unceremonious banning from anthroposophy_tomorrow,
acknowledged in a brief message in which I was quoted -- out-of-context, by
the way -- but with no actual explanation of how this violated list rules
(which it did not, unless List Rules means whatever the list owner,
anonymous in the case of anthroposophy_tomorrow, decides at the time). Then
every post of mine to the list, plus every response quoting me (three times
as many posts altogether as what I had written, it was well over twenty
posts), were *immediately* and without comment deleted from the record.
Someone does not like history hanging around. (The list rules do mention
that the list record might be cleaned up, but routine practice is that
plenty of redundant fluff is kept.)
The Dutch anthroposophical society commission investigating allegations of
racism in Steiner's work, it should be noted, did find racism evident in a
series of quotations (while also finding plenty of evidence that racism was
*not* an overriding characteristic of Steiner's work taken as a whole). It
did not recommend censorship of the work, but rather the adding of notes.
Which would be intellectual honesty.
I find plenty of error in Steiner's work, though not as much as those who
qualify fully as Waldorf Critics. I'm better considered a student who finds
criticism essential in deep study. I've elsewhere written about the need to
suspend criticism, but not forever! Just for long enough to give a fair
opportunity for an author to present arguments and observations and for
them to be received sufficiently for understanding, which can become
difficult if one is tearing apart every statement based on perceived error.
Where Steiner presents observations, I assume they are true unless and
until evidence appears to the contrary. This, by the way, is a principle of
common law. *However*, this courtesy does not extend so readily to
conclusions and analysis, and Steiner often presents his conclusions
instead of presenting direct testimony.
He will tell us the history of the planet, for example, without telling us
how he knows it. That is *all* conclusion and analysis, absent testimony
about the specific epistemology of it.
I recently found one place in which Steiner errs in his report of fact, the
truth of which would have been known to him. It was in a talk he gave to a
group of teachers in England, where he reported arguments allegedly
presented by Albert Einstein regarding the theory of relativity, and the
arguments presented were not ones which would have been presented by
Einstein, but rather had been distorted. There is enough detail to be sure
that the error is not entirely one of transcription.
It should not ordinarily be necessary to establish that someone speaking
off-the-cuff to a small group of people, as in this case, might err.
Certainly I do. (Though this error cuts a little deeper than a simple
mis-statement, it shows that Steiner did not understand the slowing of time
as velocities approach the speed of light, something predicted by Einstein
but not experimentally verified, I think, until after Steiner's time -- if
I have the history right. On the other hand, Steiner's remarks are in
pursuit of a general principle which is arguably pedagogically correct,
which was, after all, the purpose of the talks.) But some Steiner followers
will assert that his writings are perfect, free of error. How widespread
this Steiner-worship is I don't know, I just know that it exists. However,
these idolators are on the wrong side of history, mainstream anthroposophy
seems quite willing to acknowledge that Steiner made mistakes (though not
necessarily in the heat of attack from critics, where the all-too-human
response is to circle the wagons and defend each and every point).
)The owner of the Waldorf Education Super Site shouldn't be
)confused about when and where the founder lived, the historical origins of
)the movement. It wasn't in Nazi Germany.
Just to be clear, "Nazi Germany" properly -- and popularly -- refers to the
time when the Nazi party was in power. It would not include the time of
Steiner's life. Mr. Holland has attempted to cover his error by, for
example, showing overlap between the lifetimes of Steiner and Hitler, or
other early history of the Nazi party. By doing so, he plays into the hand
of those who would dismiss his work with OpenWaldorf. I'm making no demands
whatever of Mr. Holland, it is completely up to him how he responds to
criticism. (Mr. Holland has suggested that there is some burden on his
critics to help him fix his mistakes. It is a courtesy if his critics do
so, it is not an obligation, unless the criticism is so vague that a
sincere effort to understand it is not going to succeed, and that does not
apply in this case.)
Further, as anyone who has taken the allegations of racism seriously should
know, Steiner revised some of his views as, for example, antisemitism grew
in strength. His early position was that antisemitism was not a serious
problem, it was being rejected by society. (Steiner was an advocate of
cultural assimilation and an opponent of any kind of nationalism rooted in
racial identity, which would have specifically made him an opponent of the
Nazi platform.) He later became active in various ways in fighting
antisemitism as he saw it rising in strength.
I do not wish nor intend to excuse or exonerate Steiner of charges of
racism. There are enough remarks that betray a certain racism in some of
his thought. But, as the Dutch commission noted, there are also plenty of
quotations that can be found that show that he cannot be pigeonholed as a
racist. For example, he saw a future society in which racial distinctions
would become irrelevant.
There are elements in the Waldorf movement which have uncritically accepted
comments from Steiner that convey a certain racism, and, applying these
comments without deeper understanding, especially if the individual
involved in interpreting Steiner is himself or herself racist in some way,
there thus comes to be a racist element in Waldorf education. But that
element is certainly not dominant. It remains a serious issue, and the
Dutch commission rightfully suggested that such racist elements should be
uncovered and eliminated from the Waldorf program.
Thus anyone concerned with Waldorf education, and wishing to support it,
should be sensitive to allegations of racism, and should not dismiss them
out-of-hand, as it could be tempting to do. Racism is a poison, and I think
Steiner would fully agree, his own occasionally racist comments
notwithstanding.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:42:12 +0000
From: John Holland (john openwaldorf.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
Diana Winters wrote:
) The
) "Waldorf parent" discussion was too silly;
On the one hand I agree. Of course I'm a Waldorf parent! On the other
hand, I disagree. What is a "Waldorf parent?" Serious question.
) you know very well most people
) will assume a "Waldorf parent" has a child in a Waldorf school.
Hopefully, now, with my clarification, they will understand how limiting
and exclusive that definition is, as well as what I mean when I say I'm
a Waldorf parent. Is Nancy Parsons not a Waldorf parent? Bob Schultz's
youngest child just graduated from Waldorf. Is he no longer a Waldorf
parent? Is Deby not a Waldorf parent? She poured her life into Waldorf!
I refuse to strip that experience away from anyone.
) This is not
) a "factual error," but a question of your strategy. If people think the
) site
) was set up by a current Waldorf parent,
But, I am currently a Waldorf parent.
) they approach with an entirely
) different set of expectations than they would have approaching Waldorf
) critics.
In my opinion, that's their problem. They should approach us all with
active, critical minds.
) You're taking advantage of Waldorf parents, who don't deserve to be
) manipulated by either side.
No I'm not. I warn parents against being manipulated by me. I
practically beg them not to trust me.
) You've corrected this "error" now, but only
) under public pressure,
First, it wasn't an error. It was a factual statement requiring
clarification. Is the clarification satisfactory? Will it work for
future visitors to OpenWaldorf? I can't change the past, I can only
improve things for the future.
) It feels no different to me than wrangling over the meaning of
) "nonsectarian," or whether anthroposophy is a religion, which always
) gets
) people posting dictionary or encyclopedia definitions or writing little
) essays designed to show that if you stand on your head and squint
) sideways
) for half an hour on Tuesdays, you'll see anthroposophy isn't a religion
) after all, it's just so subtle. Conversations with you feel that way,
) John.
)
) I understand why you want to disassociate yourself from critics.
[snip]
) So I can understand why you'd prefer to strike out on your own. Buncha
) nuts
) on both sides of the issue.
I don't want to disassociate with critics. I want to associate with
everyone as a free individual within the Waldorf community, which in my
mind includes critics and supporters alike. I am not a critic. I am not
a supporter. My name is John Holland, and I am a Waldorf parent with my
own opinion and bias about Waldorf.
) Tiny little problem: ethics. It's *not right* to
) pretend your own views are other than what they are, or to play coy when
) asked, just to increase traffic at the site. No matter how objective you
) believe your own "take" is, it's really only fair to your customers to
) *explain yourself*.
I think there's another way: tell folks not to trust anyone. Assume I'm
a "dumb schmuck." Assume critics are "extreme" and "angry" as you
suggest. Assume supporters are deceitful. Research carefully, and decide
for yourself. A link to elib.com ends up at the same place, whether it's
linked by a supporter, a critic, or a culture jammer.
) Everybody, all along the spectrum, thinks they're being
) fair and reasonable on these issues, John.
Not me. I'm not fair and reasonable. I think I have a bias. I think you
have a bias. I think Dan has a bias. I think Nancy has a bias. I think
Sune has a bias. That's why I instruct people NOT to listen to what ~I~
say at OpenWaldorf, but to read the primary sources and think for
themselves. That's why I try to mitigate my own bias by providing as
much information as I can about Waldorf, whether it's pro or con.
) The only way to play fair is to
) put your cards on the table. That's the bottom line for me. I can't ask
) Waldorf to spill everything if I'm not willing to play by the same
) rules.
)
) Finally: You're now misquoting me over on OW
[snip]
) I did not call any mistake of
) yours "unforgiveable," about Steiner living in Nazi Germany or anything
) else.
I didn't attribute that quote to you, Diana. That statement was made to
me in a private email, of which I received several that were much
harsher than those on the critics list. What made you think I was
referring to you?
) It was NOT in reference to your mistake and the word was "inexcusable"
) (you brought in the word "unforgiveable" yourself, sarcastically, and
) have
) now convinced yourself that I said it).
When did I say ~you~ said it? Why did you self-identify with that
statement?
I agree that what you said was "inexcusable," which Roget says is
synonymous with "unforgiveable":
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=inexcusable
But I'm sure you meant something entirely different.
) Are you going to go "edit" that post now?
Nope.
) I wish you wouldn't bother, 'cus
) when you do, you'll just add other insinuations.
I'm trying to figure out if that's a character attack or not!
) (Maybe it's me, but I find that little "edit" function in the forums
) unhelpful. It doesn't encourage dialogue, it allows people to pretend
) they
) didn't say what they said.
Would you like me to disable the feature?
) okay, as for the mistake itself, is it unforgiveable or inexcusable? I
) couldn't say,
Of course you could. It's inexcuseable! Someone said that already!
) since it is so difficult to have a clear conversation with
) you, I can't get an idea how it actually happened. If you really thought
) Steiner lived and worked in Nazi Germany,
Oh, I really believed that there were Nazi influences when Steiner was
alive. I didn't think he was living during the Holocaust. That's why I
posted my clarification (rather than simply editing the post.)
) then your understanding of what
) Waldorf is and where it came from is so far off the mark it would be
) hard to
) take you seriously as a purveyor of objective information about Waldorf
) education.
I don't know how often I have to say this, but the last thing I want is
for folks to take ~me~ seriously! Me? Objective? That's a laugh! I want
them to read the primary sources, and take ~those~ seriously.
BTW, a lot of people ~do~ take me seriously, critics and supporters
alike. I get email all the time from both sides thanking me for the most
comprehensive site about Waldorf on the Internet.
If there's a better site for researching Waldorf online, please let me
know. I'd like to link to it!
) The owner of the Waldorf Education Super Site shouldn't be
) confused about when and where the founder lived, the historical origins
) of
) the movement.
The owners of Google don't know when Steiner lived, but I use it to
research Waldorf all the time.
) It wasn't in Nazi Germany. If you think Steiner's racism is
) "no big deal," sort of garden variety and harmless,
I only think it's a big deal if it's not acknowledged and rejected by
Waldorf. If it's embraced, sure, it's a big deal. The Waldorf community
could innoculate itself from this fact quite easily if it wanted to if
it repudiated his racist statements and started actively promoting and
celebrating equality and diversity. That's what I'm trying to say when I
say "it's no big deal." It doesn't have to be a big deal for Waldorf if
they don't want it to be. But I agree with you that the way their
handling it now, it's still a big deal.
) it doesn't seem likely
) you could just by mistake casually mention that he was actually living
) in
) Nazi Germany when he wrote this stuff (trains rolling past his window to
) Auschwitz, I suppose).
I always thought Auschwitz existed for less than half of the duration of
the Nazi government. I wasn't aware that Auschwitz was established in
1933 when the Nazis took power! I thought it was established in 1940. I
never realized that "Nazi Germany" and "the Holocaust" were synonymous.
