return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By somedude04 yahoo.com
reading Charlie and reading Steiner
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: reading Charlie and reading Steiner
By somedude04 yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By somedude04 yahoo.com
Racial doctrine I found
By somedude04 yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: reading Charlie and reading Steiner
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By somedude04 yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By somedude04 yahoo.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: What is race-for Peter-correction
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: What is race-for Peter - correction
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: For parents seeking info on Waldorf
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: What is race-for Peter
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
RE: What is race-for Peter correction
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
Admin Question
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: Racial doctrine I found
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By somedude04 yahoo.com
Re: Racial doctrine I found
By somedude04 yahoo.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
Re: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Racial doctrine I found
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Racial doctrine I found
By somedude04 yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:42:30 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Hi Charlie, you wrote:
)
)
) ) I, on the other hand, would like to say that I have never encountered
) )a "person of color" who reacted in this way.
) )My class at Sunbridge College contained 4 black people (sorry...I'm old
) )fashioned. They were not all American, so "African-American" doesn't
) )work. Actually, my closest African-American friend is white.), 2
) )Hispanic people, and 4 Asian people; and none of them were "spooked".
) )And there was MUCH discussion about race and Anthroposophy (Have I
) )mentioned that half of my family is Jewish and the only person in this
) )world that I have ever called my brother had black skin?).
) ) Nor, I should add, have I ever encountered an Anthroposophist who has
) )indicated to me even the slightest hint of racism, unless you include an
) )awareness that different races and cultures have differences.
) ) So, even if there are some questionable quotes from Steiner (which
) )there are) this whole idea that there is racism living in
) )Anthroposophy/Waldorf is just a crock of crap being kept alive by a very
) )few single-minded people with a beef against the movement.
)
)
) I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense, Charlie. You listed a variety of
)
) people that you have interacted with personally, and concluded from this
)
) that there is no racism whatsoever within anthroposophical circles
) anywhere.
Your mis-reading of so many posts remains astounding.
Please re-read the part where I clearly mention that I have never
encountered racism in Anthroposophy. I can only speak from my experience
on this.
Your desire for clarity seems silly when your replies are only loosely
based on the original post.
I offer a pair of plant-dyed Eurythmy shoes as a prize to whomever can
find where in my post that I claimed "there is no racism whatsoever in
Anthroposophical circles anywhere."
I believe Peter's obcession has begun to make him delusional.
) Even if everybody else trusted your testimony, and that of folks like
) Joshua
) Wark, and considered the two of you reliable judges of racism, your
) limited
) personal experiences could not possibly support the conclusion you have
) drawn. It would make as much sense for me to look inside of my
) refrigerator,
) see all sorts of pasta and potato dishes, and declare that nobody in
) America
) is on a low-carb diet.
)
) Critics of anthroposophical racism do not, as a rule, contend that there
) are
) open racists populating each and every Waldorf school. What we contend
) is
) that anthroposophical enthusiasts like you and Joshua have failed to
) come to
) terms with the racial and ethnic doctrines that form a considerable part
) of
) Steiner's teachings, and that you frequently defend and endorse these
) doctrines rather than disavowing their racist content. I think that if
) you
) keep up that strategy of avoidance and denial, you are unlikely to
) convince
) many people that there truly is no more racism living in anthroposophy.
)
)
) )If you need to believe that some of us are ignoring a
) )central doctrine of Anthroposophy by not being racist, fine.Feel free to
) )accuse me of being a hypocrite because I pick and choose what I like
) )about Anthroposophy
)
)
) This doesn't make you a hypocrite, it makes your arguments naive. You
) can't
) have an informed discussion about anthroposophy's racial teachings until
) you
) familiarize yourself with them, and that means reading Steiner to see
) what
) he was actually saying, rather than picking and choosing the stuff that
) happens to appeal to you.
)
)
) )but if you are going to accuse me of being a
) )racist, you are wise to do it at at least arm's length.
)
)
) Will an ocean's length do? Sorry, no sarcasm; it's just hard for me to
) take
) this sort of guy talk seriously. More to the point, it's immaterial
) whether
) you are personally racist. The question at hand, it seems to me, is the
) ways
) in which your anthroposophical beliefs may influence your views on
) racial
) and ethnic matters, and your statements on that score so far have been
) remarkably murky.
)
)
) ) In my opinion the 2 pillars of Anthroposophy are "Knowledge of Higher
) )Worlds..." and "A Philosophy of Freedom", and the more one studies these
) )books, the closer one will be able to get to his/her higher self,; and
) )the closer we get to our higher selves, the more impossible racism
) )becomes.
)
)
) I can't agree that Philosophy of Freedom is a pillar of anthroposophy,
It is my understanding that Steiner thought that "A Philosophy of
Freedom" would be his most enduring book.
It's not about whether you agree.
but
) Knowledge of Higher Worlds certainly is. In that book, of course,
) Steiner
) teaches that the path to our higher selves leads through a series of
) progressively higher racial and ethnic forms. This idea is racist. There
) are
) no such thing as higher or lower racial forms. Such ideas are exactly
) what
) make racism possible, not impossible. If you have such a strong reaction
) to
) the thought that others might perceive you as racist, then why do you
) continue to propagate ideas like these?
Since you are so convinced that "Knowledge..." is racist, and I know
that you are a dedicated studier of Steiner,I suggest that you dedicate
yourself to following Steiner's path, as outlined in the book, and see
if it makes you a racist.
c
)
)
) Cheers,
)
)
) Peter S.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
) http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:43:20 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Hi again Jwark, you wrote:
)Um, Peter, You CONSTANTLY list a variety of people
)you've acted with personally as well. Why should we
)listen to you? In fact, why should anyone listen to
)anyone here?
I think you misunderstood the recent exchange about Steiner fans dropping
the ball in public discussions of anthroposophical race theory. In that
exchange, both sides referred to their personal experiences, because these
experiences are directly relevant evidence on the disputed topic. The same
is not true for the considerably broader topic of anthroposophical race
thinking as such. On that topic, I have not listed a variety of people I've
acted with personally; instead, I have listed, and quoted at great length
from, a variety of anthroposophical texts whose authors I do not know
personally. This is why Charlie's line of reasoning is untenable; he mistook
his personal experience for evidence that there is no racism in
anthroposophy today. That is a straightforward logical error.
)And also, since you seem to be on attack Peter, I
)would like to know why none of your posts ever have
)question marks in them. Do you ever question anything
)at all?
On second thought, perhaps you missed that exchange entirely. About 24 hours
ago I was asked by one of your fellow Waldorf fans to go easy on the
questions, and I've been giving it a try. If you'd prefer that I change this
policy in your case, I will happily comply.
)You're just blowing out statements left and right and
)claiming that things other people say can not be
)believed.
No, I just said the very opposite. I am quite willing to believe Charlie's
testimony about his experience. The problem is not that what he said cannot
be believed, but that it cannot support the conclusion he drew.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
No Peter, you wrote..."Even if everybody else trusted
your testimony, and that of folks like
) Joshua
) Wark, and considered the two of you reliable judges
of racism, your
) limited
) personal experiences could not possibly support the
conclusion you
have
) drawn."
As in, you included me in that statement. Please
reread my post. I did not make any conclusions at all.
I merely stated fact. Stop trying to say I am not
credible. Reread my email, I will forward it to you if
you want.
--- Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Buy Stocks and Index Funds for just $4 No Account or
)
) Investment Minimums and No Inactivity Fees
) Automatically
) invest weekly or monthly and build your future.
)
http://click.topica.com/caacvggb1dkiGb7OS4ta/Sharebuilder
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
)
) Hi again Jwark, you wrote:
)
)
) )Um, Peter, You CONSTANTLY list a variety of people
) )you've acted with personally as well. Why should we
) )listen to you? In fact, why should anyone listen to
) )anyone here?
)
)
) I think you misunderstood the recent exchange about
) Steiner fans dropping
) the ball in public discussions of anthroposophical
) race theory. In that
) exchange, both sides referred to their personal
) experiences, because these
) experiences are directly relevant evidence on the
) disputed topic. The same
) is not true for the considerably broader topic of
) anthroposophical race
) thinking as such. On that topic, I have not listed a
) variety of people I've
) acted with personally; instead, I have listed, and
) quoted at great length
) from, a variety of anthroposophical texts whose
) authors I do not know
) personally. This is why Charlie's line of reasoning
) is untenable; he mistook
) his personal experience for evidence that there is
) no racism in
) anthroposophy today. That is a straightforward
) logical error.
)
)
) )And also, since you seem to be on attack Peter, I
) )would like to know why none of your posts ever have
) )question marks in them. Do you ever question
) anything
) )at all?
)
)
) On second thought, perhaps you missed that exchange
) entirely. About 24 hours
) ago I was asked by one of your fellow Waldorf fans
) to go easy on the
) questions, and I've been giving it a try. If you'd
) prefer that I change this
) policy in your case, I will happily comply.
)
)
) )You're just blowing out statements left and right
) and
) )claiming that things other people say can not be
) )believed.
)
)
) No, I just said the very opposite. I am quite
) willing to believe Charlie's
) testimony about his experience. The problem is not
) that what he said cannot
) be believed, but that it cannot support the
) conclusion he drew.
)
)
) Cheers,
)
)
) Peter S.
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
) On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events
) for advice on how to
) get there!
)
http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Sponsor a child today through Children
) International.
) Give a desperately poor child hope for a brighter
) future.
) For only $18 a month you can make a difference!
)
http://click.topica.com/caacvgob1dkiGb7OS4tf/ChildrenInternational
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:10:17 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: reading Charlie and reading Steiner
Hi again Charlie, you wrote:
)Your mis-reading of so many posts remains astounding.
)Please re-read the part where I clearly mention that I have never
)encountered racism in Anthroposophy. I can only speak from my experience
)on this.
Yes, I noted this in my previous message, and pointed out the problem with
it: your experience cannot support a global conclusion about the complete
absence of racism within anthroposophy as it exists today. Did I
misunderstand your conclusion? Did you not, in fact, mean that there is no
racism whatsoever living within anthroposophy currently?
) I offer a pair of plant-dyed Eurythmy shoes as a prize to whomever can
)find where in my post that I claimed "there is no racism whatsoever in
)Anthroposophical circles anywhere."
Here is what you wrote:
"So, even if there are some questionable quotes from Steiner (which there
are) this whole idea that there is racism living in Anthroposophy/Waldorf is
just a crock of crap being kept alive by a very few single-minded people
with a beef against the movement."
Doesn't that sentence say that the whole idea that there is racism living in
Anthroposophy/Waldorf is a crock of crap? Would you perhaps like to
reformulate your claim?
)It is my understanding that Steiner thought that "A Philosophy of
)Freedom" would be his most enduring book.
I don't see what that has to do with whether it is a pillar of
anthroposophy. The book was written long before Steiner became a Theosophist
and long before he founded anthroposophy, and the book has no
anthroposophical content.
)Since you are so convinced that "Knowledge..." is racist, and I know
)that you are a dedicated studier of Steiner,I suggest that you dedicate
)yourself to following Steiner's path, as outlined in the book, and see
)if it makes you a racist.
That sentence confuses study with adherence; the two approaches are
radically different. In fact it may be that this difference, which divides
you and me, accounts for our divergent perspectives on racism. One way to
find out is to look at specific passages from the book itself, and discuss
their implications. I suggest we start with the following:
"The individual belongs to a family, a nation, a race; his activity in this
world depends upon his belonging to some such community. His particular
character is also connected with it. The conscious activity of individual
persons by no means exhausts everything to be reckoned with in a family, a
nation, or a race. Besides their character, families, nations, and races
have also their destiny. For persons restricted to their senses these things
remain mere general ideas; and the materialistic thinker, in his prejudice,
will look down with contempt on the spiritual scientist when he hears that
for him, family and national character, lineal or racial destiny, are vested
in beings just as real as the personality in which the character and destiny
of the individual man are vested. The spiritual scientist becomes acquainted
with higher worlds of which the separate personalities are members, just as
arms and legs are members of the human being. Besides the separate
individuals, a very real family and national group soul and racial spirit is
at work in the life of a family, a people, or a race. Indeed, in a certain
sense the separate individuals are merely the executive organs of these
family group souls, racial spirits, and so on. It is nothing but the truth
to say, for instance, that a national group soul makes use of each
individual man belonging to that nation for the execution of some work. The
group soul of a people does not descend into physical reality but dwells in
the higher worlds and, in order to work in the physical world, makes use of
the physical organs of each individual human being. In a higher sense, it is
like an architect making use of workmen for executing the details of a
building. In the truest sense, everyone receives his allotted task from his
family, national, or racial group soul. Now, the ordinary person is by no
means initiated into the higher design of his work. He joins unconsciously
in the tasks of his people and of his race. From the moment the student
meets the Guardian, he must not only know his own tasks, but must knowingly
collaborate in those of his folk, his race. Every extension of his horizon
necessarily enlarges the scope of his duties. What actually happens is that
the student adds a new body to his finer soul-body. He puts on a second
garment. Hitherto he found his way through the world with the coverings
enveloping his personality; and what he had to accomplish for his community,
his nation, his race, was directed by higher spirits who made use of his
personality."
(Rudolf Steiner, Knowledge of Higher Worlds pp. 197-199)
"And now, a further revelation made to him by the Guardian of the Threshold
is that henceforth these spirits will withdraw their guiding hand from him.
He must step out of the circle of his community. Yet as an isolated
personality he would become hardened in himself and decline into ruin, did
he not, himself, acquire those powers which are vested in the national and
racial spirits. Many, no doubt, will say: “Oh, I have entirely freed myself
from all lineal and racial connections; I only want to be a human being and
nothing but a human being.” To these one must reply: “Who, then, brought you
to this freedom? Was it not your family who placed you in the world where
you now stand? Have you not your lineage, your nation, your race to thank
for being what you are? They have brought you up. And if now, exalted above
all prejudices, you are one of the light-bringers and benefactors of your
stock and even of your race, it is to their up-bringing that you owe it.
Yes, even when you say you are 'nothing but a human being,' even the fact
that you have become such a personality you owe to the spirits of your
communities.” Only the esoteric student learns what it means to be entirely
cut off from his family, national, or racial spirit. He alone realizes,
through personal experience, the insignificance of all such education in
respect of the life now confronting him. For everything inculcated by
education completely melts away when the threads binding will, thought, and
feeling are severed. He looks back on the result of all his previous
education as he might on a house crumbling away brick by brick, which he
must now rebuild in a new form. And again, it is more than a mere symbolical
expression to say that when the Guardian has enunciated his first statement,
there arises from the spot where he stands a whirlwind which extinguishes
all those spiritual lights that have hitherto illumined the pathway of his
life. Utter darkness, relieved only by the rays issuing from the Guardian
himself, unfolds before the student. And out of this darkness resounds the
Guardian's further admonition: “Step not across my Threshold until thou dost
clearly realize that thou wilt thyself illumine the darkness ahead of thee;
take not a single step forward until thou art positive that thou hast
sufficient oil in thine own lamp. The lamps of the guides whom thou hast
hitherto followed will now no longer be available to thee.” At these words,
the student must turn and glance backward. The Guardian of the Threshold now
draws aside a veil which till now had concealed deep life-mysteries. The
family, national, and racial spirits are revealed to the student in their
full activity, so that he perceives clearly on the one hand, how he has
hitherto been led, and no less clearly on the other hand, that he will
henceforward no longer enjoy this guidance. That is the second warning
received at the Threshold from its Guardian."
(Rudolf Steiner, Knowledge of Higher Worlds pp. 199-201)
"The extent to which he is entangled in the physical sense-world is exposed
to the student's view. The presence of instincts, impulses, desires,
egotistical wishes and all forms of selfishness, and so forth, expresses
itself in this entanglement, as it does further in his membership in a race,
a nation, and so forth; for peoples and races are but steps leading to pure
humanity. A race or a nation stands so much the higher, the more perfectly
its members express the pure, ideal human type, the further they have worked
their way from the physical and perishable to the supersensible and
imperishable. The evolution of man through the incarnations in ever higher
national and racial forms is thus a process of liberation. Man must finally
appear in harmonious perfection."
(Rudolf Steiner, Knowledge of Higher Worlds p. 207)
It seems to me that these passages include both racist and non-racist
teachings. Do you disagree?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: reading Charlie and reading Steiner
Sorry, Peter, not going to comment on Steiner
passages. I don't mean I think you're wrong. It's just
I currently think you're probably right.
Althought he did draw conclusions. I propose my
factual opinion of this. I can not find any instances
of racism in current waldorf schools. I do see TONS of
posts saying how they have never experienced it. Now,
I know you have already stated that what I perceive as
"racism" is based on my perception. This is true.
However, scientifically, we have to have something to
compare it to....oh, how about public schools? Care to
comment?
And also, just because he has opinions that he draws
conclusions from, does not make his experiences
invalid. They are very important in this discussion I
believe, as are yours Peter. Also, the gift of
freewill allows us to draw conclusions if we want to.
To end my comments. I would like to say that I'm not
sure that racism doesn't exist in anthroposophy today.
But, I'm pretty sure it's on par with anything you
could compare it to. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll
tend to stick with that.
--- Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Need cash fast? Get a $500 CASH ADVANCE overnight!
) Let
) YourCashCentral get you the cash you need.
)
http://click.topica.com/caacxycb1dkiGb7OS4ta/MyOnlinePayday
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
)
)
) Hi again Charlie, you wrote:
)
)
) )Your mis-reading of so many posts remains
) astounding.
) )Please re-read the part where I clearly mention
) that I have never
) )encountered racism in Anthroposophy. I can only
) speak from my experience
) )on this.
)
)
) Yes, I noted this in my previous message, and
) pointed out the problem with
) it: your experience cannot support a global
) conclusion about the complete
) absence of racism within anthroposophy as it exists
) today. Did I
) misunderstand your conclusion? Did you not, in fact,
) mean that there is no
) racism whatsoever living within anthroposophy
) currently?
)
)
) ) I offer a pair of plant-dyed Eurythmy shoes as a
) prize to whomever can
) )find where in my post that I claimed "there is no
) racism whatsoever in
) )Anthroposophical circles anywhere."
)
)
) Here is what you wrote:
)
) "So, even if there are some questionable quotes from
) Steiner (which there
) are) this whole idea that there is racism living in
) Anthroposophy/Waldorf is
) just a crock of crap being kept alive by a very few
) single-minded people
) with a beef against the movement."
)
) Doesn't that sentence say that the whole idea that
) there is racism living in
) Anthroposophy/Waldorf is a crock of crap? Would you
) perhaps like to
) reformulate your claim?
)
)
) )It is my understanding that Steiner thought that "A
) Philosophy of
) )Freedom" would be his most enduring book.
)
)
) I don't see what that has to do with whether it is a
) pillar of
) anthroposophy. The book was written long before
) Steiner became a Theosophist
) and long before he founded anthroposophy, and the
) book has no
) anthroposophical content.
)
)
) )Since you are so convinced that "Knowledge..." is
) racist, and I know
) )that you are a dedicated studier of Steiner,I
) suggest that you dedicate
) )yourself to following Steiner's path, as outlined
) in the book, and see
) )if it makes you a racist.
)
)
) That sentence confuses study with adherence; the two
) approaches are
) radically different. In fact it may be that this
) difference, which divides
) you and me, accounts for our divergent perspectives
) on racism. One way to
) find out is to look at specific passages from the
) book itself, and discuss
) their implications. I suggest we start with the
) following:
)
)
) "The individual belongs to a family, a nation, a
) race; his activity in this
) world depends upon his belonging to some such
) community. His particular
) character is also connected with it. The conscious
) activity of individual
) persons by no means exhausts everything to be
) reckoned with in a family, a
) nation, or a race. Besides their character,
) families, nations, and races
) have also their destiny. For persons restricted to
) their senses these things
) remain mere general ideas; and the materialistic
) thinker, in his prejudice,
) will look down with contempt on the spiritual
) scientist when he hears that
) for him, family and national character, lineal or
) racial destiny, are vested
) in beings just as real as the personality in which
) the character and destiny
) of the individual man are vested. The spiritual
) scientist becomes acquainted
) with higher worlds of which the separate
) personalities are members, just as
) arms and legs are members of the human being.
) Besides the separate
) individuals, a very real family and national group
) soul and racial spirit is
) at work in the life of a family, a people, or a
) race. Indeed, in a certain
) sense the separate individuals are merely the
) executive organs of these
) family group souls, racial spirits, and so on. It is
) nothing but the truth
) to say, for instance, that a national group soul
) makes use of each
) individual man belonging to that nation for the
) execution of some work. The
) group soul of a people does not descend into
) physical reality but dwells in
) the higher worlds and, in order to work in the
) physical world, makes use of
) the physical organs of each individual human being.
) In a higher sense, it is
) like an architect making use of workmen for
) executing the details of a
) building. In the truest sense, everyone receives his
) allotted task from his
) family, national, or racial group soul. Now, the
) ordinary person is by no
) means initiated into the higher design of his work.
) He joins unconsciously
) in the tasks of his people and of his race. From the
) moment the student
) meets the Guardian, he must not only know his own
) tasks, but must knowingly
) collaborate in those of his folk, his race. Every
) extension of his horizon
) necessarily enlarges the scope of his duties. What
) actually happens is that
) the student adds a new body to his finer soul-body.
) He puts on a second
) garment. Hitherto he found his way through the world
) with the coverings
) enveloping his personality; and what he had to
) accomplish for his community,
) his nation, his race, was directed by higher spirits
) who made use of his
) personality."
)
) (Rudolf Steiner, Knowledge of Higher Worlds pp.
) 197-199)
)
) "And now, a further revelation made to him by the
) Guardian of the Threshold
) is that henceforth these spirits will withdraw their
) guiding hand from him.
) He must step out of the circle of his community. Yet
) as an isolated
) personality he would become hardened in himself and
) decline into ruin, did
) he not, himself, acquire those powers which are
) vested in the national and
) racial spirits. Many, no doubt, will say: “Oh, I
) have entirely freed myself
) from all lineal and racial connections; I only want
) to be a human being and
) nothing but a human being.” To these one must reply:
) “Who, then, brought you
) to this freedom? Was it not your family who placed
) you in the world where
) you now stand? Have you not your lineage, your
) nation, your race to thank
) for being what you are? They have brought you up.
) And if now, exalted above
) all prejudices, you are one of the light-bringers
) and benefactors of your
) stock and even of your race, it is to their
) up-bringing that you owe it.
) Yes, even when you say you are 'nothing but a human
) being,' even the fact
) that you have become such a personality you owe to
) the spirits of your
) communities.” Only the esoteric student learns what
) it means to be entirely
) cut off from his family, national, or racial spirit.
) He
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:22:46 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Hi again Jwark,
I'm not sure why this isn't getting through, but I am not trying to say that
you are not credible. I have no reason to doubt that in the eight years you
attended Waldorf, you never witnessed any racism at all. The problem is that
this doesn't tell us much about anthroposophical doctrines on race and
ethnicity, or even about the presence or absence of such doctrines within
other Waldorf contexts. That was the point of my post to Charlie.
Cheers,
Peter S.
)As in, you included me in that statement. Please
)reread my post. I did not make any conclusions at all.
)I merely stated fact. Stop trying to say I am not
)credible. Reread my email, I will forward it to you if
)you want.
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
"The problem is
that
this doesn't tell us much about anthroposophical
doctrines on race and
ethnicity, or even about the presence or absence of
such doctrines
within
other Waldorf contexts. That was the point of my post
to Charlie."
I'm not understanding why you keep saying I'm not
reading what you're saying. You specifically said, and
I'll quote again...
and pointed out the problem with
) it: your experience cannot support a global
) conclusion about the complete
) absence of racism within anthroposophy as it exists
) today.
You did not say that in the last email. Here's the ONE
PROBLEM you mentioned in the last email since you have
a memory problem.
"The problem is
that
this doesn't tell us much about anthroposophical
doctrines on race and
ethnicity, or even about the presence or absence of
such doctrines
within
other Waldorf contexts. That was the point of my post
to Charlie."
BOTH START WITH THE STATEMENT, "THE PROBLEM IS ".AS IN
ONE PROBLEM. BOTH STATEMENTS ARE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS.
I supposed I'll get another response that goes like,
"You don't understand what I wrote, now let me write
something different because this is what I really
meant". Oh well, some things never change.
- Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Stories from the Civil Rights Movement.
) Extraordinary stories,
) ordinary people. Share your memories today!
) http://click.topica.com/caacvglb1dkiGb7OS4ta/AARP
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
)
)
) Hi again Jwark,
)
)
) I'm not sure why this isn't getting through, but I
) am not trying to say that
) you are not credible. I have no reason to doubt that
) in the eight years you
) attended Waldorf, you never witnessed any racism at
) all. The problem is that
) this doesn't tell us much about anthroposophical
) doctrines on race and
) ethnicity, or even about the presence or absence of
) such doctrines within
) other Waldorf contexts. That was the point of my
) post to Charlie.
)
) Cheers,
)
) Peter S.
)
)
) )As in, you included me in that statement. Please
) )reread my post. I did not make any conclusions at
) all.
) )I merely stated fact. Stop trying to say I am not
) )credible. Reread my email, I will forward it to you
) if
) )you want.
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
) On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events
) for advice on how to
) get there!
)
http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Need cash fast? Get a $500 CASH ADVANCE overnight!
) Let
) YourCashCentral get you the cash you need.
)
http://click.topica.com/caacxycb1dkiGb7OS4tf/MyOnlinePayday
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: Racial doctrine I found
This is a direct Seinter quote.
"The concept of race in a proper sense was only useful
during old Atlantis [corresponding to Tertiary and
Quaternary in the view of the late Steiner].
Therefore, as we describe a real evolution of
humanity, we have not used the concept of race for the
post-Atlantean time [the time after the last glacial
ages]. We don't speak of an Indian race and so on, as
it isn't proper any more. We speak of an Old Indian
cultural epoch, of an Old Persian cultural epoch and
so on.
"It would make completely no sense if we were to say
that we in our time were preparing for a sixth 'race'.
If we in our time still see remains of the old
Atlantean differences, remaining old group soulness,
so that you still can speak of a differentiation into
races - what is preparing itself for the sixth epoch
consists specifically in getting rid of and leaving
behind that which is 'racial character'. That is the
important thing.
"Therefore it is necessary, that the movement which is
called the anthroposophical movement, that prepares
for the sixth epoch in its basic character, takes up
especially this task of getting rid of what is related
to 'racial character' and unites people of all races,
of all nations and in this way bridges this
differentiation, these differences, this abyss, that
exists between different groups of people. Because the
old racial points of view have a physical character,
and what will develop into the future has a spiritual
character.
"That is the reason it is so urgently necessary that
our anthroposophical movement is a spiritual movement,
that looks at that which is spiritual and overcomes
specifically that which is based on physical
differences, out of the force of this spirituality.
"It is completely understandable that every movement
has its childhood illnesses and that at the beginning
of the theosophical movement one described what it is
about as if the evolution of the Earth so to speak was
differentiated into seven epochs - they were called
'main races' [here 'main races' refers to the
theosophical concept of seven "root races"] - and that
every 'root race' was differentiated into seven
'sub-races', and that everything would repeat itself
that way for ever, so that you for ever could speak of
seven 'races' and seven 'sub-races'.
"But one has to overcome this childhood illness and
become clear that the concept of race ceases to have
any meaning / importance specifically in our time.
"Something else is preparing itself - something that
in the most eminent sense has to do with the human
individuality - the ever more increasing
individualization of man. What is important is that
this development of the individuality is supported in
the right way, and the anthroposophical movement has
to support this development of individuality in man in
the right way.''
Rudolf Steiner 4 December 1909, in: The deeper secrets
of the development of humanity in the light of the
gospels (GA 117).
Hm, that just does not sound racist at all to me. I
understand he did have questionable ideas about race,
but it seems pretty clear he's not talking about the
present times. I kind of like this view. That we must
look past race and merge spiritually.
I'm not saying I agree with everything Steiner says.
And I don't think he has any proof of any of this
stuff. It's just, I don't think his intentions were as
evil as some people would like to suggest.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:06:01 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Hi Jwark, you wrote:
)BOTH START WITH THE STATEMENT, "THE PROBLEM IS ".AS IN
)ONE PROBLEM. BOTH STATEMENTS ARE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS.
I don't know why you think that, but I'm afraid I can't agree. The two
statements refer to the same problem. Anthroposophy as it exists today
includes not just a few particular Waldorf schools, and not just the people
that Charlie met at Sunbridge; it also includes anthroposophical doctrines
on race and ethnicity, as well as the roles that these doctrines might play
at other Waldorf schools that none of us have ever been to. Thus if a
credible source tells us that they have never witnessed any racism at the
particular Waldorf establishments with which they are familiar, this alone
cannot support the conclusion that the whole idea that there is racism
living in Anthroposophy/Waldorf is a crock of crap. My argument is not that
Charlie's report of his personal experience is uncredible, and my argument
is not that your report of your personal experience is uncredible. My
argument is that neither of these reports can justify the conclusion that
there is no racism in anthroposophy. (By the way, I attributed that
conclusion to Charlie, not to you.) Just as the contents of my refrigerator,
or even of your refrigerator and Sharon's refrigerator and Linda's
refigerator all combined, cannot justify a global conclusion about dietary
habits in the contemporary United States.
Cheers,
Peter S.
)-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)"The problem is
)that
)this doesn't tell us much about anthroposophical
)doctrines on race and
)ethnicity, or even about the presence or absence of
)such doctrines
)within
)other Waldorf contexts. That was the point of my post
)to Charlie."
)
)I'm not understanding why you keep saying I'm not
)reading what you're saying. You specifically said, and
)I'll quote again...
)
)
) and pointed out the problem with
) ) it: your experience cannot support a global
) ) conclusion about the complete
) ) absence of racism within anthroposophy as it exists
) ) today.
)
)You did not say that in the last email. Here's the ONE
)PROBLEM you mentioned in the last email since you have
)a memory problem.
)
)"The problem is
)that
)this doesn't tell us much about anthroposophical
)doctrines on race and
)ethnicity, or even about the presence or absence of
)such doctrines
)within
)other Waldorf contexts. That was the point of my post
)to Charlie."
)
)BOTH START WITH THE STATEMENT, "THE PROBLEM IS ".AS IN
)ONE PROBLEM. BOTH STATEMENTS ARE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS.
)
)I supposed I'll get another response that goes like,
)"You don't understand what I wrote, now let me write
)something different because this is what I really
)meant". Oh well, some things never change.
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:10:00 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: reading Charlie and reading Steiner
I'm sorry, Peter; I guess I'm one of the glassy-eyed followers.
To me, these passages merely show an appreciation and an acknowledgement
of who we are based on where we come from--that we are currently the
highest limb on our family tree---irrespective of which
family/tribe/race we come from.
In order for *me* to call this racist, it would have to say that one
race is inferior to another.
*AND* how do you know the race he is referring to is not the race of the
post-Atlantean, which would include all living people?
I just think that you're wearing green glasses, so everything looks
green.
) )
)
) It seems to me that these passages include both racist and non-racist
) teachings. Do you disagree?
)
)
) Peter S.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
) FREE!
) hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Well, you're arguing that it is embedded in Waldorf
schools because it is embedded in anthroposophy then?
If you're merely stating that it exists in Steiner's
writings then I believe me and Charlie have made it
clear that we're not saying this is not true.
I am simply stating that, at my school, it was not a
problem. After all, that is the only evidence to the
argument that it "exists in waldorf schools" in my
opinion. I don't think Steiner's writings come into
play because they did not teach me his philosophies in
any way.
If someone were to file a complaint against waldorf,
claiming they were a victim of racism. Or even post a
story here then I would love to hear it.
C
--- Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Need cash fast? Get a $500 CASH ADVANCE overnight!
) Let
) YourCashCentral get you the cash you need.
)
http://click.topica.com/caacxycb1dkiGb7OS4ta/MyOnlinePayday
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
)
)
) Hi Jwark, you wrote:
)
)
) )BOTH START WITH THE STATEMENT, "THE PROBLEM IS ".AS
) IN
) )ONE PROBLEM. BOTH STATEMENTS ARE DIFFERENT
) PROBLEMS.
)
)
) I don't know why you think that, but I'm afraid I
) can't agree. The two
) statements refer to the same problem. Anthroposophy
) as it exists today
) includes not just a few particular Waldorf schools,
) and not just the people
) that Charlie met at Sunbridge; it also includes
) anthroposophical doctrines
) on race and ethnicity, as well as the roles that
) these doctrines might play
) at other Waldorf schools that none of us have ever
) been to. Thus if a
) credible source tells us that they have never
) witnessed any racism at the
) particular Waldorf establishments with which they
) are familiar, this alone
) cannot support the conclusion that the whole idea
) that there is racism
) living in Anthroposophy/Waldorf is a crock of crap.
) My argument is not that
) Charlie's report of his personal experience is
) uncredible, and my argument
) is not that your report of your personal experience
) is uncredible. My
) argument is that neither of these reports can
) justify the conclusion that
) there is no racism in anthroposophy. (By the way, I
) attributed that
) conclusion to Charlie, not to you.) Just as the
) contents of my refrigerator,
) or even of your refrigerator and Sharon's
) refrigerator and Linda's
) refigerator all combined, cannot justify a global
) conclusion about dietary
) habits in the contemporary United States.
)
)
) Cheers,
)
)
) Peter S.
)
)
)
)
)
)-------------------------------------------------------------------
) )
) )"The problem is
) )that
) )this doesn't tell us much about anthroposophical
) )doctrines on race and
) )ethnicity, or even about the presence or absence of
) )such doctrines
) )within
) )other Waldorf contexts. That was the point of my
) post
) )to Charlie."
) )
) )I'm not understanding why you keep saying I'm not
) )reading what you're saying. You specifically said,
) and
) )I'll quote again...
) )
) )
) ) and pointed out the problem with
) ) ) it: your experience cannot support a global
) ) ) conclusion about the complete
) ) ) absence of racism within anthroposophy as it
) exists
) ) ) today.
) )
) )You did not say that in the last email. Here's the
) ONE
) )PROBLEM you mentioned in the last email since you
) have
) )a memory problem.
) )
) )"The problem is
) )that
) )this doesn't tell us much about anthroposophical
) )doctrines on race and
) )ethnicity, or even about the presence or absence of
) )such doctrines
) )within
) )other Waldorf contexts. That was the point of my
) post
) )to Charlie."
) )
) )BOTH START WITH THE STATEMENT, "THE PROBLEM IS ".AS
) IN
) )ONE PROBLEM. BOTH STATEMENTS ARE DIFFERENT
) PROBLEMS.
) )
) )I supposed I'll get another response that goes
) like,
) )"You don't understand what I wrote, now let me
) write
) )something different because this is what I really
) )meant". Oh well, some things never change.
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
) FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get
) it now!
)
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Buy Stocks and Index Funds for just $4 No Account or
)
) Investment Minimums and No Inactivity Fees
) Automatically
) invest weekly or monthly and build your future.
)
http://click.topica.com/caacvggb1dkiGb7OS4tf/Sharebuilder
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:43:18 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Gideon Mills wrote:
)
)
) Hypothetically speaking then, if a parent is not of the same race
) as her children, then how can she properly raise those children,
) since "race" is not the same as color, but has other parameters to
) it, e.g. cultural?
I'm completely baffled why you're asking this. What difference does it
make? Whether or not "race" is the same as color or it isn't, or
whether it has altogether different parameters, e.g. cultural, what
would either of them have to do with the "proper" raising of children? A
parent not of the same race as her children can properly raise those
children regardless of these various definitions of "race".
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
I agree, what difference does it make? If anything,
the child will be stronger from being exposed to two
different cultures. I would call him blessed.
--- L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com) wrote:
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Buy Stocks and Index Funds for just $4 No Account or
)
) Investment Minimums and No Inactivity Fees
) Automatically
) invest weekly or monthly and build your future.
)
http://click.topica.com/caacvggb1dkiGb7OS4ta/Sharebuilder
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
) Gideon Mills wrote:
) )
) )
)
) ) Hypothetically speaking then, if a parent is not
) of the same race
) ) as her children, then how can she properly raise
) those children,
) ) since "race" is not the same as color, but has
) other parameters to
) ) it, e.g. cultural?
)
) I'm completely baffled why you're asking this. What
) difference does it
) make? Whether or not "race" is the same as color or
) it isn't, or
) whether it has altogether different parameters, e.g.
) cultural, what
) would either of them have to do with the "proper"
) raising of children? A
) parent not of the same race as her children can
) properly raise those
) children regardless of these various definitions of
) "race".
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Sponsor a child today through Children
) International.
) Give a desperately poor child hope for a brighter
) future.
) For only $18 a month you can make a difference!
)
http://click.topica.com/caacvgob1dkiGb7OS4tf/ChildrenInternational
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 03:15:15 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) ) And how does a person become a member of one? [a race]
)
)
) That depends on the context. Self-designation is one route, and social
) perception is another route. Both of these vary regionally (and
) sometimes in
) other ways as well); people who are regarded as black in Wisconsin, for
) example, may not be regarded as black in Brazil. Have you checked out
) those
) AAA and AAPA statements yet, by the way?
Thank you for answering the question. I'd like to explore this further.
Let's take "self-designation". I read this wonderful book called The
Color of Water. A Eastern European Jewish ancestry married a black man,
had children, and was a "self-designated" black woman. Does this mean
she was a member of a "race"?
If George W. Bush were to announce "I am a member of the black race",
would we say he was the first black president?
If I were an employer being accused of racial discrimination because I
rejected a better qualified person with dark skin and what by
appearances would be African heritage in favor of a blond haired, blue
eyed, fair skinned person with a Norwegian name, would I be able to
prove my innocence by demonstrating it was impossible? That I couldn't
possibly KNOW what race either of them were, thus being unable to prefer
one over the other, because race is self-designated and I didn't ask
which they chose? And I didn't ask them because I'm forbidden by LAW in
this country from asking them?
Now as for "social perception", can you give an example of where this
"social perception" is NOT a "social perception" of an identity directly
linked to that of your biological parents?
Thanks
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 03:16:17 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter-correction
L G Clemens wrote:
)
)
) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) ) ) And how does a person become a member of one? [a race]
) )
) )
) ) That depends on the context. Self-designation is one route, and social
) ) perception is another route. Both of these vary regionally (and
) ) sometimes in
) ) other ways as well); people who are regarded as black in Wisconsin, for
) ) example, may not be regarded as black in Brazil. Have you checked out
) ) those
) ) AAA and AAPA statements yet, by the way?
)
)
) Thank you for answering the question. I'd like to explore this further.
)
) Let's take "self-designation". I read this wonderful book called The
) Color of Water. A Eastern European Jewish ancestry married a black man,
)
) had children, and was a "self-designated" black woman. Does this mean
) she was a member of a "race"?
)
) If George W. Bush were to announce "I am a member of the black race",
) would we say he was the first black president?
)
) If I were an employer being accused of racial discrimination because I
) rejected a better qualified person with dark skin and what by
) appearances would be African heritage in favor of a blond haired, blue
) eyed, fair skinned person with a Norwegian name, would I be able to
) prove my innocence by demonstrating it was impossible? That I couldn't
) possibly KNOW what race either of them were, thus being unable to prefer
)
) one over the other, because race is self-designated and I didn't ask
) which they chose? And I didn't ask them because I'm forbidden by LAW in
)
) this country from asking them?
)
)
)
) Now as for "social perception", can you give an example of where this
) "social perception" is NOT a "social perception" of an identity directly
)
) linked to that of your biological parents?
)
) Thanks
)
) Linda
"For every 'why', he demanded another 'wherefore'." - Samuel Butler,
sorta
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 03:18:25 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter - correction
I meant to say "A woman of Eastern European Jewish ancestry"--I've done
a very poor job of editing my posts lately.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:26:34 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: For parents seeking info on Waldorf
Been a lot going on here! I thought I was caught up reading, I go out to
dinner and come back to 30 more messages. Here's a little diversion. Press
delete if you don't want a little break from the main topics of the hour.
(I've been on vacation and can't just dive back in) :)
Sharon wrote to Brad, a few days ago:
)Nobody argues that Christian Science isn't a religion so what's with you
)Anthroposophists??! You can read about Anthroposophy in academic Cultic
)Studies/Religious Studies circles and history departments. In case you are
)confused, the Human Potential Movement was a religious movement with people
)like Mary Baker Eddy being credited with spawning it.
And Mary Baker Eddy, in case you are confused, was a raving psychotic. I
recently had a chance to stop in to visit the "Mother Church," the Christian
Science church world headquarters in Boston, which I visited numerous times
as a child since my father was a Christian Scientist (my parents actually
moved to Boston just because the church was there), but I had not been back
in many years. I found it amazing how similar the strategies the church is
using to promote itself are to anthroposophy. Like anthroposophy they are
trying to take advantage of the wave of interest in all forms of alternative
spirituality and alternative health practices, and ally themselves with this
trend in order to actually hide just how odd and peculiar their own
practices are. Christian Scientists don't believe in *any* health care,
alternative or otherwise, so it is a bit of a ploy for them to suggest they
offer another type of alternative health practice. They deny the existence
of all physical reality, hence any illness is an illusion to overcome, a
mental error, not a condition to treat.
In riding this wave they clearly stoop to dishonesty at times. In the front
lobby of the lavish "Mary Baker Eddy Library for the Betterment of
Humanity," an exhibit prepared by the Boston History Collaborative touts
various "firsts" in the history of the city of Boston, which includes such
things as the first use of anesthetics at Mass General in 1846 (a date that
I am recalling from a monument in the Public Gardens, so if someone finds
this incorrect, please forgive; I am not going to look it up, it's the way I
remember it). The exhibit touts in particular the smallpox vaccine! Well,
this is ironic, and hypocritical, since the Christian Science church firmly
opposes ALL vaccination. (On anesthesia, it is unnecessary for them to take
a position; you shouldn't be having surgery in the first place.)
On the tour we took, someone (not me, I swear) :) asked about this odd
discrepancy and got a smarmy reply about vaccination being everyone's choice
and the church is not dogmatic etc. Which quite begged the question of why
the hell they would be congratulating the city of Boston for being the site
of this great accomplishment when it directly contradicts central church
doctrine. Well, to burnish their image, of course, since everyone knows they
urge parents *not* to vaccinate and have had many embarrassing incidents
involving the medical neglect of children.
I spoke up then to say that I had been raised Christian Scientist, and that
most of us children were not vaccinated, though we all saw dentists and eye
doctors. A man who strolled out with me said he was a psychotherapist who
had treated "lapsed" Christian Scientists who felt the church had damaged
them. Soon a small group consisting of most everyone who had been on the
recent tour (I mean, like 6 people; this is not exactly a top tourist
attraction in Boston) was identifying themselves mainly as lapsed Christian
Scientists who felt similarly damaged. Hilarious, since we had all paid
money to the church to take this silly tour, and all smiled and nodded
politely through all the propaganda.
(They do have a cool thing they call a "Mapparium," a sort of colored globe
you can walk in the middle of across a little bridge, that was built in the
1930's, updated for the 2000's with a sound and light show, of course. It
still reflects the political boundaries of the 1930's and is interesting to
see, though I wish I hadn't had to pay them. The show features quotes from
Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and, ahem, Mary Baker Eddy, whom
they're suggesting belongs in that company for "bettering humanity" etc.)
I plan to write to the Boston History Collaborative to tell them they should
re-think allowing the church to use them this way.
Diana
(who will return to topics like vouchers and separation of church and state
soon)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 03:30:11 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
) If George W. Bush were to announce "I am a member of the black race",
) would we say he was the first black president?
Good point. Peter S. ascribes only social reasons for race.
Life has been evolving for tens of millions of years. The processes of
each cell in a plant, an animal or a human are virtually identical. A
human is more complex, more layers, from a plant or animal, but in the
same tree of life.
Humans will cross breed in a thousand ways to develop particular
traits/characteristics they want in plants and animals.
If we are to believe Peter S., humans are exempt from this.
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 03:36:33 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter correction
Brad Martin wrote:
)
)
) ) If George W. Bush were to announce "I am a member of the black race",
) ) would we say he was the first black president?
)
) Good point. Peter S. ascribes only social reasons for race.
)
) Life has been evolving for tens of millions of years. The processes of
) each cell in a plant, an animal or a human are virtually identical. A
) human is more complex, more layers, from a plant or animal, but in the
) same tree of life.
)
) Humans will cross breed plants and animals in a thousand ways to develop
) particular
) traits/characteristics they want.
)
) If we are to believe Peter S., humans are exempt from this.
) Brad
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 03:47:21 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: Admin Question
Can I post it here?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com) wrote:
"Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) ) And how does a person become a member of one? [a race]
)
)
) That depends on the context. Self-designation is one route, and social
) perception is another route. Both of these vary regionally (and
) sometimes in
) other ways as well); people who are regarded as black in Wisconsin, for
"Race" and "color" are separate constructs. There is no such thing as a "black race." Black is a color.
'Thank you for answering the question. I'd like to explore this further.
Let's take "self-designation". I read this wonderful book called The
Color of Water. A Eastern European Jewish ancestry married a black man,
had children, and was a "self-designated" black woman. Does this mean
she was a member of a "race"?'
If she identifies as an African-American, the answer is "yes." The fact is that no one can prove racial identity, even if it is viewed as being synonymous with "color."
"If I were an employer being accused of racial discrimination because I
rejected a better qualified person with dark skin and what by
appearances would be African heritage in favor of a blond haired, blue
eyed, fair skinned person with a Norwegian name, would I be able to
prove my innocence by demonstrating it was impossible?"
Discrimination cases don't involve questions of "innocence." As civil cases they are determined on the basis of liability.
"That I couldn't possibly KNOW what race either of them were, thus being unable to prefer one over the other, because race is self-designated and I didn't ask which they chose?"
