return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: taking criticism seriously
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: taking criticism seriously
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: taking criticism seriously
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
Diana - continuing
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
Peter - continuing
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
[NNA] Anthroposophical Society's amicus brief accepted by
California court
By dan dandugan.com
Re: making sense of race
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Peter - continuing
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: What is race-for Peter
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
Re: taking criticism seriously
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By dan dandugan.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: taking criticism seriously
By dan dandugan.com
Linda (was My - Linda's - struggle to understand)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: taking criticism seriously
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: taking criticism seriously
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
Taking Peter Staudenmeyer's racism seriously
By foncteur yahoo.fr
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:51:42 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: taking criticism seriously
on 8/30/04 5:36 PM, Brad Martin at bkmartin6 hotmail.com wrote:
Now they are on the
) main bill with an upcoming fundamentalist conference on cults. The smell
) ripens.
Sharon: What on earth are you talking about? AFF is not a fundamentalist
conference! Don't confuse AFF with AFA! They are totally different
organizations.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:32:45 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: taking criticism seriously
) Brad wrote:
) "(I enjoy the occasional Waldorf graduate
) now in college, etc., who discovers WC and cannot imagine the absurdity
) he reads on this forum based upon his own direct experience.)"
Sharon: I think you'd find this phenomenon in all groups. Go to an ex-Mormon
convention and you'll hear them going on much like the Waldorf critics do
here, while practicing Mormons scratch their heads and try to fathom what
they are on about. You see this all the time in political groups. Over a
hundred thousand people protested against Bush on Sunday in NYC and last
night Bush supporters were all smiles and thumbs up for Bush at the
Republican National Convention. My Waldorf experience had its odd moments,
for certain, like when the Anthro-doctor told me to give my child red,
yellow and orange crayons and to rub a flame of gold over her heart at
bedtime, but generally, as I've said time and time again, the environment
was "normalized" by the Anthro-illiterate participators. When I get all
riled up on list, (I am usually dripping with passion (G)) I am reacting to
the Steiner that I've read. It's his doctrine that pushes my buttons. My
protest is ideological.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:08:56 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
mysplum wrote:
)
) on 8/30/04 5:36 PM, Brad Martin at bkmartin6 hotmail.com wrote:
)
) Now they are on the
) ) main bill with an upcoming fundamentalist conference on cults. The smell
) ) ripens.
)
) Sharon: What on earth are you talking about? AFF is not a fundamentalist
) conference! Don't confuse AFF with AFA! They are totally different
) organizations.
)
You are just too sharp today, Sharon. :) I know there are fundamentalist
cult organizations. I went online to check out AFF. No doubt AFF will
have fundamentalists involved with their particular agenda, but AFF
looks like they have a broader, legitimate concern over cults which in
fact cause harm, such as the Jim Jones debacle, et al.
Waldorf, in it's intent as an experientially based holistic educational
system is not a cult. However, PLANS does everything they can do to tar
Waldorf with their focus only on those taking Steiner far too seriously.
Until I have evidence that the Waldorf leadership is, in fact,
literalizing Steiner and focusing only on 'What Steiner said', including
all the nonsense, then I will continue to hold that Waldorf is a
legitimate holistic educational system, woe in need of a revamp.
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:52:25 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: Diana - continuing
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Linda:
)
) )And it's only in the last couple of years that scientists think they
) )have
) )been able to identify a "particular" gene for, say, Huntington's disease
) )and other such. The rest, including race, is largely just presumption,
) )hypotheses, ie guesswork, interpreted through the lens of "social
) )perception".
)
) What??? Linda, this sounds like you don't even read the newspaper.
) You're
) about 15 years out of date.
) Huntington's disease gene, 1993 BTW. You can find this on google in 10
) seconds. LOL, molecular biology is not social perception.
)
Diana, thank you so much. I need to work on careless wording because,
even though it doesn't change my point AT ALL, it can help eliminate the
potential for irrelevant nitpicking. And by the same token, maybe you
could work on your math. "Last couple years" vs "eleven years" vs
"about 15 years"--What IS it with all this nonsense nitpicking on this
board?
Molecular biologists claim that we share 99.9 percent of our genome with
other humans. They also claim we share between 98 and 99 percent of our
genome with the chimpanzee. Yet other molecular biologists challenge
this, claiming we only share about 86% with chimps. Nobody knows yet
how to read this still disputedly ** percent of the genome and identify
exactly how those differences in the code translate in making a chimp
chimplike and a human humanlike.