I didn't realize that Auschwitz was a permanent fixture of Nazi Germany.
I always thought the Final Solution was something that began in Nazi
Germany years after Hitler rose to power. As far as my limited knowledge
goes, "Nazi Germany" wasn't all "trains rolling to Auschwitz." Maybe
Peter has some historical knowledge to help us out here.
--
John Holland, john openwaldorf.com
OpenWaldorf.com, the Waldorf Education Super Site
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:08:11 +0000
From: John Holland (john openwaldorf.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
) Mr. Holland has attempted to cover his error
"Cover?!" No. I made a ~correction~ at OpenWaldorf here:
http://p087.ezboard.com/fopenwaldorffrm13.showMessage?topicID=16.topic
As far as I can tell, it's a fairly explicit correction, isn't it?
) II'm making no demands
) whatever of Mr. Holland, it is completely up to him how he responds to
) criticism.
Typically, by doing my best to correct it.
) (Mr. Holland has suggested that there is some burden on his
) critics to help him fix his mistakes. It is a courtesy if his critics do
)
) so, it is not an obligation, unless the criticism is so vague that a
) sincere effort to understand it is not going to succeed, and that does
) not
) apply in this case.)
It should only be a burden to the degree that the mistake bothers you. I
have a problem believing that people are genuinely concerned about
something if they don't try to fix it.
I find it ironic that critics complain that Waldorf is not open to
evolving how they communicate about Waldorf, but when I invite dialog
about how I communicate about Waldorf, they seem disinterested or even
offended.
--
John Holland, john openwaldorf.com
OpenWaldorf.com, the Waldorf Education Super Site
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:57:11 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
John expounds on the complicated question (?) of who is a "Waldorf parent":
"Hopefully, now, with my clarification, they will understand how limiting
and exclusive that definition is, as well as what I mean when I say I'm
a Waldorf parent. Is Nancy Parsons not a Waldorf parent? Bob Schultz's
youngest child just graduated from Waldorf. Is he no longer a Waldorf
parent? Is Deby not a Waldorf parent? She poured her life into Waldorf!
I refuse to strip that experience away from anyone."
I don't agree it's a "serious question," it seems to have been manufactured
in response to suddenly having to explain why, if your child isn't in the
school any longer, you are calling yourself a "Waldorf parent." Your motives
are evidently quite a bit different from Nancy Parson's et al. The question
is transparency of motive. Yours were shielded rather than revealed by
calling yourself a Waldorf parent. Nancy Parson's motives are transparent.
This concern about "stripping people's experiences" seems a bit hard to
swallow. I don't call myself a Waldorf parent and don't feel this as some
kind of loss.
I wrote:
"they approach with an entirely different set of expectations than they
would have approaching Waldorf critics."
"In my opinion, that's their problem. They should approach us all with
active, critical minds."
John, there's no point to this. You are disingenuous. If you really believed
everyone could and should approach with an active, critical mind, there
would be *less* of the maneuvering and redefining terms and hiding and
playing peek-a-boo and jumping out with little surprises, the way I see what
goes on at your site.
This is game playing. Waldorf could also claim everyone should approach with
an active, critical mind. That's not an excuse for deliberately making it
tougher for them to do so. It shouldn't be about code breaking and puzzle
solving and guess-the-moderator's-angle.
"I warn parents against being manipulated by me. I practically beg them not
to trust me."
Why would you feel the need to do that? I never beg anyone to trust me or
not to trust me. I say what I have to say. "Begging people not to trust me"
*is* manipulative. If you really believe they can figure it out for
themselves, there is no reason for any of this game playing.
I admire Dan Dugan's approach. You never hear Dan begging people not to
trust him.
"I think there's another way: tell folks not to trust anyone. Assume I'm
a "dumb schmuck."
Except you're not. That's a persona you've adopted. So they can't trust you
when you say not to trust them. Whew.
"Assume critics are 'extreme' and 'angry' as you suggest. Assume supporters
are deceitful. Research carefully, and decide for yourself. A link to
elib.com ends up at the same place, whether it's linked by a supporter, a
critic, or a culture jammer."
True. Fair enough.
"I did not call any mistake of yours "unforgiveable," about Steiner living
in Nazi Germany or anything else."
"I didn't attribute that quote to you, Diana. That statement was made to
me in a private email, of which I received several that were much
harsher than those on the critics list. What made you think I was
referring to you?"
Still disingenuous. I thought so because we went back and forth several
times on the same question here. I said "Inexcusable" in reference to Salon,
and you replied sarcastically, "Oh, unforgiveable." Maybe even then you were
talking to someone else, I don't know.
And if Roget's says they're synonymous, I kinda disagree, I think
"unforgiveable" ups the ante a bit :)
"I wish you wouldn't bother, 'cus when you do, you'll just add other
insinuations."
"I'm trying to figure out if that's a character attack or not!"
Actually, it is a comment on the little notes and disclaimers you sometimes
add to your posts in the forums at OW. Things like "Not all Waldorf
supporters behave this way," when someone has written something rude. These
strike me as designed to convey exactly the opposite message. Perhaps you
don't intend it that way, but I'm sure they have that effect. The reader
thinks, "Well, geez, I hope not. But what if they do? Oh gosh, maybe they
really do . . . ." In fact, they don't, but most people would not think so
anyway. *Of course* most Waldorf supporters are nice and polite and ordinary
individuals. Who would think otherwise until it was suggested to them?
That is what I mean about game playing.
"Of course you could. It's inexcuseable! Someone said that already!"
Ah, third time now, "inexcusable" was me, and it referred to lack of fact
checking at Salon. If you look back at the thread, you'll see I was
*agreeing* with you. You complained about Salon. I agreed their lack of
oversight was inexcusable. I was friggin' helping you off the hook when I
wrote that. No good deed goes unpunished.
About racism:
"I only think it's a big deal if it's not acknowledged and rejected by
Waldorf. If it's embraced, sure, it's a big deal. The Waldorf community
could innoculate itself from this fact quite easily if it wanted to if
it repudiated his racist statements and started actively promoting and
celebrating equality and diversity. That's what I'm trying to say when I
say "it's no big deal." It doesn't have to be a big deal for Waldorf if
they don't want it to be. But I agree with you that the way their
handling it now, it's still a big deal."
I do take your points on this, to some extent. I think it is still a "big
deal" and will always be a big deal. I'm not entirely comfortable with
efforts to sort of show them an easy way to get past the whole thing. But
more to the point, when you insist it's "no big deal," I can never figure
out if 1) that's what you think, in which case I'm appalled or 2) it is just
rhetoric, by which you hope to evoke "But of course it's a big deal!" from
your audience.
At any rate, there are no "easy ways" to get past the racism issue. I see
*hard* ways to get past it, but it would be worthwhile. I wouldn't really
like to see them "inoculate" themselves against the criticism, I would like
to see them actually *understand* the criticism and perhaps proceed along
lines Abdul has suggested. Put somewhat trivially, a seer can have a bad
day. Some of Steiner's racial theories missed the mark. This *is* how a
religion or a movement matures - by rejecting the idea that the founder was
infallible and that what he said is good for all time. It wouldn't be easy,
because clearly there are plenty of anthroposophists who think Steiner's
racial theories are totally on the mark (read anthroposophy_tomorrow;
according to Tarjei Straume, if you call Steiner's writings racist, you're
accusing God himself of being a racist). There will be long-term turmoil if
the serious "defenders of the faith" ever have to face serious challenges
from *within* anthroposophy on these matters. There might be schisms. But it
can happen, sometimes it starts with outside criticism.
I actually think there are plenty of people thinking along these lines in
Waldorf and anthroposophy, actually, uninterested in Steiner as a guru and
genuinely interested only in certain educational practices that seem to
resonate with a lot of people today. These people have no problem saying,
"Ignore Steiner on racial stuff, that was crazy." Of course there's an
intense reaction against this, but that's to be expected. It will evolve
eventually.
"I always thought Auschwitz existed for less than half of the duration of
the Nazi government. I wasn't aware that Auschwitz was established in
1933 when the Nazis took power! I thought it was established in 1940. I
never realized that "Nazi Germany" and "the Holocaust" were synonymous.
I didn't realize that Auschwitz was a permanent fixture of Nazi Germany.
I always thought the Final Solution was something that began in Nazi
Germany years after Hitler rose to power. As far as my limited knowledge
goes, "Nazi Germany" wasn't all 'trains rolling to Auschwitz.' Maybe
Peter has some historical knowledge to help us out here."
Fine by me. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to establish in the
above paragraph anyway. I do think when you evoke "Nazi Germany," Auschwitz,
Dachau, "This way to the gas, ladies and gentlemen," are pretty much the
first thing people think of. This is why I continue to find it unconvincing
that when you said Steiner's work came out of Nazi Germany, you were
attempting to suggest that his racism was "no big deal."
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:00:17 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: sorting through historical details
Diana wrote:
"I actually think there are plenty of people thinking along these lines in
Waldorf and anthroposophy, actually, uninterested in Steiner as a guru and
genuinely interested only in certain educational practices that seem to
resonate with a lot of people today. These people have no problem saying,
"Ignore Steiner on racial stuff, that was crazy." Of course there's an
intense reaction against this, but that's to be expected. It will evolve
eventually."
I suspect the majority of parents *wish* their questions and suggestions
were not as threats by the Anthro/Steiner followers in Waldorf schools.
Try suggesting, for example, "we forget Michaelmas this year and celebrate
Mardi Gras or other non-white/European festivals." Or suggest revamping the
curriculum to reflect the multi-cultural reality of North America today. I
have heard of the occasional split from mainstream Waldorf rigidity but the
"movement" itself would need to have a long look in the Anthro mirror for
any major changes and that might involve... movement.
Besides, Steiner gave no such indications.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 20:18:35 +0000
From: John Holland (john openwaldorf.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
Diana Winters wrote:
) it seems to have been manufactured
) in response to suddenly having to explain why, if your child isn't in
) the
) school any longer, you are calling yourself a "Waldorf parent." Your
) motives
) are evidently quite a bit different from Nancy Parson's et al. The
) question
) is transparency of motive.
Sorry it seems that way, but I've always considered myself a Waldorf
parent, so I didn't give it any thought. Why should I have to explain
myself? Just recently, someone posted to the SJU list that if a parent
discovers things about Waldorf and becomes uncomfortable they should
just "go away." I think that sucks. Why should you cease to become a
Waldorf parent just because you have questions about it? Or even if you
find yourself at odss with Waldorf? Ask Deby if she's a Waldorf parent.
I'll bet she says yes, and I'd support that. I would love to see the
list of things that define a Waldorf parent. My opinion is that if you
are a parent who's family has been impacted by Waldorf, you're a Waldorf
parent, and I'm not budging on that.
Also, I'd like to point out that when I launched OpenWaldorf, I was a
Waldorf parent who also had a child enrolled in Waldorf. Did the
hyperlinks stop working when my daughter left Waldorf? Last time I
checked, they're all working just the same.
) John, there's no point to this.
I agree. What does this have to do with a link to black crayons or a
Steiner quote on "the wooly hair of the negro." OpenWaldorf could be
built by Bart Simpson trying to invoke Ahriman. The point is the
content, not the motivation.
) This is game playing. Waldorf could also claim everyone should approach
) with
) an active, critical mind. That's not an excuse for deliberately making
) it
) tougher for them to do so.
Actually, I make it easier for parents to approach Waldorf with a
critical mind. I know I beat this fact to death, but no other site on
the web links to Waldorf teacher training texts. So obivous, yet so
universally ignored. No other site helps parents google Waldorf topics.
No other Waldorf site lays out Steiner's child development theory like
OpenWaldorf. No other Waldorf site tracks Waldorf news, or describes
eurythmy gestures. I could go on and on.