Discrimination cases have to do with, in your example, with the employer's perception of the employee's race, gender, color, etc. and not with whether or not the employee is of a particular protected class. Few people, including most attorneys, understand this for reasons I won't get into here. One example of this is illustrated by the case of Matthew Shepard who was tied to a post, beaten and left to die. This incident was portrayed as Shepard being killed because he was gay which amounts to victim blaming. In fact if you understand discrimination law the legitimate framing of the issue is that Shepard was killed because he was perceived as gay by those who hate gay people enough to kill someone they perceived as gay. Likewise someone who is perceived as African-American or Black is as an individual being just as discriminated against as someone who identifies as such and who fits the stereotype of an African-American and/or Black person. If this seems confusing and obtuse it
is because of the convoluted thinking that necessarily accompanies racial thinking which in and of itself is convoluted because there is no tangible thing as "race."
"And I didn't ask them because I'm forbidden by LAW in
this country from asking them?"
Not true. An employer is not allowed to force someone to answer such a question, but there is no legal proscription against asking the question. In fact, every employer I have worked for has proffered a form asking for that information; that form notes that completing it is strictly voluntary and that the answers, should they be provided, are for purposes of federal monitoring.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Joshua Wark (somedude04 yahoo.com) wrote:
"I agree, what difference does it make? If anything,
the child will be stronger from being exposed to two
different cultures."
That was precisely the point I was attempting to make. The fact is that most children of color adopted by white parents are exposed to only the culture of their adoptive parents. Anthrops are not the only people with a stilted view or lack of understanding of what "culture" is, i.e. it is not something that can be experienced in bits of unconnected pieces.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Racial doctrine I found
Joshua Wark (somedude04 yahoo.com) wrote:
"Hm, that just does not sound racist at all to me. I
understand he did have questionable ideas about race,
but it seems pretty clear he's not talking about the
present times. I kind of like this view. That we must
look past race and merge spiritually."
That is like saying that some people should forget the elephant sitting in the middle of the room and/or look past or around it. I don't know of any positive historical race-based or racial thinking movement, group or nation-state. Racial thinking is not something one evolves through and out of as if it is a normal progression. Real people were killed - and in many cases entire cultures were destroyed - as a result of racial thinking. As to the part re: spiritual merging, I am somewhat amazed at the arrogance of those who believe other people want anything to do with merging with them, spiritually or otherwise.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
I do not believe that you have to have black skin to
experience african culture, or whatever culture it is
in question.
I believe the real problem would be that cultures are
so seperated. And just because a colored child would
be raised by white parents, does not mean he would not
be exposed to many cultures anyway.
Are you saying that you have to have the physical
characteristics of what is being called a 'race', to
understand the culture that is most apparent in that
'race'?
What is culture anyway? I looked it up in webster and
it's quite varied. 6 entries, all different. It does
mention race, but it also mentions MANY other aspects.
But, many people study and participate in many
different cultures regardless of race. I personnally
do not feel comfortable with the black and white
statement that you're trying to make.
--- Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com) wrote:
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Buy Stocks and Index Funds for just $4 No Account or
)
) Investment Minimums and No Inactivity Fees
) Automatically
) invest weekly or monthly and build your future.
)
http://click.topica.com/caacvggb1dkiGb7OS4ta/Sharebuilder
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
)
) Joshua Wark (somedude04 yahoo.com) wrote:
) "I agree, what difference does it make? If anything,
) the child will be stronger from being exposed to two
) different cultures."
)
) That was precisely the point I was attempting to
) make. The fact is that most children of color
) adopted by white parents are exposed to only the
) culture of their adoptive parents. Anthrops are not
) the only people with a stilted view or lack of
) understanding of what "culture" is, i.e. it is not
) something that can be experienced in bits of
) unconnected pieces.
)
) Deborah
)
)
)
)
) ---------------------------------
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter
) now.
) --
) [Non-text portions of this message have been
) removed]
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Sponsor a child today through Children
) International.
) Give a desperately poor child hope for a brighter
) future.
) For only $18 a month you can make a difference!
)
http://click.topica.com/caacvgob1dkiGb7OS4tf/ChildrenInternational
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
)
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Racial doctrine I found
That's true, I am not trying to ignore what he did
write. I'm just not convinced that his intentions were
all that bad.
I also do not want to ignore phrases like, "our
anthroposophical movement is a spiritual movement,
that looks at that which is spiritual and overcomes
specifically that which is based on physical
differences, out of the force of this spirituality."
I mean, it really sounds like wants people to overcome
their physical differences. I know it's an old cliche
now, but to become "colorblind". I just can't ignore
things like this either.
--- Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com) wrote:
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) RE-GROW YOUR HAIR STARTING NOW.....Click here for
) more info!
) http://click.topica.com/caacxydb1dkiGb7OS4ta/Medical
) Hair Restoration
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
)
) Joshua Wark (somedude04 yahoo.com) wrote:
) "Hm, that just does not sound racist at all to me. I
) understand he did have questionable ideas about
) race,
) but it seems pretty clear he's not talking about the
) present times. I kind of like this view. That we
) must
) look past race and merge spiritually."
)
) That is like saying that some people should forget
) the elephant sitting in the middle of the room
) and/or look past or around it. I don't know of any
) positive historical race-based or racial thinking
) movement, group or nation-state. Racial thinking is
) not something one evolves through and out of as if
) it is a normal progression. Real people were killed
) - and in many cases entire cultures were destroyed -
) as a result of racial thinking. As to the part re:
) spiritual merging, I am somewhat amazed at the
) arrogance of those who believe other people want
) anything to do with merging with them, spiritually
) or otherwise.
)
) Deborah
)
)
)
)
) ---------------------------------
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
) --
) [Non-text portions of this message have been
) removed]
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Stories from the Civil Rights Movement.
) Extraordinary stories,
) ordinary people. Share your memories today!
) http://click.topica.com/caacvglb1dkiGb7OS4tf/AARP
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 04:50:02 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Gideon Mills wrote:
)
) "Race" and "color" are separate constructs. There is no such thing as a
) "black race." Black is a color.
How could there be "no such thing as a black race" if race is self
designated. In my work we ask people all the time to identify their
race, and over these years I'd say thousands of people described their
race as "Black" on these forms.
Besides, didn't you just refer me to the US Census Bureau for a
definition of race? "Black" is one of the choices among
)
) If she identifies as an African-American, the answer is "yes."
No, she didn't identify herself as an African-American. She identified
herself as Black.
If she said she was "African-American", how could you in all seriousness
argue that there's no way to prove this "mis-identity"? This thinking
is even goofier than those nutty professors looking at the yellow-ear
wax. If I told you I identified as a Martian, it would be true? If I
BELIEVED it when I told you, would THAT make it true?
) "If I were an employer being accused of racial discrimination because I
) rejected a better qualified person with dark skin and what by
) appearances would be African heritage in favor of a blond haired, blue
) eyed, fair skinned person with a Norwegian name, would I be able to
) prove my innocence by demonstrating it was impossible?"
)
) Discrimination cases don't involve questions of "innocence." As civil
) cases they are determined on the basis of liability.
Thank you. Then let me rephrase. "Would I be able to prove absence of
liability by demonstrating it was impossible?"
)
) "That I couldn't possibly KNOW what race either of them were, thus being
) unable to prefer one over the other, because race is self-designated and
) I didn't ask which they chose?"
)
) Discrimination cases have to do with, in your example, with the
) employer's perception of the employee's race, gender, color, etc. and
) not with whether or not the employee is of a particular protected class.
)
Crazy world we live in, no? Where my perception that I'm a Martian
would count on my say-so alone, while if I claimed as a prospective
employer in a racial discrimination case that I can't perceive racial
differences at all, in anyone, I can't even know my own children's race,
unless and until I ask them---I'd be screwed.
) "And I didn't ask them because I'm forbidden by LAW in
) this country from asking them?"
)
) Not true. An employer is not allowed to force someone to answer such a
) question, but there is no legal proscription against asking the
) question.
Thank you again for correcting me. So let me try this hypothetical
again:
"And I didn't ask them because I'm forbidden by LAW to consider race in
hiring, so what better way to protect myself than to be uninformed of
it?"
)
)
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:11:44 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
on 8/24/04 2:47 AM, L G Clemens at aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com wrote:
) 3) interested to note that it's extremely rare for someone to report
) here finding racism in Waldorf schools. Lots of folks happily putter
) along here sharing what they think might be racist quotes in something
) Steiner may have said here and there. But I can't recall a single
) person share any racist horror stories coming from a Waldorf school.
) The only episode which was even "allegedly" racist was, sure enough, a
) complaint about the absence of black crayons in the Kindergarten.
Sharon: Waldorf critics often report racist findings at Waldorf schools and
Anthroposophists keep ignoring us. Racism is common in Steiner texts which
can be found in abundance in Waldorf schools. Dan pointed out racist Steiner
passages to teachers in books circulating at his ex-school and got chucked
out. Dutch schools had a little problem a few years back when pupils wrote
and drew racist teachings in their lesson books which were discovered by
concerned parents. Another parent found the Atlantis myth in their child's
book. Some children at our ex-school said they studied Atlantis. I've not
only mentioned the black crayon incident here many times, but I've also
spoken about the ex-Waldorf teacher who is suing Waldorf for racial
discrimination. I've also mentioned that a carpenter friend of mine saw
swastikas and southern flags hanging in one Waldorf household, and I've
spoken about my sister feeling that Anthroposophists were uncomfortable
around her husband. I've also pointed out an official Anthro denial of
racism here, many times before. Here's a recap for you:
Anthroposophists continue to uphold Steiner¹s racist teachings claiming that
there is "no question of a racial doctrine." This is documented in an
article entitled No Question of a Racial Doctrine, Dutch Report is Ready,
published in the magazine about life in the Anthroposophical Society,
Anthroposophy Worldwide, No. 4, May 2000, page 3. The article records that
on April Fool¹s day, 2000, the "Anthroposophy and the Question of Race
Commission"‹a panel of Anthroposophists appointed to study and report on
whether or not Steiner¹s doctrine is racist‹presented a 720 page final
report to the public which has not yet been published in English (see van
Baarda, et al, 2000 for source of the report in Dutch). The magazine article
states that the Dutch report "confirmed the findings of its 1998 interim
report that Rudolf Steiner¹s complete works contain neither a racial
doctrine nor racist comments". Critics of Anthroposophy who have studied
Steiner¹s doctrine and the Dutch report observed that notably racist works
were not included in the study and that some racist passages from included
works were omitted. Despite their findings, however, the Commission admits
that there are sixteen discriminatory remarks by Steiner that "would be
illegal in the Netherlands if proclaimed publicly by anyone today." The
Commission recommended that "these sixteen quotes, as well as sixty-seven,
easily misunderstood remarks" should be published with accompanying
explanations in the future. "[T]he Commission found no racism in Dutch
Waldorf schools, only some use of stereotypes in ethnology lessons." Some
Anthroposophists in Europe have placed ads in major daily newspapers
distancing themselves from Steiner¹s racism, while other Anthroposophical
Society members criticized them for doing so. Ted van Baarda, head of the
Commission, was concerned about facing these questions due to
Anthroposophists¹ "loyalty to Steiner." The Commission, however, was not to
"evaluate spiritual science but rather the effect of such remarks on the
public." The report was to "identify the facts in order to develop a
strategy for dealing with attacks," because, as van Baarde emphasized, "We
cannot afford to lose." Presumably he means that initiates are obligated to
proselytize Steiner¹s racist doctrine for society¹s redemption and the
fulfillment of his prophecies.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:35:19 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Racial doctrine I found
Joshua wrote:
)I also do not want to ignore phrases like, "our
)anthroposophical movement is a spiritual movement,
)that looks at that which is spiritual and overcomes
)specifically that which is based on physical
)differences, out of the force of this spirituality."
)I mean, it really sounds like wants people to overcome
)their physical differences. I know it's an old cliche
)now, but to become "colorblind". I just can't ignore
)things like this either.
I suggest you not ignore it, but think about what it actually says. I used
to read it naively this way too, now it is crystal clear to me that it means
more or less the opposite of what you apparently think it means. Definitely
Steiner wanted you to overcome "specifically that which is based on physical
differences." You do this by improving your karma and reincarnating in
successive lifetimes, and as you do so, if you improve spiritually you
incarnate in ever-higher races. Get it? It it is not at all the same thing
as looking at people's physical differences and concluding they are
meaningless spiritually. (If that were it, he would not have spent so much
time elaborating on what all the physical differences between people *do*
mean spiritually.)
Definitely you are meant to "look at that which is spiritual." Definitely
the movement is open to everyone and accepting of everyone and all that nice
warm fuzzy stuff. Sign 'em up! Definitely they do not believe in
discriminating against anyone or anything mean like that. They just believe
your race reflects your spiritual progress. Wake up! The reason we are
supposed to be tolerant is that we, each of us, is in this same sort of
process and we have each been members of "higher" and "lower" races in the
course of our spiritual journey. Joshua, that is a distinctly racist
ideology, no matter how lovey-dovey these platitudes about "overcoming
differences" sound. ("Overcoming differences" actually refers to the
ultimate erasure of all racial distinctions, as Steiner predicted, many
millennia in the future; *not* to the erasure of racism, which would
actually be opposed to such a process.)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Racial doctrine I found
Well, it doesn't really say any of that in that
passage.
Maybe you do have a better understanding of it, or
maybe you're kind of piecing it together and it's
really only your interpretation.
It also seems to say that this happened in the past. I
think it would be naive to take you for your word on
this. I mean it is your opinion and I'm not saying
it's wrong but to call me naive for trying to figure
it out is not something I'm just going to accept as
the one truth.
--- Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) RE-GROW YOUR HAIR STARTING NOW.....Click here for
) more info!
) http://click.topica.com/caacxydb1dkiGb7OS4ta/Medical
) Hair Restoration
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
) Joshua wrote:
)
)
) )I also do not want to ignore phrases like, "our
) )anthroposophical movement is a spiritual movement,
) )that looks at that which is spiritual and overcomes
) )specifically that which is based on physical
) )differences, out of the force of this
) spirituality."
)
) )I mean, it really sounds like wants people to
) overcome
) )their physical differences. I know it's an old
) cliche
) )now, but to become "colorblind". I just can't
) ignore
) )things like this either.
)
) I suggest you not ignore it, but think about what it
) actually says. I used
) to read it naively this way too, now it is crystal
) clear to me that it means
) more or less the opposite of what you apparently
) think it means. Definitely
) Steiner wanted you to overcome "specifically that
) which is based on physical
) differences." You do this by improving your karma
) and reincarnating in
) successive lifetimes, and as you do so, if you
) improve spiritually you
) incarnate in ever-higher races. Get it? It it is not
) at all the same thing
) as looking at people's physical differences and
) concluding they are
) meaningless spiritually. (If that were it, he would
) not have spent so much
) time elaborating on what all the physical
) differences between people *do*
) mean spiritually.)
)
) Definitely you are meant to "look at that which is
) spiritual." Definitely
) the movement is open to everyone and accepting of
) everyone and all that nice
) warm fuzzy stuff. Sign 'em up! Definitely they do
) not believe in
) discriminating against anyone or anything mean like
) that. They just believe
) your race reflects your spiritual progress. Wake up!
) The reason we are
) supposed to be tolerant is that we, each of us, is
) in this same sort of
) process and we have each been members of "higher"
) and "lower" races in the
) course of our spiritual journey. Joshua, that is a
) distinctly racist
) ideology, no matter how lovey-dovey these platitudes
) about "overcoming
) differences" sound. ("Overcoming differences"
) actually refers to the
) ultimate erasure of all racial distinctions, as
) Steiner predicted, many
) millennia in the future; *not* to the erasure of
) racism, which would
) actually be opposed to such a process.)
) Diana
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Stories from the Civil Rights Movement.
) Extraordinary stories,
) ordinary people. Share your memories today!
) http://click.topica.com/caacvglb1dkiGb7OS4tf/AARP
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
)
)
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:23:14 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Hi again Jwark, you wrote:
)Um, Peter, You CONSTANTLY list a variety of people
)you've acted with personally as well. Why should we
)listen to you? In fact, why should anyone listen to
)anyone here?
I think you misunderstood the recent exchange about Steiner fans dropping
the ball in public discussions of anthroposophical race theory. In that
exchange, both sides referred to their personal experiences, because these
experiences are directly relevant evidence on the disupted topic. The same
is not true for the considerably broader topic of anthroposophical race
thinking as such. On that topic, I have not listed a variety of people I've
acted with personally; instead, I have listed, and quoted at great length
from, a variety of anthroposophical texts whose authors I do not know
personally. This is why Charlie's line of reasoning is untenable; he mistook
his personal experience for evidence that there is no racism living in
anthroposophy today. That is a straightforward logical error.
)And also, since you seem to be on attack Peter, I
)would like to know why none of your posts ever have
)question marks in them. Do you ever question anything
)at all?
On second thought, perhaps you missed that exchange entirely. About 24 hours
ago I was asked by one of your fellow Waldorf fans to go easy on the
questions, and I've been giving it a try. If you'd prefer that I change this
policy in your case, I will happily comply.
)You're just blowing out statements left and right and
)claiming that things other people say can not be
)believed.
No, I just said the very opposite. I am quite willing to believe Charlie's
testimony about his experience. The problem is not that what he said cannot
be believed, but that it cannot support the conclusion he drew.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1447
-- Topica Digest --
Re: My struggle to understand-
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:02:12 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: My struggle to understand-
Linda wrote:
"But it is impossible for me to appreciate that this episode, whatever it
was, is a direct result of the so-called "occult" in Waldorf or Steiner,
or that it could have been avoided with the remedy you're proposing, and
that is to change the emphasis in the promotional materials from
pedagolical issues to Steiner's occult, religious and other such woowoo
issues. For example, I fail to understand or appreciate that this ugly
"kaka" would have been prevented if you as a new parent were told in the
brochure that "Waldorf is an educational system which puts Christ at its
center"."
I'll try to explain. First, had I been privy to such vital information, I
would not have enrolled my child(ren) in the school. Yes, even the Charlie
quote would have helped me say, "no thanks, Waldorf is not for this family."
Secondly, the obvious questions (and answers) stemming from the openings in
the Charlie quote would, I believe, help even a more spiritually/religiously
inclined person than myself understand a more realistic version of Waldorf
than that which is currently available to prospective parents. Seriously,
the Charlie quote is very good. Can you find examples of such honest,
important information at Waldorf school web sites? Try. For example, the
relationship between a Waldorf trained teacher and a child in his/her class
is wrapped in Steiner's "karma."
Parents need to understand the significance of this relationship - how the
teacher sees and feels about the child - how faculty might speak about
children during faculty meetings (on Thursdays - another thread!). When
that is clearly explained to parents PRIOR to the first day of school, some
of the "kaka" *might* make more sense. Of course, abusive situations need
to be dealt with immediately and no version of "karma" can be a legitimate
defense. But the reality behind how a Waldorf teacher sees the
teacher/student relationship is very VERY important for parents to
understand. And that relationship goes far beyond the scope of
what one might normally perceive as "pedagogical issues."
And YES, promotional material from Waldorf Schools, AWSNA, etc. can help
fill in the gaps.
Linda, in a previous post, you wrote to Peter S:
"The most sensible route is to "evidence of how
Steiner's doctrines" are manifest in Waldorf schools is to actually
experience a real Waldorf school."
Would the most sensible route not be rather to inform parents of Steiner's
doctrines BEFORE they enroll their children? Why not trust that parents can
make sense of those doctrines and choose to accept or decline.
** Parent, after reading the new FAQ) asks of a Waldorf teacher BEFORE
enrolling: "What do you mean by Christ at the center? What's this about
temperaments, physical, etheric astral and ego bodies; and that form drawing
and Eurythmy bring spirits of form into the room?"
**Teacher explains Christ and temperaments, etc. from an anthroposophical
vantage point and suggests a few books until the parent is satisfied and
grateful to learn that Rudolf Steiner was certainly more than an educator,
artist, thinker.... Steiner was a occultist. He studied occultism,
lectured extensively on occultism and Waldorf schools are founded on occult
principles. The parent will also have a pretty good idea of what his child
will be encountering, should he be enrolled in a Waldorf school. Waldorf
might very well be just what the parent is looking for. Or not.
Linda, why do parents need to "experience a real Waldorf school" in order to
understand the doctrines? Spell it out a la Charlie (or Christine or Eugene
Schwartz) in the PR material BEFORE the parents sign up for what they are
told is simply an arts based, nonsectarian school that nurtures the whole
child....
Linda wrote:
"I neither accept the premise that doing so would "make things
clearer" or give a "more accurate" portrayal of Waldorf, nor do I accept
the premise that doing so would ensure that things don't go kaka at some
point."
How can explaining the spiritual reality of the Waldorf school movement
(Charlie, etc.) possibly not make things more clear? I doubt anyone can
ensure that things might not go kaka at some point in any environment. But
why not do all we can do to be clear and concise with our feelings and
educational/spiritual concepts - especially when children are involved? All
anyone can do is try to be honest and have integrity - especially parents
and people working in a school. That is why I applauded Charlie's comments.
That is why I hoped to work on the FAQ with Christine. They are both Waldorf
teachers and I appreciate the fact they both (well, Charlie now), are able
to share their views here. Waldorf teachers learn all about Steiner and his
occultism. It should not be deep, dark secret - for their eyes only. Yet,
this very important *impulse* of the Waldorf movement are simply not
available to parents when they receive promotional material from schools.
And in my experience, these concepts are not shared with parents ... even
when they (we) ask.
I see denial and I see it draped in a strange version of "karma." Here's a
thought: I like to look for roots - trees, plants, humans, sports
teams...whatever. Looking at roots helps me understand the objects of my
interest. When I look at anthroposophy and its roots - where it came from,
where it is and where it might go - as a movement (complete with Waldorf
schools, Camphill projects or Biodynamic Farms), I see strange and twisted
roots. When anthroposophists try to look back at those roots, there are
knots and pretzel twists that are easier left alone - Steiner's Racial
ethnology being one such knotted root. Unfortunately, however, in order
for the movement to grow as a strong and healthy "movement," the roots need
some work. I wonder if, when the roots of anthroposophy are examined and
dealt with and - for lack of a better word - *fixed,* some of the Waldorf
denial problems might just be overcome at the same time?
Again, you said (this is important):
"The most sensible route is to "evidence of how Steiner's doctrines" are
manifest in Waldorf schools is to actually
experience a real Waldorf school."
I respond: What if I do not want that experience - for myself or my child?
Linda wrote:
"With the images I'm seeing in MY head, it
would be an absolute joke to suggest fixing the problem by making better
school promotional available to parents. Hence the confusion on my part
about how your kaka experience would be any different."
I doubt my suggestions would "fix" the problem (you do see the problem
now...?) but they would be welcomed by prospective Waldorf families - I have
no doubt. If I have helped in some small way to alleviate your confusion on
this topic, my time is well spent.
- Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1448
-- Topica Digest --
RE: What is race-for Peter
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: Waldorf wisdom: Don't take it seriously
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: For parents seeking info on Waldorf
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: What is race-for Peter
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: What is race-for Peter
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: Racial doctrine I found
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: reading Charlie and reading Steiner
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: My struggle to understand-
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: reading Charlie and reading Steiner
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: Waldorf wisdom: Don't take it seriously
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: Waldorf wisdom: Don't take it seriously
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: reading Charlie and reading Steiner
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: Waldorf wisdom: Don't take it seriously
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
Re: Admin Question
By dan dandugan.com
Hi Dan
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
Re: Racial doctrine I found
By pstaud hotmail.com
reading Charlie and reading Linda
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By cffrey mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:34:54 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Deborah:
)"Race" and "color" are separate constructs. There is no such thing as a
)"black race." Black is a color.
Linda:
)How could there be "no such thing as a black race" if race is self
)designated.
The point is race is not a biological category but a socially constructed
one. It's obviously a category that exists in people's minds, exists
socially. The point is you cannot define it biologically. In other words, if
you try to say "All black people are . . . [specific biological
characteristic] . . ." you will fail, because there aren't any specific
biological characteristics that can be ascribed to all black people, or even
most. Or the corollary, "All people who are [specific biological
characteristic] are black," that won't work either, because any such
characteristic you could think of, it will turn out it does *not* apply to
all black people, or even most.
When we say "black people," we are looking at people whose skin we perceive
a certain way, and naming the color we see or think we see. That's all there
is to it. Obviously, even skin color is extremely variable and perceptions
about who is black can very widely.
(And social categories generally have to be constructed by more than one
person, or no one is likely to take them seriously. That is why it probably
will not work for George Bush to declare himself a black person. And yet it
is not a crazy example, because there are actually a variety of reasons that
people do change their perceptions of their own racial identity or of
others'.)
Does that help, Linda?
)If I told you I identified as a Martian, it would be true? If I BELIEVED
)it when I told you, would THAT make it true?
No, but if millions of people began calling themselves Martians, based on
whatever characteristics they perceived as tying them together socially and
giving them a common identity, or increasing their political or cultural
solidarity, "Martian" probably *would* eventually become a category you
could check off on the census form. It has just about as much validity,
biologically. I think your example makes the opposite point of what you
thought you were making.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:14:14 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Linda wrote:
)1) Not surprised to hear he may have said things that would be startling
)and alarming to hear today. We're hyper-sensitive to highly charged
)"buzz-words" that today carry a lot of unfortunate and oftentimes
)extremely hurtful baggage, much of it due to experiences and arguments
)which have taken place in our relatively recent past.
I think dismissing problems with Steiner's doctrine as just being about
"terms" is evasive. Just dismissing the terms implies the constructs
themselves are beyond dispute, or are universal categories, and all that's
changed is the labels we put on them. All this indicates is that Linda
hasn't read or doesn't understand the doctrine, which is a full-blown racist
ideology.
)So I think it's not only in the way we approach racial issues, but in the
)way we describe racial issues, that have we "learned more" and "learned
)better".
Groovy. It seems to be awfully difficult for Steiner's defenders to just say
simply that we've learned more and learned better than what Steiner taught.
They either pretend he never said any of this stuff, or pretend that they've
never heard of it, or pretend it doesn't mean what critics think it means,
or pretend it's all meant metaphorically and shouldn't be taken seriously
(Brad), even though Steiner insisted ad nauseum it was literal truth. Or
they divert to accusing critics of having bad motives for pointing it out,
or being Internet addicts, or come in screeching that we shouldn't be
talking about it because it's just the same as talking about JonBenet Ramsey
year after year. (Actually, the only person I recall mentioning JonBenet
Ramsey in any anthroposophic discussions is Bradford Riley on the
Anthroposophy_Tomorrow list, who makes mysterious references to her
periodically which I never understood.)
)We're today careful to use terms that are free of baggage we
)which may unintentionally communicate confusing and alarming ideas to
people when we use them.
Steiner did not just apply "terms" to racial groups that are insensitive or
not PC today, Linda, like saying "Negro" instead of "black" or "African
American" etc. He elaborated a complex and in-depth doctrine of the
hierarchies of the races and a model of the progress of humanity that has
humans as individuals advancing through races, and the human race as a whole
advancing through higher races taking the place of lower ones to reach an
ultimate state of perfectibility. (That's what the references to racial
differences disappearing refer to - the overcoming of *race* as humanity is
perfected spirititually, which is *in itself* a racist notion because it
necessarily implies a hierarchy of races - there is no concern in Steiner
with overcoming *racism*.)
)I'm not prepared nor interested in arguing endlessly over the best and most
)appropriate context which should be applied, if it is for no other reason
)than to settle the question consuming so many of you here about whether or
)not they should be defined as "racist". See b).
Just for the record, Linda, many of the critics are not consumed by
"whether" Rudolf Steiner should be defined as "racist"; this becomes clear
upon reading selected passages, which have been posted here many times and
are far from ambiguous.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:52:47 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
At 05:41 PM 8/24/2004, charlie frey wrote:
) I, on the other hand, would like to say that I have never encountered
)a "person of color" who reacted in this way.
)My class at Sunbridge College contained 4 black people (sorry...I'm old
)fashioned. They were not all American, so "African-American" doesn't
)work. Actually, my closest African-American friend is white.), 2
)Hispanic people, and 4 Asian people; and none of them were "spooked".
Sunbridge College and the associated Waldorf School have many non-white
students. Open racism is not evident there; racism is *not* blatant in
Waldorf education, at least in the U.S. Steiner's blatantly racist texts
are not generally studied, as far as I know.
)And there was MUCH discussion about race and Anthroposophy (Have I
)mentioned that half of my family is Jewish and the only person in this
)world that I have ever called my brother had black skin?).
As Mr. Staudenmaier will quite readily acknowledge, Steiner was ambivalent
about racism. There are non-racist and anti-racist teachings in his corpus,
as well as blatantly and subtly racist teachings. For the most part, the
anti-racist sentiments are emphasized today, but some of the subtly racist
teachings survive, it appears.
) Nor, I should add, have I ever encountered an Anthroposophist who has
)indicated to me even the slightest hint of racism, unless you include an
)awareness that different races and cultures have differences.
As Staudenmaier has pointed out, with references aplenty, the ascription of
"differences" to race is problematic; it is quite often a carrier for
racist ideas and attitudes. Note that "racist" in this context is not a
synonym for "hate-filled racial chauvinism," there are plenty of ideas that
are racist that are not intrinsically accompanied by manifestations of
hate; much of the resistance to the idea that Steiner was racist are based
on a resistance to the automatic rejection of a person or idea because they
are "racist."
) So, even if there are some questionable quotes from Steiner (which
)there are) this whole idea that there is racism living in
)Anthroposophy/Waldorf is just a crock of crap being kept alive by a very
)few single-minded people with a beef against the movement.
I'd say that it is being kept alive by sustained resistance in the
anthroposophical/Waldorf movement to the plain facts. A simple
acknowledgement of Steiner's racism, and of the racist content of *some*
anthroposophical teachings, together with modest corrective action, would
defuse the whole thing, in my opinion, it would indeed become an historical
issue of little present significance. But as long as it is not admitted, it
will fester.
There are quotes from Steiner that are much more than questionable. Rather,
they are quite clearly racist, it is not merely a matter of Steiner failing
to meet present PC standards.
)I know I'm not going to change anybody's mind here, but it is just so
)whether you choose to accept it or not.
Has it ever occurred to this writer that this might be an arrogant stance?
I.e., "I have the truth, you can accept it or not." Does the writer think
that such a stance is conducive to learning? Could he claim to have an open
mind?
)As far as I can tell, you can NOT find racist practices in
)Waldorf/Anthroposophy in America today. Period. If there once was, there
)isn't anymore.
The devil is in the details. Making absolute statements is almost a
guarantee that the statements are false.
This writer has ridiculed the "crayon" issue. I think it is worth some
examination.
Waldorf education in the early years emphasizes color as light, quite
properly in my opinion. There is no color "Black." And if you look at
so-called "Black" people, you'll see that they do in fact, have color,
color in their skin and color in their hair.
Now, early childhood art is not necessarily representational. If art is not
representational, but serves another purpose, in this case the expression
of light, the absence of black crayons is quite understandable, it is an
educational device, and not racist at all.
But when art becomes representational, as it did in the examples brought
forth where African descent children allegedly couldn't make self-portraits
because of the absence of Black crayons, the matter is no longer so simple.
If art is being well-taught, darker colors would be available so that the
colors used in the art match the colors that are present. Black, per se, is
not the issue; rather the availability of dark colors would be the issue.
And if these colors are excluded from a class which is now working with
human representational art, it could only be because these colors are not
considered necessary for human representation. And that is an issue of race.
As I've mentioned many times on this list, my daughter is Asian. Casually,
I'd say she has black hair. Actually, it is a dark brown. But the closest
crayon to it in a regular small set of crayons would indeed be black. She
has a Waldorf doll made, not with a more common blonde hair, but with black
hair. Actually she has several.... I've described the reaction of the
day-care provider, who was in fact the day-care provider preferentially
used by students and faculty at Sunbridge, who criticized the doll because
it had the wrong color hair. ("Dolls represent the angelic, and angels have
blonde hair.") I believe this woman was from Germany, and she did have, as
I recall, blonde hair. She was also a committed anthroposophist, and had
been doing this child care for many years.
I'd say that remark showed a subtle racism.
I'm not particularly familiar with the Waldorf curriculum; but it has been
alleged here that race is taught as a reality. That is the essence of
racism. Perhaps Mr. Frey could comment on this.
) If you need to believe that some of us are ignoring a
)central doctrine of Anthroposophy by not being racist, fine.
Mr. Frey commits what is in my opinion one of the common sins of writing to
mailing lists, which is to address the entire list with comments that are
really directed at one person. The use of "you" in English is problematic
because it covers both the singular and the plural (lots of other languages
don't have that problem). Mr. Frey's post, however, does not explicitly
indicate to whom he is writing.... and the piece of mail was addressed to a
list server that sends it out to a fairly large number of people....
For myself, I don't think that racism is a central doctrine of
anthroposophy. I do think, however, that there are teachings found in
anthroposophy which are racist. I *do* think that it is possible to tease
them out, to clarify and develop anthroposophy, but this is not likely to
happen as long as the denial continues.
Mr. Frey's comment, however, has incorporated presumptions, to use the
linguistic term. The presumptions are that, first, he is not racist, and
second, that we would agree that he is not racist (i.e., that the issue
would be whether or not he is ignoring the racist doctrines, not whether or
not he is racist.)
Now, I don't see Mr. Frey as hate-filled (on racial issues; his stance on,
say, issues around the attack of and defense of Waldorf education is not as
clear to me). If he thinks that by raising the possibility that he holds
racist ideas means that I'm accusing him of being some kind of Nazi, he'd
be mistaken. I'd suggest that he reread Staudenmaier's work and his posts
to this list, he'd find a rather precise definition of racism.
And I'd suggest that *most* of us hold racist ideas. It is possible that we
would drop the ideas like a hot potato if we were to critically examine
them, but, as I'm indicating, that is not likely to happen as long as we
vigorously and with outrage defend against the idea that we might hold
racist ideas or be influenced by racist concepts.
)Feel free to
)accuse me of being a hypocrite because I pick and choose what I like
)about Anthroposophy, but if you are going to accuse me of being a
)racist, you are wise to do it at at least arm's length.
My point. The truth doesn't matter, what matters is that "racist" is an
insult, Mr. Frey thinks -- with some justification, the term is often used
that way --, and if you insult me, I am likely to respond violently.
Staudenmaier does *not* use the word as an insult, he uses it soberly.
That's what I've observed. There are *other* Waldorf critics who do indeed
use it as an insult, as an attempt to smear.
) In my opinion the 2 pillars of Anthroposophy are "Knowledge of Higher
)Worlds..." and "A Philosophy of Freedom", and the more one studies these
)books, the closer one will be able to get to his/her higher self,; and
)the closer we get to our higher selves, the more impossible racism
)becomes.
Indeed. However, there is the truth of getting closer to "our higher
selves," and there is the illusion of it. And those who think that they are
"close" are, I'd say, more likely to be *far.* This is an ancient truth,
it's been expressed in many ways. The people of knowledge know how flawed
they are. The people of ignorance imagine that they are people of knowledge.
As they say, if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, don't. But you won't
know if it fits or not until you try it on.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:03:01 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf wisdom: Don't take it seriously
I'd suggest to Waldorf defenders that they read this post by Mr.
Staudenmaier carefully. I'd suggest reading it as one would read a letter
from a friend who cares about you enough to note the problems you are
having, to tell you what you might not notice about yourself, so that you
can recover from an illness that you might not even be aware of. I don't
see a single note of hostility in this post, Staudenmaier is earnestly
arguing for what should be, in fact, a routine quality among genuine
anthroposophists, which is a willingness to look at what *is*, as distinct
from what we'd *like* to be true.
Mr. Staudenmaier's work is used by Waldorf critics, sometimes in a hostile
way. But this has always been true for anything true, it will be used by
some people as a weapon, especially if it has an appearance of harm.
At 07:17 PM 8/24/2004, Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)Hi Brad, thanks for your reply. You wrote:
)
))Linda is only the latest to walk away.
)
)Yes indeed. That is rather the point, don't you think? Behavior like yours
)and Linda's isn't an occasional experience for people who study movements
)such as anthroposophy; it is routine, even chronic. When confronted with
)argument and evidence concerning anthroposophical matters, those who would
)like to defend anthroposophical initiatives frequently walk away, rather
)than engaging the issues head on. This deprives all of us of opportunities
)for meaningful and informed public discussion about the worldviews you
)endorse and espouse. Reversing that trend certainly does not require you
)to study Steiner obsessively, and it doesn't mean you have to follow up on
)all the minutiae that I sometomes focus on. It simply requires you to take
)responsibility for the positions you put forward in public forums, and
)substantiate them when appropriate. That is what it means to take a
)subject seriously, and that is what many other participants in public
)discourse expect of you.
)
)
))In this context of just young parents wanting a decent education for
))their children, this going on excessively, ad nauseum, ad nauseum, ad
))nauseum, about anti-semitism and racism from time and place and persons,
))from upwards of 100 years ago is irrelevent. The holocaust and the civil
))rights movement has brought corrective action to the public square.
)
)
)I think you and I live in different public squares. Where I live, racism
)and antisemitism have not magically disappeared, and the historical
)development of these phenomena remains very relevant to people who take
)them seriously.
)
)
))Your obsession has virtually no bearing on Waldorf education today.
)
)
)If by "Waldorf education" you mean those particular Waldorf environments
)with which Brad Martin and Linda Clemens have direct personal experience,
)then your claim may well be accurate. But that isn't the Waldorf education
)that critics of anthroposophical racism are talking about, and it surely
)isn't the object of my critique. I write about anthroposophy as a movement
)and ideology, and within those parameters, racial thinking is often a
)central theme. The extent to which this theme has bearing on Waldorf
)education in general is up to Waldorf personnel themselves; alas, refusing
)to take the matter seriously will not make it go away. That approach is
)neither wise nor spiritual nor educational.
)
)
)Cheers,
)
)
)Peter S.
)
)_________________________________________________________________
)Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
)http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
)
)Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
)-------------------------------------------------------------------
)Stories from the Civil Rights Movement. Extraordinary stories, ordinary
)people. Share your memories today!
)http://click.topica.com/caacvglb1dkiGb7KR0Mf/AARP
)-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:07:41 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
At 07:58 PM 8/24/2004, Joshua Wark wrote:
)Um, Peter, You CONSTANTLY list a variety of people
)you've acted with personally as well. Why should we
)listen to you? In fact, why should anyone listen to
)anyone here?
We should listen to Staudenmaier because he is probably the most
knowledgeable and sober writers on this list; and it seems he avoids
writing about subjects where his knowledge is not strong. By the way, I
don't recall an example of Staudenmaier's doing what Mr. Wark alleges,
certainly it is not a "constant" characteristic of his writing.
)No one is credible except you I guess, have fun
)convincing yourself then.
)
)Cop out.
On the other hand, Mr. Wark....
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:17:06 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: For parents seeking info on Waldorf
on 8/24/04 6:44 PM, Brad Martin at bkmartin6 hotmail.com wrote:
) TM makes my point perfectly.
Sharon: And mine as well, in more ways than one, (as you point out in your
paragraph after the next paragraph...)
)
) In 1972, the doctor gave me some Valium and the name of a therapist for
) my headaches, upset stomaches, tight muscles, etc. At the same time, I
) read an article in the Feb., 1972 article in Scientific American on the
) research done on meditation and it's beneficial effects by Dr. Herbert
) Benson, of Harvard and a Boston Hospital, and the benefits from inducing
) the meditative state of mind. I went out to find out how to meditate and
) learned from a TM instructor, only one available. Cleared up all
) symptoms in three months. I have meditated regularly ever since. I have
) had virtually no illnesses since. Benson was giving a lecture on
) meditation to a public group of 700 and a medical group of 300 at a
) major metropolitan medical center 12 years ago. I attended both. Same
) presentation as in 1972 updated by brain scans, and other research data,
) showing the beneficial effect of meditation on the human. I told him of
) my positive results and he said he had heard the same story hundreds of
) times. Since then, I have taught the same, to meditate, to over 20
) people since. It is simple. Nothing more than a deep state of rest.
Sharon: Now read what you wrote next...
)
) The TM folks later set up shop in Iowa and instead of staying with basic
) meditation that worked, overlayed it all with unnecessary stuff.
Sharon: Correct me if I'm wrong but you are saying that TM only presented
the outer form at first, which you liked and found beneficial. Then they
moved to Iowa and started a university and radio station and all sorts of
outreach programs to promulgate the more loony underbelly of TM which
existed as a subtext even before *you* tried TM? That's the problem with the
"outer forms" of ideologies as opposed to the inner forms that eventually
become outer. I know that "school" in Iowa. (Can't help smiling, sorry). I
used to drive past it and tune in to their radio show for a good laugh. I
know people who paid money to attend seminars there. If I have learned
*anything* at all from my cult experience it is that reality is malleable.
One ex-member of that group showed me pictures of themselves trying to fly
on little carpets. I don't think I've EVER laughed so hard hearing his
tales. The funny part is...they actually believed that they were flying
despite their video taped evidence!! Participants developed really strange
leg muscles from bouncing so much in kneeling positions!!
When I
) read Steiner's comments on 'spiritual science', I noted he recommended
) folks to learn to meditate.
Sharon: Yeah, he tells his followers to do all sorts of things, like devote
yourself to color to learn to see through walls and see spirits...to go
through your daily activities in your mind backwards each night...to read to
dead loved ones...to meditate on dead people's handwriting...there's over
350 books of Anthroposophic teachings.
)
) My point? I took the essence of TM that had value, learn to meditate,
) and dismissed the rest, just as I saw with Steiner when I looked at some
) of his writing years ago. Just as Prof. Theodore Roszak saw in Steiner
) as a forerunner to modern day humanistic/transpersonal psychology. He
) saw the forest through the trees.
Sharon: I guess all Steiner's followers essentially do that. Some might
decide to focus on his racist teachings rather than his meditation
exercises. Each believer takes and dismisses what they feel is important.
This occurs in Fundamentalist Christianity and Islam as well. Nobody's
arguing that you shouldn't go off and explore various religions, that's one
of your basic human rights as an American. I'm asking that Anthroposophists
don't fob off Anthroposophy on my family and I, without our conscious
sanction and choice. Don't sell Anthroposophy in the guise of a liberal,
progressive, nonsectarian, multicultural, environmental, humanist movement.
Don't neglect the subtext in order to gain recruits. I'm asking that
Anthroposophists get more open and reveal Steiner's subtext to prospective
parents/recruits more readily. I'm asking that they quit playing mind games
with people about not being a religion. I'm asking that they officially deal
with Steiner's racist doctrine. I'm asking that they quit whittling away the
First Amendment and keep church and state separate. I'm asking them to be
more like TM today and get more open and out of the closet about their
subtext.
)
) I recall the TM effort to bring meditation into the schools. It is
) unfortunate that they did not succeed, or some other initiative to teach
) young people to meditate. It would be profoundly beneficial to their
) well being. Today, meditation is a common part of medicine in
) psychoneuroimmunology. It should be taught in schools, along with good
) nutrition and exercise for the best interests of all. Take a rest break
) at recess. The long term benefits would be enormous, such as improved
) health and billions of less money spent on conventional health care.
Sharon: Oh right (sarcasm). If TM had succeeded, public school children
would be trying to fly on little carpets right about now. I'm glad it
failed.
)
) Instead of bringing that what works to the people, apparently all the
) authorities could see was their perception of 'religion'. I have no idea
) how many have learned to meditate through the TM folks. Must be in the
) hundreds of thousands. I would wager that well less than 1% got hooked
) up with the TM nonsense.
Sharon: I don't understand how you can rave about something while at the
same time pan it for being nonsense. *You* can personally pick and choose
from an ideology but you can't force others to pick and choose what *you*
want them to. Believers will focus on the teachings of a guru that have
meaning to themselves. You can't let a religious group promulgate their
teachings in public schools because it creates ideological friction and
resentment, who decides which teachings are valid and which are not? Some
ideas are waaaaaaay out there and don't belong in public schools.
) That will happen, and does happen, with Waldorf. Take the essence that
) works and dismiss the rest. I will guess that over 90% of Waldorf
) teachers and parents teach that what works and dismisses the rest. It is
) the Waldorf Critics Activists and PLANS who get hysterical over the
) "10%" and try to condemn the whole.
Sharon: My experiences as a Waldorf mom reinforced my reaction to the
subtext once I discovered it. How can I dismiss the loony Steiner stuff when
it was fobbed off on my family by highly trained Anthroposophists (think
Anthro doctor, Eurythmist and teachers).
)
) Do I consider TM a religion? Of course not.
Sharon: Well the court did dear, and rightly so.
I learned to meditate from
) them and that was it. Since then, there are many sources to learn to do
) basic meditation. But the orthodox mind set that is threatened by this
) inner directed experiential method goes bananas and talks the
) authorities into their fears. "It is a religion, etc."
Sharon: Because there is a whole doctrine, that people use as a guide, just
like in Anthroposophy. You can't pretend it doesn't exist. Why do you think
people at our ex-school spent months and months trying to heat the school
from a building off premises? They read Steiner and get all sorts of wacky
ideas stuck in their heads and try to implement them.
)
) That is what PLANS is doing today and interfering with one pioneering
) effort to bring holistic education to the community. The only good that
) may come from PLANS/WC is causing a ruckus which I trust will assist the
) Waldorf leadership in training/teaching the essence, not the literalized
) nonsense.
Sharon: The verdicts not out yet. We have not lost our case in court yet. As
the religion scholar Philip Jenkins notes, "marginal religions generate
mainstream law". PLANS has an uphill battle, especially with Bush at the
helm. Bush is on your side Brad...On Aug. 3 Bush announced that another $100
million in federal funds will be given in "access to recovery" grants
targeting "faith-based groups." Charles Curie of Health and Human Services
issued a press release saying: "The promise of this initiative--founded on a
belief in individual choice--is that it ensures the availability of a full
range of treatment options, including the transforming power of faith. That
was the president's intent in creating this program in the first place, and
requesting $600 million over three years in his 2003 State of the Union
Address". Yesterday I pledge my help to another cause, I became precinct
leader for a group trying to get Bush out of office (G).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:45:10 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
At 08:37 PM 8/24/2004, Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
))What is race?
)
)A social construct that is mapped onto purportedly biological realities.