Identification of subspecies has certainly been a "social construct" in
terms of the inquiry within molecular biology. "Race" and "subspecies"
are synonomous in physical anthropology. The criteria for classifying
subspecies has NOT been purely objective, and until relatively recently,
molecular biology played only a minor role if any. It has always been a
relatively fuzzy category, and not only have the exact agreed upon means
for defining subspecies changed many times, but how to interpret those
criteria in the classification of particular animal subspecies changes
all the time also. Such squabbles and quibbles have consumed government
agencies and courts asked to settle disputes stemming from endangered
species legislation, for example.
How else would you describe how we're interpeting this information
provided by molecular biologists? There's a context! Very often this
context is a hotly debated one due to the social implications, political
or legal policy issues, scientific rivalry, egotistical bias etc .
This is not uncommon in sciences. Do you think there exists somewhere
some purely objective, universally agreed upon, baseline chart from
which to assess scientific evidence? In the example of genetic
difference, does a .1% difference necessarily qualify as subspecies?
Does it have to be at least .5%? What is the number? What about
species, as in the case of chimps and humans? What numbers go with
that? 1% ? 10%? 15%? Some researchers argue we share 80% of the genome
with mice and we share about 40% with worms. And other researchers come
along arguing different numbers based on different analysis.
To make things even MORE interesting, take the following example. In
the case of chimpanzees, males seem to have much less genetic diversity
than females. It suggests that chimp males differ x percent, and chimp
females differ several times that. There is evidence from chimp
behavioral research into chimp mating habits which explains how this
could occur. So in some genetic analysis, it looks like there are three
very old and very distinct subspecies. In other analysis, it looks like
there are two very closely related subspecies and one very different,
while the males of the two closely related subspecies look essentially
identical. Some would add a fourth subspecies. Many scratch their
heads how certain biomarkers seem to tell one clear story, but other
biomarkers completely contradict it. Could populations of females
within a species have enough difference to qualify as subspecies while
the males do not?
If you're looking at pure objective raw numbers, males and female human
DNA differs more at the genome level than the DNA of chimps and humans.
Of course, such a raw number scale makes little sense all by itself. We
INTERPRET it.
And genetic biologists disagree that looking simply at the number of
differences found in the genome mapping tell the main story anyway!
Many would argue that the still very poorly understood genetic
"regulatory mechanisms" are where the most revealing story lies.
I don't see that we're at the point where we can pretend we default to
molecular biology to make sense of nature. We're still very much
relying on our "understanding of nature" from other areas to try to make
sense of what we see in molecular biology. And I don't see that we're
very far along in that process, at all. Certainly not so far along that
it informs most people of what it is to be a "chimp" and what it is to
be a "worm" and what is to be a "person".
BTW, why are we arguing about this? I'd be interested in hearing the
various theories about "what this argument" means. They should be as
varied, imaginative, and perhaps contradictory as were the theories
about what the operant definition of "ad hominem" is on this board.
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:00:20 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: Peter - continuing
Can you tell me, in just one or two sentences, what you think it is
we're arguing about?
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:42:45 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] Anthroposophical Society's amicus brief accepted by
California court
Copyright 2004 News Network Anthroposophy Limited (NNA). All rights reserved.
NNA content on this website or distributed by NNA by any other means
may not be republished or redistributed without the prior consent of
News Network Anthroposophy. Users may use and print extracts of NNA
content without permission for their own personal and non-commercial
use only.
For republication or redistribution please contact NNA at:
(mailto:admin nna-news.org)admin nna-news.org.
+ + + + +
Anthroposophical Society's amicus brief accepted by California court
By Douglas Miller
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA (NNA) - In the legal action by People for
Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS) against two California school
districts using Waldorf teaching methods, the amicus curiae brief
presented by the Anthroposophical Society in America to a federal
court in California has been accepted by the court.
As reported earlier by NNA, the Society submitted the brief in the
suit between the anti-Waldorf group and the Sacramento City Unified
School District and Twin Ridges Elementary School District to contest
allegations by PLANS that anthroposophy is a religion.
Acceptance of the Society's brief was at the discretion of the judge.
According to Jean Yeager, administrative director of the Society in
America, the Society has had involvement neither in the development
nor the advancement of Waldorf-method schools in the public sector.
However, the Society is the legal representative of anthroposophy in
America.