Guess what my most popular pages are at OpenWaldorf? In order they are:
1. Eurythmy (#1 can you believe it? # 1 google search, too)
2. Art
3. Anthroposophy
4. Academics
5. News
6. Steiner
Parents are hungry for information, and they're finding it at
OpenWaldorf. Also, I have tons of repeat traffic and unusually long user
sessions. If the site makes it so tough for parents, why do they keep
coming back?
Also, I should point out that I've been instrumental in two articles big
articles on Waldorf, one in the Houston Press, and more recently the
Salon article. I'm having an impact. It may be three steps forward and
two steps back, but I'm not letting those two steps back discourage me.
) It shouldn't be about code breaking and puzzle
) solving and guess-the-moderator's-angle.
No, it should be about content. That's why I tell people to ignore my
possible motives and read the primary content.
) "I warn parents against being manipulated by me. I practically beg them
) not
) to trust me."
)
) Why would you feel the need to do that? I never beg anyone to trust me
) or
) not to trust me.
Because I'm not an expert on Waldorf. I get things wrong. (Remember when
I said Steiner lived in Nazi Germany?!) I have my biases. Even if I was
perfect, who am I to make decisions for someone else? I can talk about
crayons and clairvoyance and Nazi Germany all I want. It doesn't make it
true.
But when a primary source talks about these things, then a parent has
some real data.
I'm aware that I'm a Waldorf newbie. But when I started learning about
Waldorf, there was no site out there that gathered all this information
in one place. Am I supposed to wait until I'm perfect before I start
contributing to the Waldorf community? I knew that there could be a
better web site out there for helping parents research Waldorf, and I
believe I've built it.
Once again, I challenge: show me a better web site for researching
Waldorf. I want to link to it! (I've noticed no one's offered one up
yet.)
) "Begging people not to trust me"
) *is* manipulative.
Really? I think it's honest. Do ~you~ believe I'm a trustworthy source
for information on Waldorf? Of course not!
) I admire Dan Dugan's approach. You never hear Dan begging people not to
) trust him.
And yet, Waldorf supporters say, "Don't trust Dan Dugan." My point is
that the argumentum ad hominem won't hunt at OpenWaldorf. If a Waldorf
teacher tells a parent: "Don't trust that John Holland. He's
disgruntled. He doesn't even know history. Salon inexcusablely printed
an error quoting him as saying Steiner gassed Jews," I say, "fine,
listen to you teacher, don't trust ~me~, follow these links, read
primary sources, and decide for yourself." It's sort of like the gay
community reclaiming the word "queer." I'm not going to get a label like
"schmuck" or "historical ignoramous" or "disingenuous poser" get between
parents and links to real information about Waldorf. That's what the
disclaimers are about.
) At any rate, there are no "easy ways" to get past the racism issue.
I think it's easy and hard. It's sort of like "head straight up that
steep hill." Waldorf might sweat a lot, but the path isn't too hard to
find.
) Of course there's an
) intense reaction against this, but that's to be expected. It will evolve
) eventually.
I sure hope so.
) I do think when you evoke "Nazi Germany," Auschwitz,
) Dachau, "This way to the gas, ladies and gentlemen," are pretty much the
) first thing people think of.
That's ~their~ historical ignorance, not mine. That stuff truly
happened, and it was horrible, but the period of Nazi Germany before the
Holocaust was longer than the Holocaust itself.
) This is why I continue to find it unconvincing
) that when you said Steiner's work came out of Nazi Germany, you were
) attempting to suggest that his racism was "no big deal."
It's not a big deal if you confess and change your ways. Now, confessing
and changing their ways might be a big deal for Waldorf, and that's
where the problem lies. The fact that Steiner was racist is no big deal.
That's surmountable. The fact that Waldorf won't deal with it is a big
deal.
--
John Holland, john openwaldorf.com
OpenWaldorf.com, the Waldorf Education Super Site
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 15:58:14 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: sorting through historical details
John Holland wrote:
)I would love to see the list of things that define a Waldorf parent."
You seem to have coined the term - use your own list.
)My opinion is that if you are a parent who's family has been impacted by
Waldorf, you're a Waldorf
)parent, and I'm not budging on that.
Many people refer to themselves as "Waldorf Survivors." If you need
labels - use that one for me, please.
) OpenWaldorf could be built by Bart Simpson trying to invoke Ahriman. The
point is the content, not the motivation.
Now, there's the *impulse* behind this little chat. But you don't seem to
get it. Just another marketing gig, maybe? Best of intentions but why not
share them? I'll bet you're the guy who came up with Coke's campaign years
ago... "It's the Real Thing!"
) I know I beat this fact to death, but no other site on
)the web links to Waldorf teacher training texts. So obivous, yet so
)universally ignored. No other site helps parents google Waldorf topics.
)No other Waldorf site lays out Steiner's child development theory like
)OpenWaldorf. No other Waldorf site tracks Waldorf news, or describes
)eurythmy gestures. I could go on and on.
And your site is excellent in that respect, John. Seriously. If, however,
you were able to understand the importance of the link
between motivation and content and transparency, I'd throw some roses your
way. This is what many of us are asking of Waldorf.
When *you* take to your forums you seem to have a hard time not being Bart
Simpson (your example). Without wishing to spark a whole new philosophical
thread on *what is real,* I submit that Bart Simpson was created in
someone's imagination. What does Bart think about Waldorf? It depends on
the whim of some goofy (and talented!) writers. Quite frankly, I don't
care. How does John Holland, creator of the Waldorf Education Surpersite
really feel about Waldorf education? Read the site - peruse the forums and
it's hard to know. Which way is the wind blowing today? Promote the site
and don't get real. What is reality...? Marketing....
)No, it should be about content. That's why I tell people to ignore my
possible motives and read the primary content.
There is plenty of "content" at your site - I have seen no statements to the
contrary. Care to elaborate on those "possible motives?"
This is what public discourse is about. We share our
feelings/thoughts/suggestions - sometimes based on experience and "content."
)And yet, Waldorf supporters say, "Don't trust Dan Dugan."
I have not heard this sentiment. Everyone can trust Dan to be very critical
Waldorf education. He helped build waldorfcritics.org and is famous for his
views on the subject, remember? I have heard Anthroposophists refer to Dan
Dugan as having "integrity." They might think that Ahriman contributed to
the Dugan gene pool but they see integrity when he speaks. I don't always
agree with him, either, but I sure know where he is coming from.
)The fact that Steiner was racist is no big deal.
)That's surmountable. The fact that Waldorf won't deal with it is a big
)deal.
We are in agreement. This statement tells me something about you, John.
And that's a good thing. Even if I did not agree with your feelings, I am
pleased to see you express them. Communication needs more than "content,"
imo.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:27:00 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: hagiography
I can't resist quoting this passage from "Rudolf Steiner and the New
Educational Paradigm" by Christof Wiechert, *Research Bulletin: The
Research Institute for Waldorf Education* January 2004 (IX:1):
"We stand before an incomprehensibly vast accomplishment and ask
ourselves, who is it who accomplished this? Attempts are made to
answer the question with the conventional instruments of historical
comparison and to find compatible thoughts in the works of Aristotle,
Emerson, Jean Paul, Pestalozzi, John Dewey, Piaget, and among
contemporaries from Howard Gardner. The question then arises what is
actually new or unique about Waldorf education?
"I would like to respond with the following. We can readily assume
that the quantitative magnitude alone of the life achievements of
Rudolf Steiner is beyond the grasp of conventional historical
methods; they simply exceed conventional understanding. As with
Shakespeare, we are confronted with an exceptional case."
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:47:54 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
At 04:18 PM 6/2/2004, John Holland wrote:
)Sorry it seems that way, but I've always considered myself a Waldorf
)parent, so I didn't give it any thought. Why should I have to explain
)myself?
When you place yourself in the public eye, you may indeed end up having to
explain yourself. That is, if you care about how people view you. If you
don't care, no one is picking you up, shaking you, and demanding "Explain!"
They might demand, indeed, but the picking up and shaking part are supplied
by your own imagination....
) Just recently, someone posted to the SJU list that if a parent
)discovers things about Waldorf and becomes uncomfortable they should
)just "go away." I think that sucks.
Indeed. I confronted that post, and little support for that "someone" appeared.
So now we know that there are thoughtless and sometimes nasty people
involved in some way with the Waldorf community. So new? Do those people
dominate the community? It can appear so. When her post appeared, it was
more than a day before I responded. Nobody from the regular correspondents
confronted her. Does that mean that people agreed with her? I'd have to say
that, no, it does not mean that. But it can look that way. In *many*
environments, mean speech is not confronted, it is met with silence. Is
that healthy? No. But it is quite common.
)My opinion is that if you
)are a parent who's family has been impacted by Waldorf, you're a Waldorf
)parent, and I'm not budging on that.
To paraphrase what I said on anthroposophy_tomorrow, and which got me
banned, you can have whatever foolish opinion you like.
Language has at least two levels of meaning, the intended meaning by the
speaker, and the received meaning by the listener. If I were to say that
I'm a Waldorf parent, people would *hear* that I have a child in a Waldorf
School. A few, if asked, might allow that I could be considered a Waldorf
parent if I had a child who spent an extended time at a Waldorf school. But
that is not what they would think at first.
)[...] OpenWaldorf could be
)built by Bart Simpson trying to invoke Ahriman. The point is the
)content, not the motivation.
That may be your point, but it is certainly not something on which I would
agree. When I see a collection of material, I do indeed want to know the
position or potential bias of those who collected it. It is true that if
they have done their job perfectly, if they are rigorously honest and
inclusive -- i.e., they will include material that seems to refute what
they believe, and they will present it fairly -- their bias will be
irrelevant. But people are almost never so perfect as to make bias
completely irrelevant.
If a Waldorf Critic tells me what Steiner says, and it is a statement that
could blacken Steiner's reputation, I'll want to verify the statement, and,
preferably, to see it in context. If a Waldorf Supporter quotes that same
statement, I will consider that the expected bias of the support would make
it less likely for the statement to be distorted, and I may not feel it
necessary to track it down.
Thus we expect people holding a public trust to disclose conflicts of
interest. That one has a potential conflict of interest does *not* negate
the possibility of that person being honest and fair; in fact, when we see
someone being fair when presenting the arguments of the opposition, it
increases our trust, if *we* are fair. We see such a person as balanced.
Of course, were I an anthroposophist, I'd also take great issue with the
claim that motivation is irrelevant, and as a Muslim, I also would have
difficulty with this. The first hadith (saying of the Prophet) that is
taught is "actions [are judged] by intention." Spiritually, the intention
behind an action colors it, it is not possible to separate actions and
intentions.
)Actually, I make it easier for parents to approach Waldorf with a
)critical mind. I know I beat this fact to death, but no other site on
)the web links to Waldorf teacher training texts. So obivous, yet so
)universally ignored. No other site helps parents google Waldorf topics.
)No other Waldorf site lays out Steiner's child development theory like
)OpenWaldorf. No other Waldorf site tracks Waldorf news, or describes
)eurythmy gestures. I could go on and on.
All of which means that you have done a great deal of work; and it could be
said that great men are those who do great work; but so many sabotage what
they have done through some personal failing. Tragic, no?
Will OpenWaldorf be ruined by a single mistake? Probably not. But will a
pattern of mistakes coming through the personal limitations of the owner
ruin it? Maybe.
)Also, I should point out that I've been instrumental in two articles big
)articles on Waldorf, one in the Houston Press, and more recently the
)Salon article. I'm having an impact. It may be three steps forward and
)two steps back, but I'm not letting those two steps back discourage me.
Nor should you. But why not look at what is behind the two steps back?
After all, if you could avoid those steps, you would be almost twice as far
along the path....
)No, it should be about content. That's why I tell people to ignore my
)possible motives and read the primary content.
I'd say you will see more success if you tell people that the primary
content speaks for itself, *and* you disclose any bias or conflict of
interest that you might have. If you tell people to ignore your motives,
you will be telling them something that they should not do. Ignoring the
motives of people is quite dangerous.
Someone comes to your door and offers you a good price for your house and
land. Is his motive important?