)
)) And how does a person become a member of one?
)
)That depends on the context. Self-designation is one route, and social
)perception is another route. Both of these vary regionally (and sometimes
)in other ways as well); people who are regarded as black in Wisconsin, for
)example, may not be regarded as black in Brazil. Have you checked out
)those AAA and AAPA statements yet, by the way?
I did not read this before writing my own response (already sent).
Apparently I've learned something.... :-)
(And I never did follow up the voluminous references that Staudenmaier so
generously provided me; essentially, I've followed the time-saving
principle, also enshrined in common law, that uncontroverted testimony is
to be taken as true. So once Peter S. had sufficiently explained what was
in the sources, I didn't need to read them; with the passage of time
without the appearance of any sober contradiction, it became reasonable to
accept Staudenmaier's claims -- as to fact and not necessarily as to
conclusion -- without verification.)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:39:54 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: What is race-for Peter
At 08:28 PM 8/24/2004, L G Clemens wrote:
)I'm doing a little experiment.
)
)Would you agree to switch positions with me? You're to defend your
)definition of race to me this time.
)
)Assuming you'll agree to try this, I'll start right now.
)
)What is race? And how does a person become a member of one?
This was directed to Peter S., apparently, from the subject line....
He'll answer, I expect, but I thought I'd also answer for myself.
Race is an illusion based on an assumption that people who share certain
superficial and easily discernable characteristics are united in some way
and can be described and treated as a meaningful entity. The description or
treatment may be positive or negative in implication.
For example, imagine you are the human resources director of a software
company. You have a choice between three apparently equally qualified
applicants for an engineering position. One seems "White" to you, one seems
"Black," and one seems "Asian." If these categories create any expectation
regarding the suitability of the employee for employment, whether positive
or negative, you are have a concept of race and you are afflicted with some
degree of racism.
My daughter, as I've noted many times, is Asian. We had many options of
where to pursue adoption proceedings. Our choice of China was based on many
factors, some of which were purely pragmatic, but there was definitely an
element of racism in our consideration. We expect our daughter to be
intelligent and, if she goes into the arts, she will be a tremendous
success. That's a racist expectation.
We do indeed see her as being intelligent and perceptive beyond her years
(she's almost three), and she has shown significant signs of passion for
music; we are going to enroll her in Suzuki method violin lessons (which
start at three). Is this related to our expectations? It might be. Would
this be happening if we had adopted from, say, Guatemala? I think not. And
that I think not could be evidence of racism. I would say that it *is*
evidence of racism except for the fact that the circumstances of Chinese
adoption are more likely to come up with healthy children with no trace of
fetal alcohol syndrome. But I think racism is responsible for much of my
expectation, rather than a sober estimate of the populations involved.
One becomes a member of a race in one or both of two ways:
(1) One imagines that one is a member of the race.
(2) One is imagined by others as being a member of the race.
These imaginations have consequences in the real world, people act on them
and make decisions by means of them. So the suffering from racism is real.
The very question, in its idea that race is "one" something, incorporates a
racist presumption.
This recognition is not terribly common, I'd say. Staudenmaier is fighting
an uphill battle, because, I'd say, most people today do assume the reality
of race. Once that assumption is in place, the discussion becomes very
difficult. I know that I learned a great deal by reading his patient
critique of my own writing, in our extensive discussions on this list. It
was not easy for me.
So I'd ask, in turn, "Do you belong to a race? If so, what race? How has it
been defined, such that you think you belong to it?"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:29:47 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: Racial doctrine I found
At 10:00 PM 8/24/2004, Joshua Wark wrote:
)Hm, that just does not sound racist at all to me.
Staudenmaier has consistently acknowledged that there is anti-racist
content in the work of Steiner. So finding something that appears to be
against racism, that appears to contradict racism, is simply not a new
discovery. The question is whether or not there *is* racist content, and
especially if there is unexamined and unrealized content that may be
affecting how anthroposophy is taught and, perhaps, Waldorf education.
Now, Mr. Wark's mission does seem to be to defend Waldorf. It should be
noted that Mr. Staudenmaier has very little to say about Waldorf education.
He writes, for the most part, about Steiner and his work.
Because the defenders of Waldorf have often come up with what seem to him
to be erroneous statements about race and racism -- which is Peter S.'s
primary interest -- he often writes to correct these. It could thus appear
to some who don't read carefully that he is attacking Waldorf education.
That his posts appear on this list amplifies that perception. But he writes
on this list, I infer, because this is a place where his subject of
interest and expertise -- racism in the writings of Rudoph Steiner -- is
being discussed. I've never seen him attack Waldorf education.
In fact, he does not "attack" Steiner. Read him carefully! If you think
that to say that a person is racist or held racist ideas is to attack the
person, then you'll easily imagine that he is attacking Steiner. But
Staudenmaier is using an academic definition of racism, not the common
definition, which is mixed up with a whole series of concepts that make
"racist" into a strongly perjorative word.
The popular word is one that labels a person, and in this conception, a
person is either racist or he is not. If he is against racism, presumably,
he is not racist. If he is racist, he is a thoroughly reprehensible person,
to be rejected and despised.
In the academic definition, a person may be racist simply because he holds
or expresses one racist idea or concept. He may also be against racism, he
might even be working day and night to end the evil of racism.
Now, if we imagine such a person, a vigorous anti-racist, who nevertheless
holds a racist idea, will that person be immune from causing harm due to
his strong anti-racism? I think not. I think that the vestiges of racism in
the person may actually be even more dangerous than more blatant racism.
This is because the strong condemnation of racism in the person will make
it less likely for the person to be able to recognize their own racism. If
someone points it out to them, they may take it as an insult....
The academic definition is, in fact, the more useful one, especially in
reasoned discourse, even in a non-academic setting. The popular, strongly
perjorative definition is one which poisons discussion and makes it
impossible to find agreement on the truth....
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:43:11 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: reading Charlie and reading Steiner
At 10:10 PM 8/24/2004, charlie frey wrote:
)I'm sorry, Peter; I guess I'm one of the glassy-eyed followers.
Note this: Peter writes about the issues, Charlie writes about the people,
in this case himself.
)To me, these passages merely show an appreciation and an acknowledgement
)of who we are based on where we come from--that we are currently the
)highest limb on our family tree---irrespective of which
)family/tribe/race we come from.
) In order for *me* to call this racist, it would have to say that one
)race is inferior to another.
)*AND* how do you know the race he is referring to is not the race of the
)post-Atlantean, which would include all living people?
Let me answer this. If that is his meaning, his writing is word salad, so
badly expressed as to be incomprehensible. The word "race" had a meaning in
his time. If he were talking about all of us as belonging to one race, why
didn't he just say so? Why would he allow his readers to assume that we
belong to different races? As they most certainly would.... To repeat the
beginning of what Staudenmaier quoted:
)The individual belongs to a family, a nation, a race; his activity in this
)world depends upon his belonging to some such community. His particular
)character is also connected with it. The conscious activity of individual
)persons by no means exhausts everything to be reckoned with in a family, a
)nation, or a race. Besides their character, families, nations, and races
)have also their destiny.
Charlie continued:
) I just think that you're wearing green glasses, so everything looks
)green.
That quote expresses racism, as defined by Staudenmaier (and by consensus,
it appears, among those who study the subject).
The idea that Steiner would write this and meant the "post-Atlantean race,"
being everyone, seems to me quite a stretch, preposterous even.
Rose-colored glasses....
Staudenmaier had written to Charlie:
) ) It seems to me that these passages include both racist and non-racist
) ) teachings. Do you disagree?
Charlie did not answer the question, he avoided it by talking about
Staudenmaier as a person, i.e., as someone wearing green glasses.
Are there racist ideas expressed in what I quoted?
If not, what then does it mean to "belong to a race"? How many races are
there in the world today?
It seems to me that Steiner has explicitly referred to various present
races, such as the "Negro race."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:45:19 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
)
) At 05:41 PM 8/24/2004, charlie frey wrote:
) ) I, on the other hand, would like to say that I have never encountered
) )a "person of color" who reacted in this way.
) )My class at Sunbridge College contained 4 black people (sorry...I'm old
) )fashioned. They were not all American, so "African-American" doesn't
) )work. Actually, my closest African-American friend is white.), 2
) )Hispanic people, and 4 Asian people; and none of them were "spooked".
)
) Sunbridge College and the associated Waldorf School have many non-white
) students. Open racism is not evident there; racism is *not* blatant in
) Waldorf education, at least in the U.S. Steiner's blatantly racist texts
)
) are not generally studied, as far as I know.
)
) )And there was MUCH discussion about race and Anthroposophy (Have I
) )mentioned that half of my family is Jewish and the only person in this
) )world that I have ever called my brother had black skin?).
)
) As Mr. Staudenmaier will quite readily acknowledge, Steiner was
) ambivalent
) about racism. There are non-racist and anti-racist teachings in his
) corpus,
) as well as blatantly and subtly racist teachings. For the most part, the
)
) anti-racist sentiments are emphasized today, but some of the subtly
) racist
) teachings survive, it appears.
)
) ) Nor, I should add, have I ever encountered an Anthroposophist who has
) )indicated to me even the slightest hint of racism, unless you include an
) )awareness that different races and cultures have differences.
)
) As Staudenmaier has pointed out, with references aplenty, the ascription
) of
) "differences" to race is problematic; it is quite often a carrier for
) racist ideas and attitudes. Note that "racist" in this context is not a
) synonym for "hate-filled racial chauvinism," there are plenty of ideas
) that
) are racist that are not intrinsically accompanied by manifestations of
) hate; much of the resistance to the idea that Steiner was racist are
) based
) on a resistance to the automatic rejection of a person or idea because
) they
) are "racist."
)
) ) So, even if there are some questionable quotes from Steiner (which
) )there are) this whole idea that there is racism living in
) )Anthroposophy/Waldorf is just a crock of crap being kept alive by a very
) )few single-minded people with a beef against the movement.
)
) I'd say that it is being kept alive by sustained resistance in the
) anthroposophical/Waldorf movement to the plain facts. A simple
) acknowledgement of Steiner's racism, and of the racist content of *some*
)
) anthroposophical teachings, together with modest corrective action,
) would
) defuse the whole thing, in my opinion, it would indeed become an
) historical
) issue of little present significance. But as long as it is not admitted,
) it
) will fester.
)
) There are quotes from Steiner that are much more than questionable.
) Rather,
) they are quite clearly racist, it is not merely a matter of Steiner
) failing
) to meet present PC standards.
)
) )I know I'm not going to change anybody's mind here, but it is just so
) )whether you choose to accept it or not.
)
) Has it ever occurred to this writer that this might be an arrogant
) stance?
) I.e., "I have the truth, you can accept it or not." Does the writer
) think
) that such a stance is conducive to learning? Could he claim to have an
) open
) mind?
Well...it has now.
if you notice, though, I often (sometimes?) try to temper my statements
by stating that I am speaking from my (limited) experience. But, there
are just some things that I am prepared to take a hard line on; and I
think that I can say that there is no systematic racism in
Anthroposophy. Not the kind with a negative connotation, anyway...i.e.
racial superiority/inferiority.
It just ain't so.
)
) )As far as I can tell, you can NOT find racist practices in
) )Waldorf/Anthroposophy in America today. Period. If there once was, there
) )isn't anymore.
)
) The devil is in the details. Making absolute statements is almost a
) guarantee that the statements are false.
)
) This writer has ridiculed the "crayon" issue. I think it is worth some
) examination.
)
) Waldorf education in the early years emphasizes color as light, quite
) properly in my opinion. There is no color "Black." And if you look at
) so-called "Black" people, you'll see that they do in fact, have color,
) color in their skin and color in their hair.
)
) Now, early childhood art is not necessarily representational. If art is
) not
) representational, but serves another purpose, in this case the
) expression
) of light, the absence of black crayons is quite understandable, it is an
)
) educational device, and not racist at all.
)
) But when art becomes representational, as it did in the examples brought
)
) forth where African descent children allegedly couldn't make
) self-portraits
) because of the absence of Black crayons, the matter is no longer so
) simple.
) If art is being well-taught, darker colors would be available so that
) the
) colors used in the art match the colors that are present. Black, per se,
) is
) not the issue; rather the availability of dark colors would be the
) issue.
) And if these colors are excluded from a class which is now working with
) human representational art, it could only be because these colors are
) not
) considered necessary for human representation. And that is an issue of
) race.
)
) As I've mentioned many times on this list, my daughter is Asian.
) Casually,
) I'd say she has black hair. Actually, it is a dark brown. But the
) closest
) crayon to it in a regular small set of crayons would indeed be black.
) She
) has a Waldorf doll made, not with a more common blonde hair, but with
) black
) hair. Actually she has several.... I've described the reaction of the
) day-care provider, who was in fact the day-care provider preferentially
) used by students and faculty at Sunbridge, who criticized the doll
) because
) it had the wrong color hair. ("Dolls represent the angelic, and angels
) have
) blonde hair.") I believe this woman was from Germany, and she did have,
) as
) I recall, blonde hair. She was also a committed anthroposophist, and had
)
) been doing this child care for many years.
)
) I'd say that remark showed a subtle racism.
)
) I'm not particularly familiar with the Waldorf curriculum; but it has
) been
) alleged here that race is taught as a reality. That is the essence of
) racism. Perhaps Mr. Frey could comment on this.
)
) ) If you need to believe that some of us are ignoring a
) )central doctrine of Anthroposophy by not being racist, fine.
)
) Mr. Frey commits what is in my opinion one of the common sins of writing
) to
) mailing lists, which is to address the entire list with comments that
) are
) really directed at one person. The use of "you" in English is
) problematic
) because it covers both the singular and the plural (lots of other
) languages
) don't have that problem). Mr. Frey's post, however, does not explicitly
) indicate to whom he is writing.... and the piece of mail was addressed
) to a
) list server that sends it out to a fairly large number of people....
Please replace "If you" with "If someone".
Gracias.
)
) For myself, I don't think that racism is a central doctrine of
) anthroposophy. I do think, however, that there are teachings found in
) anthroposophy which are racist. I *do* think that it is possible to
) tease
) them out, to clarify and develop anthroposophy, but this is not likely
) to
) happen as long as the denial continues.
)
) Mr. Frey's comment, however, has incorporated presumptions, to use the
) linguistic term. The presumptions are that, first, he is not racist, and
)
) second, that we would agree that he is not racist (i.e., that the issue
) would be whether or not he is ignoring the racist doctrines, not whether
) or
) not he is racist.)
)
) Now, I don't see Mr. Frey as hate-filled (on racial issues; his stance
) on,
) say, issues around the attack of and defense of Waldorf education is not
) as
) clear to me). If he thinks that by raising the possibility that he holds
)
) racist ideas means that I'm accusing him of being some kind of Nazi,
) he'd
) be mistaken. I'd suggest that he reread Staudenmaier's work and his
) posts
) to this list, he'd find a rather precise definition of racism.
)
) And I'd suggest that *most* of us hold racist ideas. It is possible that
) we
) would drop the ideas like a hot potato if we were to critically examine
) them, but, as I'm indicating, that is not likely to happen as long as we
)
) vigorously and with outrage defend against the idea that we might hold
) racist ideas or be influenced by racist concepts.
)
) )Feel free to
) )accuse me of being a hypocrite because I pick and choose what I like
) )about Anthroposophy, but if you are going to accuse me of being a
) )racist, you are wise to do it at at least arm's length.
)
) My point. The truth doesn't matter, what matters is that "racist" is an
) insult, Mr. Frey thinks -- with some justification, the term is often
) used
) that way --, and if you insult me, I am likely to respond violently.
)
) Staudenmaier does *not* use the word as an insult, he uses it soberly.
) That's what I've observed. There are *other* Waldorf critics who do
) indeed
) use it as an insult, as an attempt to smear.
)
) ) In my opinion the 2 pillars of Anthroposophy are "Knowledge of Higher
) )Worlds..." and "A Philosophy of Freedom", and the more one studies these
) )books, the closer one will be able to get to his/her higher self,; and
) )the closer we get to our higher selves, the more impossible racism
) )becomes.
)
) Indeed. However, there is the truth of getting closer to "our higher
) selves," and there is the illusion of it. And those who think that they
) are
) "close" are, I'd say, more likely to be *far.* This is an ancient truth,
)
) it's been expressed in many ways. The people of knowledge know how
) flawed
) they are. The people of ignorance imagine that they are people of
) knowledge.
)
) As they say, if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, don't. But you
) won't
) know if it fits or not until you try it on.
)
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:50:16 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: My struggle to understand-
walden wrote:
) ** Parent, after reading the new FAQ) asks of a Waldorf teacher BEFORE
) enrolling: "What do you mean by Christ at the center? etcetera
Walden...............................................when you read in
the old FAQ that Waldorf stems from Steiner's work in Anthroposophy, did
you ask what them what THAT meant?
This an illusion you're chasing here. Thousands and thousands of
families happy with Waldorf apparently found what they thought they
would after reading the "promotional materials" as they found them.
Some of you were unhappy with Waldorf, thinking you found something else
altogether. I guarantee that if YOU were to write the FAQ yourself,
very little of it would match up with what MY children are getting in
their Waldorf classroom. In my view, your perceptions are highly
deceptive. There is no possibility that the Perfect Promotional
Material exists which would satisfy the two of us, let alone the entire
universe of potential Waldorf families.
)
)
) I see denial and I see it draped in a strange version of "karma."
) Here's a
) thought: I like to look for roots - trees, plants, humans, sports
) teams...whatever. Looking at roots helps me understand the objects of
) my
) interest. When I look at anthroposophy and its roots - where it came
) from,
) where it is and where it might go - as a movement (complete with Waldorf
) schools, Camphill projects or Biodynamic Farms), I see strange and
) twisted
) roots. When anthroposophists try to look back at those roots, there are
) knots and pretzel twists that are easier left alone - Steiner's Racial
) ethnology being one such knotted root. Unfortunately, however, in
) order
) for the movement to grow as a strong and healthy "movement," the roots
) need
) some work. I wonder if, when the roots of anthroposophy are examined
) and
) dealt with and - for lack of a better word - *fixed,* some of the
) Waldorf
) denial problems might just be overcome at the same time?
So you say. You say if you want to understand this you look at it's
roots. I say if I want to understand this I look at it's fruit. You
say Waldorf's got some very screwed up roots. I say ALL of human kind's
got very screwed up roots. But despite those rotten roots, human kind
sure manages to put out some damn good fruit. Waldorf being among them.
So I say, I've yet to see a sick plant NOR healthy one get any healthier
by pulling it up, turning it upside down and poking, scrubbing,
disinfecting or pruning away at it's roots. If you were to do this at
your children's NEW school, especially in a very public way, then I'd
say that the odds were excellent you'd make the "tree" desperately sick
in no time at all, and pose painful risks to much of it's fruit. And
you'd inspire alarm and bitter resentments as well.
Funny how different you and I are in they way we look at the world, and
in what we "forsee" happening with suggestions like these. Isn't it?
)
) Again, you said (this is important):
) "The most sensible route is to "evidence of how Steiner's doctrines" are
) manifest in Waldorf schools is to actually
) experience a real Waldorf school."
)
) I respond: What if I do not want that experience - for myself or my
) child?
Choose another one for yourself and your children.
It doesn't get any easier.
)
) Linda wrote:
) I doubt my suggestions would "fix" the problem (you do see the problem
) now...?) but they would be welcomed by prospective Waldorf families - I
) have
) no doubt.
Well, you should have doubt! I'm in a Waldorf family, and so very
little of what you find so important to "tell parents" bears any
resemblance to what's actually lived out in the school, it would create
more problems than it solved. And that's putting it mildly :-)
-=-
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:02:31 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
)
) The point is race is not a biological category but a socially
) constructed
) one.
I'm sorry, Diana, but you're stepping midstream into a more focused
discussion and not following it well.
The particular point being advanced was that "self-designation"
determines race. And I wasn't advancing it~~~Peter initiated it, and
I'm asking HIM to explain it to me. I'm waiting to hear from him. I've
been told he's quite the expert. Thanks.-- Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:02:41 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: reading Charlie and reading Steiner
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
)
) At 10:10 PM 8/24/2004, charlie frey wrote:
) )I'm sorry, Peter; I guess I'm one of the glassy-eyed followers.
)
) Note this: Peter writes about the issues, Charlie writes about the
) people,
) in this case himself.
)
) )To me, these passages merely show an appreciation and an acknowledgement
) )of who we are based on where we come from--that we are currently the
) )highest limb on our family tree---irrespective of which
) )family/tribe/race we come from.
) ) In order for *me* to call this racist, it would have to say that one
) )race is inferior to another.
) )*AND* how do you know the race he is referring to is not the race of the
) )post-Atlantean, which would include all living people?
)
) Let me answer this. If that is his meaning, his writing is word salad,
) so
) badly expressed as to be incomprehensible. The word "race" had a meaning
) in
) his time.
So did words like "astral" and "phlegmatic". Steiner often expressed
himself by adapting existing words.
If he were talking about all of us as belonging to one race, why
) didn't he just say so? Why would he allow his readers to assume that we
) belong to different races? As they most certainly would.... To repeat
) the
) beginning of what Staudenmaier quoted:
)
) )The individual belongs to a family, a nation, a race; his activity in
) )this
) )world depends upon his belonging to some such community. His particular
) )character is also connected with it. The conscious activity of
) )individual
) )persons by no means exhausts everything to be reckoned with in a family,
) )a
) )nation, or a race. Besides their character, families, nations, and races
) )
) )have also their destiny.
)
) Charlie continued:
) ) I just think that you're wearing green glasses, so everything looks
) )green.
)
) That quote expresses racism, as defined by Staudenmaier (and by
) consensus,
) it appears, among those who study the subject).
)
) The idea that Steiner would write this and meant the "post-Atlantean
) race,"
) being everyone, seems to me quite a stretch, preposterous even.
) Rose-colored glasses....
)
) Staudenmaier had written to Charlie:
) ) ) It seems to me that these passages include both racist and non-racist
) ) ) teachings. Do you disagree?
)
) Charlie did not answer the question, he avoided it by talking about
) Staudenmaier as a person, i.e., as someone wearing green glasses.
I'm sorry...I know that there are various versions of the rules of
engagement, but I just can't always do a point-by-point reply.
I am guilty of triage.
But, yes...I do disagree.
Unless you want to come up with a definition of "racism" that would
cause me to change my mind. To me, the term implies hatred and/or
discrimination, or the grounds therefor. If it only explains why there
are so few black people living in Norway, maybe I could change my mind.
)
) Are there racist ideas expressed in what I quoted?
)
) If not, what then does it mean to "belong to a race"? How many races are
)
) there in the world today?
I can tell you that when I have to check a box that asks me for my race,
I check "other" and write in "human".
This may help explain how I feel about the question.
)
) It seems to me that Steiner has explicitly referred to various present
) races, such as the "Negro race."
)
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:02:50 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
At 11:15 PM 8/24/2004, L G Clemens wrote:
)Thank you for answering the question. I'd like to explore this further.
) Let's take "self-designation". I read this wonderful book called The
)Color of Water. A Eastern European Jewish ancestry married a black man,
)had children, and was a "self-designated" black woman. Does this mean
)she was a member of a "race"?
By self-designation, yes. She might be counted that way on a census form,
if that was what she declared. By the recognition of others, maybe, maybe
not. Not enough information was given.
)If George W. Bush were to announce "I am a member of the black race",
)would we say he was the first black president?
No. He'd be lying, because he does not believe that. Further, the question
ignores that two criteria were given, both having effect, and the
perceptions of others was relevant as well. G.W. Bush is not recognized by
others as "black." Not one person.
)If I were an employer being accused of racial discrimination because I
)rejected a better qualified person with dark skin and what by
)appearances would be African heritage in favor of a blond haired, blue
)eyed, fair skinned person with a Norwegian name, would I be able to
)prove my innocence by demonstrating it was impossible?
No. "Racial discrimination" means discrimination against people based on a
perception of race. In an actual case, perception is inferred from
behavior. You could not demonstrate that it is impossible for a person to
perceive race. People do perceive race; that is, they identify people as
belonging to a race by virtue of, in this case, visible characteristics,
and possibly by other ones, such as accent.
) That I couldn't
)possibly KNOW what race either of them were, thus being unable to prefer
)one over the other, because race is self-designated and I didn't ask
)which they chose? And I didn't ask them because I'm forbidden by LAW in
)this country from asking them?
Geez, it just amazes me sometimes, what people can imagine to be a cogent
argument.
Look, Linda, you are arguing a point with an expert on the subject. You'll
benefit by trying to understand what he is saying, instead of seeking every
cockamamie argument you can find to refute it.
)Now as for "social perception", can you give an example of where this
)"social perception" is NOT a "social perception" of an identity directly
)linked to that of your biological parents?
I will. Some of the alleged descendants of Thomas Jefferson, through his
slave Sally, passed for white, to the extent that the knowledge that they
had African slave ancestry was lost in the family. (It's been established
that a Jefferson fathered these children, but it has not been conclusively
proven that it was Thomas Jefferson).
Note that in the society of the time, as today, if you are part African
descent -- even one-fourth or one-eighth -- you are likely to be considered
"black." If you are light-skinned, you may be able to pass as white (which
from a genetic point of view would be a more accurate description, though
it is itself terribly flawed).
Race *is* a social perception linked, but not entirely controlled by, how
your parents are perceived, if they are known, or by how you are perceived,
if they are not. It is *also* a personal identity likewise linked. Thus
race is an interplay between two perceptions.
If you come from, say, Australia, and are of aboriginal descent, or perhaps
if you are Dravidian from India, you might be seen in the U.S. as "black,"
though you are very much from a different population.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:15:39 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf wisdom: Don't take it seriously
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
)
) I'd suggest to Waldorf defenders that they read this post by Mr.
) Staudenmaier carefully. I'd suggest reading it as one would read a
) letter
) from a friend who cares about you enough to note the problems you are
) having, to tell you what you might not notice about yourself, so that
) you
) can recover from an illness that you might not even be aware of.
Being a "Waldorf defender" is a disease, and Dr. Peter is here to
provide therapy for it?
This board is a hoot and a half sometimes.
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:23:13 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf wisdom: Don't take it seriously
L G Clemens wrote:
)
)
) Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
) )
) ) I'd suggest to Waldorf defenders that they read this post by Mr.
) ) Staudenmaier carefully. I'd suggest reading it as one would read a
) ) letter
) ) from a friend who cares about you enough to note the problems you are
) ) having, to tell you what you might not notice about yourself, so that
) ) you
) ) can recover from an illness that you might not even be aware of.
)
) Being a "Waldorf defender" is a disease, and Dr. Peter is here to
) provide therapy for it?
)
) This board is a hoot and a half sometimes.
)
) Linda
They care about you, Linda!
Smiles are few and far between on this board.
Thank you!
c
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:25:28 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
)
) The point is race is not a biological category but a socially
) constructed
) one.
Linda:
)I'm sorry, Diana, but you're stepping midstream into a more focused
)discussion and not following it well.
Well, that could be, but I do think I get what Peter meant. Not to speak for
Peter but I didn't take him to mean that "self-designation determines race"
in the sense that just saying it makes it so. If that were literally true
and that were all there was to it, we could "self-designate" ourselves
anything and this notion would be easy to ridicule, as you have been doing.
I could designate myself a geranium and that wouldn't make me one. Perhaps
"self-designation determines race" is what he said, I'm not going to go back
and check, or if that's what he said, then I don't quite agree with him. The
way I would put it would be that "self-designation" is how, socially, people
assign themselves and others to categories that we have, for a long time,
understood or agreed to call racial. Once we understand that those
categories have no precise biological correlations, self-designation (and
perhaps various other things like tradition, custom, bigotry, perhaps
psychological mechanisms like denial or projection) becomes the only way the
category continues to exist in people's minds at all.
It's related to the argument that much of what we perceive is constructed by
language. You're aghast at the notion that "race" may not exist, even though
people talk about race all the time, basically. It's a category on census
forms. It's a way people label themselves and others. How can it not even
exist? Can we just toss out the word and hope the phenomenon itself goes
away? It's not too easy, but you could, actually, look at it that way, that
that is what may slowly happen. It would be a good outcome. I'd suggest it
might even be what is going on in discussions like this one. The categories
get looser, people get confused, maybe eventually the category is not useful
anymore.
Very possible I'm just muddying things here but geez, Linda, if I can wade
through your miles of dripping sarcasm and contempt you know you're going to
have to put up with my butting in to the actual arguments :)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:18:59 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: reading Charlie and reading Steiner
Hi Charlie, thanks for your reply. You wrote:
)I'm sorry, Peter; I guess I'm one of the glassy-eyed followers.
)To me, these passages merely show an appreciation and an acknowledgement
)of who we are based on where we come from--that we are currently the
)highest limb on our family tree---irrespective of which
)family/tribe/race we come from.
I'm not sure where you found the irrespective-of-race notion in the passages
from Knowledge of Higher Worlds we were supposed to discuss. Steiner
explicitly rejects this notion in his other works, and he uses the same
metaphor of limbs on a tree that you use. According to Steiner, the
Europeans and Aryans are currently the highest limb on the human family
tree, while Native Americans are a lower limb, halfway between Europeans and
apes. Steiner even drew pictures, with branches, to illustrate this point.
This is, after all, exactly what the idea of "higher races" means.
) In order for *me* to call this racist, it would have to say that one
)race is inferior to another.
That is what it says. You just read Steiner's declaration about higher
racial forms. Do you mean that there is some distinction between higher and
superior, or between lower (or "subordinate", another of Steiner's preferred
terms for non-white racial groups) and inferior? If that is what you mean,
could you explain what you think this distinction involves?
)*AND* how do you know the race he is referring to is not the race of the
)post-Atlantean, which would include all living people?
He is referring to the post-Atlantean race. For Steiner, the post-Atlantean
race is the Aryan race. It certainly does not include all living people.
According to Steiner, lots of non-white racial groups today are the
degenerate remnants of earlier races, such as the Lemurians and Atlanteans.
You can read all about this in his book Cosmic Memory. Or you could just
take another look at the same excerpts from Knowledge of Higher Worlds that
you are ostensibly replying to; those passages conclude as follows:
"A race or a nation stands so much the higher, the more perfectly
its members express the pure, ideal human type, the further they have worked
their way from the physical and perishable to the supersensible and
imperishable. The evolution of man through the incarnations in ever higher
national and racial forms is thus a process of liberation. Man must finally
appear in harmonious perfection."
(Rudolf Steiner, Knowledge of Higher Worlds p. 207)
As you can see, Steiner taught that some races are closer to the pure, ideal
human type, while other races are farther away. Some are more perfected, and
others less so. If you think that this is somehow different from
inferiority, I encourage you to clarify your interpretation. Or if there is
some other reason why you deny that these statements are racist, I invite
you to state that reason.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:35:13 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
)
) As I've mentioned many times on this list, my daughter is Asian.
) Casually,
) I'd say she has black hair. Actually, it is a dark brown. But the
) closest
) crayon to it in a regular small set of crayons would indeed be black.
) She
) has a Waldorf doll made, not with a more common blonde hair, but with
) black
) hair. Actually she has several.... I've described the reaction of the
) day-care provider, who was in fact the day-care provider preferentially
) used by students and faculty at Sunbridge, who criticized the doll
) because
) it had the wrong color hair. ("Dolls represent the angelic, and angels
) have
) blonde hair.") I believe this woman was from Germany, and she did have,
) as
) I recall, blonde hair. She was also a committed anthroposophist, and had
)
) been doing this child care for many years.
)
) I'd say that remark showed a subtle racism.
Would you attribute that remark to her anthroposophy? Perhaps it can be
attributed to the fact that she was from Germany. After all, Germans
historically have a much poorer record when it comes to racism than
Anthroposophists do.
I would have questioned on her from two fronts. Why would she say dolls
have to be "angelic"? And why would she say angels have "blond hair".
Why would she say angels even have to have hair?
If her answers honestly sounded racist, I wouldn't leave my very young
children with her anymore. If they didn't, I'd have politely offered my
views in return, and insisted that she never make an issue the child's
doll again. Teachers of young children have no business telling
children what color they think angels come in period, let alone dolls.
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:39:38 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
)
)
) This was directed to Peter S., apparently, from the subject line....
)
) He'll answer, I expect, but I thought I'd also answer for myself.
Yes, thank you it was just for Peter, for the purposes of my experiment.
I appreciate your discussion, I myself want to focus on Peter's answers
for now.
I'm sure he'll come back to me....there's a lot on his plate here at the
moment, but I'm sure I'm in the queue someplace.
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:43:24 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf wisdom: Don't take it seriously
charlie frey wrote:
) They care about you, Linda!
) Smiles are few and far between on this board.
) Thank you!
) c
And you! Smiles are even more wonderful when they're shared.
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:05:56 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Admin Question
L.G. Clemens, you wrote,
)Can I post it here?
I don't know what you're talking about!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:58:14 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: Hi Dan
I'm curious why the Administrator of this board would find this a
violation of the rules here:
"Peter, you have been sufficiently dismissed and ridiculed over on
Anthroposophy Tomorrow, case is closed. You remind me of the kid in the
school yard with aberrant behavior who constantly is trying to play with
the others, but they, over time, will no longer play with him because of
the aberrant behavior. Inevitably, he becomes all alone. You seem
neurotically obsessed with all of this, the minutia from a hundred years
ago, Steiner, et al. An observation. "
But THIS isn't?
"Like other new agers he [referring to Joel Wendt, another participant
on this board] is into appropriating (stealing) from the cultures of
others for personal and group gain . Since he (and all anthrops) believe
that those of the First Nations have no right to exist, it makes it that
much easier to justify the theft."
I get the sense that some ad hominem arguments are distinguished from
others in the view of the Administrator of this board, and the only
difference I can see in them is that the "unacceptable" ad homs come
from WE supporters and the "acceptable" ad homs come from WE critics.
Thanks.
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:55:14 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Racial doctrine I found
Hi Jwark,
I'm glad to see you've changed your mind about reading Steiner. The passage
you chose is an important one, and it's been discussed at length on this
list. In fact I referred directly to the very same passage in the post
"Steiner on racial diversity" that I brought to your attention yesterday.
The passage is from Steiner's book The Universal Human (though you are
evidently relying on a different translation of it); you'll find it on pp.
12-13. I highly recommend reading the entire book (it's short, under 100
pages). If you do, you will find ample confirmation for one of your claims:
)I mean, it really sounds like wants people to overcome
)their physical differences.
Steiner did indeed want people to overcome physical differences,
specifically racial ones, by evolving out of lower racial forms (in The
Universal Human Steiner calls them "lower types of people"). In this book,
he rejects racial diversity as such, and says that the existence of one
single race would be preferable to the simultaneous existence of multiple
racial groups. Here is a quote from the same book:
"Lucifer and Ahriman opposed this; they did not want it to happen that way.
They fought against this harmonious tendency of development in the evolution
of humanity, and they managed to change the whole process so that various
developments were shifted and displaced. While there should have been
basically only one form of human being in the fifth Atlantean period that
was to develop gradually into another type, Lucifer and Ahriman preserved
the form of the fifth Atlantean period into the sixth, and again that of the
sixth Atlantean period into the seventh, and even into the time after the
Atlantean flood. Thus, forms that should have disappeared remained. Instead
of racial diversities developing consecutively, older racial forms remained
unchanged and newer ones began to evolve at the same time. Instead of the
intended consecutive development of races, there was a coexistence of races.
That is how it came about that physically different races inhabited the
earth and are still there in our time although evolution should really have
proceeded as I have described it." (p. 75)
When some of us note that this is racist nonsense, we are not impugning
Steiner's intentions. Racism, in this kind of criticism, is not a matter of
intentions, but of beliefs.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:03:48 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: reading Charlie and reading Linda
Charlie reports:
)I can tell you that when I have to check a box that asks me for my race,
)I check "other" and write in "human".
)This may help explain how I feel about the question.
Yes, I'd say that explains quite a lot. I recommend that Charlie and Linda
confer and get back to the rest of us.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:14:00 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
At 11:30 PM 8/24/2004, Brad Martin wrote:
) ) If George W. Bush were to announce "I am a member of the black race",
) ) would we say he was the first black president?
)
)Good point. Peter S. ascribes only social reasons for race.
Yes. This is because "race" is a social concept, socially defined. It is
not a biological concept.
)Life has been evolving for tens of millions of years. The processes of
)each cell in a plant, an animal or a human are virtually identical. A
)human is more complex, more layers, from a plant or animal, but in the
)same tree of life.
)
)Humans will cross breed in a thousand ways to develop particular
)traits/characteristics they want in plants and animals.
)
)If we are to believe Peter S., humans are exempt from this.
Brad has confused race with population genetics. Populations may have
quantifiable genetic traits. But we don't generally use the word "race" for
populations with these traits. We don't speak, for example, of races of,
say, birds, or wolves, or trees. Race is only used for humans. And it is
not used to indicate quantifiable genetic similarity, though there are some
genetic characteristics that are *common* -- but not universal -- to some
particular "races."
Yes, there is a relationship between race and population genetics; that is,
a certain population might be seen as racially homogenous, but this is an
artificial distinction. There are many different ways in which populations
vary as well as ways in which they resemble each other; by picking certain
salient traits, we imagine that we have identified a real quality of a
person: their race.
In fact, people supposedly of the same race often differ more from each
other, genetically, than they do from people identified as being of another
race, simply because some visible trait has been singled out and preferred
as a method of identification over another.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:35:49 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Hi Linda, thanks for your reply. You wrote:
)Thank you for answering the question. I'd like to explore this further.
) Let's take "self-designation". I read this wonderful book called The
)Color of Water. A Eastern European Jewish ancestry married a black man,
)had children, and was a "self-designated" black woman. Does this mean
)she was a member of a "race"?
Apparently it means she was a member of several "races", if I understand
your summary properly.
)If George W. Bush were to announce "I am a member of the black race",
)would we say he was the first black president?
Who is "we"? If the Supreme Court were to announce "George W. Bush is
President", would "we" say he was President? Surely you have thought about
this question before. This is how social categories work, Linda.
)If I were an employer being accused of racial discrimination because I
)rejected a better qualified person with dark skin and what by
)appearances would be African heritage in favor of a blond haired, blue
)eyed, fair skinned person with a Norwegian name, would I be able to
)prove my innocence by demonstrating it was impossible? That I couldn't
)possibly KNOW what race either of them were, thus being unable to prefer
)one over the other, because race is self-designated and I didn't ask
)which they chose? And I didn't ask them because I'm forbidden by LAW in
)this country from asking them?
Beats me. I'm not sure what this has to do with our disagreement.
)Now as for "social perception", can you give an example of where this
)"social perception" is NOT a "social perception" of an identity directly
)linked to that of your biological parents?
Yes, of course. Didn't you just acknowledge the possibility of ethnic and
racial misrecognition in your reply to Deborah? I've seen several very
interesting instances of this phenomenon in Jackson Heights, Queens, a
neighborhood with both a large Colombian population and a large Bangladeshi
population. Really, you've never encountered this before? Did you think that
people who are perceived as members of a given racial group in one context
will be consistently perceived as members of the very same racial group in
all other contexts?
Social categories rarely remain constant in this way. They are generally
neither static nor discrete. Even your old pal Sarich has recognized this;
his latest work characterizes racial groups as "fuzzy sets". The problem,
for your analysis, is that genes are remarkably unfuzzy. To grasp the notion
that race is a social category, you need not abandon the facts of biological
difference or inherited physical traits, and you certainly need not posit
that humans are exempt from evolution. You simply need to pay attention to
the whether racial classifications correlate with biological factors in any
consistent way. If you believe that they do, could you explain why you
believe this?
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:58:37 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Hi again Charlie, you wrote:
)if you notice, though, I often (sometimes?) try to temper my statements
)by stating that I am speaking from my (limited) experience. But, there
)are just some things that I am prepared to take a hard line on; and I
)think that I can say that there is no systematic racism in
)Anthroposophy. Not the kind with a negative connotation, anyway...i.e.
)racial superiority/inferiority.
)It just ain't so.
Simply because you've never seen it first hand??
Curious,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:48:56 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Y'know, Peter...it may not be scientific, but at some point in one's
life, one earns the right to say, "The Sun has come up every morning
and, dammit, I just going to go out on a limb and assume it's going to
come up tomorrow, too."
Eventually, experience has to account for something, but maybe I've
read too much Goethe.
So---I wonder if I can change the subject...
If it hasn't been discussed before (I miss a lot), I would like to hear,
before I sign off for the school year, just what you would have us
Anthroposophists/Waldorf people do.
Is it to confess racism?
Should we change?
Should we disband?
If you were a student of Steiner and you discovered these prickly parts,
what would you do?
I promise I'm not being snide here---but, what would get you off our
backs?
c
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Hi again Charlie, you wrote:
)
)
)
) )if you notice, though, I often (sometimes?) try to temper my statements
) )by stating that I am speaking from my (limited) experience. But, there
) )are just some things that I am prepared to take a hard line on; and I
) )think that I can say that there is no systematic racism in
) )Anthroposophy. Not the kind with a negative connotation, anyway...i.e.
) )racial superiority/inferiority.
) )It just ain't so.
)
)
) Simply because you've never seen it first hand??
)
)
) Curious,
)
)
) Peter S.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how
) to
) get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1449
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By lioncell gmx.net
RE: What is race-for Peter
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
Re: My struggle to understand-
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: My struggle to understand-
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
Re: Waldorf wisdom: Don't take it seriously
By mhelsher msn.com
RE: Waldorf wisdom: Don't take it seriously
By cffrey mindspring.com
Re: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Get a life!
By dan dandugan.com
Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
By mhelsher msn.com
Re: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
By mhelsher msn.com
Re: Racial doctrine I found
By somedude04 yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By lioncell gmx.net
Is this what you want?
By somedude04 yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By somedude04 yahoo.com
RE: Hi Dan
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: maverick teacher training?
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
RE: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
By somedude04 yahoo.com
RE: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Admin: Re: Hi Dan
By dan dandugan.com
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By cffrey mindspring.com
Re: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: Hi Dan
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Admin: Re: Hi Dan
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
Re: Is this what you want?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Hi Dan
By momof2gals mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:01:42 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Abd wrote:
As I've mentioned many times on this list, my daughter is Asian.
Casually, I'd say she has black hair. Actually, it is a dark brown. But
the closest crayon to it in a regular small set of crayons would indeed
be black. She has a Waldorf doll made, not with a more common blonde
hair, but with black hair. Actually she has several.... I've described
the reaction of the day-care provider, who was in fact the day-care
provider preferentially used by students and faculty at Sunbridge, who
criticized the doll because it had the wrong color hair. ("Dolls
represent the angelic, and angels have blonde hair.") I believe this
woman was from Germany, and she did have, as I recall, blonde hair. She
was also a committed anthroposophist, and had been doing this child care
for many years.
Linda responded:
Would you attribute that remark to her anthroposophy? Perhaps it can be
attributed to the fact that she was from Germany. *After all, Germans
historically have a much poorer record when it comes to racism than
Anthroposophists do.*
Akua here:
With all due respect, you must be kidding, Linda. Germans do not live
and act in unison, as a community. Reminds me of a widespread myth over
here which claimed German colonial history had been governed by less
brutality etc than let's say the English, French or Spanish. Germany
colonial territory had been much smaller than those of colonial 'super
powers' such as England or France but the conclusion drawn nonetheless
is entirely false.
Racist tendencies are widespread over here, and if you'd ask me on the
rise, but so they are elsewhere in the European Union. The criticism of
the black haired doll which Abd referred to may easily be informed by
racist sentiments (under given circumstances I assume they are). Even
though I cannot 100% nail it down to either her 'German socialisation'
or anthroposophic views, the reference to angelic blondness does suggest
anthroposophy played a significant part in this as I have heard about
exactly the same reference to angels having blond hair numerous times, I
doubt it is mere coincidence.
I think we do not need a replay concerning historical records of Germans
vs. anthroposophists in regard to racism, do we?
Akua
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:34:44 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Hi Linda, thanks for your reply. You wrote:
)
)
) )Thank you for answering the question. I'd like to explore this further.
) ) Let's take "self-designation". I read this wonderful book called The
) )Color of Water. A Eastern European Jewish ancestry married a black man,
) )had children, and was a "self-designated" black woman. Does this mean
) )she was a member of a "race"?
)
)
) Apparently it means she was a member of several "races", if I understand
)
) your summary properly.
I don’t think you did understand me properly. My fault. Let’s try
again.
This woman was born and raised by parents who were Eastern European
Jewish. When she was an adult, and had broken away from her family (who
were racists, among other things), she married to a black man, lived in
the black community, had children, etc., and she explicitly portrayed
herself to her children as being black. This was a conscious decision
on her part as an adult. Later in life, she would elaborate that she
knew where she came from (Eastern European Jewish), but she felt more at
home in her heart that she was black. I’m synopsizing what was a
wonderfully intricate portrait of an incredible woman. But what I’m
asking is whether this intense indentification she felt with being
“black” would be sufficient to define her as being a member of a race?
Generally speaking, remember. We’re to avoid “anachronistic”
definitions of race, or so you told me.
)
)
) )If George W. Bush were to announce "I am a member of the black race",
) )would we say he was the first black president?
)
)
) Who is "we"? If the Supreme Court were to announce "George W. Bush is
) President", would "we" say he was President? Surely you have thought
) about
) this question before. This is how social categories work, Linda.
)
Peter, you’re trying to straighten out my mixed up thoughts about
questions like this. You felt you were getting nowhere in the effort.
I'm willing to give it a go. That’s why I’m looking for YOUR answers
this time.
So let me say WE—as in YOU. Would YOU then say he was the first black
president?
)
) )If I were an employer being accused of racial discrimination because I
) )rejected a better qualified person with dark skin and what by
) )appearances would be African heritage in favor of a blond haired, blue
) )eyed, fair skinned person with a Norwegian name, would I be able to
) )prove my innocence by demonstrating it was impossible? That I couldn't
) )possibly KNOW what race either of them were, thus being unable to prefer
) )one over the other, because race is self-designated and I didn't ask
) )which they chose? And I didn't ask them because I'm forbidden by LAW in
) )this country from asking them?
