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