Its amicus brief asserts that, first, it is inappropriate and
contrary to principles of judicial economy for the court to undertake
to determine the nature of anthroposophy or of the Anthroposophical
Society as PLANS has asked the Court to do; second, as the legal
guardian of anthroposophy in the US, the Society asserts that
anthroposophy is not a religion; third, the Society details
specifically how anthroposophy and the Anthroposophical Society do
not meet the relevant criteria of "religion", including the standards
outlined in Alvarado, the leading Californian case on the issue.
END/dm
Note to editors: We have been asked by lawyers for the
Anthroposophical Society in America, to clarify two points. Prof.
Douglas Sloan has been engaged as an expert witness by the two school
districts, not by the Anthroposophical Society as reported in our
previous item ("Anthroposophical Society in America intervenes in
lawsuit"). Second, usage of the term "intervene" to describe the
Society's submission of an amicus brief could be open to
misinterpretation if taken in a strictly legal sense, since
"intervene" as a legal term means to become a party to the suit. As
was indicated in the NNA report, the Society is not a party in the
case.
+ + + + +
040831-01EN
Date: 31 August 2004
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: making sense of race
Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
"Here are a couple of reading suggestions for folks who've had the stamina to
follow the recent exchange over race."
Although I have not yet received or read it, I would suggest Dr. Joseph Graves's newest book, "The Emporer’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium" (2001). Dr. Graves is a professor in evolutionary biology and African-American studies at Arizona State University. I heard and spoke with him on Wisconsin Public Radio several weeks ago on precisely this subject. During his WPR time he mentioned the case of a woman in Louisiana who several decades ago sued or attempted to sue the state because it had placed on her driver's license that her race is "African-American" or "Black." (I cannot recall right now which word was used.) I remember seeing the 60 minutes piece on her and will never forget how irate she was about being identified as in any way not white. At the time I thought it was rather funny, but 25 years or so later I cannot say that is how see it. In fact, the image of that woman and her extremely upset state is what came to mind when this
particular WC discussion began and when any discussion of "race" occurs. What is at stake with those who argue that "race" is a tangible and/or biological entity is how people identify themselves, but rather has to do with how they perceive themselves and how that perception, given their view of "race," can so easily be disrupted and found to be false. In other words, some members of the dominant culture might find it cool to identify as "Indian," but they will do anything to not be "colored."
I also remember a conversation I had with Dennis Brutus about the subject of people mistaking us for "white" or Caucasian, which for him was a fairly new experience for him as he moved to the U.S. from South Africa where he was legally forced to wear the label of "colored."
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Peter - continuing
In 1991 I watched a video presented by our Civil Rights course law professor wherein a man (who in that video used the name of John Gray, but in a later one used the name of John Powell) was doing a presentation to a group of police officers. As I remember the gist of his presentation was that racial profiling is a legitimate activity. He then went on to justify his stance on the basis of what he purported to be facts, such as African-Americans having higher crime rates, and after a few minutes he began talking about how Black people are lazy, don't want to work, have too many children, etc. I knew within a few minutes that John Gray was African-American not because of his physical appearance but because he didn't seem to have the convictions of a race thinker and because I felt there was some hidden "game" at play. During the intermission of his presentation the cameras focused on the reactions of the officers, only one of whom was visibly upset with what Gray had been saying.
When Gray came back on stage, he came with large, blown-up pictures of his parents who would by most people be perceived as African-American in contrast to their son (Gray) who would be perceived by most people, including the African-American law student (who has blond hair and hazel green eyes) I sat next to, as Caucasion or white.
The presentation was designed to force the officers to confront their own biases and prejudices (race thinking). Not surprisingly, rather than having that effect what happened was that a number of the officers insisted that Gray was lying about being African-American.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com) wrote:
"If melanin is a variable element, and, besides the melanin, human skin
generally looks the same (I'll set aside the matter of albinism), one could
well say that the "natural" color of skin is pinkish."
Why couldn't one just as credibly state that brown is the "natural" color of skin? Perhaps the underside of the hands and feet are lacking in melanin (if that is indeed the case) because they are not exposed to the sun, i.e. perhaps it is an evolved trait. Also, since most people in the world are some shade of brown, then wouldn't that make brown the statistically normal color? As for what is "natural" I'll quote a biology professor who stated, "If it occurs in nature, it is by definition natural."
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, 31 Aug 2004 12:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What is race-for Peter
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com) wrote:
'If a Moroccan with blue eyes immigrates to the U.S., is he an "African-American?"'