Someone offers to educate your children. Is that person's motive important?
It takes a lot of work to validate information presented on a web site.
Most people can't spare the time. So they very much want to know the
motives of those who collected it, if they have any intelligence!
)Because I'm not an expert on Waldorf. I get things wrong. (Remember when
)I said Steiner lived in Nazi Germany?!) I have my biases. Even if I was
)perfect, who am I to make decisions for someone else? I can talk about
)crayons and clairvoyance and Nazi Germany all I want. It doesn't make it
)true.
This whole Nazi Germany thing still smells bad, it has not been cleaned up,
from what I've seen here. Yes, you may have posted corrections and
retractions, but, still, you have to be *really* ignorant of Steiner and
his work to say what you said, or very incautious about your language, and
if you are that ignorant after having collected as much as you have
collected -- presumably you read the stuff, at least to see if it is
relevant -- then it would be astonishing by itself, and if you are that
incautious about what you say, then the decisions you make about what to
include in OpenWaldorf, or, more importantly, how to *frame* it, could be
expected to be similarly incautious.
I have not spent any significant time at OpenWaldorf. It does sound
interesting and attractive. It does sound like a valuable service. You are
being offered criticism here that is either accurate or not. If it is
accurate, you can use it to improve the site, and if not the site, then
yourself. And if it is not accurate, I wonder why you spend so much time
defending yourself against it. Surely you have better things to do!
)But when a primary source talks about these things, then a parent has
)some real data.
Indeed.
)I'm aware that I'm a Waldorf newbie. But when I started learning about
)Waldorf, there was no site out there that gathered all this information
)in one place. Am I supposed to wait until I'm perfect before I start
)contributing to the Waldorf community? I knew that there could be a
)better web site out there for helping parents research Waldorf, and I
)believe I've built it.
Which is excellent. But, as I've said, if you put yourself in the public
spotlight, as you have done with OpenWaldorf, well, the lights are going to
be bright and every defect will show. You can take that as a blessing or a
curse. I'd call it an opportunity.
)Once again, I challenge: show me a better web site for researching
)Waldorf. I want to link to it! (I've noticed no one's offered one up
)yet.)
I use Google. And I've joined a real Steiner study group. And then there is
this list, which has its own value.
) ) I do think when you evoke "Nazi Germany," Auschwitz,
) ) Dachau, "This way to the gas, ladies and gentlemen," are pretty much the
) ) first thing people think of.
)
)That's ~their~ historical ignorance, not mine. That stuff truly
)happened, and it was horrible, but the period of Nazi Germany before the
)Holocaust was longer than the Holocaust itself.
This is what I meant when I said that the mess has not been cleaned up. Mr.
Holland is still attempting, it seems, to justify and excuse his blatant
error. I don't know that "the period of Nazi Germany before the Holocaust
was longer than the Holocaust itself," because there is no explicit and
clear starting point for the Holocaust; however, there may be a reasonable
starting point that would make the statement true. But the statement is
irrelevant. Mr. Holland placed Steiner as living in Nazi Germany, and he
didn't. Nazi Germany has a specific starting place, in popular speech and
in history, which is the assumption of power by the Nazi Party. That was
well after Steiner's death. At the time that Steiner died, it was not at
all clear that the dark forces which, gathered, became the Nazi disaster,
were going to overcome the opposing trends. To associate Steiner with Nazi
Germany is just plain wrong.
Against that, Mr. Holland is here claiming that people are ignorant when
they call up an image of the Holocaust when Nazi Germany is mentioned. No,
they are not ignorant. Yes, there was Nazi Germany before the Holocaust.
But there is a *lot* more connection between the Holocaust and Nazi Germany
than there is between Steiner and Nazi Germany.
) ) This is why I continue to find it unconvincing
) ) that when you said Steiner's work came out of Nazi Germany, you were
) ) attempting to suggest that his racism was "no big deal."
)
)It's not a big deal if you confess and change your ways.
Difficult for a dead man.
) Now, confessing
)and changing their ways might be a big deal for Waldorf, and that's
)where the problem lies. The fact that Steiner was racist is no big deal.
)That's surmountable. The fact that Waldorf won't deal with it is a big
)deal.
Waldorf *is* dealing with it. Surely Mr. Holland knows that, if he reads
the material and follows the links on his own site. Sure, some elements in
the Waldorf community are going to continue to deny and evade, but that is
not the tide of history.
(I'm not agreeing that Steiner was a racist. Steiner certainly made racist
comments. In some technical sense that could make him a racist -- for the
moment in which he made the comment, and possibly for more than that --,
but not everyone who makes an idiotic comment is an idiot. Or is he, Mr.
Holland?)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:34:34 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
John Holland, you wrote,
)My opinion is that if you
)are a parent who's family has been impacted by Waldorf, you're a Waldorf
)parent, and I'm not budging on that.
I and the other former Waldorf parents on the PLANS board call
ourselves: former Waldorf parents. But we have left the movement
entirely. Your family may still be involved.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:27:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
John Holland, you wrote,
)"I always thought Auschwitz existed for less than half of the duration of
)the Nazi government. I wasn't aware that Auschwitz was established in
)1933 when the Nazis took power! I thought it was established in 1940. I
)never realized that "Nazi Germany" and "the Holocaust" were synonymous.
)I didn't realize that Auschwitz was a permanent fixture of Nazi Germany.
)I always thought the Final Solution was something that began in Nazi
)Germany years after Hitler rose to power. As far as my limited knowledge
)goes, "Nazi Germany" wasn't all 'trains rolling to Auschwitz.' Maybe
)Peter has some historical knowledge to help us out here."
I'd like to discourage the use of sarcasm here. I don't think it's a
particularly effective mode of argument, and it's often misunderstood
by people for whom English is not their native language.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 01:29:10 +0000
From: John Holland (john openwaldorf.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
Dan Dugan wrote:
) I and the other former Waldorf parents on the PLANS board call
) ourselves: former Waldorf parents. But we have left the movement
) entirely. Your family may still be involved.
For me, it's almost an activist position to assert that you can be a
Waldorf parent after your child is out of Waldorf. Heck, even when my
daughter was ~in~ Waldorf, there were folks in the Waldorf community
that were acting like I wasn't a Waldorf parent when I started asking
difficult questions about Waldorf. I've heard plenty of other stories
about parents being excluded when they start to ask difficult questions,
as if Waldorf can erase the bond parents form with Waldorf education.
More than a year since my daughter left Waldorf the influence still
lingers. Some of that influence is conscious. For example, we're still
pretty much a TV-free household except for the occasional Harry Potter
movie (a big hit among Waldorf families I've discovered.) Other
influences are community influences: Waldorf friends and participation
in festivals, etc. Finally, some of those influences aren't so nice, for
example struggles with certain academic subjects, etc. As long as I'm
dealing with the influence of Waldorf, I'm a Waldorf parent. I know
parents who are dealing with the influence of Waldorf for years after
they've left Waldorf. (Both positive and negative influences). "You can
take the boy out of Waldorf, but you can't take the Waldorf out of the
boy."
And again, I'd like to remind folks that OpenWaldorf was created by a
Waldorf parent with a student enrolled in Waldorf.
P.S. Sorry about the sarcasm.
--
John Holland, john openwaldorf.com
OpenWaldorf.com, the Waldorf Education Super Site
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:50:49 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: sorting through historical details
John,
If a person says he is a "Waldorf parent," it is natural (and logical!) to
conclude that that person has a child in a Waldorf school. Apparently, that
*was* the case when you created OpenWaldorf. It apparently is no longer the
case. In the name of full disclosure (which we critical types are always
yammering on about! (g)), perhaps it makes sense to say something like "I
created this site when my daughter was a Waldorf student. She no longer
attends the school." No one can argue with that, because it is clear and
honest.
Respectfully,
Lisa
) From: John Holland (john openwaldorf.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 01:29:10 +0000
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
)
) -----------------------------------------------------------
) Apply now for a No-Annual-Fee Discover® Platinum Card
) 0% Intro APR*, No Annual Fee, Up to 2% Cashback Bonus®
) award* Start Saving Today – APPLY NOW! It's fast, easy and
) secure.
) http://click.topica.com/caaciqQb1dkiGb1IpcOa/Discover Card
) -----------------------------------------------------------
)
) Dan Dugan wrote:
)
)) I and the other former Waldorf parents on the PLANS board call
)) ourselves: former Waldorf parents. But we have left the movement
)) entirely. Your family may still be involved.
)
) For me, it's almost an activist position to assert that you can be a
) Waldorf parent after your child is out of Waldorf. Heck, even when my
) daughter was ~in~ Waldorf, there were folks in the Waldorf community
) that were acting like I wasn't a Waldorf parent when I started asking
) difficult questions about Waldorf. I've heard plenty of other stories
) about parents being excluded when they start to ask difficult questions,
) as if Waldorf can erase the bond parents form with Waldorf education.
)
) More than a year since my daughter left Waldorf the influence still
) lingers. Some of that influence is conscious. For example, we're still
) pretty much a TV-free household except for the occasional Harry Potter
) movie (a big hit among Waldorf families I've discovered.) Other
) influences are community influences: Waldorf friends and participation
) in festivals, etc. Finally, some of those influences aren't so nice, for
) example struggles with certain academic subjects, etc. As long as I'm
) dealing with the influence of Waldorf, I'm a Waldorf parent. I know
) parents who are dealing with the influence of Waldorf for years after
) they've left Waldorf. (Both positive and negative influences). "You can
) take the boy out of Waldorf, but you can't take the Waldorf out of the
) boy."
)
) And again, I'd like to remind folks that OpenWaldorf was created by a
) Waldorf parent with a student enrolled in Waldorf.
)
) P.S. Sorry about the sarcasm.
) --
) John Holland, john openwaldorf.com
) OpenWaldorf.com, the Waldorf Education Super Site
)
) -----------------------------------------------------------
) Empower your Team with Remote Access. GoToMyPC Pro
) provides your organization with instant remote access to
) email,files, applications and network resources in real
) time. FREE TRIAL:
) http://click.topica.com/caaciqTb1dkiGb1IpcOf/ExpertCity
) -----------------------------------------------------------
)
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 01:58:38 +0000
From: John Holland (john openwaldorf.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
walden wrote:
) ) OpenWaldorf could be built by Bart Simpson trying to invoke Ahriman. The
) point is the content, not the motivation.
)
) Now, there's the *impulse* behind this little chat.
LOL. Finally some humor in this thread!
) ) I know I beat this fact to death, but no other site on
) )the web links to Waldorf teacher training texts. So obivous, yet so
) )universally ignored. No other site helps parents google Waldorf topics.
) )No other Waldorf site lays out Steiner's child development theory like
) )OpenWaldorf. No other Waldorf site tracks Waldorf news, or describes
) )eurythmy gestures. I could go on and on.
)
) And your site is excellent in that respect, John. Seriously. If,
) however,
) you were able to understand the importance of the link
) between motivation and content and transparency, I'd throw some roses
) your
) way.
snip
)Care to elaborate on those "possible motives?"
Sure. I was motivated to start OpenWalforf by some bad experiences on
the Waldorf SJU list.
1. Unwillingness to talk about Anthroposophy and Waldorf
I discovered, much to my surprise that discussion of the relationship to
Waldorf and Anthroposophy is almost taboo on the SJU list. Whenever I
started to get "too Anthroposophical" people tried to squelch my
questions and discoveries. I wanted to create a place for people to talk
about whatever they wanted to, as long as it related to Waldorf
education. I know you can do that here at critics, but I wanted to
create a context for discussion that was less focused on the mission of
keeping Waldorf schools private, and more on all sorts of discussions
about Waldorf.
2. Unwillingness to talk to folks with different points of view about
Waldorf.
If you have concerns about Waldorf, the SJU list is not very supportive.
I wanted to create a place where people could ask a question without
being afraid of being ejected from the community.