)
)
) Beats me. I'm not sure what this has to do with our disagreement.
)
What disagreement? I’m asking you to explain this “self-designation”
definition of race. I'm confused what you mean by it. For example,
just earlier Charlie said his “self-designated” race is human, and your
subsequent disparagement of his “self-designation” would indicate that
“self-designation” is NOT how race is defined in YOUR view. Am I’m
wrong in this conclusion? Explain.
)
) )Now as for "social perception", can you give an example of where this
) )"social perception" is NOT a "social perception" of an identity directly
) )linked to that of your biological parents?
)
)
) Yes, of course. Didn't you just acknowledge the possibility of ethnic
) and
) racial misrecognition in your reply to Deborah?
Uh------how can it be both a “misrecognition” and yet at the same time
valid?
Perhaps you could be clearer here.
) I've seen several very
) interesting instances of this phenomenon in Jackson Heights, Queens, a
) neighborhood with both a large Colombian population and a large
) Bangladeshi
) population. Really, you've never encountered this before? Did you think
) that
) people who are perceived as members of a given racial group in one
) context
) will be consistently perceived as members of the very same racial group
) in
) all other contexts?
I’m not thinking anything. And you’re confusing my question. Give me
an example where “social perceptions” determining “you’re a this” –
“you’re a this” – and “you’re a that” which do NOT imply or assume it is
a quality which is also inherited from one’s parents, and which is also
handed down to one’s children? They’d be hard to find, I would think.
And so far you haven't done so. Don’t forget, we’re not allowing
anachronisms here. Even the woman I described above was not “socially
perceived” to be a member of the black race, even by her own children.
They would all say she was a member of the same race as her parents.
)
) Social categories rarely remain constant in this way. They are generally
)
) neither static nor discrete. Even your old pal Sarich has recognized
) this;
Yeah, we’re long time buddies, him and me…………..
) his latest work characterizes racial groups as "fuzzy sets". The
) problem,
) for your analysis, is that genes are remarkably unfuzzy. To grasp the
) notion
) that race is a social category, you need not abandon the facts of
) biological
) difference or inherited physical traits, and you certainly need not
) posit
) that humans are exempt from evolution. You simply need to pay attention
) to
) the whether racial classifications correlate with biological factors in
) any
) consistent way. If you believe that they do, could you explain why you
) believe this?
)
Sorry, Peter. Hold up. You’re talking me off course. That’s a
question about another issue which perhaps I can get to soon, but for
now I’m trying to work my way up as the prerequisite questions are
answered.
I’m still stuck on the “self-designated” and “social perceptions of race
assignment that do NOT involve inheritance”.
Thank you for you thoughts, and I look forward to hearing from your
answers.
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:29:38 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: My struggle to understand-
Hi Linda,
walden wrote:
) ** Parent, after reading the new FAQ) asks of a Waldorf teacher BEFORE
) enrolling: "What do you mean by Christ at the center? etcetera
Linda replied:
"Walden...............................................when you read in
the old FAQ that Waldorf stems from Steiner's work in Anthroposophy, did
you ask what them what THAT meant?"
Yes, I did. I was told that Anthroposophy simply means "wisdom of man."
That is the literal translation and is often used by Waldorf folks.
"This an illusion you're chasing here."
No Linda. I am seeking honesty and clarity. "The wisdom of Man"
description is an illusion and has as much to do with Steiner's Christology,
temperaments, theories on reincarnation, etc. (anthroposophy) as the game of
ice hockey has to ballet. Both hockey and ballet involve a group of people
moving together... but there are some major differences. Why not tell
potential Waldorf customers the truth? I am surprised this is difficult to
understand. If I am chasing an illusion, would you care to comment on the
feelings of master Waldorf teacher, Eugene Schwartz? I agree with his views
on the problem:
Schwartz: "I think we owe it to our parents to let them know that the child
is going to go through one religious experience after another. And if any of
the teacher trainees in the room feel that I'm not saying that clearly
enough to you, well, here it is, guys, if I haven't said it to you a hundred
times already: when we deny that Waldorf schools are giving children
religious experiences, we are denying the whole basis of Waldorf education."
"The time has come for us to stop pussyfooting around [theories] that will
sound too strange if we tell parents what we are really doing. Don't say I
didn't tell you guys--10 years ago!. Stop pussyfooting around. Tell
everybody what we are about. The day they walk into the school, let them
know then. If we are really to be a movement for cultural renewal, it is our
responsibility to share with the parents those elements of Anthroposophy
which will help them understand their children and fathom the mysterious
ways in which we work Yes, we are giving the children a version of
Anthroposophy in the classroom; whether we mean to or not, it's there. So
let's at least do it the right way. [32:50] Let's be bringing
Anthroposophical [light] in ..."
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/schwartz.html
Is this experienced, knowledgeable Waldorf teacher of teachers chasing an
illusion, Linda? Or does he recognize a problem that needs addressing?
Linda wrote:
"There is no possibility that the Perfect Promotional Material exists which
would satisfy the two of us, let alone the entire universe of potential
Waldorf families."
Linda, nobody is suggesting "the Perfect Promotional Material" can
accommodate the needs of all prospective Waldorf parents. Currently,
Waldorf public relations material is misleading and does not address many
important elements of the movement. Is the point of my argument really this
difficult to understand?
"So you say. You say if you want to understand this you look at it's
roots. I say if I want to understand this I look at it's fruit. You
say Waldorf's got some very screwed up roots. I say ALL of human kind's
got very screwed up roots. But despite those rotten roots, human kind
sure manages to put out some damn good fruit."
I think this attitude is naive and dangerous. Ignore the wrongs of the past
and present because some good people are here today and will continue be
here in the future.... BTW, I have had two Waldorf grads work for me over
the past 10 years. Both were very good employees and nice people. That has
nothing to do, however, with the problems in Waldorf public relations.
Linda wrote:
"So I say, I've yet to see a sick plant NOR healthy one get any healthier
by pulling it up, turning it upside down and poking, scrubbing,
disinfecting or pruning away at it's roots.
You have never examined the roots of a plant or re-potted a plant because of
a root problem?
"If you were to do this at your children's NEW school, especially in a very
public way, then I'd
say that the odds were excellent you'd make the "tree" desperately sick
in no time at all, and pose painful risks to much of it's fruit. And
you'd inspire alarm and bitter resentments as well."
Well, this statement tells me a great deal about our differences, Linda.
Please think about your choice of words. Why would examining Waldorf from
the roots up "inspire alarm and bitter resentment?"
In any case, what you say (above) is *exactly* what we are doing in one of
my children's new schools at this very moment. Matter of fact, I issued a
press release last week because of controversy revolving around the
propriety of public funding for the school - a non-coercive, democratic
school. We invited the public (via the press) into the school to examine
what we are doing. We - parents, faculty and children - are examining
everything having to do with the school. It looks like we need to make some
changes in order to remain a public, taxpayer supported school. This is
part of the ongoing nature of the school but at this particular time, we are
very public and invite advice or suggestions from taxpayers. And... there
is no alarm or bitter resentment, whatsoever. None. We believe we qualify
for public school status and we need to explain what we are all about. It
ain't easy and we need to talk philosophy with bureaucrats but he exercise
is healthy - for all. Actually, although we will need to make some changes,
our public navel gazing has resulted in other public schools re-thinking
some of their policies - especially with regards to conflict resolution.
This is a good thing. Honest communication. Check those roots....
Linda wrote:
"Funny how different you and I are in they way we look at the world, and
in what we "forsee" happening with suggestions like these. Isn't it?"
Yes. I look forward to hearing your comments after reading this post. You
also seem to see the Waldorf world (and this issue) differently than another
Waldorf supporter, Eugene Schwartz. I mentioned him (as an example) only
because I thought it might help you see the problem from a pro-Waldorf side.
Sometimes I wonder if people on various of sides of issues become so
entrenched in their position and so convinced that *the other side* is
wrong - no matter what - that room for common ground is all but impossible?
Stepping to one side (in this case, beside Schwartz) might help see the
issue from another angle. I'll step to one side right now....
How about keeping much of the Waldorf FAQ as is (with some editing) and
adding the religious/spiritual information a la Charlie, Eugene Schwartz,
etc? What is the danger in this honest approach? Do you think it would
inspire alarm and bitter resentment? If so, why?
Linda previously wrote:
) Again, you said (this is important):
) "The most sensible route is to "evidence of how Steiner's doctrines" are
) manifest in Waldorf schools is to actually
) experience a real Waldorf school."
) I responded: What if I do not want that experience - for myself or my
) child?
Linda wrote: "Choose another one for yourself and your children. It doesn't
get any easier."
That is what I did and the new school was very open and open BEFORE we
enrolled. We were required to attend 3 information meetings and our kids
needed to spend 2 hours in the school on two separate days. Parents and
kids are required to sign a paper stating that we understand the philosophy
of the school.
At Waldorf, we were given an information sheet which spoke of nurturing the
whole child. I asked and was told that anthroposophy simply means "wisdom
of man" and that was that. Nothing about the morning prayer, eurythmy or
other spiritual exercises. Nothing about karma, reincarnation, soul work or
occultism.
I bring up the new school because you asked. See the difference between
schools and their approach to new parents? I'm trying hard to help you with
this struggle, Linda. I honestly do not understand why it is so difficult.
If anyone else can communicate better than me, please jump in.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:06:21 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: My struggle to understand-
walden wrote:
)
) Linda wrote:
) "So I say, I've yet to see a sick plant NOR healthy one get any
) healthier
) by pulling it up, turning it upside down and poking, scrubbing,
) disinfecting or pruning away at it's roots.
)
) You have never examined the roots of a plant or re-potted a plant
) because of
) a root problem?
Root problems are generally caused by something chewing on them,
drowning them, crowding them, squashing them, or crushing them. In
order to fix the problem, you eliminate and fortify against whatever's
assaulting and abusing them. If you perform major surgery on a sick
plant that's suffering a root problem, you will in almost all cases KILL
it.
Now besides defending my metaphor, I'm going to have to take my leave
and perhaps in a few days I can come back to the rest of your post with
fresh eyes. I admit I'm a little fatigued with all this back and forth,
and that probably explains why I can't at this point understand why you
don't see the answers to your questions are already right there in what
I've already told you.
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:02:37 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Akua Desta wrote:
)
) Abd wrote:
)
) As I've mentioned many times on this list, my daughter is Asian.
) Casually, I'd say she has black hair. Actually, it is a dark brown. But
) the closest crayon to it in a regular small set of crayons would indeed
) be black. She has a Waldorf doll made, not with a more common blonde
) hair, but with black hair. Actually she has several.... I've described
) the reaction of the day-care provider, who was in fact the day-care
) provider preferentially used by students and faculty at Sunbridge, who
) criticized the doll because it had the wrong color hair. ("Dolls
) represent the angelic, and angels have blonde hair.") I believe this
) woman was from Germany, and she did have, as I recall, blonde hair. She
) was also a committed anthroposophist, and had been doing this child care
)
) for many years.
)
) Linda responded:
)
) Would you attribute that remark to her anthroposophy? Perhaps it can be
) attributed to the fact that she was from Germany. *After all, Germans
) historically have a much poorer record when it comes to racism than
) Anthroposophists do.*
)
)
) Akua here:
)
) With all due respect, you must be kidding, Linda. Germans do not live
) and act in unison, as a community.
With all due respect, you need to reassess some assumptions you seem to
hold for anthroposophists. For example, on the issue of the "proper
color" of a dolls hair, anthroposophists are NOT "acting in unison, as a
community" either. I know many, many anthroposophists who use and make
dolls in a wide spectrum of hair colors. Including black. Although I'm
not an anthroposophist, I attending a doll making workshop held by
someone who was. The doll I made had black hair and dark skin, and I
purchased the materials from this anthroposophist herself. She makes
countless dolls in countless hair colors, and never once during the
entire doll making workshop did she announce that dolls must be
"angelic" nor did they have to have blond hair.
It's no more idiotic to suggest either Germaness nor anthroposophy is
the source of this nutty notion from the evidence presented thus far.
Reminds me of a widespread myth over
) here which claimed German colonial history had been governed by less
) brutality etc than let's say the English, French or Spanish. Germany
) colonial territory had been much smaller than those of colonial 'super
) powers' such as England or France but the conclusion drawn nonetheless
) is entirely false.
) Racist tendencies are widespread over here, and if you'd ask me on the
) rise, but so they are elsewhere in the European Union.
These conversations do tend to take strange twists and turns, don't
they?
) The criticism of
) the black haired doll which Abd referred to may easily be informed by
) racist sentiments (under given circumstances I assume they are). Even
) though I cannot 100% nail it down to either her 'German socialisation'
) or anthroposophic views, the reference to angelic blondness does suggest
)
) anthroposophy played a significant part in this as I have heard about
) exactly the same reference to angels having blond hair numerous times, I
)
) doubt it is mere coincidence.
Hmmm. Take a look round, you might be surprised.
"German belief in guardian angels
By MONIKA WENDEL
ANGELS wear white robes, have blond hair and wings and are mostly seen
on Christmas trees, many people assume. "
http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2002/1/16/features/guardangel
) I think we do not need a replay concerning historical records of Germans
)
) vs. anthroposophists in regard to racism, do we?
No, I don't. But many of your fellow critics here obviously do.
They're quite involved in exploring these supposed connections between
anthroposophy and mid-century German fascism. They're enthusiasm for
the game escapes me, and apparently it would you too.
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:39:09 -0700
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher msn.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf wisdom: Don't take it seriously
Abd wrote:
I'd suggest to Waldorf defenders that they read this post by Mr.
Staudenmaier carefully. I'd suggest reading it as one would read a letter
from a friend who cares about you enough to note the problems you are
having, to tell you what you might not notice about yourself, so that you
can recover from an illness that you might not even be aware of. I don't
see a single note of hostility in this post, Staudenmaier is earnestly
arguing for what should be, in fact, a routine quality among genuine
anthroposophists, which is a willingness to look at what *is*, as distinct
from what we'd *like* to be true.
Mr. Staudenmaier's work is used by Waldorf critics, sometimes in a hostile
way. But this has always been true for anything true, it will be used by
some people as a weapon, especially if it has an appearance of harm.
Mike:
I'd suggest that Abd read his own posts carefully. And pay attention to the pompous arrogance that suggests that those who defend Waldorf and Steiner are suffering from an "illness," and that you are in the know about what "Is" and how it is different from what these Sick Waldorf defenders would "like" to be true, and so ought to succumb to some kind of seemingly heartless orthodox academic external approach to understanding words.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:53:31 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf wisdom: Don't take it seriously
I know we should be talking about issues, not people, but I am
flabbergasted that Abd could write something like this after accusing me
of taking an arrogant stance.
Wow!
c
Mike Helsher wrote:
)
)
) Abd wrote:
)
) I'd suggest to Waldorf defenders that they read this post by Mr.
) Staudenmaier carefully. I'd suggest reading it as one would read a
) letter
) from a friend who cares about you enough to note the problems you are
) having, to tell you what you might not notice about yourself, so that
) you
) can recover from an illness that you might not even be aware of. I don't
)
) see a single note of hostility in this post, Staudenmaier is earnestly
) arguing for what should be, in fact, a routine quality among genuine
) anthroposophists, which is a willingness to look at what *is*, as
) distinct
) from what we'd *like* to be true.
)
) Mr. Staudenmaier's work is used by Waldorf critics, sometimes in a
) hostile
) way. But this has always been true for anything true, it will be used by
)
) some people as a weapon, especially if it has an appearance of harm.
)
) Mike:
) I'd suggest that Abd read his own posts carefully. And pay attention to
) the pompous arrogance that suggests that those who defend Waldorf and
) Steiner are suffering from an "illness," and that you are in the know
) about what "Is" and how it is different from what these Sick Waldorf
) defenders would "like" to be true, and so ought to succumb to some kind
) of seemingly heartless orthodox academic external approach to
) understanding words.
)
)
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:50:48 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
Hi Charlie,
I really don't want to upset Linda again (by re-asking a question of
Charlie) but I also feel the need for clarification in our previous
discussion. You have mentioned that you must leave the list soon and I
sincerely hope you will be able to clarify this one point for me before you
leave.
( August 20) I wrote:
Alternatively, perhaps your school is an anomaly in that all
) important information about reincarnation, soul work, Steiner's epochs
) and
) theories (racial, child development, etc) ARE shared with parents prior
) to
) them enrolling their children in your school?
) Perhaps there is no need for parents to be curious about the morning
) prayer
) or eurythmy or Michaelmas (Mich-Ah-Ehl-Mas)
Charlie replied:
"BTW--Every Waldorf school that I've been to (at least a dozen)
pronounces it "mickle-mas"."
Walden responded:
"Thanks for that but you did not answer the question. This is an important
point. Would you be willing to let us know what information is shared with
parents before they enroll in your school?"
Charlie then offered:
"I encourage parents to get books from our library, our school store,
surf the web, and, YES, I tell them that there are Waldorf critics on
the internet and that they shoud check this out if they are interested.
I tell my parents that we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our
center, I tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and
ego bodies; and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form
into the room...among many other things."
Walden responded:
"Well, there you go. You answered your own question. I commend you and
think this is an excellent way to begin a relationship between a Waldorf
school and a parent. It's a good start. Is such information shared with
parents by your school (as opposed to a single teacher once the parents are
in) via pamphlets, handouts, web site and at meetings? Perhaps you can fill
in for Christine and we can re-work the Waldorf FAQ? I appreciate your
participation."
Now, if you have no interest in helping with the FAQ, can you please answer
the previous question? I sincerely look forward to your response
Thanks.
- Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:36:26 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Get a life!
Roger, you wrote,
)Well, I am aware that some of you are ex-Waldorf parents who are finding
)it very difficult to forgive past mistakes.
It's a feeling of obligation to warn others of an on-going situation.
)Iíve been around Waldorf
)long enough (30 years) to know that some of your complaints may be well
)justified. Yes, Waldorf employees ARE only human and they DO make
)mistakes, sometimes seemingly unforgivable ones . . . but I also know
)that the difference between a wholesome Waldorf experience and a totally
)ëcrapí one can be just a matter of the wall that separates two
)classrooms . . . and two very different teachers.
Very true! I've heard people say they wouldn't
want to send their kids to Waldorf because
there's no discipline, the classes go crazy with
kids jumping up on the desks. And others have
said they wouldn't use Waldorf because it's so
rigid, kids sitting in desks in rows, following
orders all day. Both impressions are true,
depending on the teacher.
)Waldorf schools do,
)at times, employ some ëdudí practitioners, yet I shouldnít need to point
)out here that other types of schools, and indeed many organisations,
)large and small, have made and continue to make such ëmistakesí. It
)doesnít necessarily follow that the ëmethodí itself is a bad one.
The "method" should be critiqued on its
own...though it isn't really a method it's a way
of life. Of course bad teachers show up in any
system. I had a couple in my twelve years of
mostly-excellent Catholic education. But Waldorf
has a -systematic- problem. Their teacher
training system accepts underqualified people,
doesn't weed out the untalented and personality
disordered, and gives them woefully inadequate
preparation. Worse, trained teachers are in short
supply, and individual schools often put someone
totally untrained in charge of a class. This
happens because of cult mentality. There might be
real trained teachers looking for work in the
area, but they won't even look for them. It has
to be somebody from inside the movement, -that's-
what's important. Ideology is more important than
education.
)I feel I must add that I will not be defending the
)zealots who want to take Waldorf education and foist it on the wider
)world whether the wider world wants it or not (charter/magnet schools?).
"Foisting" does happen occasionally; particularly
in poor or disadvantaged areas where Waldorf
zealots establish a mission. The Pine Ridge
reservation, for example, or the Sacramento
public school that PLANS is suing. But in most
places Waldorf is in demand, and a proposal for a
Waldorf school for free is deluged with families
applying.
) This appears to be a peculiarly American phenomenon and I would argue
)that this is human failing and not specifically Waldorf.
But I presume you won't mind if we bust the
specifically Waldorf variety of this human
failing.
)In a similar
)vein, Iíll not defend those who do not inform parents BEFORE they enrol
)their child that Anthroposophy is at the foundation of Waldorf Education
)but that parents need to inform themselves about this philosophy before
)making any commitment. My school runs free courses and open study
)groups on the subject.
That's typical of Waldorf schools, but typically
it's too late. The schools need to be up front
about Anthroposophy.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:33:54 -0700
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher msn.com)
Subject: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
Peter S. said:
) Sadly, Brad did not reply.
And Brad replies:
My heart grieves that you are feeling sad.
Peter, you have been sufficiently dismissed and ridiculed over on
Anthroposophy Tomorrow, case is closed. You remind me of the kid in the
school yard with aberrant behavior who constantly is trying to play with
the others, but they, over time, will no longer play with him because of
the aberrant behavior. Inevitably, he becomes all alone. You seem
neurotically obsessed with all of this, the minutia from a hundred years
ago, Steiner, et al. An observation.
Mike:
Thanks Brad for your vigilance, and the sharing of your experience on occasion. I like your take on the "inner experiential" and I see no evidence that PS has any experience that could bring to his writings any credibility what so ever, when trying to discern what indeed Steiner's words actually mean.
You are right about his stay on the AT list:
http://www.uncletaz.com/at/(http://www.uncletaz.com/at/)
A couple of my favorites are these:
http://www.uncletaz.com/at/aprmay04/peteracebradiam.html(http://www.uncletaz.com/at/aprmay04/peteracebradiam.html)
http://www.uncletaz.com/at/aprmay04/inmyview.html(http://www.uncletaz.com/at/aprmay04/inmyview.html)
I'll finish with what I think is a very good perspective for anyone interested in PS's elusive motives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/6112(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/6112)
(snipped from the above link)
*******************************************************************************
I'm mentioning anarchist thinkers for a reason, and this brings us to the
topic of attacks, hate-mongering, and smear campaigns against Rudolf
Steiner, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf. Originally, such 'opposition' as
Steiner himself called it, began after a lecture entitled "From Jesus to
Christ", where certain esoteric secrets were made public that arose the
emnity of the secret lodges of the West. I'm not certain of which lecture
Steiner had in mind when he said this; whether it was the single lecture
delivered at Carlsruhe 4th October, 1911 (GA 131)
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/GA/GA0131/19111004p01.html(http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/GA/GA0131/19111004p01.html)
or somewhere in the cycle with the same name and in the same GA volume, in
Carlsruhe from 5th to 14th October, 1911,
or the one delivered at Hamburg, November 15, 1913 (GA 148)
http://www.uncletaz.com/fromjesus.html(http://www.uncletaz.com/fromjesus.html)
The point is that the opposition, which started in 1911 or 1913, increased
tremendously after WW I, and continued until the end of WW II. This attack
against Anthroposophy and RS came from the political right, from the
fascist, imperialist, anti-Semitic political right in Germany, France,
Britain and elsewhere. This kind of attack is clearly illustrated by an
excerpt from a 1936 book by Christina Stoddard, alias "Inquire Within" that
I posted to this group in the beginning of April:
http://www.uncletaz.com/at/aprmay04/inquiwith.html(http://www.uncletaz.com/at/aprmay04/inquiwith.html)
After 1945, there was no opposition of this kind until the late 1980's into
the 1990's, with the emergence of PLANS and the WC list. This time around,
the hateful smear campaign, masquerading as "criticism", has been
associated with the political left - in fact, from the anarchist left -
after the emergence of bookstore clerk and social activist Peter
Staudenmaier as prolific alleged scholar, historian, and among some, even
professor, as an ideologue who gave new hopes to Dan Dugan's dreams of
welding Steiner and Hitler together.
There has been a temptation among anthroposophists to attack Peter
Staudenmaier's political belief and to label these "extremist",
"Communist", "Marxist" and so on, and thereby say that the attacks against
anthroposophy today are coming from the political extreme left, just like
they were coming from the political extreme right before WW II.
Personally, I think this is misleading.
In the first place, I haven't discovered anything in Peter Staudenmaier's
socio-political views deserving to be called extremism, and for this
reason, I'm very wary of such simplifications - simply because
anthroposophists have been in the process of establishing a not
insignificant niche in the Anarchist corner. The strategy pursued by PS and
his cohorts seems to be to alienate anthroposophists from this particular
wing and eventually chase them into alliances with conservatives. One of
PS' arguments of old is that anthroposophy is a right-wing movement with
fascist undertones.
Secondly, I recently posted some material to the AT by Jens Bjørneboe, who
was not only an Anthroposophist and an Anarchist, but a Marxist as well. He
is one of the most important anthroposophical thinkers and poets in 20th
century Norway, and a breath of fresh air when contrasted with the staid,
snobbish, intellectually vain, upper middle class bourgeois
anthroposophists who otherwise dominate the scene, and who make a very easy
target for anarchists like PS.
Thirdly, we have Benjamin Tucker, who became a friend of Steiner, who
hailed him as the greatest champion of freedom of his time and published
his material in Magazine for Literature, and he also arranged for Tucker to
lecture in Berlin. The point is that Ben Tucker did in fact approve of the
occasional use of dynamite against heads of state, so through his close
association with Ben Tucker and Henry MacKay, Steiner was a very radical
anarchist indeed, on the brink of extremism one might say. My point is that
Rudolf Steiner has always been one of the anarchists' staunchest allies,
and for this reason, it's important that he is not alienated from the
anarchist movement. If he is alienated, PS and his cohorts will have
achieved an important goal.
This does not mean, of course, that anthroposophy has any political
coloring whatsoever, but that our treatment of left-wing politics or
anarchism ought not to be in the negative unless there are specific
elements of tyranny or mass conformity clearly expressed in the ideology
concerned.
It's with the above in mind that I also posted some material based on Harry
Browne's ideas: Steps to Freedom.
From what I've seen, Peter Staudenmaier is one among millions of
anarchist-socialist dreamers, trying to figure out how to bring about
paradise on earth. Steiner pointed out that this was an impractical
illusion among political socialists and communists: Bringing about paradise
on earth through a new social order. But it's part and parcel of John
Lennon's "Imagine" - the brotherhood of man with no possessions and *no
religion too*. The difference is that John Lennon recognized that it was a
dreamer's dream; how else could a guy who was filthy rich dream about no
possessions?
And yet, I think we need to recognize that all political ideologies push
promises of paradise on earth. The alternative to political ideologies is
political pragmatism, which tends to compromise ethics severely and is
sometimes cynical. Lucifer vs. Ahriman. Steiner endeavored to suggest a
balance - a balance that hasn't been properly tested.
The question is: What is extremism? Personally, I associate "extremism"
with violence, coercion, and so on. Hitler and Stalin represented extremism
in practice, and these systems have become the standard patterns for what
we call "right-wing extremism" and "left-wing extremism". Extremism means
an endeavor to implement a repressive, coercive, and violent terror regime,
whether it's based on Islam, Communism, or Fascism. A political dream
promising paradise on earth can pave the way for extremists, or for
idealists turning to extremism in frustration when the impracticality is
realized, but the dream itself is not extreme.
So the present-day attack against Anthroposophy is coming from dreamers,
not extremists. The dreamers don't want their illusions disturbed by a more
complex definition of the human being. The dreams are based upon the
assumption that the human being is thoroughly good, and nothing but
thoroughly good, provided that the external impediments to this natural
goodness be removed by political means. Not only Steiner, but also Gandhi,
offered more practical solutions to the social question because they both
understood man as a spiritual being. This understanding of man as an
evolving spiritual being with a complex soul consisting of good and evil
elements, is too much of a headache for atheistically inclined anarchist
dreamers, and besides, it's an ominous competition that threatens to hijack
the anarchist movement and absorb it into the *anarchosophical* movement.
That's why they're attacking. Peter Staudenmaier claims, when confronted
with the Nazi ban on anthroposophy and Waldorf, that Hitler saw Steiner as
a competitor (like Lenin and Trotsky). What he is *really* saying is that
*he* sees anthroposophy and political anarchism as competitors.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/(http://uncletaz.com/)
*****************************************************************************************
The last part about dreamers brings to mind a line form "White Nights" by Dostoevsky:
*****************************
"In vain the dreamer rakes over his old dreams, as though seeking a spark among the ambers, to fan them into flame, to warm his chilled heart by the rekindled fire, and to rouse up in it again all that was so sweet, that touched his heart, that set his blood boiling, drew tears from his eyes, and so luxuriously deceived him!"
***************************
Mike
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:52:13 -0700
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher msn.com)
Subject: Re: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
The links from the previous message were not right, so I'm re-posting them. sorry:
(snip)
You are right about his stay on the AT list:
http://www.uncletaz.com/at/(http://www.uncletaz.com/at/)
A couple of my favorites are these:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2F751329(http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2F751329)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L51824329(http://makeashorterlink.com/?L51824329)
I'll finish with what I think is a very good perspective for anyone interested in PS's elusive motives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/6112(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/6112(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/6112(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/6112))
(snipped from the above link)
*******************************************************************************
I'm mentioning anarchist thinkers for a reason, and this brings us to the
topic of attacks, hate-mongering, and smear campaigns against Rudolf
Steiner, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf. Originally, such 'opposition' as
Steiner himself called it, began after a lecture entitled "From Jesus to
Christ", where certain esoteric secrets were made public that arose the
emnity of the secret lodges of the West. I'm not certain of which lecture
Steiner had in mind when he said this; whether it was the single lecture
delivered at Carlsruhe 4th October, 1911 (GA 131)
(snip)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Racial doctrine I found
"Now, Mr. Wark's mission does seem to be to defend
Waldorf."
Mission? I have no ties with Waldorf and it does not
benefit me in any way to defend Waldorf. I just call
it like I see it.
You're pretty pathetic though with the "you're
diseased if you defend waldorf" nonsense.
Sounds more like, "If you don't agree with me, you're
diseased".
I don't have any desire to make things up to defend
Waldorf. On the other hand, you do.
--- Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com) wrote:
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Need cash fast? Get a $500 CASH ADVANCE overnight!
) Let
) YourCashCentral get you the cash you need.
)
http://click.topica.com/caacxycb1dkiGb7OS4ta/MyOnlinePayday
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) At 10:00 PM 8/24/2004, Joshua Wark wrote:
) )Hm, that just does not sound racist at all to me.
)
) Staudenmaier has consistently acknowledged that
) there is anti-racist
) content in the work of Steiner. So finding something
) that appears to be
) against racism, that appears to contradict racism,
) is simply not a new
) discovery. The question is whether or not there *is*
) racist content, and
) especially if there is unexamined and unrealized
) content that may be
) affecting how anthroposophy is taught and, perhaps,
) Waldorf education.
)
) Now, Mr. Wark's mission does seem to be to defend
) Waldorf. It should be
) noted that Mr. Staudenmaier has very little to say
) about Waldorf education.
) He writes, for the most part, about Steiner and his
) work.
)
) Because the defenders of Waldorf have often come up
) with what seem to him
) to be erroneous statements about race and racism --
) which is Peter S.'s
) primary interest -- he often writes to correct
) these. It could thus appear
) to some who don't read carefully that he is
) attacking Waldorf education.
) That his posts appear on this list amplifies that
) perception. But he writes
) on this list, I infer, because this is a place where
) his subject of
) interest and expertise -- racism in the writings of
) Rudoph Steiner -- is
) being discussed. I've never seen him attack Waldorf
) education.
)
) In fact, he does not "attack" Steiner. Read him
) carefully! If you think
) that to say that a person is racist or held racist
) ideas is to attack the
) person, then you'll easily imagine that he is
) attacking Steiner. But
) Staudenmaier is using an academic definition of
) racism, not the common
) definition, which is mixed up with a whole series of
) concepts that make
) "racist" into a strongly perjorative word.
)
) The popular word is one that labels a person, and in
) this conception, a
) person is either racist or he is not. If he is
) against racism, presumably,
) he is not racist. If he is racist, he is a
) thoroughly reprehensible person,
) to be rejected and despised.
)
) In the academic definition, a person may be racist
) simply because he holds
) or expresses one racist idea or concept. He may also
) be against racism, he
) might even be working day and night to end the evil
) of racism.
)
) Now, if we imagine such a person, a vigorous
) anti-racist, who nevertheless
) holds a racist idea, will that person be immune from
) causing harm due to
) his strong anti-racism? I think not. I think that
) the vestiges of racism in
) the person may actually be even more dangerous than
) more blatant racism.
) This is because the strong condemnation of racism in
) the person will make
) it less likely for the person to be able to
) recognize their own racism. If
) someone points it out to them, they may take it as
) an insult....
)
) The academic definition is, in fact, the more useful
) one, especially in
) reasoned discourse, even in a non-academic setting.
) The popular, strongly
) perjorative definition is one which poisons
) discussion and makes it
) impossible to find agreement on the truth....
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Sponsor a child today through Children
) International.
) Give a desperately poor child hope for a brighter
) future.
) For only $18 a month you can make a difference!
)
http://click.topica.com/caacvgob1dkiGb7OS4tf/ChildrenInternational
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
)
)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:05:43 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Linda wrote:
With all due respect, you need to reassess some assumptions you seem to
hold for anthroposophists. For example, on the issue of the "proper
color" of a dolls hair, anthroposophists are NOT "acting in unison, as a
community" either. I know many, many anthroposophists who use and make
dolls in a wide spectrum of hair colors. Including black. Although I'm
not an anthroposophist, I attending a doll making workshop held by
someone who was. The doll I made had black hair and dark skin, and I
purchased the materials from this anthroposophist herself. She makes
countless dolls in countless hair colors, and never once during the
entire doll making workshop did she announce that dolls must be
"angelic" nor did they have to have blond hair.
Akua:
Not necessarily so. While anthroposophists may not act in unison either
and some will indeed make doll with other than blond hair I still did
not come across a day-care provider over here who would complain about a
doll's black hair using the same string of argument about *angels having
blond hair* unless they are anthroposophists. Remember, I did not claim
every anthroposophist would complain in the same way the day-care
provider did. I was referring to tendencies I have seen elsewhere in
Waldorf and other anthroposophic facilities.
Linda again:
It's no more idiotic to suggest either Germaness nor anthroposophy is
the source of this nutty notion from the evidence presented thus far.
Akua:
The point you made was to do with the German record allegedly being much
poorer in regard to racism than those of anthroposophists and that
definately is open to debate. As I said, I have heard this argument
about angels having blond hair when instructions or corrections how to
make doll which dolls to play with etc and those only had been in
connection with Waldorf or other anthroposophic facilities.
Linda:
Hmmm. Take a look round, you might be surprised.
"German belief in guardian angels
By MONIKA WENDEL
ANGELS wear white robes, have blond hair and wings and are mostly seen
on Christmas trees, many people assume. "
Akua:
True, true but Linda, we are talking about the remark on the right
colour of dolls' hair, not about common perceptions of what angels look
like which vary from country to country. The emphasis was on the link
between the two, not on dolls and angels as two separate entities.
Linda:
No, I don't. But many of your fellow critics here obviously do. They're
quite involved in exploring these supposed connections between
anthroposophy and mid-century German fascism.
Akua:
Rightfully so.
Linda:
They're enthusiasm for the game escapes me, and apparently it would you too.
Akua:
Not quite so. Honestly speaking I do not view this as a game. Twelve
years of Nazi dictartorship and the human suffering and loss it caused
are definately worth every bit of research and it is of critical
importance for us to understand who participated in which way and if
possibles which motives informed active or passive parcipation. Denial
remains to be constant reminders of our unwillingness to deal with our
past and hopefully learn from it. Let me briefly quote a Native American
scholar Walden has recently mentioned here, Ward Churchill (talking
about genocide):
"Our task is - must be - to fit *all* [initials used in the original
text] the various pieces together in such a way as to obtain at last a
comprehension of the whole. There is no other means available to us. We
must truly "think of the unthinkable," seriously and without proprietary
interest, if ever we are to put an end to the "human cancer" which has
spread increasingly throughout our collective organism over the past
five centuries.[footnote excluded] To this end, denial in *any*
[initials] for is anathema."
A Little Matter of
Genocide: Holocaust and denial in the Americas
1492 to the Present, p. 53
There are quite a number of anthroposophists in Germany who have
explained the holocaust in karmic ways claiming Jews had to pay a karmic
debt. (Among its most prominent proponents being a Jew converted to
anthroposophy.) One would assume other anthroposophists would raise
their voices to set the record straight but no. What you do hear is
something similar to 'it's tragic but ...' followed by an apologetic
string of argument. Unfortunately quite a number of prominent
anthroposophists do not only repeat what I would call Steiner's racist
sentiments, some of them are in fact alligned with right wing extremists
groupings and therefore contribute to a certain continuity of a
facist/oid legacy. Would other anthroposophists complain and call on
them to refrain from racist activities within these groupings? (I
vividly recall complaints about ecological pollution in regard to
immigration of foreigners for instance.) Would they disown them as
fellow anthroposophists? No. Who does bring all this to public
attention? Critics, if any at all. As I said, I do not view this as
something of a game since we are talking about real pain and suffering
caused by racism, be it considered small or grave. A good starting point
is to research what happened, be honest, even if it is painful and
thereby learn from it. Ignorance (or evasive approaches) of those can
truly lead to sometimes grave consequences.
The *complexity* of anthroposophists' role within the Third Reich has
already been covered extensively here, that's why I said we do not need
a replay concerning historical records of German vs. anthroposophists in
regard to racism.
And, to make sure you do not hit me on this one again. I do not claim
Waldorf folks, anthroposophists or sympathizers as a whole think and act
in racist ways, my problem as that of many other critics is the lack of
critical assessment which would help put aside racist tendencies within
theory and practice of anthroposophy.
Akua
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: Is this what you want?
This is a question not a statement. To all the
anti-waldorf people out there. Is this the mindset you
want people to have?
Waldorf currently practices racism in all of their
schools. Actual experiences do not matter. Because
steiner wrote passages that just contain the word
'race' and differentiates between the races, this
means that not only was he a racist, but everyone
involved in anthroposophy is a racist. I fully accept
this to be the definition of racism and there can not
possibly be another that is valid.
I have been brainwashed by anthroposophy to ignore
blatant statements of racism. Even when I read
something that I perceive is anti-racist, it's really
racist because someone else told me it is so.
Waldorf believes that all technology is evil.
Nevermind the fact that they have computer science
classes in high school. That is just a front for some
good publicity.
Using only primary colors limits a child's
imagination. Nevermind that I ignore the fact that you
can make an unlimited amount of colors from the
primary colors. It's more creative to have premixed
crayons and coloring books.
What else should I believe? Please I can't think for
myself and am ill. I need to be told what to think by
you. Please tell me what other evils Waldorf practices
so I can be just like you.
Does that about cover it?
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
They will never be satisfied charlie. It seems racism
is the only thing they have left to complain about. I
have read some extremely ignorant posts complaining
about various things. Those accusations have been
crushed by intelligent people.
I'd say out of about 100 accusations. This is the only
one left that has any validity at all, and I still
believe they really don't have anything 100% solid on
it.
--- charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com) wrote:
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Stories from the Civil Rights Movement.
) Extraordinary stories,
) ordinary people. Share your memories today!
) http://click.topica.com/caacvglb1dkiGb7OS4ta/AARP
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) Y'know, Peter...it may not be scientific, but at
) some point in one's
) life, one earns the right to say, "The Sun has come
) up every morning
) and, dammit, I just going to go out on a limb and
) assume it's going to
) come up tomorrow, too."
) Eventually, experience has to account for
) something, but maybe I've
) read too much Goethe.
) So---I wonder if I can change the subject...
) If it hasn't been discussed before (I miss a lot), I
) would like to hear,
) before I sign off for the school year, just what you
) would have us
) Anthroposophists/Waldorf people do.
) Is it to confess racism?
) Should we change?
) Should we disband?
) If you were a student of Steiner and you discovered
) these prickly parts,
) what would you do?
) I promise I'm not being snide here---but, what would
) get you off our
) backs?
) c
)
)
) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) )
) )
) )
) )
) ) Hi again Charlie, you wrote:
) )
) )
) )
) ) )if you notice, though, I often (sometimes?) try
) to temper my statements
) ) )by stating that I am speaking from my (limited)
) experience. But, there
) ) )are just some things that I am prepared to take a
) hard line on; and I
) ) )think that I can say that there is no systematic
) racism in
) ) )Anthroposophy. Not the kind with a negative
) connotation, anyway...i.e.
) ) )racial superiority/inferiority.
) ) )It just ain't so.
) )
) )
) ) Simply because you've never seen it first hand??
) )
) )
) ) Curious,
) )
) )
) ) Peter S.
) )
) )
)
_________________________________________________________________
) ) On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life
) Events for advice on how
) ) to
) ) get there!
)
http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
) )
)
)
)
) Nil illigitimi carborundum!
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) RE-GROW YOUR HAIR STARTING NOW.....Click here for
) more info!
) http://click.topica.com/caacxydb1dkiGb7OS4tf/Medical
) Hair Restoration
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:31:28 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Hi Dan
Linda,
I don't get that sense at all. For what it's worth, I've been
admonished more than once. I could be characterized as a critic. The
difference I see in the example you post is that in one case the comment
was made about a third party while in the other, the comment was made
more directly. That may or may not have anything to do with why one
person was admonished and another wasn't - I suppose it could just be
Dan playing God, but I don't think so. I suspect most critics want the
supporters to hang around - I know I certainly do.
Pete Karaiskos
L G Clemens wrote:
)
) I get the sense that some ad hominem arguments are distinguished from
) others in the view of the Administrator of this board, and the only
) difference I can see in them is that the "unacceptable" ad homs come
) from WE supporters and the "acceptable" ad homs come from WE critics.
)
) Thanks.
)
) Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:51:35 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: maverick teacher training?
Sharon Lombard, you wrote about the Micha-el Instutute,
)An image on the site made me wonder about something I have wondered about
)for a long time. See the picture of a Bruno-like organic shape of forces
)which is labeled "One of the Seven Seals"? In Anthroposophy there are two
)sets of Seven Seals. One lot of Steiner's Seven Seals has actual images of
)the Apocalypse depicted on them, like the woman clothed with the Sun and
)Michael and the dragon etc. (You can see these in John Fletcher's "Art
)Inspired by Rudolf Steiner" or you can see an almost identical version in
)Eliphas Levi's "Dogma and Ritual of High Magic" also available in Fletcher's
)book). The other lot of Seven Seals are Planetary Seals, resembling the one
)depicted on the Micha-el Institute's site. (Fletcher has various pictures of
)these as well including the glass engravings by Francina Van Davelaar). I've
)always wondered if the Planetary Seals and the Apocalyptic Seals are the
)same thing? Anyone know? I think that the Planetary Seals could just be an
)outer form of the more spiritually deep Apocalyptic Seals.
One of the aspects of Anthroposophy, and of occultism in general, is
the doctrine of "correspondences." Different categories of things
come in sets of numerologically-significant numbers, and you can be
sure that anything that comes in a set of seven will have
correspondences to any other set of seven. For example, the seven
days of the week and the seven appropriate grains to eat. But that
doesn't make the categories identical.
Complicated systems like this make Anthroposophy seem like a science
to, shall we say, the uninitiated.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:12:39 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
Mike Helsher wrote:
) Thanks Brad for your vigilance, and the sharing of your experience )on
) occasion. I like your take on the "inner experiential"
Damn, what a relief. Mike, you are the first person to acknowledge the
obvious. As humans, we are not marionettes with strings pulled by
external agencies. We are responsible for our own growing, learning, and
developing as human beings. For example, I read where the Catholic
Church took over all healing modalities developed from the Greeks on,
and said, 'All that is false, all healing comes through us, as agencies
of the Lord.' Medicine as a profession went into the tank, not to
recover for centuries.
Parents are responsible for their children as emerging human beings to
develop and grow their capacities at a greater rate with an
experientially based teaching method. At the core, Montessori and
Steiner knew this and started experientially based teaching. PERIOD!!!
FORGET the rest of 'What Steiner said'. Today, holistic education is
huge. The Critics see the trees but not the forest. (They really do, but
won't admit it. (grin))
I am not pro Steiner, Anthroposophy or Waldorf. I am pro what works for
the children of loving parents. I came into this because my niece was in
Waldorf, had a good experience and teacher and is now in a special
program in a public junior high. I read about Steiner and many others
YEARS ago. I saw the essential wisdom and dismissed the nonsense and
moved on to many others of Wisdom. Try Aldred North Whitehead. :) The
Critics can only harp on the nonsense and not admit the workable
essence. The Critics seem only to see a system that is a One and Only in
space and time. It is not. Waldorf is One experientially based system
among Others, throughout time. As I posted an extremely prescient
insight from Prof. Theodor Roszak, Anthroposophy is merely a forerunner
of modern humanistic/transpersonal psychology. The internet is filled
with it. It is part of systems science and academic studies.
Some Waldorf teachers and parents and the Waldord Critics slug it out in
a catfight fighting over the various trees, and aren't seeing the big
picture, 'the forest'. Again, a loving parent only wants a good
education for their child and Waldorf has that good intention, but has
growing pains, as is well described on this list. As Dan Dugan referred
to just now.
Anthroposophy is not a religion, it is a precurser to modern depth
psychology. Waldorf is not a training ground for anti-semitic, racist
neo-Nazi's, that some uninformed new Waldorf parent would be alarmed
about if they read Waldorf Critics.
Unbelievable!!!
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
halleluja!
amen!
Not seriously though,
There are many positive things about Waldorf. It seems
these discussions are mainly about racism though.
Are we allowed to talk about our positive experiences
here? I'm not sure who I'm asking this question of, so
forgive me for my rudeness.
There are so many great things about Waldorf
education, I really do understand why you could hate
Waldorf if a teacher there abused your child or was
racist towards them. I would be livid, to say the
least. Espescially if the school did NOTHING about it!
And, as you all know, I can speak my mind.
Maybe you should all make your own school, without any
organized practice of any spiritual beliefs, let
everyone decide for themselves. Do not force any rules
on families, just enforce sound and working
educational theories.
That would be how my Waldorf school was. I believe it
can work. They did not even enforce the no tv rule but
it was suggested to the parents. By the way, this is
not Steiner, this is a bunch of parents who wanted
this to happen.