Another thing that motivated me was that I felt there was no good site
to help people research Waldorf. Even the critics site could be so much
better. I was amassing loads of interesting bookmarks and even
developing interesting techniques for using Google to discover amazing
things about Waldorf that I never expected. I wanted to share those
things with other parents, because I really wished that they had been
there for me when I began researching Waldorf.
Those were my 2 main motivations:
1. Create a forum for open discussion.
2. Help parents learn as much as possible about Waldorf, hopefully
making OpenWaldorf obsolete.
) I have not heard this sentiment.
Really? I've even heard Dan called evil, and it makes me mad. In fact,
when I mentioned PLANS to my daughter's Waldorf teacher, her response
was it was "an awful site created by disgruntled parents who had it out
for Waldorf." (-paraphrase
) Everyone can trust Dan to be very critical
) Waldorf education. He helped build waldorfcritics.org and is famous for
) his
) views on the subject, remember? I have heard Anthroposophists refer to
) Dan
) Dugan as having "integrity." They might think that Ahriman contributed
) to
) the Dugan gene pool but they see integrity when he speaks.
I agree with all of the praise about Dan. Dan rocks. But I've seen folks
make ad hominem attacks on him in cyberspace and in meatspace. I'm under
the impression that these are tactics to diffuse the "Dugan effect" by
dissin' Dugan. It would be interesting to hear what Dan has to say about
whether or not my observations are grounded or not.
--
John Holland, john openwaldorf.com
OpenWaldorf.com, the Waldorf Education Super Site
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:00:26 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: sorting through historical details
Even if John's family is still involved, as long as his daughter (or any
other child) is not attending a Waldorf school or being Waldorf
homeschooled, it seems somewhat misleading to use the term "Waldorf parent."
Heck, I spent 20 years as a newspaper reporter, but when I left that career
path behind three weeks ago, I also stopped saying "I am a reporter." If
people in my new office ask what I used to do, I say "I spent 20 plus years
as a newspaper reporter."
The idea is to be clear and honest and not misleading. And while I will not
accuse John of being intentionally misleading (unlike the Anthroposophers, I
lack the ability to peer into his heart and discern his motives! (g)), I
will say that the result *is* misleading.
John, to be perfectly blunt, I think one of the things that is causing
people here to question you so closely is that it is difficult to tell how
you *really* feel and what you *really* think about Waldorf education from
reading your site. In one section, you sound extremely critical of Waldorf
education. In another, you sound almost as if you are apologizing for those
of us who are critical and defending Waldorf! The overall result is a
feeling of dissonance, at least for me. I cannot help but feel that you are
pulling someone's leg: I just can't figure out if it is my leg (the
critics') that you are pulling, or the Anthros. Maybe neither.
But it sure feels that way.
Lisa
) From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:34:34 -0700
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com, waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
)
) -----------------------------------------------------------
) Let University of Phoenix make 2004 your year. Evening,
) weekend or FlexNet? classes ? over 130 locations. Look
) into our programs and get the degree that gets you going!
) http://click.topica.com/caaciq1b1dkiGb1IpcOa/UOP
) -----------------------------------------------------------
)
)
)
)
) John Holland, you wrote,
)
)) My opinion is that if you
)) are a parent who's family has been impacted by Waldorf, you're a Waldorf
)) parent, and I'm not budging on that.
)
) I and the other former Waldorf parents on the PLANS board call
) ourselves: former Waldorf parents. But we have left the movement
) entirely. Your family may still be involved.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) -----------------------------------------------------------
) Give Your Team Access to Their PCs from Anywhere. Increase
) productivity with a secure remote-access solution from
) GoToMyPC Pro. Stay in touch with your office. FREE TRIAL:
) http://click.topica.com/caaciqXb1dkiGb1IpcOf/ExpertCity
) -----------------------------------------------------------
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 02:32:15 +0000
From: John Holland (john openwaldorf.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
) )My opinion is that if you
) )are a parent who's family has been impacted by Waldorf, you're a Waldorf
) )parent, and I'm not budging on that.
)
) To paraphrase what I said on anthroposophy_tomorrow, and which got me
) banned, you can have whatever foolish opinion you like.
I don't think my position is foolish.
) If a Waldorf Critic tells me what Steiner says, and it is a statement
) that
) could blacken Steiner's reputation, I'll want to verify the statement,
) and,
) preferably, to see it in context. If a Waldorf Supporter quotes that
) same
) statement, I will consider that the expected bias of the support would
) make
) it less likely for the statement to be distorted, and I may not feel it
) necessary to track it down.
We have different standards. I insist on tracking it down, regardless of
who said it. For example, one of my PLANS friends tells me that a
Waldorf kid in Canada died falling out of a tree. I totally trust this
critic's judgmenet, but I couldn't track down the primary resource, so I
can't accept it. (BTW, if anyone has documentation for this, I want it!)
As a another example, some of my "pro-Waldorf" friends have pointed me
to the work of Raymond Moore on delayed academics. Yet another critic
friend has given me some amazing content on art, and the importance of
line drawing for children.
Now all those links are up on OpenWaldorf for parents to track down.
(actually, I think the Raymond Moore links aren't up yet.)
) )Actually, I make it easier for parents to approach Waldorf with a
) )critical mind. I know I beat this fact to death, but no other site on
) )the web links to Waldorf teacher training texts. So obivous, yet so
) )universally ignored. No other site helps parents google Waldorf topics.
) )No other Waldorf site lays out Steiner's child development theory like
) )OpenWaldorf. No other Waldorf site tracks Waldorf news, or describes
) )eurythmy gestures. I could go on and on.
)
) All of which means that you have done a great deal of work; and it could
) be
) said that great men are those who do great work; but so many sabotage
) what
) they have done through some personal failing. Tragic, no?
Sure, but in my case, I've gotten so much positive feedback from the
Waldorf community I'm not so worried about it.
) Will OpenWaldorf be ruined by a single mistake? Probably not. But will a
)
) pattern of mistakes coming through the personal limitations of the owner
)
) ruin it? Maybe.
I would love a chronicle of my mistakes to be openly published in the
OpenWaldorf forums. It would be a big help to parents as they assess the
validity of OpenWaldorf.
) )Also, I should point out that I've been instrumental in two articles big
) )articles on Waldorf, one in the Houston Press, and more recently the
) )Salon article. I'm having an impact. It may be three steps forward and
) )two steps back, but I'm not letting those two steps back discourage me.
)
) Nor should you. But why not look at what is behind the two steps back?
) After all, if you could avoid those steps, you would be almost twice as
) far
) along the path....
Unfortunately, I don't work that way. I make lots of mistakes in my
journey. That's how I learn.
) )No, it should be about content. That's why I tell people to ignore my
) )possible motives and read the primary content.
)
) I'd say you will see more success if you tell people that the primary
) content speaks for itself, *and* you disclose any bias or conflict of
) interest that you might have.
What's the conflict?
) Someone comes to your door and offers you a good price for your house
) and
) land. Is his motive important?
It depends. How good is the price?
) It takes a lot of work to validate information presented on a web site.
) Most people can't spare the time. So they very much want to know the
) motives of those who collected it, if they have any intelligence!
OpenWaldorf isn't about what's on the site. It's about what's on other
sites.
) This whole Nazi Germany thing still smells bad, it has not been cleaned
) up,
) from what I've seen here. Yes, you may have posted corrections and
) retractions
What else can be done?!
) but, still, you have to be *really* ignorant of Steiner and
) his work to say what you said,
Guilty as charged.
) I have not spent any significant time at OpenWaldorf. It does sound
) interesting and attractive. It does sound like a valuable service.
Thanks, that's been the bulk of the feedback.
) You are
) being offered criticism here that is either accurate or not.
And I love it. I've been begging for it. You get what you ask for, it
just takes a while I guess. I was really hoping it would come from
Waldorf supporters, but I'll take what I can get.
) Surely you have better things to do!
Not really. I believe what I'm doing is really important.
) Which is excellent. But, as I've said, if you put yourself in the public
)
) spotlight, as you have done with OpenWaldorf, well, the lights are going
) to
) be bright and every defect will show. You can take that as a blessing or
) a
) curse. I'd call it an opportunity.
Me, too. Once again, I've been begging for someone to shine that light
in my eyes.
) )Once again, I challenge: show me a better web site for researching
) )Waldorf. I want to link to it! (I've noticed no one's offered one up
) )yet.)
)
) I use Google. And I've joined a real Steiner study group. And then there
) is
) this list, which has its own value.
You'd probably love my pre-made Google searches:
http://www.openwaldorf.com/research.html#Anchor-Pre-made-49575
) This is what I meant when I said that the mess has not been cleaned up.
) Mr.
) Holland is still attempting, it seems, to justify and excuse his blatant
)
) error.
I really prefer to be called John. Once again, what else can be done
about this situation?
) Against that, Mr. Holland is here claiming that people are ignorant when
)
) they call up an image of the Holocaust when Nazi Germany is mentioned.
) No,
) they are not ignorant. Yes, there was Nazi Germany before the Holocaust.
)
And there was an Anthroposophical movement before the Holocaust also.
Critics assert a relationship between Anthroposophy and Nazi philosophy.
I agree with this linkage.
) But there is a *lot* more connection between the Holocaust and Nazi
) Germany
) than there is between Steiner and Nazi Germany.
I totally agree.
) ) ) This is why I continue to find it unconvincing
) ) ) that when you said Steiner's work came out of Nazi Germany, you were
) ) ) attempting to suggest that his racism was "no big deal."
) )
) )It's not a big deal if you confess and change your ways.
)
) Difficult for a dead man.
It seems even more difficult for a living school movement!
) Waldorf *is* dealing with it. Surely Mr. Holland knows that, if he reads
)
) the material and follows the links on his own site. Sure, some elements
) in
) the Waldorf community are going to continue to deny and evade, but that
) is
) not the tide of history.
Not nearly as forthrightly as I've been dealing with my mistakes that
critics have been pointing out.
) (I'm not agreeing that Steiner was a racist. Steiner certainly made
) racist
) comments. In some technical sense that could make him a racist -- for
) the
) moment in which he made the comment, and possibly for more than that --,
)
) but not everyone who makes an idiotic comment is an idiot. Or is he, Mr.
)
) Holland?)
A pattern of idiotic comments might suggest idiocy. A pattern of racist
comments might suggest racism.
--
John Holland, john openwaldorf.com
OpenWaldorf.com, the Waldorf Education Super Site
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 02:34:01 +0000
From: John Holland (john openwaldorf.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
)
) John,
)
) If a person says he is a "Waldorf parent," it is natural (and logical!)
) to
) conclude that that person has a child in a Waldorf school. Apparently,
) that
) *was* the case when you created OpenWaldorf. It apparently is no longer
) the
) case. In the name of full disclosure (which we critical types are always
) yammering on about! (g)), perhaps it makes sense to say something like
) "I
) created this site when my daughter was a Waldorf student. She no longer
) attends the school." No one can argue with that, because it is clear and
) honest.
Thanks for the feedback. Have you seen what I posted a few days ago?
--
John Holland, john openwaldorf.com
OpenWaldorf.com, the Waldorf Education Super Site
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 23:45:25 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
John Holland, you wrote,
)If you have concerns about Waldorf, the SJU list is not very supportive.
)I wanted to create a place where people could ask a question without
)being afraid of being ejected from the community.
It's ironic to note that I started waldorf-critics for the same
reason. I got kicked off the official Waldorf list (at that time
"waldorf-l" moderated by "Lefty") for bringing up problems with
Waldorf. So the official Waldorf list can be proud of being the
source of the world-wide anti-Waldorf movement! You'd think they'd
learn...
)I'm under
)the impression that these are tactics to diffuse the "Dugan effect" by
)dissin' Dugan. It would be interesting to hear what Dan has to say about
)whether or not my observations are grounded or not.