I really don't remember many rules at all there that
were abnormal compared to public school. I just
remember my teachers had a lot of brilliant ideas that
worked very well.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com) wrote:
"Parents are responsible for their children as emerging human beings to
develop and grow their capacities at a greater rate with an
experientially based teaching method."
"Experiental." That would mean something that is based on experience and/or can be demonstrated empirically, right? It appears that Steiner and others took something that is tangible and layered it with mystical intangibles. What culture hasn't known for eons that one of the best ways to learn is to do and/or use as much of the body and mind one can to learn generally or a particular subject?
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:08:56 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: Re: Hi Dan
Linda, you wrote,
)I get the sense that some ad hominem arguments are distinguished from
)others in the view of the Administrator of this board, and the only
)difference I can see in them is that the "unacceptable" ad homs come
)from WE supporters and the "acceptable" ad homs come from WE critics.
This is off-topic, Linda. If you must discuss list moderation, please
write me off-list. The best thing is to just let perceived insults or
injustices roll off your back and return to the real discussion.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:42:17 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
Walden,
Some time in the last day or so, I posted that I would like to be
contacted off the list concerning the FAQ.
You probably didn't see it.
I'd like to A a few Q's myself before diving in.
Maybe my answer to the larger question seemed evasive, but I have
recently moved, and it is my first year at this school, and I am not
sure what is typically done, so I answered out of my own experience.
Most likely, explanations about the education are handled by the
individual teacher, and, most likely, most give less information than I
do. I wish there would be more information given (it's funny that I see
my name mentioned with Eugene's on this list; we are friends and share
many views), but I also do understand the position of those who feel
that karma has brought people together, and there is time to get things
done.
Hardly *anybody* knows *anything* about Waldorf when they show up at a
school, and most happily stay as long as they can. There is something to
this.
The cold, hard fact is, many of the people who would happily stay as
long as possible might leave skidmarks toward the door if I told them
about Lemuria, Elohim, the Akasha Chronicle, elemental beings and both
Jesuses on their first visit. Where this gets irresponsible, though, is
when Anthroposophy isn't even given in small bites.
Hey...we're teachers; we build things up over time. We don't just dump
it all at once.
Also, it seems to me that the vast majority of people who come to
Waldorf Schools (even the unhealthy ones) really like it, and stay a
really long time. I would definitely encourage teachers to educate
parents as much as possible, and I agree with PLANS's stance on this *to
a point*. What I will not do (brutal honesty alert) is fully embrace the
advice of a really pissed-off minority concerning what I and my
colleagues should do.
c
walden wrote:
)
) Hi Charlie,
)
) I really don't want to upset Linda again (by re-asking a question of
) Charlie) but I also feel the need for clarification in our previous
) discussion. You have mentioned that you must leave the list soon and I
) sincerely hope you will be able to clarify this one point for me before
) you
) leave.
)
) ( August 20) I wrote:
) Alternatively, perhaps your school is an anomaly in that all
) ) important information about reincarnation, soul work, Steiner's epochs
) ) and
) ) theories (racial, child development, etc) ARE shared with parents prior
) ) to
) ) them enrolling their children in your school?
) ) Perhaps there is no need for parents to be curious about the morning
) ) prayer
) ) or eurythmy or Michaelmas (Mich-Ah-Ehl-Mas)
)
) Charlie replied:
) "BTW--Every Waldorf school that I've been to (at least a dozen)
) pronounces it "mickle-mas"."
)
) Walden responded:
) "Thanks for that but you did not answer the question. This is an
) important
) point. Would you be willing to let us know what information is shared
) with
) parents before they enroll in your school?"
)
) Charlie then offered:
) "I encourage parents to get books from our library, our school store,
) surf the web, and, YES, I tell them that there are Waldorf critics on
) the internet and that they shoud check this out if they are interested.
) I tell my parents that we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our
) center, I tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and
) ego bodies; and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form
) into the room...among many other things."
)
) Walden responded:
)
) "Well, there you go. You answered your own question. I commend you and
) think this is an excellent way to begin a relationship between a Waldorf
) school and a parent. It's a good start. Is such information shared
) with
) parents by your school (as opposed to a single teacher once the parents
) are
) in) via pamphlets, handouts, web site and at meetings? Perhaps you can
) fill
) in for Christine and we can re-work the Waldorf FAQ? I appreciate your
) participation."
)
) Now, if you have no interest in helping with the FAQ, can you please
) answer
) the previous question? I sincerely look forward to your response
)
) Thanks.
)
) - Walden
)
)
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
"And Brad replies:
Peter, you have been sufficiently dismissed and ridiculed over on
Anthroposophy Tomorrow,"
And I suppose you cannot imagine how that can be perceived as a compliment.
"case is closed."
This reminds me of a game I played with my daughter when she was a toddler.
Mom: You can't say said-so.
Daughter: Why?
Mom: Cuz, I said so!
It also brings to mind what a law professor of mine replied in response to a query as to how a judge could possibly state that a particular behavior on the part of a party to the lawsuit was damaging to the other party, i.e. "because he decided that it's damaging!"
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Hi Dan
L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com) wrote:
I'm curious why the Administrator of this board would find this a
violation of the rules here:
"Peter, you have been sufficiently dismissed and ridiculed over on
Anthroposophy Tomorrow, case is closed. You remind me of the kid in the
school yard with aberrant behavior who constantly is trying to play with
the others, but they, over time, will no longer play with him because of
the aberrant behavior. Inevitably, he becomes all alone. You seem
neurotically obsessed with all of this, the minutia from a hundred years
ago, Steiner, et al. An observation. "
But THIS isn't?
"Like other new agers he [referring to Joel Wendt, another participant
on this board] is into appropriating (stealing) from the cultures of
others for personal and group gain . Since he (and all anthrops) believe
that those of the First Nations have no right to exist, it makes it that
much easier to justify the theft."
I get the sense that some ad hominem arguments are distinguished from
others in the view of the Administrator of this board, and the only
difference I can see in them is that the "unacceptable" ad homs come
from WE supporters and the "acceptable" ad homs come from WE critics.
Thanks.
Linda
1) Offhand it appears to have something to do with the use of adjectives, e.g. "aberrant," "neurotically."
2) I believe that Joel Wendt describes himself as a "new ager." I do know that that is how he is perceived by what appears to be the majority of members of the "new age frauds plastic shamans" yahoo group where he did quite a bit of posting.
3) That Steiner and his followers believe that indigenous people are of a sub-race that would have devolved out of existence but for the interference of Ahriman is too well documented to be disclaimed.
I try to be very careful to avoid conclusory statements without supporting evidence and I especially attempt to avoid the use of such words as "racist." What I have learned in the past few years is that people self-identify as "racists," i.e. they somehow hear themselves being called racist even when the person they accuse of calling them racist never uttered that word.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:21:49 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Admin: Re: Hi Dan
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Linda, you wrote,
)
) )I get the sense that some ad hominem arguments are distinguished from
) )others in the view of the Administrator of this board, and the only
) )difference I can see in them is that the "unacceptable" ad homs come
) )from WE supporters and the "acceptable" ad homs come from WE critics.
)
) This is off-topic, Linda. If you must discuss list moderation, please
) write me off-list. The best thing is to just let perceived insults or
) injustices roll off your back and return to the real discussion.
)
) -Dan Dugan
) Moderator
Of course it's "off topic". But so is the Biology of Race, the
harshness of German colonialism and the various grandiose theories about
why so few Waldorf supporters stick around long on this board.
So what we have here is a kind of a "guess what number I'm thinking" ad
hom policy. It's no longer Tag-You're-It we're playing, it's Dodge
Ball.
Linda.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:09:55 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Is this what you want?
Hi Joshua,
No, this is not what I want. Your apparent lack of interest or willingness
to understand the issues is astounding.
I have never heard any critic of anthroposophy/Waldorf come close to
expressing what you state (below).
If this is truly your assessment of what has been written on this list, I
don't know how I can help with further communication. One thing I know is
that heavy sarcasm rarely helps one express oneself clearly - especially via
email.
- Walden
Joshua wrote
"This is a question not a statement. To all the
anti-waldorf people out there. Is this the mindset you
want people to have?
Waldorf currently practices racism in all of their
schools. Actual experiences do not matter. Because
steiner wrote passages that just contain the word
'race' and differentiates between the races, this
means that not only was he a racist, but everyone
involved in anthroposophy is a racist. I fully accept
this to be the definition of racism and there can not
possibly be another that is valid.
I have been brainwashed by anthroposophy to ignore
blatant statements of racism. Even when I read
something that I perceive is anti-racist, it's really
racist because someone else told me it is so.
Waldorf believes that all technology is evil.
Nevermind the fact that they have computer science
classes in high school. That is just a front for some
good publicity.
Using only primary colors limits a child's
imagination. Nevermind that I ignore the fact that you
can make an unlimited amount of colors from the
primary colors. It's more creative to have premixed
crayons and coloring books.
What else should I believe? Please I can't think for
myself and am ill. I need to be told what to think by
you. Please tell me what other evils Waldorf practices
so I can be just like you.
Does that about cover it?"
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stories from the Civil Rights Movement. Extraordinary stories,
ordinary people. Share your memories today!
http://click.topica.com/caacvglb1dkiGb2QZUTf/AARP
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:23:03 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
Ok, Brad - I just gotta ask...
What parts of Anthroposophy do *you* consider "nonsense" to be "dismissed"
and what parts to you consider "a precursor to modern depth
psychology?"
I'm tempted to scream "Unbelievable!" But I am open and willing to try to
believe. I look forward to your reply.
-Walden
Mike Helsher wrote:
) Thanks Brad for your vigilance, and the sharing of your experience )on
) occasion. I like your take on the "inner experiential"
Damn, what a relief. Mike, you are the first person to acknowledge the
obvious. As humans, we are not marionettes with strings pulled by
external agencies. We are responsible for our own growing, learning, and
developing as human beings. For example, I read where the Catholic
Church took over all healing modalities developed from the Greeks on,
and said, 'All that is false, all healing comes through us, as agencies
of the Lord.' Medicine as a profession went into the tank, not to
recover for centuries.
Parents are responsible for their children as emerging human beings to
develop and grow their capacities at a greater rate with an
experientially based teaching method. At the core, Montessori and
Steiner knew this and started experientially based teaching. PERIOD!!!
FORGET the rest of 'What Steiner said'. Today, holistic education is
huge. The Critics see the trees but not the forest. (They really do, but
won't admit it. (grin))
I am not pro Steiner, Anthroposophy or Waldorf. I am pro what works for
the children of loving parents. I came into this because my niece was in
Waldorf, had a good experience and teacher and is now in a special
program in a public junior high. I read about Steiner and many others
YEARS ago. I saw the essential wisdom and dismissed the nonsense and
moved on to many others of Wisdom. Try Aldred North Whitehead. :) The
Critics can only harp on the nonsense and not admit the workable
essence. The Critics seem only to see a system that is a One and Only in
space and time. It is not. Waldorf is One experientially based system
among Others, throughout time. As I posted an extremely prescient
insight from Prof. Theodor Roszak, Anthroposophy is merely a forerunner
of modern humanistic/transpersonal psychology. The internet is filled
with it. It is part of systems science and academic studies.
Some Waldorf teachers and parents and the Waldord Critics slug it out in
a catfight fighting over the various trees, and aren't seeing the big
picture, 'the forest'. Again, a loving parent only wants a good
education for their child and Waldorf has that good intention, but has
growing pains, as is well described on this list. As Dan Dugan referred
to just now.
Anthroposophy is not a religion, it is a precurser to modern depth
psychology. Waldorf is not a training ground for anti-semitic, racist
neo-Nazi's, that some uninformed new Waldorf parent would be alarmed
about if they read Waldorf Critics.
Unbelievable!!!
Brad
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy Stocks and Index Funds for just $4 No Account or
Investment Minimums and No Inactivity Fees Automatically
invest weekly or monthly and build your future.
http://click.topica.com/caacvggb1dkiGb2QZUTf/Sharebuilder
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:27:07 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Hi Charlie, you wrote:
)Y'know, Peter...it may not be scientific, but at some point in one's
)life, one earns the right to say, "The Sun has come up every morning
)and, dammit, I just going to go out on a limb and assume it's going to
)come up tomorrow, too."
That's an excellent example! Your argument that there is no racism in
anthroposophy, because you haven't come across it personally, is like
somebody getting up on a cloudy morning and saying that the sun doesn't
exist.
) Eventually, experience has to account for something, but maybe I've
)read too much Goethe.
)So---I wonder if I can change the subject...
)If it hasn't been discussed before (I miss a lot), I would like to hear,
)before I sign off for the school year, just what you would have us
)Anthroposophists/Waldorf people do.
Learn about anthroposophy: its central doctrines and its history, in
particular.
) Is it to confess racism?
No need to confess, just learn to recognize racism, and then examine
Steiner's actual teachings about race.
)Should we change?
Shouldn't we all?
)Should we disband?
That's none of my business, and I don't have a preference either way in any
case. If in the process of learning about racism and about anthroposophy you
think significant internal changes within the movement are in order, then I
encourage you to work toward them.
)If you were a student of Steiner and you discovered these prickly parts,
)what would you do?
What I'm doing now: talking about them in public.
)I promise I'm not being snide here---but, what would get you off our
)backs?
Cogent arguments accompanied by relevant evidence.
Cheers,
Peter S.
)
)Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) )
) )
) )
) )
) ) Hi again Charlie, you wrote:
) )
) )
) )
) ) )if you notice, though, I often (sometimes?) try to temper my statements
) ) )by stating that I am speaking from my (limited) experience. But, there
) ) )are just some things that I am prepared to take a hard line on; and I
) ) )think that I can say that there is no systematic racism in
) ) )Anthroposophy. Not the kind with a negative connotation, anyway...i.e.
) ) )racial superiority/inferiority.
) ) )It just ain't so.
) )
) )
) ) Simply because you've never seen it first hand??
) )
) )
) ) Curious,
) )
) )
) ) Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:10:17 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Hi Linda, you wrote:
)But what I’m
)asking is whether this intense indentification she felt with being
)“black” would be sufficient to define her as being a member of a race?
That depends on the context, as I've explained a couple of times. My
position is that a person who identifies as a member of a particular race
and is perceived as a member of that race thereby becomes a member of that
race. Your position is that a DNA test will resolve the matter.
)So let me say WE—as in YOU. Would YOU then say he was the first black
)president?
No, not even after a DNA test.
)What disagreement?
The disagreement between our conflicting conceptions of race. According to
my conception, racial categories are social constructs superimposed on a
varying set of physical traits. According to your conception, race is
genetically transmitted.
)I’m asking you to explain this “self-designation”
)definition of race. I'm confused what you mean by it. For example,
)just earlier Charlie said his “self-designated” race is human, and your
)subsequent disparagement of his “self-designation” would indicate that
)“self-designation” is NOT how race is defined in YOUR view. Am I’m
)wrong in this conclusion? Explain.
I didn't disparage Charlie's self-designation, I recommended it to you as a
real-world instance of how racial identities are formed and re-formed within
specific social constructs.
)Uh------how can it be both a “misrecognition” and yet at the same time
)valid?
It can't, if you hold a biological conception of validity. According to your
account of race, Colombians and Bangladeshis have differing genetic
inheritances which sort them into different racial groups and demarcate the
boundaries of valid classification. According to my account of race,
Colombians and Bangladeshis sort out valid from invalid racial
identifications through everyday social interactions, not through genetic
analysis.
) ) Did you think
) ) that
) ) people who are perceived as members of a given racial group in one
) ) context
) ) will be consistently perceived as members of the very same racial group
) ) in
) ) all other contexts?
)
)I’m not thinking anything. And you’re confusing my question. Give me
)an example where “social perceptions” determining “you’re a this” –
)“you’re a this” – and “you’re a that” which do NOT imply or assume it is
)a quality which is also inherited from one’s parents, and which is also
)handed down to one’s children?
In Jackson Heights, two of the more common ways this process takes place are
through language (Spanish or South Asian English) and clothing. Neither of
these is a biological inheritance from one's parents.
) ) To grasp the
) ) notion
) ) that race is a social category, you need not abandon the facts of
) ) biological
) ) difference or inherited physical traits, and you certainly need not
) ) posit
) ) that humans are exempt from evolution. You simply need to pay attention
) ) to
) ) the whether racial classifications correlate with biological factors in
) ) any
) ) consistent way. If you believe that they do, could you explain why you
) ) believe this?
) )
)Sorry, Peter. Hold up. You’re talking me off course. That’s a
)question about another issue
That is the question you and I have both been addressing for several rounds
now.
)I’m still stuck on the “self-designated” and “social perceptions of race
)assignment that do NOT involve inheritance”.
They do involve inheritance. They are not the same thing as inheritance, and
they are not wholly subsumed by inheritance. Your position, in contrast, is
that individuals get the race their biological parents give them, and that
this occurs via the genes. The first position accounts for both the variety
and the inconstancy of racial classifications across different social and
historical contexts, and acknowledges that racial categories do not
consistently correspond to genetic differences. The second position reduces
this complexity to a simple matter of heritability. This is not another
issue, it is the same issue we've each assayed from our respective
positions.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:48:33 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Hi Dan
The difference? One is simply an insulting observation (about Peter) and the
second is true.
Lisa
) From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: Hi Dan
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) RE-GROW YOUR HAIR STARTING NOW.....Click here for more info!
) http://click.topica.com/caacxydb1dkiGb1IpcOa/Medical Hair Restoration
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
)
) L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com) wrote:
)
) I'm curious why the Administrator of this board would find this a
) violation of the rules here:
)
) "Peter, you have been sufficiently dismissed and ridiculed over on
) Anthroposophy Tomorrow, case is closed. You remind me of the kid in the
) school yard with aberrant behavior who constantly is trying to play with
) the others, but they, over time, will no longer play with him because of
) the aberrant behavior. Inevitably, he becomes all alone. You seem
) neurotically obsessed with all of this, the minutia from a hundred years
) ago, Steiner, et al. An observation. "
)
)
) But THIS isn't?
)
) "Like other new agers he [referring to Joel Wendt, another participant
) on this board] is into appropriating (stealing) from the cultures of
) others for personal and group gain . Since he (and all anthrops) believe
) that those of the First Nations have no right to exist, it makes it that
) much easier to justify the theft."
)
) I get the sense that some ad hominem arguments are distinguished from
) others in the view of the Administrator of this board, and the only
) difference I can see in them is that the "unacceptable" ad homs come
) from WE supporters and the "acceptable" ad homs come from WE critics.
)
) Thanks.
)
) Linda
)
) 1) Offhand it appears to have something to do with the use of adjectives, e.g.
) "aberrant," "neurotically."
)
) 2) I believe that Joel Wendt describes himself as a "new ager." I do know
) that that is how he is perceived by what appears to be the majority of members
) of the "new age frauds plastic shamans" yahoo group where he did quite a bit
) of posting.
)
) 3) That Steiner and his followers believe that indigenous people are of a
) sub-race that would have devolved out of existence but for the interference of
) Ahriman is too well documented to be disclaimed.
)
) I try to be very careful to avoid conclusory statements without supporting
) evidence and I especially attempt to avoid the use of such words as "racist."
) What I have learned in the past few years is that people self-identify as
) "racists," i.e. they somehow hear themselves being called racist even when the
) person they accuse of calling them racist never uttered that word.
)
) Deborah
)
)
)
)
)
) ---------------------------------
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
) --
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) Stories from the Civil Rights Movement. Extraordinary stories,
) ordinary people. Share your memories today!
) http://click.topica.com/caacvglb1dkiGb1IpcOf/AARP
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1450
-- Topica Digest --
RE: What is race-for Peter
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
Re: Admin: Re: Hi Dan
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
By mhelsher msn.com
Re: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
taking criticism seriously
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: taking criticism seriously
By mhelsher msn.com
Re: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 02:28:50 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Hi Linda, you wrote:
)
)
) )But what I’m
) )asking is whether this intense indentification she felt with being
) )“black” would be sufficient to define her as being a member of a race?
)
)
) That depends on the context, as I've explained a couple of times. My
) position is that a person who identifies as a member of a particular
) race
) and is perceived as a member of that race thereby becomes a member of
) that
) race.
Short on time now but will come back to this later --
) Your position is that a DNA test will resolve the matter.
THAT is a lie, Peter. That is your runaway imagination. Which you'll
come to agree with after your soon-to-be engaged desperate search to
"catch me out" comes up cold, which it will.
)
)
) )So let me say WE—as in YOU. Would YOU then say he was the first black
) )president?
)
)
) No, not even after a DNA test.
Why not?
)
)
) )What disagreement?
)
)
) The disagreement between our conflicting conceptions of race. According
) to
) my conception, racial categories are social constructs superimposed on a
)
) varying set of physical traits. According to your conception, race is
) genetically transmitted.
Again, I will have to come back to this - and I will, I promise.
)
)
) )I’m asking you to explain this “self-designation”
) )definition of race. I'm confused what you mean by it. For example,
) )just earlier Charlie said his “self-designated” race is human, and your
) )subsequent disparagement of his “self-designation” would indicate that
) )“self-designation” is NOT how race is defined in YOUR view. Am I’m
) )wrong in this conclusion? Explain.
)
)
) I didn't disparage Charlie's self-designation, I recommended it to you
) as a
) real-world instance of how racial identities are formed and re-formed
) within
) specific social constructs.
)
What did you mean then when you said "that explains a lot". Thank you.
)
) )Uh------how can it be both a “misrecognition” and yet at the same time
) )valid?
)
)
) It can't, if you hold a biological conception of validity.
Uh--YOU described at as a "misidentification" at the same time you used
it as a valid example. How can both be true by YOUR conception of how
race is determined?
According to your
) account of race, Colombians and Bangladeshis have differing genetic
) inheritances which sort them into different racial groups and demarcate
) the
) boundaries of valid classification.
I think you're struggling to answer my questions by offering up what you
think my definition is for some kind of comparison. Try to answer my
questions without doing that if you can.
) According to my account of race,
) Colombians and Bangladeshis sort out valid from invalid racial
) identifications through everyday social interactions, not through
) genetic
) analysis.
)
Again, I'll defer this one. I haven't time now.
)
) ) ) Did you think
) ) ) that
) ) ) people who are perceived as members of a given racial group in one
) ) ) context
) ) ) will be consistently perceived as members of the very same racial group
) ) ) in
) ) ) all other contexts?
Not at all.
) )I’m not thinking anything. And you’re confusing my question. Give me
) )an example where “social perceptions” determining “you’re a this” –
) )“you’re a this” – and “you’re a that” which do NOT imply or assume it is
) )a quality which is also inherited from one’s parents, and which is also
) )handed down to one’s children?
)
)
) In Jackson Heights, two of the more common ways this process takes place
) are
) through language (Spanish or South Asian English) and clothing. Neither
) of
) these is a biological inheritance from one's parents.
)
Response deferred
)
) ) ) To grasp the
) ) ) notion
) ) ) that race is a social category, you need not abandon the facts of
) ) ) biological
) ) ) difference or inherited physical traits, and you certainly need not
) ) ) posit
) ) ) that humans are exempt from evolution. You simply need to pay attention
) ) ) to
) ) ) the whether racial classifications correlate with biological factors in
) ) ) any
) ) ) consistent way. If you believe that they do, could you explain why you
) ) ) believe this?
) ) )
Deferred.
) )Sorry, Peter. Hold up. You’re talking me off course. That’s a
) )question about another issue
)
)
) That is the question you and I have both been addressing for several
) rounds
) now.
Not so. You're injecting your own biases into what I say. You're
hearing a lot of inference that isn't coming from me.
)
)
) )I’m still stuck on the “self-designated” and “social perceptions of race
) )assignment that do NOT involve inheritance”.
)
)
) They do involve inheritance. They are not the same thing as inheritance,
) and
) they are not wholly subsumed by inheritance. Your position, in contrast,
) is
) that individuals get the race their biological parents give them, and
) that
) this occurs via the genes. The first position accounts for both the
) variety
) and the inconstancy of racial classifications across different social
) and
) historical contexts, and acknowledges that racial categories do not
) consistently correspond to genetic differences. The second position
) reduces
) this complexity to a simple matter of heritability. This is not another
) issue, it is the same issue we've each assayed from our respective
) positions.
)
)
Again, lengthy and I must postpone this.
I think we've made great progress. I know I have!
Perhaps you'd like to chew over what I've said now while waiting for me
to clear the time to tackle the rest.
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:47:26 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: Re: Hi Dan
Linda,
I beg to differ. The biology of race (if there is such a thing) and the
harshness of German colonialism *are* cogent to our discussion of Waldorf
education and Anthroposophy. They have something to do with Waldorf
education, which is the topic of this list.
All Dan is asking is that people not personally attack each other. I have
been on this list for five years and during that time, I have observed Dan
being very even handed in dealing with Waldorf supporters and critics alike.
Unlike some of us (like me!), he does not get emotional and angry. He simply
posts an administrative notice asking people to conduct themselves in a
somewhat civilized manner. I personally do not think that is too much to
ask.
Lisa
) From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:21:49 +0000
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: Admin: Re: Hi Dan
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) Sponsor a child today through Children International.
) Give a desperately poor child hope for a brighter future.
) For only $18 a month you can make a difference!
) http://click.topica.com/caacvgob1dkiGb1IpcOa/ChildrenInternational
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
) Dan Dugan wrote:
))
)) Linda, you wrote,
))
))) I get the sense that some ad hominem arguments are distinguished from
))) others in the view of the Administrator of this board, and the only
))) difference I can see in them is that the "unacceptable" ad homs come
))) from WE supporters and the "acceptable" ad homs come from WE critics.
))
)) This is off-topic, Linda. If you must discuss list moderation, please
)) write me off-list. The best thing is to just let perceived insults or
)) injustices roll off your back and return to the real discussion.
))
)) -Dan Dugan
)) Moderator
)
) Of course it's "off topic". But so is the Biology of Race, the
) harshness of German colonialism and the various grandiose theories about
) why so few Waldorf supporters stick around long on this board.
)
) So what we have here is a kind of a "guess what number I'm thinking" ad
) hom policy. It's no longer Tag-You're-It we're playing, it's Dodge
) Ball.
)
) Linda.
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) Need cash fast? Get a $500 CASH ADVANCE overnight! Let
) YourCashCentral get you the cash you need.
) http://click.topica.com/caacxycb1dkiGb1IpcOf/MyOnlinePayday
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:32:54 -0700
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher msn.com)
Subject: Re: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
for some weird reason these links are doubling, I tried to post them again but they doubled again. You can cut and paste half of them to get to the sites.
sorry again,
Is something up with Topica?
The links from the previous message were not right, so I'm re-posting them. sorry:
(snip)
You are right about his stay on the AT list:
http://www.uncletaz.com/at/(http://www.uncletaz.com/at/(http://www.uncletaz.com/at/(http://www.uncletaz.com/at/))
A couple of my favorites are these:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2F751329(http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2F751329(http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2F751329(http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2F751329))
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L51824329(http://makeashorterlink.com/?L51824329(http://makeashorterlink.com/?L51824329(http://makeashorterlink.com/?L51824329))
I'll finish with what I think is a very good perspective for anyone interested in PS's elusive motives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/6112(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/6112(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/6112(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/6112(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/6112(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/6112(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/6112(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/6112)))
(snipped from the above link)
*******************************************************************************
I'm mentioning anarchist thinkers for a reason, and this brings us to the
topic of attacks, hate-mongering, and smear campaigns against Rudolf
Steiner, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf. Originally, such 'opposition' as
Steiner himself called it, began after a lecture entitled "From Jesus to
Christ", where certain esoteric secrets were made public that arose the
emnity of the secret lodges of the West. I'm not certain of which lecture
Steiner had in mind when he said this; whether it was the single lecture
delivered at Carlsruhe 4th October, 1911 (GA 131)
(snip)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RE-GROW YOUR HAIR STARTING NOW.....Click here for more info!
http://click.topica.com/caacxydb1dkiGbNHXUgf/Medical(http://click.topica.com/caacxydb1dkiGbNHXUgf/Medical) Hair Restoration
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:53:30 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
Hi Charlie,
Please believe me when I say that I am *not* trying to badger you with
questions. I truly appreciate your posts and would REALLY appreciate
hearing an answer to my question from two previous posts. I don't know how
I can make the question more clear.
But I'll try again and use your very recent post to help us communicate
better.
You wrote:
"Some time in the last day or so, I posted that I would like to be
contacted off the list concerning the FAQ. You probably didn't see it."
I did see it but did not know it was meant for me. I don't know why we need
to communicate off list.
"I'd like to A a few Q's myself before diving in."
Please do.
"Maybe my answer to the larger question seemed evasive, but I have
recently moved, and it is my first year at this school, and I am not
sure what is typically done, so I answered out of my own experience."
IMPORTANT: The question is very simple and I have not seen an answer -
evasive or otherwise. I'll fire off a few questions here but it really is
only ONE question - and now you can use the example of *two* schools
instead of one. Here: At your old school and/or your new school, does the
promotional material (website, etc.) reflect the anthroposophical foundation
of the schools? Is there enough there to even begin to help parents
understand the spiritual nature of Waldorf education in a way it is
understood by a trained Waldorf teacher? By that I mean is there any
mention or explanation of reincarnation, soul work, the real Rudolf Steiner
(occultist - teachers read all about his occultism) or a myriad of other
helpful hints to aid unsuspecting parents understand Waldorf Education? Is
there any information at either school's web site or PR material helping
parents understand that:
"we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our
center, I tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and
ego bodies; and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form
into the room...among many other things."
You wrote:
"Most likely, explanations about the education are handled by the
individual teacher, and, most likely, most give less information than I
do. I wish there would be more information given (it's funny that I see
my name mentioned with Eugene's on this list; we are friends and share
many views), but I also do understand the position of those who feel
that karma has brought people together, and there is time to get things
done.
Hardly *anybody* knows *anything* about Waldorf when they show up at a
school,"
And that is the crux of this conversation. What they/we *do* know when
they/we show up is a result of a PR campaign that needs much work.
"and most happily stay as long as they can. There is something to this."
I question that claim. If you have enrolment/retention numbers from Waldorf
schools in North America, please share them. Or ask AWSNA and post the
response here.
"The cold, hard fact is, many of the people who would happily stay as
long as possible might leave skidmarks toward the door if I told them
about Lemuria, Elohim, the Akasha Chronicle, elemental beings and both
Jesuses on their first visit.
Wow. Why not let people make up their OWN minds if they want to leave
skidmarks when they learn the truth - instead of handing over their children
based on misinformation? Do you see how this attitude might smack of
arrogance or spiritual elitism to some people? YOU know what information
parents can and cannot handle - what is best for them and their children?
"Where this gets irresponsible, though, is when Anthroposophy isn't even
given in small bites."
Agreed. I hope you do not consider your brief explanation ("we are a
spiritual movement with Christ at the center....") as a bite too big for
parents to take. I look forward to your response to my question. It's the
part labeled "IMPORTANT" near the beginning of this post.
Thanks, Charlie.
- Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:27:41 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: taking criticism seriously
I am delighted by the title of Mike's post. If I'm following their argument,
the notion that both Mike and Brad seem drawn to is that adherents of a
particular worldview should not take external criticism of that worldview
seriously. I think this attitude is always misguided, whether it is adopted
by anarchists or anthroposophists. Taking critique seriously is especially
crucial for people whose worldview is at odds with mainstream expectations;
it ought to be a welcome occasion for both self-reflection and meaningful
engagement with other viewpoints. In that sense, I encourage admirers of
anthroposophy to start taking anthroposophy as seriously as its critics take
it.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:50:54 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Hi Linda,
I wrote:
) ) Your position is that a DNA test will resolve the matter.
And you replied:
)THAT is a lie, Peter. That is your runaway imagination. Which you'll
)come to agree with after your soon-to-be engaged desperate search to
)"catch me out" comes up cold, which it will.
Here is what you wrote yesterday:
"Race, as we define it today, is inherited biologically. You can't convert
your
race. You can't enlist into another one. You get the race your
biological parents give you. You can't relinquish the one you're born
with. Most of us know that when you talk of "race", you're talking
about a quality which is transmitted from parent to child.
Biologically. Adopted children are members of the race(s) of their
biological parents, not their adoptive parents. To pretend that what we're
talking about when we talk of race is NOT a biological inheritance is
ridiculous. We might all agree that this
inheritance is a lot of sound and fury with no REAL inherent
significance whatsoever, but that doesn't change the fact that this is
the DEFINITION of race we all employ when we talk out it. Race is a
word. Somebody made it up once upon a time, and now we all most
commonly use it to mean dadadada. Biological, genetically transmitted
dadadada."
What is that you think I have misunderstood about your position?
)Uh--YOU described at as a "misidentification" at the same time you used
)it as a valid example. How can both be true by YOUR conception of how
)race is determined?
According to my conception, one thing that people sometimes do when they
encounter other people is slot them into a particular racial category.
Because this slotting does not always align with the self-perception of the
people concerned, or with the broader social valence of their racial and
ethnic identities, it is sometimes experienced as a misrecognition. I think
you are simply mixing up the general conditions of validity with specific
claims to validity.
)I think you're struggling to answer my questions by offering up what you
)think my definition is for some kind of comparison. Try to answer my
)questions without doing that if you can.
Why? That would obscure the dispute, not clarify it.
) ) ) ) Did you think
) ) ) ) that
) ) ) ) people who are perceived as members of a given racial group in one
) ) ) ) context
) ) ) ) will be consistently perceived as members of the very same racial
)group
) ) ) ) in
) ) ) ) all other contexts?
)
)Not at all.
Then race obviously is not genetically transmitted. Your genes don't change
when you travel from Wisconsin to Brazil.
)Not so. You're injecting your own biases into what I say. You're
)hearing a lot of inference that isn't coming from me.
That makes no sense. My biases are the opposite of the ones expressed in
your disquisition on race as a matter of biological inheritance. If I
injected my own biases into your statement, I would no longer disagree with
it. If you weren't trying to say that race is biological and genetically
transmitted, what were you trying to say? What I just wrote in my previous
post is that your position holds that individuals get the race their
biological parents give them, and that this occurs via the genes. In what
sense is that an inaccurate description of your own statement above?
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:15:52 -0700
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher msn.com)
Subject: Re: taking criticism seriously
I am delighted by the title of Mike's post. If I'm following their argument,
the notion that both Mike and Brad seem drawn to is that adherents of a
particular worldview should not take external criticism of that worldview
seriously. I think this attitude is always misguided, whether it is adopted
by anarchists or anthroposophists. Taking critique seriously is especially
crucial for people whose worldview is at odds with mainstream expectations;
it ought to be a welcome occasion for both self-reflection and meaningful
engagement with other viewpoints. In that sense, I encourage admirers of
anthroposophy to start taking anthroposophy as seriously as its critics take
it.
Cheers,
Peter S.
Mike:
Your to funny! If Brad or I or Linda or Charlie or Joshua didn't take criticism seriously, then why in the world do you think we would post to this list?
For what it's worth, I don't consider myself an adherent of a particular external world view. It has been my inner-life experiences that have brought me to revere Rudolf Steiner and what seems to have been his mission in life. Which seems to me, to have revolved around the experience and explanation of an aspect of human nature/consciousness that is not all to easy to explain in words.
Having grown up on the wrong side of the tracks, so to speak, I ended up with an emotional IQ similar to that of Bevis and butt-head, right up till my mid-twenties. Having seen most of my friends die, or end up in an institution of some sort, and having had more that a few close brushes with death myself, I finally found a Twelve step fellowship that seemed to hold some hope for a better life (No, it was not AA). I took the twelve steps seriously for 10 or so years, and went from a being God fearin atheist, to a wanna-be anarchoposophist, and everything in between. The rigorous inventory process that I went through, brought me face to face with the horror of what I had become. This was years before I had read "Knowledge Higher Worlds" and nearly fell over backwards when RS describes the meeting of "the Guardian of the threshold". In my own way, I knew what he was talking about, because I had been there. But with hope, and not to much dogma, I found solace in the idea that I might be able to make "conscious contact, with a power greater than myself", what ever that might be, that could restore me to sanity. Years of thinking about all this has brought about 14+ years of abstinence from "trendy chemical amusement aids." But much more so, it has brought about a deep respect for the process of inner soul searching. And lo and behold after all these years I finally found what it was that I was always looking for, buried deep within myself - right there in my ability to think. And "Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual path" has brought much understanding to the bizarre experiences that I have been blessed/cursed with from a very young age, long before I ever dropped acid.
Bradford does a better job of talking about it, from an anthroposophical perspective, than I ever could, but what I finally found was a piece of myself that rings in accord with what I have read from RS about what he calls the "I AM". This is where great poets, and painters like Rembrandt eventually learn to write and paint from. The evolution of this aspect of myself, from a perspective that does not incorporate time, makes sense to me, because in dreams (some quite lucid) I do not experience time like I do in normal waking consciousness. And also, I have had two instances where I have written down an experience, (kinda like a dream) and had them happen years later - exactly as I had written them down. Steven Hawkings also has some interesting notions about time, as does Quantum physics. The idea of the evolution of the "I am" that does not happen in the same time sense that we all are so used to, is indeed difficult to fathom. Non the less, it makes sense to me, in a way that stretches the importance of the idea of *logic*, that seems so prevalent in our day time consciousness, but still can't solve the world poverty problem.
It's getting late, so I'll cut it short and say that I do take anthroposophy seriously; and I do appreciate criticism in a "fatal attraction" kind of way, and I do take it seriously too (why the hell do you think I would be popping in on this list if I didn't?), as do many others on the AT list. That is one of the main reasons that the AT list was started.
Mike
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/(http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/)
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Need cash fast? Get a $500 CASH ADVANCE overnight! Let
YourCashCentral get you the cash you need.
http://click.topica.com/caacxycb1dkiGbNHXUgf/MyOnlinePayday(http://click.topica.com/caacxycb1dkiGbNHXUgf/MyOnlinePayday)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:14:16 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
Mike Helsher, you wrote, complimenting Brad,
)I like your take on the "inner experiential" and I see no evidence
)that PS has any experience that could bring to his writings any
)credibility what so ever, when trying to discern what indeed
)Steiner's words actually mean.
This is typical Anthroposophical debating style:
1) Attack the person instead of dealing with the arguments.
2) Retreat to the elite hot-house where only the initiated can
understand what Steiner -really- meant.
-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 1451
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Is this what you want?
By lioncell gmx.net
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: taking criticism seriously
By pstaud hotmail.com
Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Admin: Re: Hi Dan
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
RE: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
RE: reading Charlie and reading Steiner
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: Waldorf wisdom: Don't take it seriously
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: What is race-for Peter
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: taking criticism seriously
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: What is race-for Peter
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 07:08:51 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
on 8/25/04 8:05 PM, Akua Desta at lioncell gmx.net wrote:
) Linda wrote:
)
) With all due respect, you need to reassess some assumptions you seem to
) hold for anthroposophists. For example, on the issue of the "proper
) color" of a dolls hair, anthroposophists are NOT "acting in unison, as a
) community" either. I know many, many anthroposophists who use and make
) dolls in a wide spectrum of hair colors. Including black. Although I'm
) not an anthroposophist, I attending a doll making workshop held by
) someone who was. The doll I made had black hair and dark skin, and I
) purchased the materials from this anthroposophist herself. She makes
) countless dolls in countless hair colors, and never once during the
) entire doll making workshop did she announce that dolls must be
) "angelic" nor did they have to have blond hair.
Sharon: Many people participating in Waldorf schools are clueless about the
subtext, but their are those very familiar with the gurus teachings and so
certain ideas pop out frequently. Anthroposophists "in the know" like to
feel superior to the dupes and point out little things like Anthro-correct
doll hair color. One of the big Anthro. doll producers lives in Dornach II
where I lived. She used to travel the country giving doll workshops and has
built quite a business selling Waldorf stuff, though she has sold her
catalogue now and isn't quite as Waldorf-kosher as she used to be when I was
a Waldorf mom. In Fact...I actually went to the infamous puppet workshop
with this doll maker in Milwaukee where I learned that young Waldorf
children can't have black. A German Anthroposophist from a Chicago school
was teaching the workshop and we got into a discussion [argument] about this
being a racist, dumb idea. In Waldorf, you are only supposed to play with
one type of doll, Anthroposophists look down their noses at you if you give
your child a non-Waldorf doll, especially if it is plastic. In kindergarten,
the dolls are not supposed to have facial features. Out here in "normal"
people don't get all hung up about types of dolls and let children play with
ones they want to play with, and usually they have facial features unless
they are for Amish children. I've heard Abd's tale many times before so I'd
say worrying about hair color on dolls is a normal Anthroposophist past
time. In fact Steiner used to worry about hair color as well, preaching to
followers that blonde hair actually bestows intelligence etc. I think this
kind of thinking is alive and well in Waldorf because we hear this same
complaint over and over again. (Our ex-teacher had this same kink about
blonde hair color as well). I admit that I succumbed to Waldorf doll peer
pressure and bought my daughter one from the famous doll lady. I wanted
black eyes and a black smile because I wanted the doll to have a cartoon
face like the doll I loved as a child. Well, the doll maker didn't like the
idea...she made a doll with blue eyes and pink lips. My daughter never
touched it and I donated it to the school. I was a mom that didn't promote
Barbie and never bought my daughter one (I regret this now because it's what
she really wanted) but my father-in-law gave her something that looked kind
of like a Barbie. The little Anthroposophist teacher's child from down the
road wanted it with all her heart so my daughter gave it to her. The next
day I went to the mail box and found the doll in the mail box with a
note/lecture. The note was from the Anthroposophist teacher, mother of the
child, (the person who had also told me that Steiner was probably going to
reincarnate in that green, hilly area.).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:21:45 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: RE: Is this what you want?
Joshua,
the portrayal of the 'mission' of critics cited within a list of
specific interests on 'our' behalf appears to be a bit lopsided if
that's the right word to describe it. Racism remains to be an issue for
critics as long as anthroposophists as a community do not put aside
racist content within anthroposophic theory and practice. This does
include a thorough analysis as to what constitutes racism. This is no
way of claiming every adherents and sympathizer does think and act in
racist ways!!! But that's far from being 'our' only point of criticism.
A number of other issues have repeatedly cited and equally dismissed as
invalid on behalf of supporters. I once also tried to have a go at
Wolfgang Treher's hypothesis concluding Steiner suffered from a
schizophrenic psychosis, very much like Hitler, and was immediately
ridiculed by Charlie. Since no interest was expressed to take the issue
any further I dropped the subject. But apart from this and the issue of
racism we could also talk about how the anthroposophic perception on
gender roles may or may not influence their pedagocial concepts in and
outside of Waldorf. We could discuss why anthroposophists perceive
emancipation, homosexuality and single life as self centred. Gay or
lesbian adherents or those who view their life in terms of emancipation,
whatever this may mean to the individual do not necessarily render those
concepts as irrelevant, same as an anti-semitic Jewish anthroposophist
using apologetic strings of arguments claimings Jews had to pay some
karmic debt does not wipe out issues of antisemitism within
anthropsophic teachings. Maybe you or anyone else would want to discuss
these issues. If not, I just cannot help it. Due criticism cannot be
likened to a smear campaign which sole purpose is to discredit a person
instead of subjecting the person's (or a group of people's for that
matter) life and works to a thorough, differentiated and balanced
analysis taking into account all aspects of an individual's (or the
community's) thought and endeavours. I'd say, Peter Staudenmaier's
presentation has been more than balanced. Do critics accuse supporters
of smear campaigns much in the same way as do many prominent and not so
prominent supporter and sympathizers do? The answer is yours or anyone
else's. None of us here denies positive experiences on behalf of other
particpants, what we need to discuss are the negative aspects which
remain to have an impact on real people, causing real pain. And from my
point of view (and personal experience) the similarities do undoubtedly
suggest systemic tendencies. And although critics repeatedly acknowledge
other people's positive experiences 'we' still repeatedly are accused of
smear campaigns.
The biting sarcasm overriding some of the recent posts does not really
help clarify matters and I therefore invite you once again to critically
analyze some of the negative aspects put forth here.
Respectfully, Akua
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:09:02 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
walden wrote:
)
) Hi Charlie,
)
) Please believe me when I say that I am *not* trying to badger you with
) questions.
Only if you believe me when I tell you I wasn't ducking you. ;-)
I didn't get the part about promotional material, i.e. website, etc.
So the short answer is, "No".
Do I agree with this?
Same answer.
But just so you don't think I've been holding out, I've only seen our
website for the first time in the past 2 minutes.
(The same with my last school that, to my knowledge, didn't even have a
website when I worked there.)
I happen to wear my spirituality on my sleeve, but, clearly, there are
many who do not.
Charlie
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:09:53 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
Maybe it's just Ahriman having a little fun with you...
Mike Helsher wrote:
)
) for some weird reason these links are doubling, I tried to post them
) again but they doubled again. You can cut and paste half of them to get
) to the sites.
)
) sorry again,
)
) Is something up with Topica?
)
)
)
) The links from the previous message were not right, so I'm re-posting
) them. sorry:
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:07:00 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: taking criticism seriously
Hi Mike, thanks for your reply. You wrote:
) Your to funny! If Brad or I or Linda or Charlie or Joshua didn't take
)criticism seriously, then why in the world do you think we would post to
)this list?
Several of the people you mention have emphasized their own disinclination
to take much of the core subject matter of anthroposophy itself seriously,
much less critiques of that subject matter. You have done so yourself on
more than one occasion. If you are saying that you now find it worthwhile to
take both the content of anthroposophy and criticism of anthroposophy
seriously, I welcome that. (Responding to criticism by saying "Fuck you!"
does not, however, count as taking it seriously.)
) For what it's worth, I don't consider myself an adherent of a particular
)external world view. It has been my inner-life experiences that have
)brought me to revere Rudolf Steiner and what seems to have been his mission
)in life.
I'd say that this sort of reverence indicates adherence. Revering somebody
or something can make it very difficult to take criticism of what you revere
seriously, and also makes it harder to comprehend what you revere on its own
terms and within its historical and ideological context.
) It's getting late, so I'll cut it short and say that I do take
)anthroposophy seriously
That's great. But it's hard to reconcile with what you just wrote less than
a day ago. Remember how you began your post by endorsing Brad's take on
critiques of anthroposophy? Brad's argument is that critics of anthroposophy
"take Steiner far too seriously". I think he is basically right in an
important sense: many critics of anthroposophy do indeed take Steiner and
his doctrines seriously, whereas many admirers of anthroposophy revere
Steiner instead of taking him and his work seriously.
Yours for critique,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:17:55 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
on 8/25/04 10:52 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax at abd lomaxdesign.com wrote:
)
) Sunbridge College and the associated Waldorf School have many non-white
) students. Open racism is not evident there; racism is *not* blatant in
) Waldorf education, at least in the U.S. Steiner's blatantly racist texts
) are not generally studied, as far as I know.
Sharon: Often you'll find people of color involved in systems that are
racist so you can't argue that just because "non-white" people attend
Waldorf that Steiner's doctrine isn't racist. Anthroposophists welcome *all*
because Steiner taught that you can overcome your skin color in future
incarnations and evolve "higher". Anthroposophists, at least the ones I
knew, would not be mean to "melanin rich" people, they would likely try to
help them (in a paternalistic way). But when racism exists in the founder's
texts which are read, promulgated, revered, published, re-published and
distributed within the movement, you can't say that racism is not blatant
there. Show me one Steiner text that doesn't mention or allude to one part
or another of Steiner's racial doctrine, besides Philosophy of Freedom,
(which was written before Steiner's conversion to Theosophy and
Anthroposophical schism). I've yet to find one book that doesn't include
some of Steiner's race-thinking. I would say that racism is latent in
Waldorf schools because most people participating in Waldorf are clueless
about the subtext, but those that follow Steiner's teachings and tell you
things like "change the hair from black to blonde", or "there is no racism
in Steiner's work" or "you cannot display those Mexican sculptures in the
store window" are being either Eurocentric or racist.
) As Mr. Staudenmaier will quite readily acknowledge, Steiner was ambivalent
) about racism. There are non-racist and anti-racist teachings in his corpus,
) as well as blatantly and subtly racist teachings. For the most part, the
) anti-racist sentiments are emphasized today, but some of the subtly racist
) teachings survive, it appears.
Sharon: I don't think Steiner was ambivalent about racism, nor ambivalent
about race because he worked up a doctrine that rests on racist racial
notions, he put quite a bit of thought into his ideas and these ideas span
his entire life as a mystagogue. He never wrote anything asking people to
forgive him for his racist-thinking or never said he was wrong about some of
his ideas. Just before he died he was still preaching racist sermons. It is
true that he contradicted himself frequently but if you believe and teach
that an elite group survived the Atlantis flood while others who should have
died out are regressing to an ape state, then everything that hinges on
that, or everything that relates to that notion is racist. I can't
understand how you can divorce bits and pieces from that. The corpus is
racist and I believe that some Anthroposophists know this and find
themselves in a quandary. One man visited our ex-school after we left and
told parents that they couldn't pick and choose from Steiner. If they did
this it would undermine all the teachings because it would invalidate the
doctrine. The Mormons knew this when they dealt with Smith's doctrine and
cleverly just had God whisper in leadership's ears that he'd changed his
mind. Which incidentally was a great thing for their movement which went on
to become the fastest growing new religious movement. (snip)
) Waldorf education in the early years emphasizes color as light, quite
) properly in my opinion. There is no color "Black." And if you look at
) so-called "Black" people, you'll see that they do in fact, have color,
) color in their skin and color in their hair.
Sharon: You are being coached by Anthroposophists and not doing your own
homework Abd! That's the outer form, but you have to dig deeper and
understand what Steiner's teachings on color and light are. Color is color
so all his color teachings relate in some way to each other. He says that
color is the organ of the spiritual world and that beings come to earth on
the wings of color. He said that the soul lives in the actual color of the
skin which is peach-blossom. He said that black is the image of the lifeless
and that black skin is the sign of spiritual inferiority. If you read Maria
Schindler's "Goethe's Theory of Colour" you will get a nice little
introduction to some of Steiner's teachings. In the book she talks about
Goethe's scale of darkness and says that a new-born's color is peach-blossom
and since peach-blossom is the human color, it is the greatest color. It's
just really out of date, Eurocentric, religious, racist stuff.
)
) Now, early childhood art is not necessarily representational. If art is not
) representational, but serves another purpose, in this case the expression
) of light, the absence of black crayons is quite understandable, it is an
) educational device, and not racist at all.
Sharon: In just about every culture early childhood art is representational
and linear and there is no ban on the use of black and brown. In
Anthroposophy, linear, representational artistic expression is thwarted in
early childhood because of Steiner's religious teachings. It's not just the
expression of light because there's a whole lot more in the subtext that you
can't just ignore. There's an entire doctrine about devoting yourself to
color to learn to see through walls to see spiritual beings, that the color
will determine which beings are seen... there's stuff about using color to
imprint things in the astral body,...that divine beings keeping spiritual
records on all this...it's over the top!! You need to do some reading of
Anthroposophical texts. You should see "Art Inspired by Rudolf Steiner" by
John Fletcher. It's my favorite Anthro book. Nearly blew my mind when I
stumbled across it.
)
) But when art becomes representational, as it did in the examples brought
) forth where African descent children allegedly couldn't make self-portraits
) because of the absence of Black crayons, the matter is no longer so simple.
Sharon: Especially so in public schools in a multicultural society like
ours. It is discriminatory. Our ex-teacher said she would help them "smudge"
their color from an assortment of other colors. (In early childhood Waldorf
teachers makes children apply smudge marks in a specif way on a page.
Usually art instruction is not so rigid, especially in children's art. See
Howard Gardner's "Artful Scribbles").
) If art is being well-taught, darker colors would be available so that the
) colors used in the art match the colors that are present. Black, per se, is
) not the issue; rather the availability of dark colors would be the issue.
) And if these colors are excluded from a class which is now working with
) human representational art, it could only be because these colors are not
) considered necessary for human representation. And that is an issue of race..
Sharon: You can buy special Waldorf crayon assortments that omit brown and
black. They don't teach art in Waldorf schools, (so a teacher told me when I
started questioning some peculiar practices I noticed in the Waldorf
method). I am a Chicago Art Institute graduate and moved across states
thinking that Waldorf was an art-based school only to discover that it's
Anthroposophy-based. I noticed early on that the school had wacky ideas
about children's "art". There was no free expression. They painted sheets
of wet paper with color for spiritual purpose, (unbeknown to me at the
time). Children in the early grades copied pictures off the board with
Anthroposophic content and purpose. For example, a drawing of a butterfly
was my child's first introduction to reincarnation, she also drew gnomes
mining in a metal mine because Steiner taught his adult pupils that gnomes
actually exist and can be found in the earth, especially metal mines. I told
a new age friend of mine about Steiner's color "thingy" later when I learned
about it and she liked the idea of having her children make mandalas and
talismans. Each to their own. Just don't fob it off as art on an
unsuspecting family like mine!
)
) As I've mentioned many times on this list, my daughter is Asian. Casually,
) I'd say she has black hair. Actually, it is a dark brown. But the closest
) crayon to it in a regular small set of crayons would indeed be black. She
) has a Waldorf doll made, not with a more common blonde hair, but with black
) hair. Actually she has several.... I've described the reaction of the
) day-care provider, who was in fact the day-care provider preferentially
) used by students and faculty at Sunbridge, who criticized the doll because
) it had the wrong color hair. ("Dolls represent the angelic, and angels have
) blonde hair.") I believe this woman was from Germany, and she did have, as
) I recall, blonde hair. She was also a committed anthroposophist, and had
) been doing this child care for many years.
)
Sharon: I just get driven mad by this attitude in Waldorf, probably because
I grew up in Apartheid South Africa and left with my family as conscientious
objectors. People in all cultures believe in angels. I happen to have a
collection of Indebele angel dolls from South Africa on display in my house.
Their skin is as black as black can be, they are wearing hats so I can't see
their hair color. Trust me they are angel dolls never-the-less.
Anthroposophists are always belittling others with their kind of thinking...
like that teacher knows what angels look like let alone that they exist?!!
Waldorf was so insular, though they pretended to be "multicultural". There
was only one aesthetic allowed at our ex-school. I think your daughter
should have a doll with black hair, I think she should have a plastic doll
if that's the kind she loves, I'd even give her a Barbie if she was
desperate for one. Your example of Waldorf teacher dogmatism is the variety
that nearly drove me mad in Waldorf. If you understand nonsense like that
and believe it, it's a different story...but when people are telling you
that a doll's hair can't be black and children can't have black crayons or
draw linearly, you start to think they are completely mad, especially when
you are unfamiliar with the religious subtext and unaware that you've
inadvertently joined a religious movement. Waldorf is a closed, sectarian
system with adherents fobbing off silly beliefs on participants. You just
reminded me how glad I am to be out of there.
) I'd say that remark showed a subtle racism.
Sharon: I'd say it's blatant racism and extremely ignorant, insulting and
damaging. I am offended by that teacher's ignorance.
(snip)
) Staudenmaier does *not* use the word as an insult, he uses it soberly.
) That's what I've observed. There are *other* Waldorf critics who do indeed
) use it as an insult, as an attempt to smear.
Sharon: Who? If you think I am trying to smear, please give me some examples
so that I might learn to curb that. When something is racist I have no
qualms saying it's racist, perhaps because I grew up in Apartheid South
Africa? I am deeply insulted by Steiner's doctrine and was deeply affected
by my time in Waldorf. I am reacting to those things and voicing my concerns
based on my experiences. Peter is very smart, well read, soft spoken and
eloquent, people like me rely on his work because we know that he has a
better grasp of Steiner's doctrine than we do. Peter was never involved in
Waldorf and has never studied it, but he knows a heck of a lot about
Steiner's Anthroposophy and the history of racism. I'm *certain* that if he
did study Waldorf, he would quickly learn that the curriculum is based on
Steiner's race theory though most people, who are clueless about the
subtext, would never notice. He would also notice that the school is a
closed system, sectarian, based entirely on Steiner's doctrine. He would
also see how Anthro ideas pop up in the day to day running of the school.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:54:21 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
on 8/25/04 8:42 PM, charlie frey at cffrey mindspring.com wrote:
)(it's funny that I see
)my name mentioned with Eugene's on this list; we are friends and share
)many views)
Sharon: Does he know how much we like him? Tell him a special hello from us
critics, will you?
) The cold, hard fact is, many of the people who would happily stay as
) long as possible might leave skidmarks toward the door if I told them
) about Lemuria, Elohim, the Akasha Chronicle, elemental beings and both
) Jesuses on their first visit.
Sharon: If you'd told me that on my first visit you would have seen more
than skid marks from me! You would have also seen smoke from me skidding out
the door so fast! (G) Too bad I didn't just hear that Waldorf is a religious
school over the telephone when I was asking for an information package. Too
bad the brochure didn't mention this fact either. I don't know where you
live but if you are ever in Wisconsin, look me up because I'd like you to
see how Waldorf impacted my family and my extended family. I'd like to show
you the monument I built to a Waldorf dupe. I should not have been a
participant in that school, ever. It would have been better for us as a
family and for your movement. You've got to make it clear to parents that
Waldorf is parochial and based on Steiner's religion Anthroposophy.
Where this gets irresponsible, though, is
) when Anthroposophy isn't even given in small bites.
Sharon: I'll say! Thank you Charlie for listening to us critics and for
trying to change things and for being open with parents about the belief
system that underlies Waldorf education. I was overjoyed when I read what
you tell parents, especially this part:
"I tell my parents that we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our
center, I tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and ego
bodies; and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form into the
room...among many other things."
Sharon: In fact if you're ever in Miami please look me up because I'd like
to take you to dinner and make a toast to you. Really. I'm not being
sarcastic for once in my life. You are to be commended for your openness.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:57:24 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Admin: Re: Hi Dan
on 8/25/04 9:21 PM, L G Clemens at aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com wrote:
)
) Of course it's "off topic". But so is the Biology of Race, the
) harshness of German colonialism and the various grandiose theories about
) why so few Waldorf supporters stick around long on this board.
)
) So what we have here is a kind of a "guess what number I'm thinking" ad
) hom policy. It's no longer Tag-You're-It we're playing, it's Dodge
) Ball.
Sharon: Dan's given warnings to critics like myself, and if memory serves,
Peter S got one once. I remember Dan kicked one critic off list.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:16:04 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
walden wrote:
)
) Ok, Brad - I just gotta ask...
)
) What parts of Anthroposophy do *you* consider "nonsense" to be
) "dismissed"
) and what parts to you consider "a precursor to modern depth
) psychology?"
)
) I'm tempted to scream "Unbelievable!" But I am open and willing to try
) to
) believe. I look forward to your reply.
)
) -Walden
Walden, Glad you asked.
The issue is far larger than an isolated expression in time and space
called "Anthroposophy". A principle message in the maturation process of
the individual and civilization is the process of mind to move beyond
literalizing the metaphor into the deeper/broader understanding and
inner experience. Two of the classics making this point are Dante and
Plato. Plato's prisoners knew only "their reality" of the shadows of the
wall on the cave. That is what they "believed" was the world. The
prisoner who escaped to experience the outside light and the world was
'awakened'. Returning, his fellow prisoners could not comprehend or
understand what he had said and experienced. Dante, from his Convivo, is
one of the most famous to enumerate the maturation process of mind; from
the literal, to the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical (inner
directed experience, a definition).
http://dante.ilt.columbia.edu/books/convivi/convivio2.html
So, in anthroposophy, as elsewhere around the world in various
expressions, terms such as Atlantis, Lemuria, Ahriman, Akashic records,
reincarnation, Hyperborean, etc., and other things that go bump in the
night, are not to be taken literally. As Joseph Campbell well said, it
is not about 'belief', but about comprehending the 'psychological
inference and metaphorical reference' of the term. Instead of being in
polite society to avoid conflict, where everyone feels advanced by
saying, "Everyone has a right to their opinion and belief", I am calling
literalizing what it is in large measure, "nonsense". However, it can
provide solace and security to the less mature mind. The human animal
seems to have a genetic propensity to concretize the metaphor. We go to
war over it, and fly airplanes to knock down tall buildings in
Manhatten. These are logical consquences of the 'nonsense'.
Take Steiner's "Knowledge of Higher Worlds" and 'spiritual science'.
When I read that years ago, I could see it had germs of wisdom, but
weighted down with a Peterbilt (I like their design) truck full of
nonsense, or highly inefficient rhetoric. The mature mind moves on to
such as Alfred North Whitehead and the Great Books of the Western World
series out of the Univ. of Chicago.
So, when one's process of mind effects maturity, concomitant with that
is development of what is most often called the unconscious in modern
psychology, an infinitely intricate and layered process in potentia.
Activation of the non-linear dissipative structures of mind in modern
systems science terms. Today, the mature mind does not read Steiner, but
more complete minds of the soft sciences. Places to inquire include:
The Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness
http://assc.caltech.edu/index.htm
Home page of David Chalmers with references, click on 'web resources'
http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/index.html
The Center for Consciousness Studies at the Univ. of Arizona-Tucson
http://consciousness.arizona.edu/
From this inquiry, you will mature your process of mind into the
"Knowledge of Higher Worlds" (phrase from Steiner), for both
intellectaul and experiential enlightenment. AND! KEY! You will not
concretize the metaphor and think this is about physical places and
beings that do not exist except in the belief system of less mature
minds. This is what religion is. A religion starts with the original
*experience* of an individual(s). What man/woman does with it becomes
either wisdom or folly. Ultimately, it is about one's personal direct
experience, along with developing a mature intellect.
Therefore, Anthroposophy is not a religion. Some are making a form of
"religion" and cult out of it. Intrinsically, it is neither a religion
or cult. At it's core, it is one expression of the Wisdom Tradition,
which is about the maturation process of the human mind. Waldorf is one
organization of holistic education, which is about optimizing the
growth/maturation process of the child. ie, the inner directed
experiential.
If I was in charge of the Waldorf organization, I would teach metaphor
and the "Knowledge of Higher Worlds" in the context of Consciousness
Studies of now, the 21st century, see above references. I would provide
loving, experientially based pedagogy to all those nice youngin's whose
parents just want a good education for their kids. For all the teachers
and admins who can't grok it, they are out of there. "You're Fired!!!"
"Knowledge of Higher Worlds" is about the process of the human mind
toward higher coherence and capacity of principally the neocortex in the
brain. Children are highly receptive to this process of mind, which, if
taken advantage of, with an experiential environment, could have
enormous benefits in their capacities for learning and intelligence.
What is "unbelivable" are those that sit mired in their Plato's Cave of
Darkness thinking they have the corner on Truth, such as religious
fundamentalists or those calling themselves Anthroposophists taking
Steiner far too seriously and that same mindset within Waldorf that is
weighing down this one valid expression of holistic education.
All Waldorf Critics and PLANS can see is the nonsense, not the valid
core. If they want to do something of value, keep talking about the need
for the maturation process within Waldorf. Throwing preselected bits of
the "nonsense" in front of the fundamentalist relgionists
funding/supporting PLANS, whose mindset can only immaturely literalize,
is like putting red flags in a field of bulls. This strategy completely
lacks integrity. It is like the blind leading the blind.
"All things are metaphors." Goethe
Regards,
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:16:12 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Peter S. diatribes: Don't take them seriously
walden wrote:
)
) Ok, Brad - I just gotta ask...
)
) What parts of Anthroposophy do *you* consider "nonsense" to be
) "dismissed"
) and what parts to you consider "a precursor to modern depth
) psychology?"
)
) I'm tempted to scream "Unbelievable!" But I am open and willing to try
) to
) believe. I look forward to your reply.
)
) -Walden
Walden, Glad you asked.
The issue is far larger than an isolated expression in time and space
called "Anthroposophy". A principle message in the maturation process of
the individual and civilization is the process of mind to move beyond
literalizing the metaphor into the deeper/broader understanding and
inner experience. Two of the classics making this point are Dante and
Plato. Plato's prisoners knew only "their reality" of the shadows of the
wall on the cave. That is what they "believed" was the world. The
prisoner who escaped to experience the outside light and the world was
'awakened'. Returning, his fellow prisoners could not comprehend or
understand what he had said and experienced. Dante, from his Convivo, is
one of the most famous to enumerate the maturation process of mind; from
the literal, to the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical (inner
directed experience, a definition).
http://dante.ilt.columbia.edu/books/convivi/convivio2.html
So, in anthroposophy, as elsewhere around the world in various
expressions, terms such as Atlantis, Lemuria, Ahriman, Akashic records,
reincarnation, Hyperborean, etc., and other things that go bump in the
night, are not to be taken literally. As Joseph Campbell well said, it
is not about 'belief', but about comprehending the 'psychological
inference and metaphorical reference' of the term. Instead of being in
polite society to avoid conflict, where everyone feels advanced by
saying, "Everyone has a right to their opinion and belief", I am calling
literalizing what it is in large measure, "nonsense". However, it can
provide solace and security to the less mature mind. The human animal
seems to have a genetic propensity to concretize the metaphor. We go to
war over it, and fly airplanes to knock down tall buildings in
Manhatten. These are logical consquences of the 'nonsense'.
Take Steiner's "Knowledge of Higher Worlds" and 'spiritual science'.
When I read that years ago, I could see it had germs of wisdom, but
weighted down with a Peterbilt (I like their design) truck full of
nonsense, or highly inefficient rhetoric. The mature mind moves on to
such as Alfred North Whitehead and the Great Books of the Western World
series out of the Univ. of Chicago.
So, when one's process of mind effects maturity, concomitant with that
is development of what is most often called the unconscious in modern
psychology, an infinitely intricate and layered process in potentia.
Activation of the non-linear dissipative structures of mind in modern
systems science terms. Today, the mature mind does not read Steiner, but
more complete minds of the soft sciences. Places to inquire include:
The Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness
http://assc.caltech.edu/index.htm
Home page of David Chalmers with references, click on 'web resources'
http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/index.html
The Center for Consciousness Studies at the Univ. of Arizona-Tucson
http://consciousness.arizona.edu/
From this inquiry, you will mature your process of mind into the
"Knowledge of Higher Worlds" (phrase from Steiner), for both
intellectaul and experiential enlightenment. AND! KEY! You will not
concretize the metaphor and think this is about physical places and
beings that do not exist except in the belief system of less mature
minds. This is what religion is. A religion starts with the original
*experience* of an individual(s). What man/woman does with it becomes
either wisdom or folly. Ultimately, it is about one's personal direct
experience, along with developing a mature intellect.
Therefore, Anthroposophy is not a religion. Some are making a form of
"religion" and cult out of it. Intrinsically, it is neither a religion
or cult. At it's core, it is one expression of the Wisdom Tradition,
which is about the maturation process of the human mind. Waldorf is one
organization of holistic education, which is about optimizing the
growth/maturation process of the child. ie, the inner directed
experiential.
If I was in charge of the Waldorf organization, I would teach metaphor
and the "Knowledge of Higher Worlds" in the context of Consciousness
Studies of now, the 21st century, see above references. I would provide
loving, experientially based pedagogy to all those nice youngin's whose
parents just want a good education for their kids. For all the teachers
and admins who can't grok it, they are out of there. "You're Fired!!!"
"Knowledge of Higher Worlds" is about the process of the human mind
toward higher coherence and capacity of principally the neocortex in the
brain. Children are highly receptive to this process of mind, which, if
taken advantage of, with an experiential environment, could have
enormous benefits in their capacities for learning and intelligence.
What is "unbelivable" are those that sit mired in their Plato's Cave of
Darkness thinking they have the corner on Truth, such as religious
fundamentalists or those calling themselves Anthroposophists taking
Steiner far too seriously and that same mindset within Waldorf that is
weighing down this one valid expression of holistic education.
All Waldorf Critics and PLANS can see is the nonsense, not the valid
core. If they want to do something of value, keep talking about the need
for the maturation process within Waldorf. Throwing preselected bits of
the "nonsense" in front of the fundamentalist relgionists
funding/supporting PLANS, whose mindset can only immaturely literalize,
is like putting red flags in a field of bulls. This strategy completely
lacks integrity. It is like the blind leading the blind.
"All things are metaphors." Goethe
Regards,
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com) wrote:
'I, on the other hand, would like to say that I have never encountered
a "person of color" who reacted in this way.
My class at Sunbridge College contained 4 black people (sorry...I'm old
fashioned. They were not all American, so "African-American" doesn't
work. Actually, my closest African-American friend is white.), 2
Hispanic people, and 4 Asian people; and none of them were "spooked".'
How would you know if they were or not? Apparently you don't understand the dynamics of being a member of an "out" group (that includes poor people) sitting in the midst of members of the dominant culture who form the majority of those present. In other words, we don't as a general rule tell you what we are thinking, even if we are quite upset. It's a safety issue and by that I mean not just physical safety or that we analyze what is causing us to have a - in some cases knee-jerk - reaction before feeling unsafe. There is also the phenomenon of assimilation which causes individuals to identify with the dominant culture even though there is no way they would ever be accepted as true members of it. When I think of this sort of situation I immediately recall my memory of the very dark man we saw in the last position in a klan march who was dressed in a klan outfit and obviously felt he was a member of the klan.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:34:41 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) ? Brad's argument is that critics of anthroposophy
) "take Steiner far too seriously". I think he is basically right in an
) important sense: many critics of anthroposophy do indeed take Steiner
) and
) his doctrines seriously, whereas many admirers of anthroposophy revere
) Steiner instead of taking him and his work seriously.
Thanks, Peter. You say some right things, as well. (grin)
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:43:30 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: reading Charlie and reading Steiner
At 01:02 PM 8/25/2004, charlie frey wrote:
) ) Let me answer this. If that is his meaning, his writing is word salad,
) ) so badly expressed as to be incomprehensible. The word "race" had a
) meaning
) ) in his time.
)
)So did words like "astral" and "phlegmatic". Steiner often expressed
)himself by adapting existing words.
I'm sure he did. But it is clear from the many contexts that Steiner *did*
use the term "race" to mean quite the same as others around him -- or at
least it was similar--, and he *did* refer in his writings to specific
contemporary races, not "post-Atlantean." Charlie, why not just admit you
made a mistake? The world won't end.
) ) Staudenmaier had written to Charlie:
) ) ) ) It seems to me that these passages include both racist and non-racist
) ) ) ) teachings. Do you disagree?
and finally Charlie answers:
) But, yes...I do disagree.
)Unless you want to come up with a definition of "racism" that would
)cause me to change my mind. To me, the term implies hatred and/or
)discrimination, or the grounds therefor. If it only explains why there
)are so few black people living in Norway, maybe I could change my mind.
The concept of "race" is so deeply embedded that it is difficult to get the
point across. "Norway" is an example of a population. Not a race.
To Charlie, "racism" implies hatred. As I've written, now, a few times,
this is the popular or common meaning. It is not the meaning in more
knowledgeable discourse. Yes, "racism" is still considered something
harmful, but it can quite easily not involve any hatred at all. However,
*discrimination* is almost inevitable when there is racism.
Suppose I have no hatred of "black" people. But I think that "white" people
are superior in some way. (and not in some true biological measure, such as
relative freedom from melanin or sickle-cell anemia, but rather in a more
subjective measure, such as beauty or, as in the present case, spiritual
development). *This is going to affect how I treat people.* Even if I am
"well-meaning."
(I might *experience* one race as more beautiful than another, without
being racist, because, indeed, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it is
only when I think that beauty is characteristic of the person beheld rather
than of the beholder that racism would be found. In other words, I can have
a personal preference, but unless I project that preference onto other
people, I'm not necessarily racist, though I might still *discriminate*,
even unlawfully. So racism is also distinct from discrimination.)
) )
) ) Are there racist ideas expressed in what I quoted?
) ) If not, what then does it mean to "belong to a race"? How many races are
) ) there in the world today?
)
)I can tell you that when I have to check a box that asks me for my race,
)I check "other" and write in "human".
)This may help explain how I feel about the question.
What it does is, once again, to avoid the question. If you truly believe
that race is unreal, fine. That's what I'm saying, and that is also what
Staudenmaier says, by the way. But if it is unreal, why did Steiner teach
about it? What in the world did he mean?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:22:37 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
At 01:02 PM 8/25/2004, L G Clemens wrote:
)The particular point being advanced was that "self-designation"
)determines race. And I wasn't advancing it~~~Peter initiated it, and
)I'm asking HIM to explain it to me. I'm waiting to hear from him. I've
)been told he's quite the expert.
Had Staudenmaier actually said what is here attributed to him, he'd deserve
the ridicule. But he didn't, and quotations purporting to show that he did
would have to have been taken out of context. He said that there were *two*
determinants of race, neither one of which is biological; though biological
characteristics can have an effect on the determination, it is not the
controlling factor.
In summary, the first determinant he mentioned was self-designation, the
second was social, i.e., how the person is perceived by others.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:54:09 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf wisdom: Don't take it seriously
At 01:15 PM 8/25/2004, L G Clemens wrote:
)Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
) )
) ) I'd suggest to Waldorf defenders that they read this post by Mr.
) ) Staudenmaier carefully. I'd suggest reading it as one would read a
) ) letter from a friend who cares about you enough to note the problems
) you are
) ) having, to tell you what you might not notice about yourself, so that
) ) you can recover from an illness that you might not even be aware of.
)
)Being a "Waldorf defender" is a disease, and Dr. Peter is here to
)provide therapy for it?
No. Being a "Waldorf defender" is not a disease. But being a defender of
*anything* can make one susceptible to certain diseases of the spirit.
One of the symptom of one of these diseases is that anyone who expresses
what can be seen as criticism of what it is that is being defended will be
seen as wrong, hateful, nasty, stupid, or any of many ways in which we
label people whom we wish to discount.
Essentially, if Waldorf education is to thrive, it must be able to deal
with those elements within it which, if allowed to continue unchecked,
would destroy it. Generally, when a people are "circling the wagons," they
become far less able to be self-critical. Were we talking about a nation,
we'd say that anyone who acknowledges criticism is "unpatriotic." And
critics, of course, are the enemy.
Anthroposophically, this is a spiritual disease, for criticism is an
essential element in spiritual progress.
As to Dr. Peter, yes, he's here to help. Read his work! He's not trying to
destroy Waldorf education. There are plenty of critics, here, who'd like
to. Don't confuse him with them....
I know Dr. Peter's "type" fairly well, I think. He has come across
something, and when he writes about it, he finds that people attack him. So
he keeps trying to explain. When someone can do that without becoming angry
and hostile, I find it commendable.
)This board is a hoot and a half sometimes.
It's nice that people are enjoying themselves, but beware of contempt.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:52:32 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
Hi again Charlie,
Thanks for the honest answer. To recap, the question was/is:
"The question is very simple and I have not seen an answer -
evasive or otherwise. I'll fire off a few questions here but it really is
only ONE question - and now you can use the example of *two* schools
instead of one. Here: At your old school and/or your new school, does the
promotional material (website, etc.) reflect the anthroposophical foundation
of the schools? Is there enough there to even begin to help parents
understand the spiritual nature of Waldorf education in a way it is
understood by a trained Waldorf teacher? By that I mean is there any
mention or explanation of reincarnation, soul work, the real Rudolf Steiner
(occultist - teachers read all about his occultism) or a myriad of other
helpful hints to aid unsuspecting parents understand Waldorf Education? Is
there any information at either school's web site or PR material helping
parents understand that:
"we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our
center, I tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and
ego bodies; and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form
into the room...among many other things."
Charlie replied:
"So the short answer is, "No".
Do I agree with this?
Same answer."
And...
"But just so you don't think I've been holding out, I've only seen our
website for the first time in the past 2 minutes.
(The same with my last school that, to my knowledge, didn't even have a
website when I worked there.)
I happen to wear my spirituality on my sleeve, but, clearly, there are
many who do not."
FWIW, I feel pleased about this open, honest communication. Here is what I
see as a problem: Waldorf education is not *your* spirituality. I'm
delighted you are able to wear it on your sleeve, but that which children
are subjected to day in day out in a Waldorf school (Eugene's "anthroposophy
in the classroom" and "religious experiences") are more than the
spirituality you wear on your own sleeve.
Now, the "clearly, there are many who do not" bit is what we can work with.
We are now in agreement: Those who promote Waldorf via PR (web sites, etc.)
are not presenting Waldorf education in a very accurate manner... so far.
In a previous post you wrote:
"Where this gets irresponsible, though, is when Anthroposophy isn't even
given in small bites."
How do you feel about working with a movement that is irresponsible?
Seriously. Would you like to part of a positive change? Seriously.
It was suggested to me that *I* re-write the widely circulated Waldorf FAQ.
How far do you think *I* would get? Do you think the chance for positive
change would be more welcomed coming from an experienced and respected
Waldorf teacher - or from a Critic of Waldorf? The nature of being
"critical," thinking "critically" and the concept of "critique" itself are
questions to ponder, but for the purpose of this message, I hope you
understand where I am coming from.
So... would you be willing to help change "irresponsible" to "responsible?"
I would enjoy helping you in re-writing the FAQ and presenting it to AWSNA
and to every single school that calls itself "Waldorf." To be honest, we
might need a few more Waldorf teachers on board if the effort is to be taken
seriously.
The "movement" is not easy to "move" as Eugene Schwartz has discovered.
Perhaps a Teacher's Petition endorsing the new FAQ? But, I think a critic's
perspective might be valuable - as one who has been-there-done-that. Hey -
ask your friend Eugene to join in the effort and when all is said and done,
we can meet in Florida and raise a glass with Sharon!
What to do you say?
- Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:11:16 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Gideon Mills wrote:
)
)
)
) charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com) wrote:
) 'I, on the other hand, would like to say that I have never encountered
) a "person of color" who reacted in this way.
) My class at Sunbridge College contained 4 black people (sorry...I'm old
) fashioned. They were not all American, so "African-American" doesn't
) work. Actually, my closest African-American friend is white.), 2
) Hispanic people, and 4 Asian people; and none of them were "spooked".'
)
) How would you know if they were or not?
Please try not to deceive by quoting out of context.
I also wrote that we spoke of this phenomenon often. It was a major
theme throughout my training.
Apparently you don't understand the dynamics of being a member of an
"out" group (that includes poor people) sitting in the midst of members
of the dominant culture who form the majority of those present.
Aaaahhhhhhh!!!!Please!!!!
You should be more careful.
Where should I start?
I have lived in a country where people used to touch my skin and hair
because they had never seen a white person.
I have had a Jewish father in a small town that had a group of people
who would pool their money to outbid Jews if they tried to buy a house.
I have been poor, and raised my children in a town that is 90% Black and
Hispanic (2 doors down from a cocaine dealer) while sending my son to a
wealthy Waldorf school across the county---basically, fitting the
profile of neither place.
I have been a "long-haired freak" "he-she-it" "peace queer" and any
number of insults, along with garbage, bottles and fists thrown at me
while living in the South.
I have been a tattooed ex-Harley-Davidson mechanic (actually...this is
my summer job) working as a Waldorf teacher.
I have walked to work through Harlem, Brownsville, Newark, Washington
Heights, and others, wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase during the
time of the crack epidemic in the NY area. A time and place where having
the wrong look on your face would get you killed.
The list goes on.
So PLEASE spare me your assumptions about how in or out I have been.
I'm not sure which "out" group(s) you belong to, but you are not alone.
In other words, we don't as a general rule tell you what we are
thinking, even if we are quite upset. It's a safety issue and by that I
mean not just physical safety or that we analyze what is causing us to
have a - in some cases knee-jerk - reaction before feeling unsafe.
There is also the phenomenon of assimilation which causes individuals to
identify with the dominant culture even though there is no way they
would ever be accepted as true members of it. When I think of this sort
of situation I immediately recall my memory of the very dark man we saw
in the last position in a klan march who was dressed in a klan outfit
and obviously felt he was a member of the klan.
)
) Deborah
)
)
)
) ---------------------------------
) Do you Yahoo!?
) New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
) --
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:16:21 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Mike Helsher wrote:
) It's getting late, so I'll cut it short and say that I do take
) anthroposophy seriously;
Mike,
I profoundly appreciate you sharing your story. Thank you.
I, as well, gain solace from Wise minds. I took seriously, as I have
said, what I saw to be the Wisdom at the heart and core of Steiner's
work. In that respect, I take his work seriously. I do not take
seriously his overlay of rhetoric which attempts to explain his
interpretation of wisdom. I feel there are many other minds more
'efficient'. I have mentioned Whitehead. His "Adventures of Ideas" was
thrilling.
Many geniuses and artists can have a touch of madness. Look at Van Gogh
and numerous others. Steiner, it appears, was no exception. A bit
eccentric, he seems.
As Somerset Maugham said, "Life is like the Paris flea market. You have
to seek the gold from the dross." There is gold amidst Steiner's dross.
I am not for or against Steiner.
I object to Waldorf Critics/PLANS taking the dross, not seeing the gold,
and condemning the whole.
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:29:28 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
walden wrote:
)
) Hi again Charlie,
)
) Thanks for the honest answer. To recap, the question was/is:
)
) "The question is very simple and I have not seen an answer -
) evasive or otherwise. I'll fire off a few questions here but it really
) is
) only ONE question - and now you can use the example of *two* schools
) instead of one. Here: At your old school and/or your new school, does
) the
) promotional material (website, etc.) reflect the anthroposophical
) foundation
) of the schools? Is there enough there to even begin to help parents
) understand the spiritual nature of Waldorf education in a way it is
) understood by a trained Waldorf teacher? By that I mean is there any
) mention or explanation of reincarnation, soul work, the real Rudolf
) Steiner
) (occultist - teachers read all about his occultism) or a myriad of other
) helpful hints to aid unsuspecting parents understand Waldorf Education?
) Is
) there any information at either school's web site or PR material helping
) parents understand that:
)
) "we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our
) center, I tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and
) ego bodies; and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form
) into the room...among many other things."
)
) Charlie replied:
)
) "So the short answer is, "No".
) Do I agree with this?
) Same answer."
)
) And...
)
) "But just so you don't think I've been holding out, I've only seen our
) website for the first time in the past 2 minutes.
) (The same with my last school that, to my knowledge, didn't even have a
) website when I worked there.)
) I happen to wear my spirituality on my sleeve, but, clearly, there are
) many who do not."
)
)
) FWIW, I feel pleased about this open, honest communication. Here is
) what I
) see as a problem: Waldorf education is not *your* spirituality. I'm
) delighted you are able to wear it on your sleeve, but that which
) children
) are subjected to day in day out in a Waldorf school (Eugene's
) "anthroposophy
) in the classroom" and "religious experiences") are more than the
) spirituality you wear on your own sleeve.
)
) Now, the "clearly, there are many who do not" bit is what we can work
) with.
) We are now in agreement: Those who promote Waldorf via PR (web sites,
) etc.)
) are not presenting Waldorf education in a very accurate manner... so
) far.
)
) In a previous post you wrote:
) "Where this gets irresponsible, though, is when Anthroposophy isn't even
) given in small bites."
)
) How do you feel about working with a movement that is irresponsible?
Let's not mistake a part with the whole.
The responsible people/elements that I have contact with drastically
outweigh the irresponsible.
And change can happen from the inside.
) Seriously. Would you like to part of a positive change? Seriously.
) It was suggested to me that *I* re-write the widely circulated Waldorf
) FAQ.
) How far do you think *I* would get? Do you think the chance for
) positive
) change would be more welcomed coming from an experienced and respected
) Waldorf teacher - or from a Critic of Waldorf? The nature of being
) "critical," thinking "critically" and the concept of "critique" itself
) are
) questions to ponder, but for the purpose of this message, I hope you
) understand where I am coming from.
)
) So... would you be willing to help change "irresponsible" to
) "responsible?"
) I would enjoy helping you in re-writing the FAQ and presenting it to
) AWSNA
) and to every single school that calls itself "Waldorf." To be honest,
) we
) might need a few more Waldorf teachers on board if the effort is to be
) taken
) seriously.
) The "movement" is not easy to "move" as Eugene Schwartz has discovered.
) Perhaps a Teacher's Petition endorsing the new FAQ? But, I think a
) critic's
) perspective might be valuable - as one who has been-there-done-that.
) Hey -
) ask your friend Eugene to join in the effort and when all is said and
) done,
) we can meet in Florida and raise a glass with Sharon!
First of all, I am a relative newcomer to Waldorf and Anthroposophy and
I would not feel comfortable being held up as a representatine of them.
Secondly, PLANS, it is no secret, is no friend of Waldorf and
Anthroposophy, and I don't think that helping PLANS is a healthy way to
help Waldorf School.
As correct as Abbie Hoffman may have been about American policies in
Viet Nam, he didn't get much respect through his support of the Viet
Cong.
I guess that's the long way of respectfully (and I mean that)turning
down your offer to work on the FAQ.
c
)
) What to do you say?
)
) - Walden
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:20:47 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
At 07:22 PM 8/25/2004, Joshua Wark wrote:
)[talking about race]
)They will never be satisfied charlie. It seems racism
)is the only thing they have left to complain about. I
)have read some extremely ignorant posts complaining
)about various things. Those accusations have been
)crushed by intelligent people.
)
)I'd say out of about 100 accusations. This is the only
)one left that has any validity at all, and I still
)believe they really don't have anything 100% solid on
)it.
Mr. Wark gives a good example of how belief cripples intelligence.
He may not have guessed it, but I'm *almost* a Waldorf parent; my daughter
is almost three, she's been in Waldorf day-care, she'll be attending a
Waldorf preschool program this next year, and she is quite likely to attend
a Waldorf school for the grades. I *am* currently a Waldorf grandparent.
I spent a fair amount of effort trying to dismantle Staudenmaier's
assertions about Steiner and racism. Let's say that if there are solid
arguments against what he's presented, they haven't been shown on this list
in the last few months.
Staudenmaier, over the last few months, has presented *overwhelming*
evidence of racism in Steiner's work. Those arguing against him have
presented very, very little. I received in private email one charge of
textual misquotation on his part, dealing only with one particular issue;
unfortunately, I haven't had the time to pursue it. If he's guilty of
massive deception, by misquotation or taking comments out of context, I've
seen no evidence, and such evidence would be easy for anyone knowledgeable
to gather, just follow the citations. Staudenmaier *does* give references.
(Not always, but when he doesn't, and when asked, he does.)
Much of the criticism of Staudenmaier's work boils down to misunderstanding
what he means by "racism." Once one understands the term, the racism, not
only in Steiner's work, but also elsewhere, becomes quite clear. Racism is
*common*. The overt, hateful forms of racism are in retreat around the
world, but more subtle racism is endemic.
What would Staudenmaier want? I'd say it doesn't matter what he wants. If
you care about truth, you'll listen for it and to it when it comes to you,
and you'll find a way to respond appropriately.
Staudenmaier is not *complaining* about racism. Nor is he attacking Waldorf
education or anthroposophy. He is simply stating, over and over when people
deny it to his face, what racism is and what he's found in source
materials. His interest is not Waldorf -- while he writes on this list, he
could not be called a "Waldorf Critic," except in the most neutral sense of
"critic," he is not really concerned with Waldorf education per se, though
sometimes, when the issue of racism in Waldorf education comes up, he
comments. In particular he has commented about racist materials which have
been used in some Waldorf schools (not necessarily at the present time).
I'd say that what he's writing is worth reading and understanding. Someone
involved with Waldorf will be in a better position to guide Waldorf
education through the coming years if what Staudenmaier is saying is
understood.
By the way, in another post, a writer suggested that if I found the
day-care provider's statements racist, I should have taken my daughter out
of the care of that woman. We *did* take our daughter to another day-care,
we found another Waldorf day-care. But I mentioned the woman in question
because she is actually the preferred day-care provider in a Waldorf
training center, she is not just some random and ignorant monitor of
children. She's been around a long time and is quite well known in her
community, which dismisses any criticism of her as simply personal bias,
for she is "clairvoyant." Yes, that is what we were told.
But we did not remove our daughter because of the possibly racist
statement. We took her out because of treatment of our child bordering on
child abuse -- and possibly passing that boundary. Really, for us, the
question was whether or not to report her to the authorities, not merely
whether or not to remove our daughter. But this would be, so to speak, a
nuclear weapon, it would cause a lot of collateral damage. It is *still*
under consideration.
The situation is relevant here because it is an example of how a community
can insulate itself or individuals within the community from criticism, and
this is a commonly reported problem in the Waldorf world in general. And
*many* active Waldorf teachers would agree and do agree.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:38:19 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Brad:
)I object to Waldorf Critics/PLANS taking the dross, not seeing the gold,
)and condemning the whole.
It will never, in a million years, matter how many times critics say that we
*don't* condemn the whole. Efforts to correct Brad's careless misperception,
above, are pointless, I feel. It will never matter how many times we are
asked, "Wasn't there anything you liked about Waldorf?" and reply with
detailed lists and fond reminiscences. I've personally come to the end of my
rope writing silly lists of everything I liked about Waldorf (if anyone's
interested check the archives, I've done it probably 10 times here and a few
months ago I did it on anthroposophy_tomorrow too). This is true of
virtually every outspoken critic here. There are, of course, occasionally
people who burst in here *extremely* angry because of some terrible thing
that has happened to their child, and you can't blame them, when you read
these stories. But the people who have *really* sustained the effort, in the
past few years, to say something coherent about the big picture in Waldorf,
with very few exceptions speak positively of certain aspects of their
Waldorf experience, and we make constructive suggestions for reform
virtually every day of the week on this mailing list. It is not the focus of
our posts here, generally, to sit around fondly reminiscing, for obvious
reasons: this is a forum for criticism. Our aim is to show the negative
underside of all the beauty and spirituality, and to hopefully force a bit
more transparency and accountability.
A number of the regular posters here remain friends with Waldorf parents and
supporters and teachers - sometimes even close friends. I really think if
you could compile it all and analyze it in an unbiased way (years of posts
here), the critics do a *far* superior job of maintaining balance, noting
the positive while critiquing the negative, than do supporters here. The
amount of venom that critics have absorbed from Waldorf supporters here and
elsewhere, for having the NERVE to muster a really thorough and sustained
critique of Waldorf education, is utterly staggering. It has gone up to and
including death threats. PLANS receives ugly hate mail on a regular basis.
(Not that death threats are common. The worst that's happened to me
personally is getting called uneducated trailer trash) :)
It will NEVER matter if we say anything positive about Waldorf. It is
actually claims like Brad's - and Abd just did it too - that perpetuate
groundless stereotypes, such as people wanting to "destroy" and "smear"
Waldorf.
Diana . . . wrote in frustration
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:47:43 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
At 10:28 PM 8/25/2004, L G Clemens wrote:
) ) Your position is that a DNA test will resolve the matter.
)
)THAT is a lie, Peter.
By the way, accusations of lying are ad-hominem par excellence. Mr.
Staudenmaier might be mistaken about "your position," but to say that the
statement is a lie is to claim that it was made with intent to deceive and
with knowledge that it is false. And, in fact, Linda *confirms* what
Staudenmaier wrote, though not explicitly. She's free to explain that she
meant something different.
) ) )So let me say WE—as in YOU. Would YOU then say he was the first black
) ) )president?
) )
) )
) ) No, not even after a DNA test.
)
)Why not?
The question implies that Linda thinks that a DNA test could show that a
person is "black." Peter's point is that it can't, that race is not a
matter of DNA. Sure, some of what are called racial characteristics are
determined or influenced by DNA, but there is no DNA test for race, nor is
"race" determined by "racial characteristics."
People often *identify* race by looking at characteristics, such as skin
color, but what then would it mean to be a "light-skinned black," a term I
heard many times when I was a prison chaplain? And is "black" somehow more
potent than "white," such that one is "black" if one has a single
grandparent or great-grandparent who is "black"? Essentially, our very
notions of "race" as a biological reality are riddled with racism....
This is the gift that Staudenmaier has given me. I had not seen this with
anything like this clarity in the past.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:49:41 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
Charlie:
)Secondly, PLANS, it is no secret, is no friend of Waldorf and
)Anthroposophy, and I don't think that helping PLANS is a healthy way to
)help Waldorf School.