I think so. Even though the movement of people critical of Waldorf
has grown and matured far beyond this one disgruntled parent, and
entirely new approaches such as yours have sprouted up, it still
satifies people who want a simple target to blame it all on me. I
love the way they try to say it's a secular humanist conspiracy, or a
Christian conspiracy. An unholy alliance!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1364
-- Topica Digest --
RE: sorting through historical details
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: sorting through historical details
By Neil.wc faiman.org
Wilton 7th-grader advances in Bee
By Neil.wc faiman.org
RE: sorting through historical details
By john openwaldorf.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By john openwaldorf.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By dan dandugan.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By john openwaldorf.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By john openwaldorf.com
RE: sorting through historical details
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: sorting through historical details
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: sorting through historical details
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 07:59:23 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
John:
"I've always considered myself a Waldorf parent, so I didn't give it any
thought. Why should I have to explain myself?"
Because you're a public spokesperson on this issue, you're taking very
public actions, you're an activist. If you refuse to "explain yourself" your
credibility suffers.
My unsolicited advice? The "dumb schmuck" routine has got to go.
"Why should you cease to become a Waldorf parent just because you have
questions about it?"
Er . . . you don't cease to be a Waldorf parent when you "have questions."
You cease to be a Waldorf parent when you take your child out of the school.
"Or even if you find yourself at odss with Waldorf? Ask Deby if she's a
Waldorf parent."
I don't recall ever hearing Deby call herself a Waldorf parent, but perhaps
if she agrees with you, she'll speak up.
"My opinion is that if you are a parent who's family has been impacted by
Waldorf, you're a Waldorf parent, and I'm not budging on that."
Okey doke. I'm not trying to budge you, I'm trying to disassociate *myself*
from this tactic, 'cus I think it's sneaky.
"Also, I'd like to point out that when I launched OpenWaldorf, I was a
Waldorf parent who also had a child enrolled in Waldorf."
Well, the plot thickens, too thick to get into here, isn't it?
"OpenWaldorf could be built by Bart Simpson trying to invoke Ahriman. The
point is the content, not the motivation."
As I think Abd has explained nicely, the point is the content *as long as*
your motivation is clear and transparent. That is why you explain that stuff
up front. If everything is as it appears, people can think about the
content. Motivation only becomes an issue when people suspect it may not be
what it appears.
This is about credibility and integrity. That is the only reason the
shenanigans at your site interest me at all - the perception that this is
the sort of thing Waldorf critics do.
"Actually, I make it easier for parents to approach Waldorf with a
critical mind. I know I beat this fact to death, but no other site on
the web links to Waldorf teacher training texts. So obivous, yet so
universally ignored. No other site helps parents google Waldorf topics."
I'm sorry, perhaps this is becoming rude, I do find many useful features at
your site, but really who needs help googling Waldorf topics? Google is
pretty idiot-proof.
"No other Waldorf site lays out Steiner's child development theory like
OpenWaldorf. No other Waldorf site tracks Waldorf news, or describes
eurythmy gestures. I could go on and on."
I agree with you there. I like those features very much. (I'm not sure I've
read everything you have on child development lately, but the way I recall
it, I liked it.)
Actually, though, Dan has posted Waldorf news here regularly for many years.
"If the site makes it so tough for parents, why do they keep
coming back?"
I have never said your site makes things tough for parents, I think the
opposite. I think it is very well organized, very user friendly, very
attractive, and does indeed facilitate research into Waldorf in many handy
ways. My problems with it are the things that are missing, the things that
are unstated.
"Because I'm not an expert on Waldorf. I get things wrong."
The solution to that is simple, don't present yourself as an expert. Neither
does Dan claim to be an expert (sorry Dan, I hope you're not becoming too
annoyed by the comparisons), but he doesn't play dumb either. This is
disingenuous and makes you appear untrustworthy.
Perhaps this will get it across to you: lots of people don't buy it anyway.
"Really? I think it's honest. Do ~you~ believe I'm a trustworthy source
for information on Waldorf? Of course not!"
Oh, so it's working I guess :)
The problem - as you point out over on your site - is that it is really only
the "vocal minority" at either end of the spectrum of this debate that sees
it. The average parent, new to Waldorf, or barely beginning to research
school options, has no clue about any of these debates, and has no way "in"
to seeing or understanding the tangled web you've woven over there. I've
seen people post information on sources for Waldorf toys in your "Critics"
forum. The person must have thought "Critics Corner" meant product reviews
or something. One needs a short course in "Controversies Around Waldorf"
before even beginning to guess what you may be up to. What critics? You
speak of us as "those people," so to speak, like you don't even know us.
Yeah right. You're taking advantage of newbie Waldorf parents, people
wandering around trying to figure out where to buy Waldorf dolls or
something, who don't deserve to be used for your purposes. This is why both
some staunch critics, and the long-term serious advocates like the Powers
That Be over at SJU, are left with a bad taste in the mouth.
"Waldorf supporters say, 'Don't trust Dan Dugan.'"
Well, of course they do, but I don't think you've gotten around this problem
with your approach, I hate to break it to you, but people don't trust you
either. They trust you *less* when they figure out you're a bit of a poser.
(You don't necessarily know what people conclude at the end of those "long
sessions." I've spent a few long sessions there too.) I'm not saying there's
an easy way around this problem. Obviously Waldorf supporters don't trust me
either. There is no way around people suspecting a critical person is
someone with an axe to grind, especially when, sometimes, they're right. The
only ethical answer is total honesty. If they figure out we are *not* being
honest it really becomes impossible. Trust builds up slowly. At the risk of
tooting my own horn, I actually think some people in Waldorf and some
anthroposophists respect what I have to say. I've been saying it awhile and
shown that I don't cheat and lie.
)At any rate, there are no "easy ways" to get past the racism issue.
"I think it's easy and hard. It's sort of like "head straight up that
steep hill." Waldorf might sweat a lot, but the path isn't too hard to
find."
I can agree with that.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:03:48 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (Neil.wc faiman.org)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
Dan Dugan wrote to John Holland:
) It's ironic to note that I started waldorf-critics for the same
) reason. I got kicked off the official Waldorf list (at that time
) "waldorf-l" moderated by "Lefty") for bringing up problems with
) Waldorf. So the official Waldorf list can be proud of being the
) source of the world-wide anti-Waldorf movement! You'd think they'd
) learn...
It's ironic that Dan should float this bit of revisionism in a
discussion thread under the title "sorting through historical details".
Just to clarify the historical details:
(1) Dan started waldorf-critics several months (at least) *before* he
was removed from the SJU Waldorf mailing list.
(2) Dan never posted any messages to the Waldorf list.
(3) Dan was removed from the Waldorf list for reposting material from
that list to waldorf-critics without obtaining the permission of the
authors.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:19:03 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (Neil.wc faiman.org)
Subject: Wilton 7th-grader advances in Bee
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Elicia Chamberlin, 13, wore her lucky red socks
yesterday in Round 4 of the 77th annual Scripps National Spelling Bee.
She will wear them again today when she enters Round 5 of the bee that
will produce a champion by the end of the day.
...
The quiet seventh-grader, who attends Pine Hill School [Pine Hill
Waldorf School in Wilton, NH], has an affinity for the circus arts and
is an avid reader of science fiction. Three months ago, Elicia
temporarily put aside activities including basketball, ballet and
circus-performing practice to focus on the spelling bee.
Elicia, who has studied French since kindergarten, is also learning
Russian, her mother said.
"After the spelling bee, I’m going to start taking it up more," Elicia
said.
(http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=38593)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:21:45 +0000
From: John Holland (john openwaldorf.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
Dan Dugan wrote:
) So the official Waldorf list can be proud of being the
) source of the world-wide anti-Waldorf movement! You'd think they'd
) learn...
Truly an embarassing legacy. They're still harassing folks over there
for linking to OpenWaldorf. And usually, when folks link to OpenWaldorf,
it's not because of content on my site, it's because of a Waldorf link
I've posted.
I would like to point out, however, that OpenWaldorf is not
"anti-Waldorf," it is pro-information.
--
John Holland, john openwaldorf.com
OpenWaldorf.com, the Waldorf Education Super Site
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:23:18 +0000
From: John Holland (john openwaldorf.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
Diana Winters wrote:
) My unsolicited advice? The "dumb schmuck" routine has got to go.
I don't think it's too far off the mark. It's been suggested here that
I'm ignorant. Who am I one to argue with that?
) "Why should you cease to become a Waldorf parent just because you have
) questions about it?"
)
) Er . . . you don't cease to be a Waldorf parent when you "have
) questions."
) You cease to be a Waldorf parent when you take your child out of the
) school.
I disagree.
) "My opinion is that if you are a parent who's family has been impacted
) by
) Waldorf, you're a Waldorf parent, and I'm not budging on that."
)
) Okey doke. I'm not trying to budge you, I'm trying to disassociate
) *myself*
) from this tactic, 'cus I think it's sneaky.
I don't. I think too many parents have been excluded from the Waldorf
community, and I think it's wrong.
) "Also, I'd like to point out that when I launched OpenWaldorf, I was a
) Waldorf parent who also had a child enrolled in Waldorf."
)
) Well, the plot thickens, too thick to get into here, isn't it?
Really? How so? It's all over the SJU list even though they lie about it
to this day. I was not satisfied with the Waldorf resources on the
Internet for parents, so I created one that I felt was more helpful
) That is why you explain that stuff
) up front.
But I have on my "about" page. I'm wondering what you're looking for. In
my Open Letter that I'm working on I plan to post a little bit more of
my personal story. The most relevant motivation is what I listed in this
post to Walden:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?sort=d&mid=1716893219&start=21053
Did you get an opportunity to read it?
) If everything is as it appears, people can think about the
) content. Motivation only becomes an issue when people suspect it may not
) be
) what it appears.
)
) This is about credibility and integrity. That is the only reason the
) shenanigans at your site interest me at all - the perception that this
) is
) the sort of thing Waldorf critics do.
Most of my feedback suggests people trust me. I've had families write me
and thank me for helping them leave Waldorf. I've had families write me
and thank me for enriching their Waldorf experience.
) I'm sorry, perhaps this is becoming rude, I do find many useful features
) at
) your site, but really who needs help googling Waldorf topics? Google is
) pretty idiot-proof.
I'm not surprised you're not impressed... you're super smart.
Other people have found them useful. For example, when I launched
OpenWaldorf, Dan praised the feature: "The site has very useful
structured Google searches built-in."
My Steiner Says... page saves parents tons of time in highlighting some
of the more interesting things Steiner says. The image searches help
parents see pictures of various aspects of Waldorf. Sure, it's simple,
but I think it's rather elegant.
I also have some really cool ones. Did you know you can look at every
image at elib.com with the following link?
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=30&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=site%3Aelib.com&btnG=Search
Cool, huh? I don't think most parents would look at that.
There are three other ones that I'm most proud of. For those
theologically orthodox Christians out there, they can read about
Steiner's clairvoyant knowledge of Jesus.
Parents can also explore the link between television, Ahriman, and
Waldorf's media ban.
Finally, I think my pre-made searches at elib for researching children
and etheric and astral bodies are pretty cool.
I'd argue that these searches save parents a lot of time, and also
expose them to content that they wouldn't think of on their own.
What do other people think? Is Diana right, or is Dan right? Do the
google searches suck, or are they useful?
) "No other Waldorf site lays out Steiner's child development theory like
) OpenWaldorf. No other Waldorf site tracks Waldorf news, or describes
) eurythmy gestures. I could go on and on."
)
) I agree with you there. I like those features very much. (I'm not sure
) I've
) read everything you have on child development lately, but the way I
) recall
) it, I liked it.)
) Actually, though, Dan has posted Waldorf news here regularly for many
) years.
Sure, but there's not a single other page that parents can check on that
gathers the news in one place like a "newspaper." And I counted 30
stories about Waldorf in the last four months that made it onto the
OpenWaldorf news page, but not the critics list. I didn't even dip into
the OpenWaldorf News archives.
) "If the site makes it so tough for parents, why do they keep
) coming back?"
)
) I have never said your site makes things tough for parents, I think the
) opposite. I think it is very well organized, very user friendly, very
) attractive, and does indeed facilitate research into Waldorf in many
) handy
) ways. My problems with it are the things that are missing, the things
) that
) are unstated.