Charlie, how would working on revising the FAQ's be "helping PLANS"? What
you would be doing is trying to come up with some revisions that would then
be submitted to AWSNA. Obviously, Walden is proposing it as a joint project
in order to get a Waldorf insider on board, and they would have to be
agreeable to both sides before they got submitted. There is no trick here.
You aren't sleeping with the enemy. If Walden submits them himself, without
your input, as he points out no one's going to pay any attention to them
anyway. And even if they are a joint project, AWSNA of course remains free
to use the proposed FAQ's or not use them. Any individual school would then
be free to use them or not use them (post them on their web sites, print
them up to hand to parents etc.) Or change them. If they don't like the new,
improved, more honest ones, they can keep using the old ones. (The cynical
side of me whispers that this is likely what would happen anyway.) PLANS
can't control this. It's not like Walden's trying to talk you into giving
money to PLANS or something. I'm disappointed you would turn down an offer
to do something clearly constructive and work on something mutual.
What would the harm by in trying? If you can't agree, you can't agree, but
why not give it a try? Cmon Charlie.
Maybe we could make it a group effort? I say it is not impossible. I would
probably remain less than optimistic that ASWNA would ultimately adopt what
we might write here, but you never know. Change comes slowly.
Diana
P.S. And if I'm not mistaken, Walden is not a representative of PLANS, so
you aren't "helping PLANS" if you at least discuss the project with Walden.
Please . . .
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:54:51 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Brad, You've hit on something that I've been waiting for somebody to
say.
The reason so many of us are so dedicated to Steiner, and try so hard
to defend him, is that such a huge proportion of his work shows so much
care and love, that we tend to shy away from the "dross".
I do the same thing with my friends, family and students...we try to see
their higher selves; to look to their impulses rather than analyzing
every move.
I so often think how the critics hold Steiner to an even higher ideal
than do his students.
I have been accused of ignoring the facts, but when my best buddy calls
and asks if I want to go for a motorcycle ride, I don't say, "I don't
know---remember that time we were supposed to go for a ride and you
stopped for coffee, got to talking, and never showed up?"
I believe that Steiner's way of making the world a better place is a
good one, and I think his love for humanity is clear. Anybody who
follows his meditative practices will become a more caring, more
thoughtful person and a clearer thinker.
Why would anybody take the time to develop things like biodynamic
agriculture and Camphill, if he didn't have a deep love for the Earth
and all its inhabitants?
Steiner will always have his detractors...those who will poison his
ideas and institutions in the same way that they poisoned his body.
His thousands of students will continue to work tirelessly to improve
humanity, while a handful of disgruntled detractors will dedicate
themselves to selfishly tearing down what others have lovingly built up.
I guess I've gotten used to it.
c
)
) I object to Waldorf Critics/PLANS taking the dross, not seeing the gold,
)
) and condemning the whole.
) Brad
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com) wrote:
'How could there be "no such thing as a black race" if race is self
designated.'
"Race" and "color" are unfortunately used interchangeably, even by U.S. Supreme Court justices ruling on civil rights and/or anti-discrimination cases. I personally believe that to be inexcusable because it has added to the confusion and racial-thinking at least in the U.S. "Race" is a socio-political construct that has historically been foisted upon those (e.g. indigenous people) whose ancestors did not think in terms of "race." I know many First Nations people who identify as "Indian" as a shortcut in discussions with those who are not indigenous to North America. However, when their identity goes to the substance of what is being discussed, they invariably identify by their Nation and not as "Indian." My child identifies as "Indian" more often than not because we live in a homogenously Caucasion (and primarily Norwegian) region and she has tired of attempts to teach people how to say Anishinaabeg correctly. When, however, she is among First Nations people, she identifies as
Anishinaabeg, which I suppose could be viewed as her racial or ancestral identity. Further, depending upon the situation, she will identify herself by the particular Nation of Anishinaabeg from which she descended.
"African-American" is substantively a silly way to identify oneself considering how large Africa is, how many countries there are there and, more importantly, how many Nations and distinct cultures there are there. However, in the U.S. people feel forced to identify by "race" for various reasons. The primary reason people identify as "African-American" rather than as Dahomey-American (as an example) is because the vast majority of us have no way of tracing our ancestry to a specific African culture.
"Color" has a biological basis, just as eye color does. That is why discriminating against someone on the basis of "color" is so obviously absurd. However, "color" operates as a way for people to discriminate against someone on the basis of "race" no matter what that person's "race" is.
There are U.S. civil rights cases involving employees who assert that they were discriminated against because they have dreadlocks and the federal courts have treated those cases as concerning discrimination on the basis of "color."
I don't want to get too much longer with my reply. (There are many books and articles dealing with "race," "color," etc. My first recommendation would be Patricia Williams' "The Alchemy of Race and Rights.") What should be obvious is that since there is no biological basis for "race" and as a biological entity the color of one's skin should logically not be perceived as anymore important than the color of one's eyes, then the focus on "race" must be serving some sort of agenda. One need only look back as far as nineteenth century european history to understand what that agenda is.
'If she said she was "African-American", how could you in all seriousness
argue that there's no way to prove this "mis-identity"?'
Who decides if it is a "mis-identity?" Is there an elected group of people who have the prerogative to determine peoples' racial identities?
My daughter and I come up against this all the time now that we live in a homogenously Caucasion region. We are African-American and Irish and my daughter is Anishinaabeg, but I cannot recount how many people have attempted to convince us otherwise. To the locals we don't fit their stereotyped view of an African-American, but they often mistaken me for "Indian" and even insist that I told them that I am "Indian." The cognitive dissonance in those who believe themselves to be non-racial thinkers (or not racist) and who confronted with direct evidence that they do indeed think in terms of "race" and racial stereotypes is profound. Also, what I believe is happening is that when they look at my daughter and I, they have to be have the seriously uncomfortable thought that their own ancestry may not be what they want it to be, i.e. they could just as well have African ancestors and/or ancestors who identified as African-American and/or Black.
One of the local Waldorf children was so uncomfortable with how we identify that each time he approached my daughter he would say, "So. Do you still think you're Black?"
If there were such beings as Martians, why not? And why would I care how you identify yourself?
'Thank you. Then let me rephrase. "Would I be able to prove absence of
liability by demonstrating it was impossible? . . .That I couldn't possibly KNOW what race either of them were, thus being unable to prefer one over the other, because race is self-designated and I didn't ask which they chose?"'
The short answer is that these questions have to do with the credibility of the party and that is something the fact-finder in each case determines.
"I can't even know my own children's race,
unless and until I ask them---I'd be screwed."
Eventually, it will be solely up to your children to determine how they identify.
"And I didn't ask them because I'm forbidden by LAW to consider race in
hiring, so what better way to protect myself than to be uninformed of
it?"
Which is precisely what some employers attempt to do. However, again keep in mind that civil rights statutes cover "race" and "color" discrimination separately.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:59:44 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Charlie:
)
) )Secondly, PLANS, it is no secret, is no friend of Waldorf and
) )Anthroposophy, and I don't think that helping PLANS is a healthy way to
) )help Waldorf School.
)
) Charlie, how would working on revising the FAQ's be "helping PLANS"?
) What
) you would be doing is trying to come up with some revisions that would
) then
) be submitted to AWSNA. Obviously, Walden is proposing it as a joint
) project
) in order to get a Waldorf insider on board, and they would have to be
) agreeable to both sides before they got submitted. There is no trick
) here.
) You aren't sleeping with the enemy. If Walden submits them himself,
) without
) your input, as he points out no one's going to pay any attention to them
) anyway. And even if they are a joint project, AWSNA of course remains
) free
) to use the proposed FAQ's or not use them. Any individual school would
) then
) be free to use them or not use them (post them on their web sites, print
) them up to hand to parents etc.) Or change them. If they don't like the
) new,
) improved, more honest ones, they can keep using the old ones. (The
) cynical
) side of me whispers that this is likely what would happen anyway.) PLANS
) can't control this. It's not like Walden's trying to talk you into
) giving
) money to PLANS or something. I'm disappointed you would turn down an
) offer
) to do something clearly constructive and work on something mutual.
)
) What would the harm by in trying? If you can't agree, you can't agree,
) but
) why not give it a try? Cmon Charlie.
)
) Maybe we could make it a group effort? I say it is not impossible. I
) would
) probably remain less than optimistic that ASWNA would ultimately adopt
) what
) we might write here, but you never know. Change comes slowly.
)
) Diana
) P.S. And if I'm not mistaken, Walden is not a representative of PLANS,
) so
) you aren't "helping PLANS" if you at least discuss the project with
) Walden.
) Please . . .
I really appreciate the offer, and I would never deny that feel the
desire to be an agent for change in some ways, but I just don't feel
comfortable with the method.
Thanks.
c
)
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Joshua Wark (somedude04 yahoo.com) wrote:
"I do not believe that you have to have black skin to
experience african culture, or whatever culture it is
in question."
There is no such thing as "african culture." This statement of yours, which mirrors so well the substance of “The Nature of Culture and Multiculturalism in Waldorf Schools” by Jeffrey Kane, Ph.D. that is reprinted in Waldorf Education: A Family Guide, illustrates what I find so arrogant and reprehensible in anthroposophy, Waldorf Education and in individual anthrops I know. In addition, it is something that has been passionately discussed on the "new age frauds plastic shamans" yahoo group.
Culture is not something that can be shopped for, purchased, taken, dissected, and otherwise bandied about. When the indigenous peoples of the americas were forced from their lands and the children of the North American Nations were forced into government schools for the purpose of destroying their "Indianess," it was their culture, including what they could manage to retain of their languages, that kept them alive. For anthrops or any other group to attempt to destroy a people's culture, which is what appropriation, such as you assert to be good thing, amounts to genocide and I am using that term as defined by the person, Raphael Lemkin, who coined it.
"But, many people study and participate in many
different cultures regardless of race."
"Culture" is not a participatory endeavor and "study" is not synonymous with "participate." There is so much more to say on this, but I will stop here for now.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:14:57 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
Charlie:
)I really appreciate the offer, and I would never deny that feel the
)desire to be an agent for change in some ways, but I just don't feel
)comfortable with the method.
)Thanks.
Well, someone asked I think it was yesterday, what do critics really want,
or maybe it was Joshua, who asked it very sneeringly of Peter S., but it got
me dreaming. There needs to be some kind of big Waldorf conference open to
one and all and dedicated to serious issues of reform. It really could be
done. Many, many movements have been through the same sort of thing. It is a
shame that it still seems such an uphill climb in anthroposophy, but I doubt
this will be true forever. All movements mature or self-destruct. Eugene
Schwartz spoke up loudly and paid a serious cost. Eventually someone else of
his stature will do so and change will begin. More heads will certainly
roll, but that's how it goes. I know of other Waldorf teachers who have
devoted anguished thought and soul-searching to how to rescue the movement
from some of its worst excesses. Mostly now these people wring their hands
in private, but it will happen publicly eventually. Eventually, AWSNA will
drag itself to the table.
A joint project like the FAQ's would be an absolutely fabulous start. It
would almost be worth some kind of conference, meeting in person. Anyone
wanna give a lot of money for it? :) I have to admit, after I wrote the
previous post I went to awsna and looked at some of those questions, and
felt newly humbled by how difficult it would be. But if it is never tried it
will never happen. I envisioned some sort of PRO: and CON: format.
Supporters say . . . Many satisfied Waldorf families say . . . and then
Critics say . . . or People who have left Waldorf dissatisfied sometimes
claim that . . . A simple example would be the reading FAQ. It would really
not be impossible to present this matter factually, with on the "PRO" side
Steiner's claims about late reading, satisfied Waldorf customers reporting
that their children read easily and love reading, and whatever material W
supporters can draw out that purportedly supports late reading (critics
might not like it but there *are* non-W people who will speak up for late
reading), and then the "CON" side quoting researchers who suggest that for
some children there is a window of opportunity to learn to read easily after
which (say, 3rd grade), if reading disabilities aren't identified, your
child is likely to have a painful time of it, and the odds of their ever
reading proficiently become much lower. (It is a fact that there are
researchers who say this and Waldorf doesn't do anyone any favors pretending
that every child will learn to read easily "whenever" in their lackadaisical
theory.) It REALLY is not impossible to present both sides of most of these
questions, though everyone involved in the effort would have to be willing
to show a great deal of self-restraint.
Come on, Charlie. Really!
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com) wrote:
"Life has been evolving for tens of millions of years. The processes of
each cell in a plant, an animal or a human are virtually identical. A
human is more complex, more layers, from a plant or animal, but in the
same tree of life."
Is this anthroposophical biology? Humans are not the most complex lifeforms. Humans do not have more "layers," whatever those might be. Lifeforms of the same genus and species may vary in physical appearance, behavior and culture depending upon their environment. It's that simple.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:27:48 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Diana Winters wrote:)
) It will NEVER matter if we say anything positive about Waldorf. It is
) actually claims like Brad's - and Abd just did it too - that perpetuate
) groundless stereotypes, such as people wanting to "destroy" and "smear"
) Waldorf.
) Diana . . . wrote in frustration
Diana,
Of course, I have read the positive comments that the WC parents had. Of
course, I have read of the legitimate, constructive criticism made by
some on this list.
My frustration is large when the essence of my argument, which I feel is
sound, is overlooked and someone takes a bit of my remark and runs off
with it out of context. Sharon/mysplum just did this with me with TM. I
have no interest in TM as an organization. They have taught many the
very effective and good method to learn how to meditate. She condemned
("destroyed and smeared") TM, when all I wanted to do was point out the
good in meditation and that in the recent decades has become virtually
mainstream and a part of medicine and taught in medical schools and
elsewhere. It would excellent for young people. I wish I had known how
to meditate in college. It would have been great to stave off the
fatigue from the late nighters.
I have acknowledged that there has been some good criticism on WC. Why
do you not see this?
However, I see people missing the main point of it all. It is
experiential psychology applied to one form of holistic education, not a
religion to create a new master race of antisemitic and racist children,
(deliberately overstating), which is what a newbie, and others, would
interpret from this forum.
The PLANS lawsuit has no integrity because it is based upon the dross,
not the core, of Steiner/Anthroposophy.
The PLANS lawsuit is, in effect, condemning the whole, stemming from the
instigators lack of knowledge of the whole, whether deliberate or out of
ignorance. You and a few others may not be condemning the whole, as you
claim, but this 'frivolous' lawsuit is without substantive merit.
However, it clearly feeds into the immature minds of the religious
fundamentalist minds supporting the lawsuit. That lacks integrity.
How many millenia, wars, and terrorism, will it take to get this?
Waldorf/Steiner/Anthroposophy is being sterotyped continually on this
forum.
Brad
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1452
-- Topica Digest --
RE: taking criticism seriously
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By lioncell gmx.net
RE: What is race-for Peter
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
Process of mind for children
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
Re: Is this what you want?
By somedude04 yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By somedude04 yahoo.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: Process of mind for children
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: Is this what you want?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: What is race-for Peter
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: What is race-for Peter
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By lioncell gmx.net
RE: What is race-for Peter
By lioncell gmx.net
Re: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:34:34 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
charlie frey wrote:
)
) Brad, You've hit on something that I've been waiting for somebody to
) say.
) The reason so many of us are so dedicated to Steiner, and try so hard
) to defend him, is that such a huge proportion of his work shows so much
) care and love, that we tend to shy away from the "dross".
Thanks, Charlie. I have also been waiting for someone such as your self,
on the inside, to make this sort of insightful analysis.
I hope your comments penetrate to Diana and Sharon.
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:40:55 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Gideon Mills wrote:
)
)
)
) Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com) wrote:
)
) "Life has been evolving for tens of millions of years. The processes of
) each cell in a plant, an animal or a human are virtually identical. A
) human is more complex, more layers, from a plant or animal, but in the
) same tree of life."
)
) Is this anthroposophical biology? Humans are not the most complex
) lifeforms. Humans do not have more "layers," whatever those might be.
) Lifeforms of the same genus and species may vary in physical appearance,
) behavior and culture depending upon their environment. It's that
) simple.
)
) Deborah
)
That is a cheap shot, Deborah, and demonstrates your absence of
knowledge of the big picture, that I have been making. The core of it
all is about modern systems science and consciousness studies. It's that
simple. You have the opportunity to go online and study. It is all
there.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com) wrote:
"People often *identify* race by looking at characteristics, such as skin
color, but what then would it mean to be a "light-skinned black," a term I
heard many times when I was a prison chaplain?"
I have been mistakenly identified as Mexican, Lebonese, Italian, Greek, "Indian," and Chicana, in most cases by people who idenfity themselves as members of those groups, respectively. (In other words, the person who mistakenly thought I am Lebonese is himself Lebonese.) I have very dark hair and, apparently, a somewhat overall universal look to some people. I have also been variously told that I am "light-skinned," a high-yellow, "olive-compected," and, after spending several months outside working as a carpenter, "dark." Until we moved to where we now live, those observations were nearly always made in a positive way. It is natural for people to want to place someone in a category, if for no other reason that to know if that person is safe to share certain conversations with. In the past few years, however, I (and my daughter) have had people react quite aggressively as concerns how we identify ourselves to the point that they insist that we are lying to them. The worst
reactions by far have come from the local anthrop community the individual members of which seem to believe that they have a right to define others in order to affirm their view of the world and all its people. A local anthrop doctor actually attempted to convince me that my daughter could not be "Indian" - I gave up on getting him to understand what "Anishinaabeg" is - but instead must be Greek or French. In fact, I believe I have his assertion in a letter, which I will attempt to find now.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:18:23 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Hi Linda,
)
)
) I wrote:
)
)
) ) ) Your position is that a DNA test will resolve the matter.
)
)
) And you replied:
)
)
) )THAT is a lie, Peter. That is your runaway imagination. Which you'll
) )come to agree with after your soon-to-be engaged desperate search to
) )"catch me out" comes up cold, which it will.
)
)
) Here is what you wrote yesterday:
)
)
) "Race, as we define it today, is inherited biologically. You can't
) convert
) your
) race. You can't enlist into another one. You get the race your
) biological parents give you. You can't relinquish the one you're born
) with. Most of us know that when you talk of "race", you're talking
) about a quality which is transmitted from parent to child.
) Biologically. Adopted children are members of the race(s) of their
) biological parents, not their adoptive parents. To pretend that what
) we're
) talking about when we talk of race is NOT a biological inheritance is
) ridiculous. We might all agree that this
) inheritance is a lot of sound and fury with no REAL inherent
) significance whatsoever, but that doesn't change the fact that this is
) the DEFINITION of race we all employ when we talk out it. Race is a
) word. Somebody made it up once upon a time, and now we all most
) commonly use it to mean dadadada. Biological, genetically transmitted
) dadadada."
)
)
) What is that you think I have misunderstood about your position?
I KNOW you misunderstood my position, Peter. I will be happy to explain
this in greater detail ------- when I’m finished getting you to explain
YOUR position in greater detail.
)
)
) )I think you're struggling to answer my questions by offering up what you
) )think my definition is for some kind of comparison. Try to answer my
) )questions without doing that if you can.
)
)
) Why? That would obscure the dispute, not clarify it.
)
You agreed to my experiment. I’m asking you to give me your definition
of race and how a person becomes assigned to one. I don’t completely
understand it yet, and certainly you’re prepared to answer such
questions about your definition without having to use the ideas you
think I have. I’ve every confidence you can. I'm sure they're well
thought out and reasoned and completely independent of my views.
)
) ) ) ) ) Did you think
) ) ) ) ) that
) ) ) ) ) people who are perceived as members of a given racial group in one
) ) ) ) ) context
) ) ) ) ) will be consistently perceived as members of the very same racial
) )group
) ) ) ) ) in
) ) ) ) ) all other contexts?
) )
) )Not at all.
)
)
) Then race obviously is not genetically transmitted. Your genes don't
) change
) when you travel from Wisconsin to Brazil.
)
)
No, they don't. But your confusion about what you perceive to be my
inconsistencies will have to wait for now. This is about your
definition for the moment.
) )Not so. You're injecting your own biases into what I say. You're
) )hearing a lot of inference that isn't coming from me.
)
)
) That makes no sense. My biases are the opposite of the ones expressed in
)
) your disquisition on race as a matter of biological inheritance. If I
) injected my own biases into your statement, I would no longer disagree
) with
) it. If you weren't trying to say that race is biological and genetically
)
) transmitted, what were you trying to say? What I just wrote in my
) previous
) post is that your position holds that individuals get the race their
) biological parents give them, and that this occurs via the genes. In
) what
) sense is that an inaccurate description of your own statement above?
Again, this is confusion over what you think I've said, which will have
to wait for now.
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
"You should be more careful. Where should I start?
I have lived in a country where people used to touch my skin and hair
because they had never seen a white person."
So you are white and the group you trained with was predominately populated by white people. The people in that group who are not white would then be members of an "out" group.
Do you consider the rest of your post as some sort of evidence as to how the people of color you interact with perceive you? I also find it interesting that you mention a cocaine dealer in the 90% Black and Hispanic (which is a word that is too broad to be descriptive of a people), but mention nothing of the cocaine dealing or other illegal behavior in the community where the Waldorf school sits. Cocaine is a drug that is particularly endemic within wealthy, not poor, communities or communities of color; having gone to school with plenty of wealthy people, I know a lot about their drug habits. This is not something I came up with; it is the basis for the judicial challenges re: the differential sentencing guidelines written for convictions for cocaine possession, etc. and crack possession, etc.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:23:07 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Hi Linda, you wrote:
)
)
) )But what I’m
) )asking is whether this intense indentification she felt with being
) )“black” would be sufficient to define her as being a member of a race?
)
)
) That depends on the context, as I've explained a couple of times. My
) position is that a person who identifies as a member of a particular
) race
) and is perceived as a member of that race thereby becomes a member of
) that
) race.
Am I to understand, then, that self-designation and social-perception
TOGETHER determine race membership? This was not made clear to me
before.
I can think of many real life examples which raise questions in my mind
that this an accurate or meaningful representation of how race
membership is generally defined. For instance, my son came home from
school with a story about his teacher. This teacher had been struggling
to get my son to “acknowledge” a racial identity different from the one
my son described himself to be. The teacher believed he was helping my
son to be unafraid and unashamed of his race. My son thought this
teacher was cracked in the head. This is a real life example that most
everyone will recognize. Hispanics are often “perceived” by others to
be Asian, African Americans are often “perceived” to be Caucasian, etc.
It would appear there are very commonplace contradictions to the idea
that our definition of race is determined by “social perception”. The
* basis * of this perception (skin color) is not part of the generally
accepted determinant of race assignment, thus it is clear that there
exists somewhere a definition to which these “perceptions” are measured.
So if “social perception” is inadequate, how about self-designation? I
have another example. I have a friend who never knew anything of his
father until adulthood. His father and mother came from different
races. My friend had all his life self-designated himself with his
mother’s race. After meeting his father, he immediately thought of
himself and self-designated himself as a member of his father’s race.
New information in regards a reality which had * already existed *
caused this self-designation change. Neither he nor would most people
agree that the reality of which race he was a member of actually did
CHANGE with that new piece of information. He and most of the rest of
us using the generally understood definition of race would agree that he
had ALWAYS been one definition or another but, regardless of his earlier
unawareness of this information. In other words, there was definition
which exists outside of this self-designation to which this new
information was applied.
Thus, both social perception and self designation are evaluated in terms
of some other definition of how race membership is determined. Perhaps
you can help me explore what that might be?
)
)
) In Jackson Heights, two of the more common ways this process takes place
) are
) through language (Spanish or South Asian English) and clothing. Neither
) of
) these is a biological inheritance from one's parents.
In this example, where language is used in race definition, would
children be perceived as being in a different racial group if they do
not speak their parent’s native language? Would babies or individuals
who can’t talk have no race? If this were indeed the case you find in
Jackson Heights, I submit this is remarkably anomalous. It certainly
wouldn’t survive your “social perception” test.
And clothing? I find this a very unusual definition of race. I’ve
never ever heard of such a thing. People assume a particular race based
on the clothing they wear? What would happen if they wore different
clothing then? Again, what about age and sex differences in the
clothing? Is this a distinctive “racial” clothing which is worn by men,
women and babies or do they adopt different races based on the
differences in their clothing? It is a very rare culture where babies
and adults dress alike, and if this is the case in Jackson Heights as
well, again—does it follow that babies and adults are different races?
I’ll continue to postpone your suppositions of MY definition. The
subject continues to be what is YOUR definition, which you’ve argued is
the generally accepted contemporary definition.
Perhaps you could respond to my request to further explain the Jackson
Heights examples. And if you could give some thought to defining for me
what definition, what criteria, is used to evaluate when “social
perception” and “self designation” are accepted means of determining
race membership I’d be much obliged as well.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com) wrote:
)
) "Life has been evolving for tens of millions of years. The processes of
) each cell in a plant, an animal or a human are virtually identical. A
) human is more complex, more layers, from a plant or animal, but in the
) same tree of life."
)
"That is a cheap shot, Deborah, and demonstrates your absence of
knowledge of the big picture, that I have been making."
I wasn't aware that you were making a big picture. Pardon my miscomprehension. By "processes" do you mean metaphysical processes or something to that effect? What do you mean by "processes?"
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:27:12 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
Diana Winters wrote:
) It REALLY is not impossible to present both sides of most of these
) questions, though everyone involved in the effort would have to be
) willing
) to show a great deal of self-restraint.
First, let me say that this is a wonderful idea. I don't know if
agreement could be reached but there could certainly be another way to
approach it the problem. Every time there's a political election, I
receive a ballot that has two sides of each issue represented. Maybe
the FAQ could be addressed in this type of format - each FAQ could have
a pro and con response, maybe even a rebuttal from each side. Sure,
it's hard to discern the wheat from the chaff but at least both sides
would be represented and parents would have a clearer picture of both
the upside and the downside of Waldorf education and, as with political
issues, be inspired to dig deeper for the answers. It would be a great
exercise to try it here - maybe the results would identify common
ground. There I go dreaming again.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:28:40 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Deborah wrote:
(snip)
For anthrops or any other group to attempt to destroy a people's
culture, which is what appropriation, such as you assert to be good
thing, amounts to genocide and I am using that term as defined by the
person, Raphael Lemkin, who coined it.
Akua here:
You mean in 'Axis Rule'? As far as I know Raphael Lemkin defined the
term much more broadly than presently applied by the UN and elsewhere
which is more than interesting in itself.
Akua
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:34:20 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Deborah wrote:
) By "processes" do you mean metaphysical processes or something to that
) effect? What do you mean by "processes?"
)
Thank you for the question. Please pardon my comment. Here is one
definition and report on mind and process. The term metaphysics can be a
valid term in modern systems science based humanistic/transpersonal
psychology. That is the sense I would use the term. Children are minds
in process at a faster rate than adults and are more receptive to higher
rates of process, which can be beneficial in adding capacities of mind
through experiential, holistic education. The book, "Evolution's End" by
Joseph Chilton Pearce discusses this at length re the child.
Metaphysics also is a term that some use for what I am calling the
superstitious minded "nonsense". Such as Atlantis or Lemuria. That is
not my useage of the term.
Brad
http://www.blueberry-brain.org/dynamics/np.htm
CHAOS, BIFURCATIONS, & SELF-ORGANIZATION:
DYNAMICAL EXTENSIONS OF NEUROLOGICAL POSITIVISM & ECOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY
FREDERICK DAVID ABRAHAM
Blueberry Brain Institute & Chaos Cooperative
http://www.pacweb.com/blueberry/
Based on invited lectures at the
Centennial Conference of the American Psychological Association, 1992,
and the
Second Annual Conference of the Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology,
1992.
Reprinted from Psychoscience, 1(2), 85-118, (c)Frederick David Abraham
ABSTRACT
Neurological positivism regards phenomenology, brain, behavior, and
environment as a holistic unity. Their complex interaction over time can
be regarded as a complex dynamical system, which we might call mind.
Attractors and other features of dynamical systems can represent
processes of the mind. `Insensitivity to initial conditions' suggests
that the similar patterns made by different trajectories obeying the
same invariant properties of a chaotic attractor and can be considered
equivalent to represent such a given process of the mind. Degree of
awareness is related to the magnitude of attractors. Jumps in magnitude
(plosive bifurcations) result in saltatory jumps in awareness. The
attractors of the mind may also undergo subtle bifurcations among
various stable fixed, periodic, and chaotic possibilities. Ontogeny and
phylogeny emphasize irreversibility of sequences of such bifurcations.
Conscious control and effort can be invested in self-organizational
control of such bifurcations which empowers the growth potential of
individuals and societies. The power of the dynamical systems approach
to provide both an easily communicable visual geometric language and a
metamodeling strategy for the science and practice of psychology is
providing support for the metaparidigm shift currently under way in
psychology. The dynamical approach has implications for the evolution
toward a better balance between unification and diversity in psychology,
for gaining additional perspective on the free will issue, and for an
increasing sensitivity to the humanist mission of psychology.
Brad: You can further investigate my useage of process of mind by
putting into Google this search string, as one example:
("process of mind" OR "processes of mind") ("self organization" OR "self
organizing")
92 responses
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:40:54 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: Process of mind for children
This subject deserves it's own thread, given that it is the heart of why
holistic education's time has come relative to the recent decades
advance in systems science and consciousness studies.
Deborah wrote:
By "processes" do you mean metaphysical processes or something to that
effect? What do you mean by "processes?"
Thank you for the question. Please pardon my comment. Here is one
definition and report on mind and process. The term metaphysics can be a
valid term in modern systems science based humanistic/transpersonal
psychology. That is the sense I would use the term. Children are minds
in process at a faster rate than adults and are more receptive to higher
rates of process, which can be beneficial in adding capacities of mind
through experiential, holistic education. The book, "Evolution's End" by
Joseph Chilton Pearce discusses this at length re the child.
Metaphysics also is a term that some use for what I am calling the
superstitious minded "nonsense". Such as Atlantis or Lemuria. That is
not my useage of the term.
Brad
http://www.blueberry-brain.org/dynamics/np.htm
CHAOS, BIFURCATIONS, & SELF-ORGANIZATION:
DYNAMICAL EXTENSIONS OF NEUROLOGICAL POSITIVISM & ECOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY
FREDERICK DAVID ABRAHAM
Blueberry Brain Institute & Chaos Cooperative
http://www.pacweb.com/blueberry/
Based on invited lectures at the
Centennial Conference of the American Psychological Association, 1992,
and the
Second Annual Conference of the Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology,
1992.
Reprinted from Psychoscience, 1(2), 85-118, (c)Frederick David Abraham
ABSTRACT
Neurological positivism regards phenomenology, brain, behavior, and
environment as a holistic unity. Their complex interaction over time can
be regarded as a complex dynamical system, which we might call mind.
Attractors and other features of dynamical systems can represent
processes of the mind. `Insensitivity to initial conditions' suggests
that the similar patterns made by different trajectories obeying the
same invariant properties of a chaotic attractor and can be considered
equivalent to represent such a given process of the mind. Degree of
awareness is related to the magnitude of attractors. Jumps in magnitude
(plosive bifurcations) result in saltatory jumps in awareness. The
attractors of the mind may also undergo subtle bifurcations among
various stable fixed, periodic, and chaotic possibilities. Ontogeny and
phylogeny emphasize irreversibility of sequences of such bifurcations.
Conscious control and effort can be invested in self-organizational
control of such bifurcations which empowers the growth potential of
individuals and societies. The power of the dynamical systems approach
to provide both an easily communicable visual geometric language and a
metamodeling strategy for the science and practice of psychology is
providing support for the metaparidigm shift currently under way in
psychology. The dynamical approach has implications for the evolution
toward a better balance between unification and diversity in psychology,
for gaining additional perspective on the free will issue, and for an
increasing sensitivity to the humanist mission of psychology.
Brad: You can further investigate my useage of process of mind by
putting into Google this search string, as one example:
("process of mind" OR "processes of mind") ("self organization" OR "self
organizing")
92 responses
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Is this what you want?
It's not sarcasm. It's really what it looks like most
of you are saying to me.
--- walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Buy Stocks and Index Funds for just $4 No Account or
)
) Investment Minimums and No Inactivity Fees
) Automatically
) invest weekly or monthly and build your future.
)
http://click.topica.com/caacvggb1dkiGb7OS4ta/Sharebuilder
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) Hi Joshua,
)
) No, this is not what I want. Your apparent lack of
) interest or willingness
) to understand the issues is astounding.
) I have never heard any critic of
) anthroposophy/Waldorf come close to
) expressing what you state (below).
)
) If this is truly your assessment of what has been
) written on this list, I
) don't know how I can help with further
) communication. One thing I know is
) that heavy sarcasm rarely helps one express oneself
) clearly - especially via
) email.
)
) - Walden
)
) Joshua wrote
) "This is a question not a statement. To all the
) anti-waldorf people out there. Is this the mindset
) you
) want people to have?
)
) Waldorf currently practices racism in all of their
) schools. Actual experiences do not matter. Because
) steiner wrote passages that just contain the word
) 'race' and differentiates between the races, this
) means that not only was he a racist, but everyone
) involved in anthroposophy is a racist. I fully
) accept
) this to be the definition of racism and there can
) not
) possibly be another that is valid.
)
) I have been brainwashed by anthroposophy to ignore
) blatant statements of racism. Even when I read
) something that I perceive is anti-racist, it's
) really
) racist because someone else told me it is so.
)
) Waldorf believes that all technology is evil.
) Nevermind the fact that they have computer science
) classes in high school. That is just a front for
) some
) good publicity.
)
) Using only primary colors limits a child's
) imagination. Nevermind that I ignore the fact that
) you
) can make an unlimited amount of colors from the
) primary colors. It's more creative to have premixed
) crayons and coloring books.
)
) What else should I believe? Please I can't think for
) myself and am ill. I need to be told what to think
) by
) you. Please tell me what other evils Waldorf
) practices
) so I can be just like you.
)
) Does that about cover it?"
)
)
)
)
)
) _______________________________
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter
) now.
) http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Stories from the Civil Rights Movement.
) Extraordinary stories,
) ordinary people. Share your memories today!
) http://click.topica.com/caacvglb1dkiGb2QZUTf/AARP
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic.
) New threads are always welcome.
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) RE-GROW YOUR HAIR STARTING NOW.....Click here for
) more info!
) http://click.topica.com/caacxydb1dkiGb7OS4tf/Medical
) Hair Restoration
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Some Dude (somedude04 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
"He is simply stating, over and over when people deny
it to his face"
I never denied anything.
"Much of the criticism of Staudenmaier's work boils
down to misunderstanding what he means by "racism."
I think we all perfectly understands what he means by
racism. We don't need you to tell us what to think or
how to think.
"I'd say it doesn't matter what he wants. If you care
about truth, you'll listen for it and to it when it
comes to you, and you'll find a way to respond
appropriately."
Once again, we understand perfectly. It's you that has
a problem with people not thinking the way you want
them to.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:13:11 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Hi Linda, you wrote:
)Again, this is confusion over what you think I've said, which will have
)to wait for now.
Try to keep in mind that I'm leaving the list for good in a couple of days.
If you want to get back to this with me specifically, we don't have all that
much time to wait. By the way, there is no confusion about what you said.
What you said is right there for everyone to read. If what you said is not
what you meant, you simply need to say so.
)Am I to understand, then, that self-designation and social-perception
)TOGETHER determine race membership?
That is the typical course of identity formation.
)I can think of many real life examples which raise questions in my mind
)that this an accurate or meaningful representation of how race
)membership is generally defined. For instance, my son came home from
)school with a story about his teacher. This teacher had been struggling
)to get my son to “acknowledge” a racial identity different from the one
)my son described himself to be. The teacher believed he was helping my
)son to be unafraid and unashamed of his race. My son thought this
)teacher was cracked in the head. This is a real life example that most
)everyone will recognize. Hispanics are often “perceived” by others to
)be Asian, African Americans are often “perceived” to be Caucasian, etc.
)It would appear there are very commonplace contradictions to the idea
)that our definition of race is determined by “social perception”.
That doesn't make the slightest sense. Everything you just said is an
example of the social construction of racial identities, not a contradiction
of it.
) The
)* basis * of this perception (skin color) is not part of the generally
)accepted determinant of race assignment, thus it is clear that there
)exists somewhere a definition to which these “perceptions” are measured.
Many definitions, not "a definition". For a particularly telling instance of
shifting racial definitions, see the two Supreme Court cases from 1922 and
1923, the Ozawa case and the Thind case, in which competing definitions of
white, Caucasian, and so forth were shuffled around in a remarkably
revealing way.
)So if “social perception” is inadequate
Inadequate in what sense?
)I have a friend who never knew anything of his
)father until adulthood. His father and mother came from different
)races. My friend had all his life self-designated himself with his
)mother’s race. After meeting his father, he immediately thought of
)himself and self-designated himself as a member of his father’s race.
)New information in regards a reality which had * already existed *
)caused this self-designation change. Neither he nor would most people
)agree that the reality of which race he was a member of actually did
)CHANGE with that new piece of information.
Most people where? The reality of which race an individual is a member of
can indeed change in the course of the individual's life, particularly if
they move to a new social context.
) He and most of the rest of
)us using the generally understood definition of race would agree that he
)had ALWAYS been one definition or another but, regardless of his earlier
)unawareness of this information.
I disagree that this is the generally understood conception of race in most
of the world, though it may be the generally accepted version in your social
circle. In any case, this conception is obviously mistaken. Racial identity
is not a pre-existing substrate and has no genetic basis. As I've explained
to you before, we know this because geneticists have gone to the trouble of
comparing racial categories with genetic data, and the two don't converge
most of the time.
)Thus, both social perception and self designation are evaluated in terms
)of some other definition of how race membership is determined. Perhaps
)you can help me explore what that might be?
The only thing I can potentially help you with is realizing that your claim
is erroneous. All of the candidates for this "other definition" are
themselves social constructs, and none of them corresponds consistently to
biological categories.
)In this example, where language is used in race definition, would
)children be perceived as being in a different racial group if they do
)not speak their parent’s native language? Would babies or individuals
)who can’t talk have no race? If this were indeed the case you find in
)Jackson Heights, I submit this is remarkably anomalous. It certainly
)wouldn’t survive your “social perception” test.
It is an instance of the social perception phenomenon, not a counter-example
to it. That is mind-numbingly obvious. Even individuals who *can* talk are
not always clearly perceived as belonging to a specific racial or ethnic
group until they open up their mouths and speak. The way this plays out in
Jackson Heights is that a Colombian customer at a store may address a clerk
in Spanish, taking the clerk to be Latin American, and the clerk replies in
South Asian-accented English. I don't know if this is anomalous where you
live. It is common in Queens.
)And clothing? I find this a very unusual definition of race. I’ve
)never ever heard of such a thing. People assume a particular race based
)on the clothing they wear? What would happen if they wore different
)clothing then?
They'll probably be perceived as belonging to a different racial group. A
Colombian woman walking down 74th Street in Jackson Heights in a sari will
very likely be taken for Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi, and a South
Asian woman dressed in jeans and a tee shirt who walks into a Colombian
bakery will very likely be taken for Latin American. Would you like to come
for a visit sometime? I can show you this process in action. Since skin
color and facial features frequently fail to distinguish among the several
groups who live side by side, clothing and language often end up doing the
job. I don't know why you find this unusual; I find it to be very ordinary.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and
more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net) wrote:
"Akua here:
You mean in 'Axis Rule'? As far as I know Raphael Lemkin defined the
term much more broadly than presently applied by the UN and elsewhere
which is more than interesting in itself."
Yes. "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" (1944) is what I was referring to. I didn't mean to imply that he limited genocide to cultural appropriation, but that it is included in within his definition of genocide. There was another post recently on WC that referred to genocide as something that academics struggle with and have different definitions of. (I must have deleted the post and so may not be quoting it correctly.) Since Lemkin is the person who coined the word, then his definition only is the correct one. What people may disagree with re: genocide is whether or not a particular activity falls within its definition; for example, does taking some of the physical attributes of an inipi, transporting them outside of the culture to which the inipi belongs, renaming it a "sweat lodge" and charging money for it constitute an activity that is has the effect of contributing to the destruction of a culture. I use this example because every anthrop I personally know has either
participated in a "sweat lodge" or makes money from conducting them. It was when I read the "Family Guide" that I realized how they justify their actions. They believe that by taking bits and pieces of other cultures that they are building a new culture, which translates into a new world order (the sixth epoch?). That they are engaging in an activity that contributes to genocide is something they refuse to acknowledge, even after they have been told more than once by members of the Lakota Nation. That they can never actually conduct an inipi or somehow be given permission to do so is also something they don't seem to get. That the anthrops I know are quick to assert their respect for all people and that they embrace multiculturalism/diversity makes their behavior all the more obscene.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Process of mind for children
Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com) wrote:
This subject deserves it's own thread, given that it is the heart of why
holistic education's time has come relative to the recent decades
advance in systems science and consciousness studies.
Deborah wrote:
By "processes" do you mean metaphysical processes or something to that
effect? What do you mean by "processes?"
Thank you for the question. Please pardon my comment. Here is one
definition and report on mind and process.
http://www.blueberry-brain.org/dynamics/np.htm
Do you actually understand this stuff? I thought Steiner was a bit obtuse, but this is way beyond that. To me it is as if someone took one of those magnetic poetry kits and threw its contents onto a piece of metal. If this thesis (?) is so necessary for all of our futures, then how are we to use it if we cannot even understand it? Can you explain it in words that are a bit more comprehensible?
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Hi Linda, you wrote:
"Hispanics are often “perceived” by others to be Asian,"
Hispanic and Asian are not mutually exclusive. Hispanic is generally, including by the U.S. Census Bureau, an entirely separate category outside of "race."
"African Americans are often “perceived” to be Caucasian, "
Harriet Tubman got a lot of people out of the South by using racial stereotypes to her benefit. For example, she would have a slave who could pass as "white," dress up as her master/mistress. They would board the train with Harriet pretending to be the slave's slave and thereby she would succeed in getting another person out of slavery.
What is distressing within the African-American communities and families in particular is the damage that racial thinking has wrought in ways not obvious to those who nothing about African-American people. Those who made/make the choice to "pass" for white had/have to make a clean break with every member of the family that does not or cannot "pass." I have personally witnessed two young sisters being continually subjected to the opinions of those who were certain that because one is blue-eyed, blonde and light-complected and the other has dark hair and brown eyes and dark skin, that they could not possibly be sisters with the same biological parents.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:53:06 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Is this what you want?
Hi Joshua
You wrote (regarding your recent post at the end here):
)It's not sarcasm. It's really what it looks like most
)of you are saying to me.
I think you might be saying is that this is what you *perceive* some critics
as saying to you. Would this be more accurate?
This is a problem which can easily be overcome by simply reading what people
write as opposed to trying too hard to interpret what they say (according to
a pre-set belief system?). I am critical of many areas in Waldorf
Education. I also think Waldorf schools do some things better than other
schools I am familiar with. None of my criticisms, however, have anything
to do with attacking *you,* Waldorf teachers or supporters of Waldorf
education.
I don't know of any critic (let alone "most") who has posted to this list
who believes (or has written) what you attribute to critics in your previous
post. For example, when you paraphrase critics:
"Waldorf currently practices racism in all of their schools"
"I have been brainwashed by anthroposophy to ignore blatant statements of
racism"
"Waldorf believes that all technology is evil."
I wonder if you have really read and understood much of the discussion?
Your previous post sounded sarcastic to me. You have corrected me in this
recent post but I am left wondering if you could explain how you arrive at
this demonstrably incorrect conclusion?
Thanks.
- Walden
) Hi Joshua,
)
) No, this is not what I want. Your apparent lack of
) interest or willingness
) to understand the issues is astounding.
) I have never heard any critic of
) anthroposophy/Waldorf come close to
) expressing what you state (below).
)
) If this is truly your assessment of what has been
) written on this list, I
) don't know how I can help with further
) communication. One thing I know is
) that heavy sarcasm rarely helps one express oneself
) clearly - especially via
) email.
)
) - Walden
)
) Joshua wrote
) "This is a question not a statement. To all the
) anti-waldorf people out there. Is this the mindset
) you
) want people to have?
)
) Waldorf currently practices racism in all of their
) schools. Actual experiences do not matter. Because
) steiner wrote passages that just contain the word
) 'race' and differentiates between the races, this
) means that not only was he a racist, but everyone
) involved in anthroposophy is a racist. I fully
) accept
) this to be the definition of racism and there can
) not
) possibly be another that is valid.
)
) I have been brainwashed by anthroposophy to ignore
) blatant statements of racism. Even when I read
) something that I perceive is anti-racist, it's
) really
) racist because someone else told me it is so.
)
) Waldorf believes that all technology is evil.
) Nevermind the fact that they have computer science
) classes in high school. That is just a front for
) some
) good publicity.
)
) Using only primary colors limits a child's
) imagination. Nevermind that I ignore the fact that
) you
) can make an unlimited amount of colors from the
) primary colors. It's more creative to have premixed
) crayons and coloring books.
)
) What else should I believe? Please I can't think for
) myself and am ill. I need to be told what to think
) by
) you. Please tell me what other evils Waldorf
) practices
) so I can be just like you.
)
) Does that about cover it?"
)
)
)
)
)
) _______________________________
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter
) now.
) http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) Stories from the Civil Rights Movement.
) Extraordinary stories,
) ordinary people. Share your memories today!
) http://click.topica.com/caacvglb1dkiGb2QZUTf/AARP
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic.
) New threads are always welcome.
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's
) sponsor:
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
) RE-GROW YOUR HAIR STARTING NOW.....Click here for
) more info!
) http://click.topica.com/caacxydb1dkiGb7OS4tf/Medical
) Hair Restoration
)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Need cash fast? Get a $500 CASH ADVANCE overnight! Let
YourCashCentral get you the cash you need.
http://click.topica.com/caacxycb1dkiGb2QZUTf/MyOnlinePayday
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 02:36:01 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Hi Linda, you wrote:
)
)
) )Again, this is confusion over what you think I've said, which will have
) )to wait for now.
)
)
) Try to keep in mind that I'm leaving the list for good in a couple of
) days.
) If you want to get back to this with me specifically, we don't have all
) that
) much time to wait.
Let's hope I can do a good job working under a deadline.
) By the way, there is no confusion about what you said.
) What you said is right there for everyone to read. If what you said is
) not
) what you meant, you simply need to say so.
)
Peter, there you go--jumping ahead to what you think I meant.
Obviously, there is nothing at all simple about your failure to
understand what I'm saying. I've tried for several posts in a row to
understand what YOU'RE saying about social perception and
self-designation and my failure to understand your definition isn't
simple either. And I'm not being deliberately perverse. In my mind,
those are not only confusing definitions but inadequate because clearly
there is another operant which underlies both of them. We almost always
use it to not only define race membership, but to define whether or not
in the individual case, "social perceptions" or the "self-designations"
are EVER applied in assigning race membership.
You avoided telling me why you wouldn't consider George W Bush black on
the basis of his self-designation. You've avoided telling me why social
perceptions of whether another particular individual is Asian or
Hispanic aren't given legitimacy.
Ever heard of the situation of Blacks passing as a member of the "White
Race"? Would they then BE a member of the "White Race" in your
definition?
In my estimation, I'm not calling upon exotic idiosyncratic examples to
test your definition. I'm calling upon everyday questions of "which
race" someone is thought to ought * really * belong. And your
definition doesn't work. Nobody does this--not when there are everyday
contradictions to settle. If there is someplace a group of people that
define race by their clothing, would I become a member of that race by
dressing in the same clothing?
In thinking how an individual is determined to be a member of one race
or another, we do not take that one individual and ask ourselves "what
color is his skin?" "what clothes does he wear"? where was he born?
what does his DNA look like?" Do we? Neither do we believe an
individual's self-designation if we learn that he determined his own
race this way, nor if he "faked" or somehow uncharacteristically
diverged from these surface aspects (as in the case of albinism, which
is almost always ascribed as a particular race for reasons quite apart
from skin color). We might all *assume* we know what race to ascribe a
person based on these impressions, but there is a very different kind of
information about that individual which is almost always given greater
weight if it becomes known.
Again, I'm talking about the generally understood meaning of race
membership. Which I very firmly suspect you ascribe to as well as
everyone else.
I think it's as obvious as day, but I don't want to presume it's decided
yet. I'm just going to dig until we get to it, and then we'll see how
it stands up.
Okay? So if you're willing to respond to this further digging, I'm much
obliged. Again, think how you do it. If you answer my examples which
perplex your definition, that would probably be more helpful than
plucking various examples from what you see is the full range of
competing definitions, including my own.
Thank you
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:52:06 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
I'm going to jump in obnoxiously again, feel free to politely ignore me if
you want Linda, I'm guessing this mysterious "other operant" is parentage.
If your parents were black, you're supposed to be black. Etc.
)In my mind, those are not only confusing definitions but inadequate because
)clearly there is another operant which underlies both of them. We almost
)always use it to not only define race membership, but to define whether or
)not in the individual case, "social perceptions" or the "self-designations"
)are EVER applied in assigning race membership.
The reply to this, if so, is simple. It isn't correct. It is a question of
perceptions like all the other designations and our perceptions *can
change*. That seems to be the hang-up in dealing with the apparently
dismaying notion that race doesn't really exist, biologically. We perceive
it to exist so dammit, it's supposed to exist! As has been pointed out
numerous times, people of the same "race" can have more in common
genetically with people of other "races" than with members of their own
"race." You inherit all kinds of things from your parents, often, though not
always, skin color. We tend to perceive family members as being alike in all
sorts of ways, and sometimes it's true and sometimes it isn't. So what?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:01:31 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Hi Linda, you wrote:
)Peter, there you go--jumping ahead to what you think I meant.
Yep, that's how reading works. Since I do not have direct access to the
contents of your mind, I'm stuck with trying to figure out what you write.
If in your usage "genetically transmitted" means something other than
genetically transmitted, then by all means come right out and say so.
)In my mind,
)those are not only confusing definitions but inadequate because clearly
)there is another operant which underlies both of them. We almost always
)use it to not only define race membership, but to define whether or not
)in the individual case, "social perceptions" or the "self-designations"
)are EVER applied in assigning race membership.
Sorry, that's preposterous. There is no other underlying operant. Racial
categories are a specific kind of social perception, often institutionally
reinforced. They do not reflect something more real lying underneath. They
are collections of attributes, some of them physical (phenotypic, not
genotypic), bundled together into classifications, and they constantly shift
and re-arrange. They are the means through which race membership is
assigned, and the assignation is itself a social process, not an unfolding
of pre-existing biological facts. Lots and lots of people, not just people
who study race, are aware of this. On the other hand, people who believe
that race is genetically transmitted find these straightforward matters
deeply confusing.
)You avoided telling me why you wouldn't consider George W Bush black on
)the basis of his self-designation.
Because it would not be convincing. Not because he lacks the gene for
blackness.
) You've avoided telling me why social
)perceptions of whether another particular individual is Asian or
)Hispanic aren't given legitimacy.
Which perceptions, in what context? There's no general "why" question at
stake here. For social categories like race, contextual factors are crucial.
That is rather the point. The "why" varies from place to place, from time to
time, from situation to situation.
)Ever heard of the situation of Blacks passing as a member of the "White
)Race"? Would they then BE a member of the "White Race" in your
)definition?
If they passed successfully, yes, of course they thereby become white.
That's what it means to be white, Linda. You cannot possibly be entirely
unaware of this. The boundaries of the "white race" are in constant flux.
There are no black genes. There are no white genes. The race an individual
belongs to is a function of how they present themselves racially and how
they are perceived racially. No underlying operant, just an evolving series
of tacit consensus (or, at historically interesting moments, dissensus).
)In my estimation, I'm not calling upon exotic idiosyncratic examples to
)test your definition.
No, your examples are good examples, and they all plainly support the notion
that race is a social category. I think you are simply missing the import of
your own examples. Here, take a look:
) I'm calling upon everyday questions of "which
)race" someone is thought to ought * really * belong. And your
)definition doesn't work.
Try re-reading your own sentences again. The first sentence is about what
race people are "thought to" belong to. That is an instance of race as a
social category. Hence the second sentence is quite obviously wrong.
) Nobody does this--not when there are everyday
)contradictions to settle.
Everybody does this, all the time, even when there are not contradictions to
settle, but just when they're walking down the street.
) If there is someplace a group of people that
)define race by their clothing, would I become a member of that race by
)dressing in the same clothing?
If that is what race meant in that situation, then yes, of course. May I
point out that your example is tautological?
)In thinking how an individual is determined to be a member of one race
)or another, we do not take that one individual and ask ourselves "what
)color is his skin?" "what clothes does he wear"? where was he born?
)what does his DNA look like?" Do we?
Yes, "we" do indeed very often ask some combination of the first three of
those questions: skin color, dress, geographical origin. No, "we" do not ask
what his DNA looks like.
) Neither do we believe an
)individual's self-designation if we learn that he determined his own
)race this way, nor if he "faked" or somehow uncharacteristically
)diverged from these surface aspects (as in the case of albinism, which
)is almost always ascribed as a particular race for reasons quite apart
)from skin color).
If "we" don't believe it, then "we" have instead classified the person in
question into a different racial category. In either case, race is
self-evidently a social construct, according to your very own example. There
is no underlying other operant that decides such questions independent of
this process of social perception.
)We might all *assume* we know what race to ascribe a
)person based on these impressions, but there is a very different kind of
)information about that individual which is almost always given greater
)weight if it becomes known.
Namely? I await the underlying factor which is unencumbered by social
perception and operates at the level of genetic transmission. If Diana's
hunch is right, and you mean parentage, then we need to have another talk
about genotypic and phenotypic levels of analysis, not to mention the
conflation of social and biological categories.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:46 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
Hi Charlie,
I'll be honest. I felt very disappointed and sad to read your post.
You wrote:
"Let's not mistake a part with the whole.
The responsible people/elements that I have contact with drastically
outweigh the irresponsible."
What I understood from this chat is that you agree that Waldorf PR does not
accurately reflect the spiritual reality of Waldorf education. *You* called
this - Waldorf schools not giving small bites of Anthroposophy -
"irresponsible." I have no doubt that your experiences and contacts
outweigh anything irresponsible, but that is not what we are talking about
here. As for the problem at hand, we are in agreement that Waldorf PR needs
help.
You wrote:
"And change can happen from the inside."
That would be the most healthy way to change. When can we expect to see it
happen?
I wrote:
)Would you like to part of a positive change? Seriously.
) It was suggested to me that *I* re-write the widely circulated Waldorf
) FAQ.
) How far do you think *I* would get? Do you think the chance for
) positive
) change would be more welcomed coming from an experienced and respected
) Waldorf teacher - or from a Critic of Waldorf? The nature of being
) "critical," thinking "critically" and the concept of "critique" itself
) are
) questions to ponder, but for the purpose of this message, I hope you
) understand where I am coming from.
)
) So... would you be willing to help change "irresponsible" to
) "responsible?"
) I would enjoy helping you in re-writing the FAQ and presenting it to
) AWSNA
) and to every single school that calls itself "Waldorf." To be honest,
) we
) might need a few more Waldorf teachers on board if the effort is to be
) taken
) seriously.
) The "movement" is not easy to "move" as Eugene Schwartz has discovered.
) Perhaps a Teacher's Petition endorsing the new FAQ? But, I think a
) critic's
) perspective might be valuable - as one who has been-there-done-that.
) Hey -
) ask your friend Eugene to join in the effort and when all is said and
) done,
) we can meet in Florida and raise a glass with Sharon!"
You replied:
"First of all, I am a relative newcomer to Waldorf and Anthroposophy and
I would not feel comfortable being held up as a representatine of them.
Secondly, PLANS, it is no secret, is no friend of Waldorf and
Anthroposophy, and I don't think that helping PLANS is a healthy way to
help Waldorf School.
As correct as Abbie Hoffman may have been about American policies in
Viet Nam, he didn't get much respect through his support of the Viet
Cong.
I guess that's the long way of respectfully (and I mean that)turning
down your offer to work on the FAQ."
I need to respond. The fact that you are a "newcomer to Waldorf and
Anthroposophy" is a good thing. Your mind is fresh with
teacher training and the impulse of Waldorf education. It is obvious to me,
based on your contribution to this list, that your understanding of
Anthroposophy/Waldorf is deep and your interest sincere. I also suggested
you ask Eugene (your friend) to join us in this task. He certainly seems to
understand the problem *and* his experience will easily make up for any
shortcomings you think you might have.
I don't know why you feel a need to *represent* Waldorf or Anthroposophy?
Why not represent *yourself* as a free individual who sees a problem that
has, partly because of misleading PR, caused many people confusion, pain and
anguish - on various sides of the problem)? You are Free. No need to
represent anyone but yourself in what you see as the Truth. IMO.
Your second point makes no sense to me. How can working to fix an FAQ that
you know needs fixing possibly help PLANS? Working for Truth while
maintaining ones integrity can only be a good thing. Do you think that by
acting to right a wrong you would somehow jeopardize your position in the
Waldorf movement? If this is really the case, what is it all about...
really? Freedom?
"Our highest endeavor must be to develop free human beings, who are
themselves able to impart purpose and direction to their lives."
~ Rudolf Steiner
Or is it me? I am not PLANS and even I were on the board of PLANS - so
what? You cannot work with me? I am able to work with you even though your
movement has caused my family and many friends much pain and grief.
Jeeeezz, Charlie - Sharon and her family went through a terribly upsetting
Waldorf experience... and she has offered to buy you a drink! We're not
trying to convert you here. Well, I'm not, anyway. (Warning: If you take
all the letters from the words "Dugan, Sharon, Diana, Staudenmaier, Deborah
and Snell" and throw out most of them... it spells "Ahriman." But the
letters from "Walden" are not needed!)
So I'm clean.
Seriously, this is about communication and freedom and doing what is right.
Sure, you are free to turn down my offer but if you could find the time to
reflect on my thoughts and perhaps dig a little deeper for an explanation
(for us both?), it would be appreciated.
- Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:14:47 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Deborah wrote:
Yes. "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" (1944) is what I was referring to. I
didn't mean to imply that he limited genocide to cultural appropriation,
but that it is included in within his definition of genocide.
Akua:
I did not imply you limited it to that phenomenon. I was happy to see
Raphael Lemkin's name mentioned because I myself keep coming back to his
much broader definition.
Deborah:
There was another post recently on WC that referred to genocide as
something that academics struggle with and have different definitions
of. (I must have deleted the post and so may not be quoting it correctly.)
Akua:
It is very likely that I was the one who posted the remark you cited and
I do hope you did not misunderstand me there. There are quite a few
scholars (and others) who argue over the question what constitutes
genocide, obviously for various reasons, one is to do with downplaying
the extent of various genocides, as has often been the case with
American genocides but also elsewhere, or outright deny them. There are
other reasons, some of those are clearly linked to a common
misperception about the term genocide which often is thought to be
linked to the extermination of a gene pool or some such. As I understand
it Lemkin though was referring to genos (type) and cide (Latin word for
killing). Killing/wiping out a specific group of people can be
accomplished in very diverse ways, and need not eradicate the entire
group to constitute genocide. Lemkin therefore had a much broader
definition of genocide in mind which I stick to. In Germany that can
pose a problem....
Deborah:
Since Lemkin is the person who coined the word, then his definition only
is the correct one. What people may disagree with re: genocide is
whether or not a particular activity falls within its definition; for
example, does taking some of the physical attributes of an inipi,
transporting them outside of the culture to which the inipi belongs,
renaming it a "sweat lodge" and charging money for it constitute an
activity that is has the effect of contributing to the destruction of a
culture. I use this example because every anthrop I personally know has
either participated in a "sweat lodge" or makes money from conducting
them. It was when I read the "Family Guide" that I realized how they
justify their actions. They believe that by taking bits and pieces of
other cultures that they are building a new culture, which translates
into a new world order (the sixth epoch?). That they are engaging in an
activity that contributes to genocide is something they refuse to
acknowledge, even after they have been told more than once by members of
the Lakota Nation. That they can never actually conduct an inipi or
somehow be given permission to do so is also something they don't seem
to get. That the anthrops I know are quick to assert their respect for
all people and that they embrace multiculturalism/diversity makes their
behavior all the more obscene.
Akua:
What you described also is a major problem over here. "Indianness" is
en vogue over here, so to speak and most of the underlying concepts are
either stereotypes of what they perceive as "Indian" and/or are
connected to spiritual experiences. Interestingly very popular among
many ecologically thinking or otherwise 'alternative' people, among them
at least a number of anthroposophists and sympathizers I know. I often
get into arguments with them but to no avail, they still assume they
express respect by embracing these exercises. When questioned it quickly
becomes clear they think it is their perfect right to take what pleases
them. Like I said you tend to find these tendencies mainly among
'eco'/'alternative' people. One thing though has spread about the
general population, dream catchers.
Akua
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:14:56 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Deborah wrote:
Hispanic and Asian are not mutually exclusive. Hispanic is generally,
including by the U.S. Census Bureau, an entirely separate category
outside of "race."
Harriet Tubman got a lot of people out of the South by using racial
stereotypes to her benefit. For example, she would have a slave who
could pass as "white," dress up as her master/mistress. They would board
the train with Harriet pretending to be the slave's slave and thereby
she would succeed in getting another person out of slavery.
What is distressing within the African-American communities and families
in particular is the damage that racial thinking has wrought in ways not
obvious to those who nothing about African-American people. Those who
made/make the choice to "pass" for white had/have to make a clean break
with every member of the family that does not or cannot "pass." I have
personally witnessed two young sisters being continually subjected to
the opinions of those who were certain that because one is blue-eyed,
blonde and light-complected and the other has dark hair and brown eyes
and dark skin, that they could not possibly be sisters with the same
biological parents.
Akua:
The damage done touches on almost every field of life. As you I could
describe a host of situations where I saw and see this happen on a daily
basis. But let me come back to the experiences of a 'Black' girl who
attended the local Waldorf school for roughly half a year. She happened
not to be the only pupil to be of African decent in class, there was yet
another girl. The important difference was the other girl's mother
happened to be German ('white') contrary to the first girl parents both
being 'Black'. They did not treat her any better as such but whenever
anyone treated her badly, make specific remarks and some such she would
claim they do not mean that. She hated the girl I know and wanted her to
leave which she did. None of the former classmates greets her or ttalks
to her as if she were not present.
The concept of genetically distinguishable 'races' still seems so
enshrined in our societies it is very difficult to convince people who
believe in it to even consider it could be nothing more a social
construct, let alone convince them. Jack D. Forbes wrote an interesting
book entitled 'African and Native American: The Language of Race and the
Evolution of Red-Black Peoples' extensively demonstrating that racial
classification had never been consistent during history and often took
more than weird twists. These weird twists are no 'unfortunate' mistakes
on behalf of ignorant people, they instead highlight the absurdity of
racial constructs as a whole.
Luckily some communities managed to define 'membership' in much more
inclusive terms.
Akua
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:47:07 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Hi Deborah,
I really appreciate your perspective. I think it is on topic for two
reasons:
1) Steiner had some choice words for the "savages" and their future.
2) A deeper/different understanding of "race" and "genocide" might help
Anthroposophically inclined list mates understand the necessity of dealing
with these issues and how they might be entwined in Steiner's doctrines.
You wrote:
"Culture is not something that can be shopped for, purchased, taken,
dissected, and otherwise bandied about. When the indigenous peoples of the
americas were forced from their lands and the children of the North American
Nations were forced into government schools for the purpose of destroying
their "Indianess," it was their culture, including what they could manage to
retain of their languages, that kept them alive. For anthrops or any other
group to attempt to destroy a people's culture, which is what appropriation,
such as you assert to be good thing, amounts to genocide and I am using that
term as defined by the person, Raphael Lemkin, who coined it."
"Culture" is not a participatory endeavor and "study" is not synonymous with
"participate." There is so much more to say on this, but I will stop here
for now.
Don't stop on my account.
I notice that First Nations are covered during Main Lesson in some Waldorf
Schools. I wonder what this means? Does this include *real* history or the
fake history I learned as a youngster many years ago or is there something
else? When virtually everything that happens in Waldorf schools is based on
the thoughts of Rudolf Steiner, I wonder how the history of Indigenous
Peoples is covered? For example, does the teacher speak about "savages" or
convey Steiner's message about "ultimate extinction?" Or, if a student asks
what the anthroposophical perspective is, does the teacher say that Steiner
was wrong?
- Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1453
-- Topica Digest --
RE: What is race-for Peter
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By cffrey mindspring.com
For parents seeking info on Waldorf
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By cffrey mindspring.com
Re: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: free choice of religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
taking racism seriously
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: taking criticism seriously
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: For parents seeking info on Waldorf
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
Peter - continuing
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Peter - continuing
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: Peter - continuing
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:28:36 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Peter:
)If Diana's hunch is right, and you mean parentage, then we need to have
)another talk about genotypic and phenotypic levels of analysis, not to
)mention the conflation of social and biological categories.
Parenting has both biological and social and cultural components and we
generally agree that the biological component can be missing completely
(i.e., adoption). If this is indeed what Linda means, it would seem to work
against her own thesis, but maybe we're jumping the gun.
Linda gave two examples that I've been musing over - the son who always
thought he was his mother's race, then later in life when he met his
biological father for the first time, he decided he was his father's race.
Linda emphasized that this information (his father's race) *already existed*
and seemed to be implying it was unreasonable of him to change his race. I
took it to mean it was disrespectful toward his mother? He ought to have
stayed whatever race she, in effect, told him he was, since she had
apparently raised him? Or did I misunderstand, Linda?
Another example was interracial adoption. Linda states that the children are
the race of their biological parents, not their adoptive parents. But often
it would seem to be only because their parents (adoptive) tell them so, and
often make a point of trying to familiarize them with their biological
parents' culture. Children are likely to ignore differences in appearance
among them unless adults make a point of it. An interesting example.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:31:03 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Please...I was answering an accusation that I can't understand being
'out', and I get a lecture on the demographics of cocaine use.
I watched the customers (it was a 'drive-through'), I don't need any
instruction.
Gideon Mills wrote:
)
)
)
)
) "You should be more careful. Where should I start?
) I have lived in a country where people used to touch my skin and hair
) because they had never seen a white person."
)
) So you are white and the group you trained with was predominately
) populated by white people. The people in that group who are not white
) would then be members of an "out" group.
)
) Do you consider the rest of your post as some sort of evidence as to how
) the people of color you interact with perceive you?
No.
I also find it interesting that you mention a cocaine dealer in the
90% Black and Hispanic (which is a word that is too broad to be
descriptive of a people),
You are OK with "Black" but not "Hispanic"?
Just so you know, my town was about 50% Dominican, 30% Puerto Rican, and
about 10% Haitian. Actually, I loved it there.
but mention nothing of the cocaine dealing or other illegal behavior in
the community where the Waldorf school sits. Cocaine is a drug that is
particularly endemic within wealthy, not poor, communities or
communities of color; having gone to school with plenty of wealthy
people, I know a lot about their drug habits. This is not something I
came up with; it is the basis for the judicial challenges re: the
differential sentencing guidelines written for convictions for cocaine
possession, etc. and crack possession, etc.
)
) Deborah
)
)
)
) ---------------------------------
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
) --
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:41:19 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: For parents seeking info on Waldorf
Brad wrote:
Diana,
Of course, I have read the positive comments that the WC parents had. Of
course, I have read of the legitimate, constructive criticism made by
some on this list.
Sharon: What are you doing within Anthroposophy to change things that need
to be changed?
My frustration is large when the essence of my argument, which I feel is
sound, is overlooked and someone takes a bit of my remark and runs off
with it out of context. Sharon/mysplum just did this with me with TM.
Sharon: Wait a sec. I don't think I did that, I was just pointing out why
I'm glad TM was barred from public schools. I'm a church/state separationist
and you were waxing on about the virtues of meditation and how sorry you
were that TM was barred from teaching children meditation in public school
in the 1970s. I was saying I'm glad TM was kept out of public schools
because TM has a religious doctrine, devised by the Maharishi, steeped in
Hinduism and includes some far out ideas which I don't agree with. I think
it's wise that church and state remain separate. I would not be happy if the
state made my child study TM or practice their meditation so I'm glad the
court ruled against it. I would not be happy if my child was given over to
Jerry Falwell or Bob Jones either, nor Steiner, nor Hubbard or Smith, to
mention a few. Judging by your comments below about Fundamentalist
Christians, I bet you would not like your children to be handed over to
Fundamentalist groups at school? How do you feel about government funding
Fundamentalist groups?
Brad:
I
have no interest in TM as an organization. They have taught many the
very effective and good method to learn how to meditate.
Sharon: You have no interest in TM as an organization but you would let them
have access to children in public schools? Religion comes with it's baggage,
and you can't force religious ideologies on people who don't want them. Our
Constitution guarantees us all the freedom of conscience. You put a dead cat
on a pole and the neighbors will eventually have to move out because of the
pong. Public schools are supposed to be neutral zones, where children from
all faiths and non-faiths can come together to learn, regardless of their
religious beliefs or non-beliefs.
Brad: She condemned
("destroyed and smeared") TM,
Sharon: I did not destroy TM, it's a huge organization with lots of members,
there are millions who have supposedly been helped by the Maharishi's
teachings. I did not condemn it, I laughed at the founder's teachings. I
agree that it's not nice to laugh at people, but I was laughing about funny
beliefs. If I smeared it I am sorry and I'll try to be more careful, but I
don't think I did smear it. I just sometimes can't help laughing at some
ideas because I think they are hilarious. It is no secret that the Maharishi
taught that if you practice meditation you will gain the ability to fly, so
I pointed that out. I mentioned that I'd heard an ex-member speak about how
he really believed he was flying and developed strange leg muscles from
bouncing in a kneeling position. This man also spoke about *how* he came to
believe this funny thing which was very interesting. The TM group made him
feel special and told him he'd gained the privilege of going into the inner
sanctum flying room. He had to go through endless security checks, by people
he already knew. He had to fill out forms and go through more security
checks by the same people who he already knew. Then he bounced in a kneeling
position on a little cushion/carpet thingy and eventually actually believed
he was flying, despite his video taped evidence that he was merely bouncing.
The mind is maleable. He made me laugh until tears came to my eyes, but I
was not the only one laughing. I'm sorry if I'm irreverent and skeptical,
it's just the way I am. The Constitution gives us all the right to believe
what we will, that includes me and you and TM folks, and Fundamentalist
Christians. It also guards against Stete imposed or State supported
religion, which ensures religious freedom for all. Anyway, let me point out
that in your post *you* yourself smear Fundamentalists by saying they have
"immature minds" and you smear and condemn PLANS people.
Brad: when all I wanted to do was point out the
good in meditation and that in the recent decades has become virtually
mainstream and a part of medicine and taught in medical schools and
elsewhere. It would excellent for young people. I wish I had known how
to meditate in college. It would have been great to stave off the
fatigue from the late nighters.
Sharon: But you specifically said: "I recall the TM effort to bring
meditation into the schools. It is unfortunate that they did not succeed, or
some other initiative to teach young people to meditate.". I'm saying I'm
glad they didn't succeed because you let a religious group into public
schools, next thing they'll be teaching that you can fly or something. There
are studies that show that meditation helps alleviate stress and helps
people concentrate and what not, but there are also studies that irritants
help people. There are studies that show that prayer works and studies that
show that nothing fails like prayer. I think you are getting a little
carried away with your accolades. Meditation will not cure the world of all
it's problems and I still think it wise not to allow religious groups access
to public schools.
Brad: I have acknowledged that there has been some good criticism on WC. Why
do you not see this?
However, I see people missing the main point of it all. It is
experiential psychology applied to one form of holistic education, not a
religion to create a new master race of antisemitic and racist children,
(deliberately overstating), which is what a newbie, and others, would
interpret from this forum.
Sharon: Experiential psychology is starting to raise eyebrows. Some people
are starting to twig on and understand that it's religion. I have argued
eternally on this list that most people involved in Waldorf are oblivious to
the subtext and bring an air of "normalcy" to the schools. I clearly state
time and time again that Steiner's doctrine is racist but that racism is
latent in Waldorf schools simply because most people don't even know there
is an esoteric religion that guides the schools, let alone an esoteric,
racist subtext. This has been my position for years.
Brad: The PLANS lawsuit has no integrity because it is based upon the dross,
not the core, of Steiner/Anthroposophy.
Sharon: PLANS is suing public schools for First Amendment violations. The
suit focuses on First Amendment infractions, not on the core or "dross" of
Anthroposophy. (PLANS people aren't alchemists so I doubt they would even
think in those terms).
Brad: The PLANS lawsuit is, in effect, condemning the whole, stemming from
the
instigators lack of knowledge of the whole, whether deliberate or out of
ignorance. You and a few others may not be condemning the whole, as you
claim, but this 'frivolous' lawsuit is without substantive merit.
Sharon: We are airing our disappointments and opinions about our experiences
at the schools we were involved with and criticizing the founder's religious
doctrine that underlies the schools. We are saying "Public schools, please
return to being neutral zones by upholding the First Amendment". Waldorf,
please get out of the public sector and get open about your religious
subtext. Anthroposophists, please officially deal with Steiner's racism.".
The lawsuit is not frivolous and not without merit. It is an important case
reflecting the concerns of our times.
Brad: However, it clearly feeds into the immature minds of the religious
fundamentalist minds supporting the lawsuit. That lacks integrity.
Sharon: There are atheists, humanists, and all sorts of people also
supporting the law suit, not just Fundamentalists. In a round about way you
are saying that Fundamentalists have immature minds but Anthroposophists
have superior minds and are consequently more deserving of public funding
and should therefore have access to public schools, and should be more
privileged than the lowly Fundamentalists with immature minds. That
Anthroposophy should be propagated and established by the state but
Fundamentalists and their immature minds should be barred from public
schools and state support? Well I'll say rubbish. If Anthroposophists are
allowed state support, then Fundamentalists are allowed state support and
Scientologists, Muslims, Raeliens, Hindus, Branch Davidians, Mormons,
Catholics, Christian Scientists, Children of God, Divine Light Mission
adherents, Sai Ba Baba followers , Osho adherents and every other religious
group in America...and of course atheists too. You guys are whittling away
the First Amendment which has dire consequences for you and me because
Fundamentalists have far greater power and reach. I say that as it stands
now, children from all these groups can come together in a neutral
environment where they can set aside religious differences and learn
together. I'm asking that you uphold the First Amendment!
Brad: How many millenia, wars, and terrorism, will it take to get this?
Waldorf/Steiner/Anthroposophy is being sterotyped continually on this
forum.
Sharon: Wars and terrorism are usually instigated by religionists. Here we
complain that we were duped. We complain that Steiner's doctrine is racist.
We say that Waldorf violates the First Amendment. We say Waldorf schools are
sectarian. We say believe what you want, but don't pick our pockets or dupe
us. When are you guys going to hear us and stop ignoring us and quit
stereotyping us?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:05:01 +0000
From: charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
walden wrote:
)
) Hi Charlie,
)
) I'll be honest. I felt very disappointed and sad to read your post.
I apologize.
Not my intention.
)
) You wrote:
)
) "Let's not mistake a part with the whole.
) The responsible people/elements that I have contact with drastically
) outweigh the irresponsible."
)
) What I understood from this chat is that you agree that Waldorf PR does
) not
) accurately reflect the spiritual reality of Waldorf education. *You*
) called
) this - Waldorf schools not giving small bites of Anthroposophy -
) "irresponsible."
The point that I am trying to clarify is that when somebody does
something irresponsible, it does not mean that he/she is 'an
irresponsible person' or a member of an irresponsible organization.
You seem to want me to be saying that Waldorf Schools and waldorf
teachers are negligent entities, and all I am saying is that they often
neglect to do a particular thing.
I have no doubt that your experiences and contacts
) outweigh anything irresponsible, but that is not what we are talking
) about
) here. As for the problem at hand, we are in agreement that Waldorf PR
) needs
) help.
)
) You wrote:
) "And change can happen from the inside."
)
) That would be the most healthy way to change. When can we expect to see
) it
) happen?
It will be slow and effective, I think.
Fast doesn't always work.
This is more Weight Watchers than Atkins.
)
) I wrote:
) )Would you like to part of a positive change? Seriously.
) ) It was suggested to me that *I* re-write the widely circulated Waldorf
) ) FAQ.
) ) How far do you think *I* would get? Do you think the chance for
) ) positive
) ) change would be more welcomed coming from an experienced and respected
) ) Waldorf teacher - or from a Critic of Waldorf? The nature of being
) ) "critical," thinking "critically" and the concept of "critique" itself
) ) are
) ) questions to ponder, but for the purpose of this message, I hope you
) ) understand where I am coming from.
) )
) ) So... would you be willing to help change "irresponsible" to
) ) "responsible?"
) ) I would enjoy helping you in re-writing the FAQ and presenting it to
) ) AWSNA
) ) and to every single school that calls itself "Waldorf." To be honest,
) ) we
) ) might need a few more Waldorf teachers on board if the effort is to be
) ) taken
) ) seriously.
) ) The "movement" is not easy to "move" as Eugene Schwartz has discovered.
) ) Perhaps a Teacher's Petition endorsing the new FAQ? But, I think a
) ) critic's
) ) perspective might be valuable - as one who has been-there-done-that.
) ) Hey -
) ) ask your friend Eugene to join in the effort and when all is said and
) ) done,
) ) we can meet in Florida and raise a glass with Sharon!"
)
) You replied:
) "First of all, I am a relative newcomer to Waldorf and Anthroposophy and
) I would not feel comfortable being held up as a representatine of them.
) Secondly, PLANS, it is no secret, is no friend of Waldorf and
) Anthroposophy, and I don't think that helping PLANS is a healthy way to
) help Waldorf School.
) As correct as Abbie Hoffman may have been about American policies in
) Viet Nam, he didn't get much respect through his support of the Viet
) Cong.
) I guess that's the long way of respectfully (and I mean that)turning
) down your offer to work on the FAQ."
)
) I need to respond. The fact that you are a "newcomer to Waldorf and
) Anthroposophy" is a good thing. Your mind is fresh with
) teacher training and the impulse of Waldorf education. It is obvious to
) me,
) based on your contribution to this list, that your understanding of
) Anthroposophy/Waldorf is deep and your interest sincere. I also
) suggested
) you ask Eugene (your friend) to join us in this task. He certainly
) seems to
) understand the problem *and* his experience will easily make up for any
) shortcomings you think you might have.
)
) I don't know why you feel a need to *represent* Waldorf or
) Anthroposophy?
) Why not represent *yourself* as a free individual who sees a problem
) that
) has, partly because of misleading PR, caused many people confusion, pain
) and
) anguish - on various sides of the problem)? You are Free. No need to
) represent anyone but yourself in what you see as the Truth. IMO.
You are right. And in representing myself, out of freedom, I choose not
to risk even the impression that I am aligned with a group of people to
whom I am opposed.
Also...one of the things that really bugs me about this forum, is how
sucked into it I get. That's why I stay away for so long.
To me, it's like our current global weather (stick with me!); we are
dumping so much energy into it, of course it is gathering that energy
and making powerful storms.
When I get too involved with this stuff, I begin to feel like I'm
feeding a negative impulse, and I need to get out.
)
) Your second point makes no sense to me. How can working to fix an FAQ
) that
) you know needs fixing possibly help PLANS? Working for Truth while
) maintaining ones integrity can only be a good thing. Do you think that
) by
) acting to right a wrong you would somehow jeopardize your position in
) the
) Waldorf movement? If this is really the case, what is it all about...
) really? Freedom?
)
) "Our highest endeavor must be to develop free human beings, who are
) themselves able to impart purpose and direction to their lives."
) ~ Rudolf Steiner
)
) Or is it me? I am not PLANS and even I were on the board of PLANS - so
) what? You cannot work with me? I am able to work with you even though
) your
) movement has caused my family and many friends much pain and grief.
) Jeeeezz, Charlie - Sharon and her family went through a terribly
) upsetting
) Waldorf experience... and she has offered to buy you a drink!
She's trying to get me drunk. ;)
We're not
) trying to convert you here. Well, I'm not, anyway. (Warning: If you
) take
) all the letters from the words "Dugan, Sharon, Diana, Staudenmaier,
) Deborah
) and Snell" and throw out most of them... it spells "Ahriman."
Ahriman, at least, *really* likes me and thinks he's trying to help me!
:D
But the
) letters from "Walden" are not needed!)
)
) So I'm clean.
)
) Seriously, this is about communication and freedom and doing what is
) right.
) Sure, you are free to turn down my offer but if you could find the time
) to
) reflect on my thoughts and perhaps dig a little deeper for an
) explanation
) (for us both?), it would be appreciated.
I really just need to do this my own way, and that's not it. It's that
simple.
I'm also not willing to make this a 'cause celebre' and I currently have
no desire to insinuate myself on the movement as a crusader for anything
yet; and if I do, it will be in other areas that I feel are more grave.
It's on my list; but, to be honest, I have bigger fish to fry.
You must understand that if I put myself out there in the way you
suggest, it would be putting myself out on a limb, and I just don't
think the issue is an important enough one to do that for.
c
)
) - Walden
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Nil illigitimi carborundum!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:03:55 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
on 8/27/04 9:05 AM, charlie frey at cffrey mindspring.com wrote:
)
) She's trying to get me drunk. ;)
Sharon: I'm offering to take you to dinner and make a toast to you because
you are being open with parents. I am thanking you and commending you for
being open and honest with parents.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:41:00 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: To Charlie (was free choice of religion)
Steiner said alcohol takes away your clairvoyant abilities and over on
anthroposophy_tomorrow they're arguing about whether Steiner in his youth
went on long binges to erase his "old atavistic clairvoyance" (in
preparation for his new, improved clairvoyance).
on 8/27/04 9:05 AM, charlie frey at cffrey mindspring.com wrote:
) She's trying to get me drunk. ;)
Sharon: I'm offering to take you to dinner and make a toast to you because
you are being open with parents. I am thanking you and commending you for
being open and honest with parents.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:35:09 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
At 12:17 PM 8/26/2004, Sharon Lombard Miller wrote:
) ) Sunbridge College and the associated Waldorf School have many non-white
) ) students. Open racism is not evident there; racism is *not* blatant in
) ) Waldorf education, at least in the U.S. Steiner's blatantly racist texts
) ) are not generally studied, as far as I know.
)
)Sharon: Often you'll find people of color involved in systems that are
)racist so you can't argue that just because "non-white" people attend
)Waldorf that Steiner's doctrine isn't racist.
Sharon's response appears to think that I was making a claim that Steiner's
doctrine is not racist, and that Waldorf education does not incorporate
racist concepts or elements. That is not my position at all. Steiner
obviously held and taught racist concepts. However, I'll hold with what I
wrote about "Waldorf." Racism in Waldorf, and at Sunbridge College, is
clearly not "blatant."
"Waldorf Critics" often claim that Waldorf equals anthroposophy equals
Steiner, and this claim is bolstered by similar claims made by some Waldorf
people, by some anthroposophists, and by Steiner himself. However, an
examination of Waldorf education *as it is* clearly shows that the movement
cannot be characterized as being equal to anthroposophy or to Steiner's
teachings. In other words, finding, for example, a racist element in
Steiner's work (not difficult at all), is not equivalent to finding active
racism in either anthroposophy nor in Waldorf; the latter, in particular,
while obviously inspired by Steiner's work, and obviously supported, in
general, by anthroposophists -- and thus subject to a measure of influence
from the latter, even a strong measure -- incorporates the work of many
people who are not anthroposophists but who have been attracted by this or
that element in the educational structure suggested by Steiner. In Waldorf
education, blatantly racist elements of Steiner's work are quite obviously
*not* widely accepted, to the extent that many Waldorf supporters are
simply outraged by charges of racism in Waldorf.
Sharon is, of course, quite correct that the involvement of people of color
is in no way a proof or even strong evidence of the absence of racism. But
the absence of racism was not my claim, it is the claim of someone else.
I wrote what I wrote, quoted above, to confirm the report of a "Waldorf
defender," while at the same time disagreeing with the claims that Steiner
and Waldorf are "free of racism." Almost no public instutition in our time
is entirely free of racism, as it is being defined by Staudenmaier (and his
definition is legitimate, even if sometimes confusing to those ignorant
regarding it). In another post, I gave an example of possible racism in a
Waldorf community, i.e., the matter of the doll with black hair, and, as
noted by others, the incident was not a mere idiosyncracy of a single
person. However, I'll also say that I can't recall any other incident, in
about a year of close contact with a Waldorf/anthroposophical community, of
apparent racism, even subtle. That doesn't mean that it is absent; subtle
racism is endemic; and I encountered in that year no mention of the racial
theories of Steiner by Waldorf people or anthroposophists -- in the
community; I *did* see anthroposophical teachings (and, as I recall, some
examples from Waldorf schools) quoted on the internet, always by critics,
that were racist. Further, some of those defending Steiner and Waldorf,
on-line, as on this list, and as we see at present, show that *they* are
holding unexamined racist ideas.
This does *not* mean that I would call them "racist," because I don't think
that their daily life is strongly affected by those ideas; the ideas will
only be active on occasion. I don't call Steiner a "racist," because I
don't think that it is fair to characterize him by the name, even though he
clearly held -- and taught -- racist ideas and theories.
Critics claim that these theories are central to his work; I find the
claim, frankly, preposterous. Sure, racist ideas can be found laced through
his works; however, the fact that one can undertake and complete an
education as a Waldorf teacher without ever encountering blatant racism is,
to me, conclusive proof that racism is not central. That does not mean that
subtle racism is not present; but even subtle racism is not central.
Subtle racism would be present almost any time that race is mentioned as if
it were a biological reality, as if people objectively belonged to this or
that race. Because most people don't recognize this idea as racist -- and
even defend it actively, as we have seen here -- they don't readily
recognize the racial theories of Steiner, as they might have found their
way into Waldorf, as racist. But any theory that proposes the evolution of
races is racist. I just looked through a popular Waldorf text; the closest
clue that I could find to the possible presence of racism was a mention of
how Waldorf studies the "cultures" of the world. And that, of course, is
not racist in itself, but *might* be racist if the teaching embodied
concepts of race; as they say, the devil is in the details.
I have *not* attempted to find racist teachings in the Waldorf curriculum;
my suspicion is that they are present, i.e., that a diligent search would
find them; but a diligent search will find at least subtle racism, as I've
mentioned, in almost any broad-based public institution.
) Anthroposophists welcome *all*
)because Steiner taught that you can overcome your skin color in future
)incarnations and evolve "higher".
This assumes that "anthroposophists" follow Steiner, slavishly. Some do,
but even those who do, in fact, pick and choose from Steiner's teachings,
even if they think Steiner was the cat's meow. Among other things, anyone
who follows *anyone* slavishly is ignoring at least part of Steiner's work....
) Anthroposophists, at least the ones I
)knew, would not be mean to "melanin rich" people, they would likely try to
)help them (in a paternalistic way).
This kind of gross generalization is, in fact, an example of a certain kind
of thinking, akin to racism.
) But when racism exists in the founder's
)texts which are read, promulgated, revered, published, re-published and
)distributed within the movement, you can't say that racism is not blatant
)there.
Show me a *blatantly* racist text that is so read and promulgated. I think
you can easily find subtle racism, not difficult, but blatant racism is
definitely de-emphasized in the practical reality of anthroposophy.
) Show me one Steiner text that doesn't mention or allude to one part
)or another of Steiner's racial doctrine, besides Philosophy of Freedom,
)(which was written before Steiner's conversion to Theosophy and
)Anthroposophical schism).
"Mention" and "allusion" are not by any means a proof of centrality or
importance. Especially allusion, but even mention, will be disregarded by
many, even most readers.
) I've yet to find one book that doesn't include
)some of Steiner's race-thinking. I would say that racism is latent in
)Waldorf schools because most people participating in Waldorf are clueless
)about the subtext,
Definitely. In other words, for them, it is *not* central.
) but those that follow Steiner's teachings and tell you
)things like "change the hair from black to blonde", or "there is no racism
)in Steiner's work" or "you cannot display those Mexican sculptures in the
)store window" are being either Eurocentric or racist.
Or simply mistaken. A person might accept the idea that angels have blonde
hair without being thereby a racist. As I've mentioned, I find mention in
Islamic texts that a certain angel had black hair; however, the general
concept of angels is that they appear to people in a form that is not
necessarily their *own* form, if they even have such a thing as their own
form. Angels will appear to be people quite similar to those to whom they
are appearing.
One might even think that blonde hair was a sign of some kind of
superiority, of some kind, without thereby being racist, though it starts
to get dangerously close. A genetic trait, like blondeness, is not
equivalent to race, it is merely a marker of race. But if one thinks that
"white people," and especially those with blonde hair and, say, blue eyes,
are more spiritually advanced, one very likely holds racist concepts. That
race has been mentioned is practically a proof. Steiner held and taught
racist concepts, I don't think he can be successfully defended on that account.
) ) As Mr. Staudenmaier will quite readily acknowledge, Steiner was ambivalent
) ) about racism. There are non-racist and anti-racist teachings in his corpus,
) ) as well as blatantly and subtly racist teachings. For the most part, the
) ) anti-racist sentiments are emphasized today, but some of the subtly racist
) ) teachings survive, it appears.
)
)Sharon: I don't think Steiner was ambivalent about racism, nor ambivalent
)about race because he worked up a doctrine that rests on racist racial
)notions, he put quite a bit of thought into his ideas and these ideas span
)his entire life as a mystagogue.
Note that Sharon is disagreeing with Staudenmaier. Steiner was ambivalent,
i.e., he taught things that are easily read as anti-racist, and he taught
and said things that clearly showed racism. It is possible to take the
latter fact and read the former teachings as subtly racist; but it is also
possible to take the former, add a little rationalization, and come up with
interpretations of the latter that are not racist. But it is more
difficult, I'm certainly not up to the task.
) He never wrote anything asking people to
)forgive him for his racist-thinking or never said he was wrong about some of
)his ideas.
That's true about practically all his mistakes, racist or not.
) Just before he died he was still preaching racist sermons. It is
)true that he contradicted himself frequently but if you believe and teach
)that an elite group survived the Atlantis flood while others who should have
)died out are regressing to an ape state, then everything that hinges on
)that, or everything that relates to that notion is racist.
Yes. No, does everything in anthroposophy -- and especially, in Waldorf --
"hinge on that." Relation can be found between any two things, so finding
*some* connection somewhere is of little or no consequence.
) I can't
)understand how you can divorce bits and pieces from that.
Lack of understanding of a concept is not proof that the concept is false.
) The corpus is
)racist and I believe that some Anthroposophists know this and find
)themselves in a quandary.
Belief in a concept is not proof of it.
) One man visited our ex-school after we left and
)told parents that they couldn't pick and choose from Steiner.
Yes. That is not at all surprising. But people *do* pick and choose, and
that man probably does also.
The existence of an single example of something demonstrates almost nothing
about a whole population including the example, beyond the simple existence
of a single example.
) If they did
)this it would undermine all the teachings because it would invalidate the
)doctrine.
Ahem. Hogwash. Steiner is at least as accurate as a stopped clock, which is
right twice a day. What Steiner say that was correct -- or inspiring to
truth, which is not the same thing -- is not invalidated no matter how much
is might be mixed with what is false.
) The Mormons knew this when they dealt with Smith's doctrine and
)cleverly just had God whisper in leadership's ears that he'd changed his
)mind. Which incidentally was a great thing for their movement which went on
)to become the fastest growing new religious movement. (snip)
Imputation as to the motives of others, in the manner found in this
paragraph, is rarely accurate.
) Waldorf education in the early years emphasizes color as light, quite
) ) properly in my opinion. There is no color "Black." And if you look at
) ) so-called "Black" people, you'll see that they do in fact, have color,
) ) color in their skin and color in their hair.
)
)Sharon: You are being coached by Anthroposophists and not doi