Me, too! One person can only do so much. If you're really concerned
about the problems, there's a place in the OpenWaldorf forums for folks
who genuinely care to improve the site.
) The solution to that is simple, don't present yourself as an expert.
When have I done that? Am I an expert or am I not? I believe I'm not,
not by a long shot!
) he doesn't play dumb either.
But that's because he's not dumb.
) This is
) disingenuous and makes you appear untrustworthy.
)
) Perhaps this will get it across to you: lots of people don't buy it
) anyway.
[snip]
) "Really? I think it's honest. Do ~you~ believe I'm a trustworthy source
) for information on Waldorf? Of course not!"
)
) Oh, so it's working I guess :)
Based on my feedback and subscriber list, it is. I have nearly as many
folks signed up for my OpenWaldorf updates as subscribe to the SJU list,
and I've only been around for a short while. Many of these subscription
requests come with personal notes of praise and excitement for what I'm
doing. Sure, I have my detractors, and I give them equal time in my
OpenWaldorf mailbag.
) The problem - as you point out over on your site - is that it is really
) only
) the "vocal minority" at either end of the spectrum of this debate that
) sees
) it.
I don't think its a problem. "Vocal minorities" are a fact of life.
) The average parent, new to Waldorf, or barely beginning to research
) school options, has no clue about any of these debates,
And based on the majority of my feedback, they don't seem to care about
it either. They just want information, and they're grateful for it.
) and has no way "in"
) to seeing or understanding the tangled web you've woven over there.
Tangled? I think it's quite organized.
) I've
) seen people post information on sources for Waldorf toys in your
) "Critics"
) forum. The person must have thought "Critics Corner" meant product
) reviews
) or something.
It's especially funny considering that the description of Critics Corner
reads "Anything goes in the Critic's Corner! Enter at your own risk!"
What were they expecting? ("This little faceless doll sucks! It can't
even talk!") Beats me.
I've had folks post nasty criticism in forums other than Critics Corner.
I can't control when people post off-topic.
) You're taking advantage of newbie Waldorf parents, people
) wandering around trying to figure out where to buy Waldorf dolls or
) something, who don't deserve to be used for your purposes.
No I'm not. What horror is created when a newbie parent looking for a
doll stumbles on my site and discovers that Steiner says it's better for
kids not to read until they're 13 or 14?
) Well, of course they do, but I don't think you've gotten around this
) problem
) with your approach, I hate to break it to you, but people don't trust
) you
) either.
Sure they do. Over 600 at last count.
) Well, of course they do, but I don't think you've gotten around this
) problem
) with your approach, I hate to break it to you, but people don't trust
) you
) either.
Sure they do. There's ample opportunity to "dis" OpenWaldorf in the
forums. I rarely have takers. I have no evidence of an overwhelming
trust issue with OpenWaldorf.
) I'm not saying there's
) an easy way around this problem.
I am. Teach parents how to research Waldorf and think for themselves,
independent of what deceitful supporters, virtuous critics, and ignorant
posers have to say.
) The
) only ethical answer is total honesty.
And what is more honest then saying "Trust no one and think for
yourself?"
) At the risk of
) tooting my own horn, I actually think some people in Waldorf and some
) anthroposophists respect what I have to say. I've been saying it awhile
) and
) shown that I don't cheat and lie.
Of course they do!
--
John Holland, john openwaldorf.com
OpenWaldorf.com, the Waldorf Education Super Site
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:31:32 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
John Holland wrote:
)Did you know you can look at every
)image at elib.com with the following link?
)
)http://images.google.com/images?svnum=30&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=site%3Aelib.com&btnG=Search
)
)Cool, huh? I don't think most parents would look at that.
Hella cool, John.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:12:40 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
At 10:32 PM 6/2/2004, John Holland wrote:
[I wrote:]
) ) If a Waldorf Critic tells me what Steiner says, and it is a statement
) ) that could blacken Steiner's reputation, I'll want to verify the
) statement,
) ) and, preferably, to see it in context. If a Waldorf Supporter quotes that
) ) same statement, I will consider that the expected bias of the support
) would
) ) make it less likely for the statement to be distorted, and I may not
) feel it
) ) necessary to track it down.
)
)We have different standards. I insist on tracking it down, regardless of
)who said it.
*You* might, if you are going to further pass that statement on, and you
are careful. But you do not do this in general, I guarantee you, for you
would be forever verifying information, you would be completely overwhelmed.
(Odd, isn't it, that you would be obsessively concerned with verification
regardless of expected source bias, but you would utterly fail to be so
careful about what you yourself said, like Rudolf Steiner lived in Nazi
Germany.... No, I doubt that you are as careful as you think. You stop at a
certain point, at a point when you expect that your source can reasonably
be trusted. Further, on your site, you can expressly disclaim verification
of authenticity by proper attribution, fairly easy on the web. You can
merely link. When you link to a Steiner source, do you verify that the
translation was unbiased? My guess is that you stop at a certain point. You
could not survive if you verify everything.)
By the way, I don't think I've said this before, largely because I hadn't
looked. Nice web site, Mr. Holland! Your work is appreciated, even if I
think that there might be a defect here or there. Add an independent free
association, of the kind I've been discussing with certain
anthroposophists, and you'd have a *really* valuable, even revolutionary,
web site. What a free association could do is to set up review and
filtering that is, in effect, unbiased (by incorporating bias and using
bias as I've hinted). People don't just need information. They also need
intelligent analysis.
) For example, one of my PLANS friends tells me that a
)Waldorf kid in Canada died falling out of a tree. I totally trust this
)critic's judgmenet, but I couldn't track down the primary resource, so I
)can't accept it. (BTW, if anyone has documentation for this, I want it!)
Of *course* you can't accept it! It is critical information coming from a
critical source.
But if it comes from a pro-Waldorf source, you could very well pass it on
in a certain way, i.e., "According to...." Properly, you still would not
state it as a fact. But if you have derogatory information from a hostile
source, you really should not even pass it on without verification....
)As a another example, some of my "pro-Waldorf" friends have pointed me
)to the work of Raymond Moore on delayed academics. Yet another critic
)friend has given me some amazing content on art, and the importance of
)line drawing for children.
What you have done here is to confirm how you have not yet understood the
importance and function of source identification. pro information from a
pro source needs more verification, just as con information from a con
source needs more verification. It is when a source is passing on
information that is contrary to the expected bias that the natural trust
level for the source increases, with regard to this information.
)Sure, but in my case, I've gotten so much positive feedback from the
)Waldorf community I'm not so worried about it.
We already know that you are not too worried. We are telling you that you
would benefit from being more worried, not in a dysfunctional way, i.e., a
way that would inhibit your obvious energy, but in a way that would
represent greater intelligence and care.
)I would love a chronicle of my mistakes to be openly published in the
)OpenWaldorf forums. It would be a big help to parents as they assess the
)validity of OpenWaldorf.
I may take you up on that. I almost did. But I'm already overwhelmed by the
writing I do. So many topics, so little time....
) ) Nor should you. But why not look at what is behind the two steps back?
) ) After all, if you could avoid those steps, you would be almost twice as
) ) far
) ) along the path....
)
)Unfortunately, I don't work that way. I make lots of mistakes in my
)journey. That's how I learn.
You haven't learned yet. Yes, we learn best by making mistakes, but this
requires that we be or become able to recognize the mistakes. In this case
you haven't, it would appear (though people often do recognize more than
they let on, because of a natural inclination to defend against
accusation). Right now, based on what I've seen here and in your own
writing on OpenWaldorf, you are spending an excessive amount of time
defending yourself against accusations. I'd suggest not doing that at all.
Let others do it, if it is going to be done at all. Confine yourself to
correcting factual errors you make or acknowledging criticism, when you
can. Let the rest fall where it falls.
You have brought criticism and unfair attack against OpenWaldorf from other
forums, such as the SJU Waldorf list, and have answered it on OpenWaldorf,
defending yourself. Complete waste of time, and, as one with twenty years
of experience with on-line discussions, clearly obsessive. You don't have
to take my word for it, ask yourself how it feels! Obsession has bodily
signs, characteristic feelings, partly from the adrenaline. I've been
there, done that, all too many times.
(In the particular example, one person wrote a hostile post to the SJU
list. The post did not receive *any* response from other members of this
list until I challenged it. When I challenged the hostility of the post, no
support for the hostile person was shown on the list. I did receive a
hostile letter off-list from one person. There was complaint on the list
regarding the list being judged by the actions of one person, and some
defense of the list against the charge, which I raised, that the absence of
comment could be seen as tacit agreement. There was no good reason for
taking the discussion to OpenWaldorf in the manner that you did.)
) ) I'd say you will see more success if you tell people that the primary
) ) content speaks for itself, *and* you disclose any bias or conflict of
) ) interest that you might have.
)
)What's the conflict?
That's up to you to say. You have motives for starting and continuing
OpenWaldorf, and you have a *present* relationship with Waldorf. There are
reasons why you put so much work into the site. Disclose all that, and your
identity as a source will be clear. Let your readers decide if your
identity matters or not.
) ) Someone comes to your door and offers you a good price for your house
) ) and
) ) land. Is his motive important?
)
)It depends. How good is the price?
Let me tell you, the more he offers the more suspicious I would rightly be.
If someone comes to the door and offers twice the expected market value of
the house, maybe he knows something I don't know. Maybe he knows that some
corporation is about to site its corporate headquarters, and they just
identified my property as exactly what they need, and money is no object.
Maybe he knows that oil was discovered in an exploratory well, and the
geology indicates that the prime place to drill for it is my homesite. Or
maybe he just loves it and the money doesn't matter to him. I'd want to try
to know his motives before I sign my name to the agreement of sale.
)OpenWaldorf isn't about what's on the site. It's about what's on other
)sites.
*Nonsense*. What is on OpenWaldorf is mostly linkage to other sites, those
sites have been selected and arranged, access has been made convenient.
Convenience is not unimportant! Further, how the information is presented
can make all the difference in the world. Media that simply pass on
information introduce a special kind of bias, which is a bias toward the
sensational and toward quick judgement. I'll drop Chomsky's name at this
point....
) ) This whole Nazi Germany thing still smells bad, it has not been cleaned
) ) up, from what I've seen here. Yes, you may have posted corrections and
) ) retractions
)
)What else can be done?!
Stop defending yourself. It attracts continued criticism, because as long
as you defend yourself, you send a signal that you haven't gotten it.
There is a story that one of the companions of the Prophet (I'm a Muslim,
so you can guess pretty easily to whom that refers....) was sitting in the
mosque and someone came in who started criticizing the companion. The
companion remained silent for a time, but then it became too much for him
and he started defending himself. After the critic left, the Prophet
remarked, "While you were silent, the angels were defending you. When you
started to defend yourself, the angels left."
) ) but, still, you have to be *really* ignorant of Steiner and
) ) his work to say what you said,
)
)Guilty as charged.
Good response. Don't add anything to it!
) ) I have not spent any significant time at OpenWaldorf. It does sound
) ) interesting and attractive. It does sound like a valuable service.
)
)Thanks, that's been the bulk of the feedback.
As it should be. But you don't learn much from positive feedback, which is
useful primarily for stoking the fires, so to speak. Not so much for
improvement.
) ) You are
) ) being offered criticism here that is either accurate or not.
)
)And I love it. I've been begging for it. You get what you ask for, it
)just takes a while I guess. I was really hoping it would come from
)Waldorf supporters, but I'll take what I can get.
Ahem. What am I? Am I a Waldorf supporter or a Waldorf critic?
*I'm both.* I *love* Waldorf. The good part, and there is a lot of good
(often the very things that some critics find awful). Steiner I have more
difficulty with. But Steiner founded Waldorf, his theories and views are
almost inextricably entwined with Waldorf, are its DNA, as has been said.
Human beings, however, are not limited by their DNA. No DNA, no human
being, true. No Steiner, no Waldorf. But human beings can learn, and while
learning is made possible by DNA, the content of learning is not written in
the DNA (not at all, contrary to what some Waldorfians seem to think).
But anthroposophy *as it was conceived by Steiner* is larger than Steiner.
Anthroposophy is much more than Steiner's opinions and visions; he chose a
name that indicated it was "the wisdom of Man," i.e., the complete human
wisdom. There are anthroposophists who worship Steiner, in effect. But the
*theory* of anthroposophy is quite contrary to that. Critics point to
places where Steiner said things which could appear to contradict this; it
is another example of how the complexity of Steiner as a human being
generates a huge mass of material from which one can extract what one
wants. If you want to show that Steiner was a racist, you can find plenty
to support the view. But you won't know the truth unless you look at *all*
of what Steiner wrote.
In *theory*, anthroposophy is anti-dogmatic. However, anthroposophy is
practiced by human beings, who often claim for themselves what they have
not, in fact, earned. Human beings like to have simple answers, like to
think that they are in on the cosmic secrets, even if all they have done is
memorized someone else's warmed-over breakfast. It helps to have some
concept in general of the history of spiritual movements, particularly of
movements based on a single charismatic figure. Like Christianity, for
example, or Islam. What the followers do with the teachings of the founder
is, so often, a complete travesty....
But there are other followers who actually do the work, and, in the words
of the Qur'an, "these are the successful, and their reward is guaranteed."
) ) Surely you have better things to do!
)
)Not really. I believe what I'm doing is really important.
I'd agree, or I wouldn't waste my time writing about this.
)Me, too. Once again, I've been begging for someone to shine that light
)in my eyes.
The light is already in your eyes. It's not going to come from me, all I
can do is remind you of where the switch is.
) ) This is what I meant when I said that the mess has not been cleaned up.
) ) Mr. ) Holland is still attempting, it seems, to justify and excuse his
) blatant
) ) error.
)
)I really prefer to be called John. Once again, what else can be done
)about this situation?
Fine, John. (I use surnames, especially in potentially hot situations, to
emphasize polite debate, I do not presume the familiarity of given names.)
And you can call me Abd, which means "Slave."
)Critics assert a relationship between Anthroposophy and Nazi philosophy.
)I agree with this linkage.
Linkages can be made, and there were elements within the anthroposophical
movement which, at the very least, collaborated with the Nazis, or worse.
But Steiner seems to be innocent of this. And there were also, it seems,
anthroposophists who actively struggled against the Nazis, though I don't
know much about this. Nazi philosophy would not have been drawn, much, from
anthroposophy; more accurately -- there are others here who know a *lot*
more about this than I -- I think that Nazi philosophy was drawn, to some
extent, from common sources. But Nazi philosophy picked the darkest
implications from those sources while ignoring contrary material.
) ) )It's not a big deal if you confess and change your ways.
) )
) ) Difficult for a dead man.
)
)It seems even more difficult for a living school movement!
Yes. Movements are not people. They generally don't have any real central
nervous system. And movements, once they become entrenched, with
institutions and property, can become quite resistant to change. Any change
threatens the status quo, by definition, and, by definition, the status quo
has put certain people in positions of power and authority. These people
almost always believe that they are the best qualified to determine the
future course of an organization. They do not see, by and large, their
conflict of interest. This is not unique to Waldorf!!!
However, what is interesting to me, specifically about Waldorf, is that
Steiner did present a vision of social organization that could, if
completed and implemented, move beyond the limitations that are hampering
Waldorf today. In other words, it is beginning to appear to me that there
is a strong *anthroposophical* basis for opening up the Waldorf movement to
change. For me, the jury is still out on the question of whether or not
this is practical, or, to put it in anthroposophical terms, on how strong
the Ahrimanic forces are in Waldorf society. Dogmatism is an Ahrimanic
force! Even if -- *especially* if -- the dogma is straight from Steiner's
mouth.
We see this problem with fundamentalists in all religions. (Is
anthroposophy a religion? When it is treated as dogma, yes. When it is what
it was claimed to be, from the beginning, by Steiner, and by many other
anthroposophists, maybe, maybe not. Depends on what you mean by "religion,"
the general meaning of the term is not sufficiently precise.)
)[...] Not nearly as forthrightly as I've been dealing with my mistakes that
)critics have been pointing out.
Stop praising yourself. Stop praising OpenWaldorf. Let your actions and the
site speak for itself. If someone is going to praise you or it, let them.
Let others defend you if they are so moved. And if they don't, don't jump
in to fill the gap.
)A pattern of idiotic comments might suggest idiocy. A pattern of racist
)comments might suggest racism.
Yes. However, "idiot" can be justified, not just by an idiotic comment, or
ten or a hundred idiotic comments, but by the *balance* of what a person
says. If all someone says is idiotic, then, yes, the person is an idiot. If
they never say anything idiotic, then they are either saints (or something
even more rare) or they have simply learned to keep their mouth shut.
But if a man has people following him around, and they record every
comment, not to mention every speech, you are going to find a lot of
idiotic comments unless the man is perfect! So the absolute number does not
count for much, what counts is the balance, the proportion. Steiner did not
keep his mouth shut. And he made lots of mistakes.
Now, in my view, a tremendous opportunity was missed, for Steiner and for
the rest of us, because Steiner was heavily insulated from criticism. Even
with this insulation, it seems that he was able to accomplish a lot (though
many on this list may disagree with the value of what he accomplished).
Imagine how much he could have accomplished if his vision had not been
limited by his personal idiosyncracies!
(Steiner at times, it seems clear to me, discouraged criticism beyond what
would be appropriate. It is appropriate for a beginner in a subject to
refrain from criticism *for a time*. But Steiner acted against critics
beyond this legitimate realm. And that is a whole other subject; I'll just
include it here as one of his personal foibles, one of his serious mistakes.)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:53:51 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
At 02:45 AM 6/3/2004, Dan Dugan wrote:
)It's ironic to note that I started waldorf-critics for the same reason. I
)got kicked off the official Waldorf list (at that time "waldorf-l"
)moderated by "Lefty") for bringing up problems with Waldorf. So the
)official Waldorf list can be proud of being the source of the world-wide
)anti-Waldorf movement! You'd think they'd learn...
I'll say, first of all, that I probably support the decision of the
"official" list to restrict your participation. *And* I support your
founding of Waldorf-Critics. SJU Waldorf simply is not a forum for
examining, in depth, criticism of Waldorf education.
There are forces active on SJU Waldorf which would attempt to suppress all
criticism, but I do not see these forces as dominant. Posts *attacking* you
on SJU Waldorf sometimes receive negative comment from the moderators.
Waldorf parents want a place where they can ask Waldorfy questions. They
(some of them) don't want a firestorm of debate. They have a right to a
place that is reasonably safe for that.
So how criticism is raised on SJU Waldorf is quite important. There are
places and times where it is appropriate, but extended debate, not.
That Waldorf Critics seems to be quite open to pro-Waldorf posting is
excellent, and you are to be commended for that. That, taken by itself,
does increase your credibility, and makes the discussion here more
valuable. If I want to know about, for example, the context of Steiner's
mention of the professor who was allegedly a short-interlife reincarnation
of a "negro," I'm not going to ask on SJU Waldorf. Not only do I expect it
would raise a wholly inappropriate firestorm, but I don't expect most of
the people there to know the truth about it. Instead, I'd raise it here, or
perhaps on a forum where experienced and sober anthroposophists are active,
I belong to one. There are also fora where a bunch of looney-tunes
imagining they are anthroposophists are dominant.... I wouldn't bother to
ask there....
))I'm under
))the impression that these are tactics to diffuse the "Dugan effect" by
))dissin' Dugan. It would be interesting to hear what Dan has to say about
))whether or not my observations are grounded or not.
)
)I think so.
Ad hominem arguments are to be expected, given, may I say, the present
state of human evolution.... :-)
) Even though the movement of people critical of Waldorf has grown and
) matured far beyond this one disgruntled parent, and entirely new
) approaches such as yours have sprouted up, it still satifies people who
) want a simple target to blame it all on me. I love the way they try to
) say it's a secular humanist conspiracy, or a Christian conspiracy. An
) unholy alliance!
It's always easier to see how the other guys are getting it wrong, than it
is to see one's own errors.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 18:14:47 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
At 07:59 AM 6/3/2004, Diana Winters wrote:
)I'm sorry, perhaps this is becoming rude, I do find many useful features at
)your site, but really who needs help googling Waldorf topics? Google is
)pretty idiot-proof.
Not. *Lots* of people don't know how to use Google well. Further, even to
someone experienced, having some predefined searches handy is useful. I
wouldn't want to limit myself to that, and I'd want to -- as I've explained
elsewhere -- know the bias, if any, of the one suggesting the search terms
-- but, still it can help.
)Obviously Waldorf supporters don't trust me
I do. That doesn't mean I always agree with you, sometimes I think I
understand something better than you. But I respect you enough to think
that, even where we might disagree, your point of view is worthy of
consideration. And it is not motivated by an intent to deceive (which more
subtly manifests in people as an intention to win arguments rather than to
develop and reveal the full truth about a matter).
(If I must be classified, I'd have to be classified at this point as a
Supporter who criticizes, rather than as a Critic who perhaps is
sophisticated enough to acknowledge some points of agreement with
supporters. My motives are (1) to investigate Waldorf with respect to
making some very significant life decisions regarding not only my daughter,
but where my wife and I live and the work that we do, and (2) to help
Waldorf to become the best that it can become, whether this means staying
the way that it is, or changing, and I pretty strongly have concluded that
some change and something being kept are both necessary. I'm also, for the
record, a Waldorf grandparent, based on a completely independent decision
made by my son, for whom the financial commitment is not an easy burden.)
)either. There is no way around people suspecting a critical person is
)someone with an axe to grind, especially when, sometimes, they're right. The
)only ethical answer is total honesty. If they figure out we are *not* being
)honest it really becomes impossible. Trust builds up slowly. At the risk of
)tooting my own horn, I actually think some people in Waldorf and some
)anthroposophists respect what I have to say. I've been saying it awhile and
)shown that I don't cheat and lie.
I'll toot the horn for you. Too-too-too-too-too-toot! If they don't respect
what you say, they only show their own foolishness. Again, that doesn't
mean that they have to agree with you!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 18:20:57 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
At 09:21 AM 6/3/2004, John Holland wrote:
)Dan Dugan wrote:
) ) So the official Waldorf list can be proud of being the
) ) source of the world-wide anti-Waldorf movement! You'd think they'd
) ) learn...
)
)Truly an embarassing legacy. They're still harassing folks over there
)for linking to OpenWaldorf.
Okay, John, there is another embarrassing error. [Unless you are privy to
some special information not available to any subscriber to the list, or I
missed something.]
Pop Quiz, Essay Test: You have a chance to acknowledge the error
immediately, you can ignore it, or you can try to defend your comment. Take
your pick.
I'm not going to explain, that's part of the test....
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 21:30:57 +0000
From: John Holland (john openwaldorf.com)
Subject: RE: sorting through historical details
Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
)
) By the way, I don't think I've said this before, largely because I
) hadn't
) looked. Nice web site, Mr. Holland! Your work is appreciated, even if I
) think that there might be a defect here or there. Add an independent
) free
) association, of the kind I've been discussing with certain
) anthroposophists, and you'd have a *really* valuable, even
) revolutionary,
) web site.
Thanks. Could you please explain what you mean by an "independent free
association?"
) You haven't learned yet.
No surprises here.
) Right now, based on what I've seen here and in your own
) writing on OpenWaldorf, you are spending an excessive amount of time
) defending yourself against accusations. I'd suggest not doing that at
) all.
) Let others do it, if it is going to be done at all. Confine yourself to
) correcting factual errors you make or acknowledging criticism, when you
) can. Let the rest fall where it falls.
Tempting.
) You have brought criticism and unfair attack against OpenWaldorf from
) other
) forums, such as the SJU Waldo