Yes, if that is how he identifies himself. The U.S. INS may designate him otherwise, however, for purposes of immigration documents. I knew a man from Syria who was labelled as "white" on his immigration papers and he was quite upset about it, because he quite rightly knew that how he defines himself is his prerogative alone, which in every other area of U.S. law that I know of is how it is handled. I don't know if the INS intentionally gave him the incorrect label or if it was just another bureacrat making assumptions on personal race-based beliefs or perceptions. I personally have had to correct bureaucrats from Driver's Licensing agencies - in the U.S. many if not all states once placed a racial designation on driver's licenses - to Census enumerators (who are specifically trained to not make assumptions re: a person's "race."
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, 31 Aug 2004 13:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com) wrote:
"No doubt AFF will have fundamentalists involved with their particular agenda, but AFF looks like they have a broader, legitimate concern over cults which in
fact cause harm, such as the Jim Jones debacle, et al."
Are you implying that cults cause harm only if hundreds of people wind up dead as a result of being in that particular cult?
"Waldorf, in it's intent as an experientially based holistic educational
system is not a cult."
Since even by Steiner's own writings Waldorf "education" isn't really an educational system, then does that mean it is a cult?
"However, PLANS does everything they can do to tar
Waldorf with their focus only on those taking Steiner far too seriously."
Is that akin to some christians taking "god's" words too seriously? Do which words are taken too seriously change over time depending upon changes in the underlying society in which case should something like National Socialism again arise, would his words re: subraces again be appropriate? If not, then why were they considered appropriate when he first spoke them?
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:35:13 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Gideon Mills wrote:
) Are you implying that cults cause harm----- etc.
Deborah,
This is a good example of Waldorf Critic nitpicking, not worthy of my
responding, and not addressing the fundamental issue.
Waldorf is an experientially based holistic educational organization.
It is not based upon a religion, but based upon a precurser to modern
humanistic/transpersonal psychology and the systems science of
consciousness studies.
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:58:59 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
From: momof2gals mindspring.com
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Brad, you have got to be kidding! Waldorf is based on Anthroposophy, which is a clearly a religion. It is a system of belief. What the heck does "experientially based" even mean? It is one of those phrases that Waldorf schools use to appeal to parents, who think it sounds good. But in Waldorf schools, kids' experiences are very, very limited, especially in the elementary years. They have to paint a certain way, draw a certain way, etc. etc.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Sent: Aug 31, 2004 4:35 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Save on inkjet and toner, and get free shipping on orders over $50.
http://click.topica.com/caacAsfb1dkiGb1IpcOa/Inksoutlet
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gideon Mills wrote:
) Are you implying that cults cause harm----- etc.
Deborah,
This is a good example of Waldorf Critic nitpicking, not worthy of my
responding, and not addressing the fundamental issue.
Waldorf is an experientially based holistic educational organization.
It is not based upon a religion, but based upon a precurser to modern
humanistic/transpersonal psychology and the systems science of
consciousness studies.
Brad
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stories from the Civil Rights Movement. Extraordinary stories,
ordinary people. Share your memories today!
http://click.topica.com/caacvglb1dkiGb1IpcOf/AARP
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:00:21 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
From: momof2gals mindspring.com
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Brad, I am coming late into this discussion. Could you tell us what your involvement in/relationship to Waldorf is? Are you a former Waldorf parent, or a current one? A teacher trainee?
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Sent: Aug 31, 2004 12:08 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Save on inkjet and toner, and get free shipping on orders over $50.
http://click.topica.com/caacAsfb1dkiGb1IpcOa/Inksoutlet
-------------------------------------------------------------------
mysplum wrote:
)
) on 8/30/04 5:36 PM, Brad Martin at bkmartin6 hotmail.com wrote:
)
) Now they are on the
) ) main bill with an upcoming fundamentalist conference on cults. The smell
) ) ripens.
)
) Sharon: What on earth are you talking about? AFF is not a fundamentalist
) conference! Don't confuse AFF with AFA! They are totally different
) organizations.
)
You are just too sharp today, Sharon. :) I know there are fundamentalist
cult organizations. I went online to check out AFF. No doubt AFF will
have fundamentalists involved with their particular agenda, but AFF
looks like they have a broader, legitimate concern over cults which in
fact cause harm, such as the Jim Jones debacle, et al.
Waldorf, in it's intent as an experientially based holistic educational
system is not a cult. However, PLANS does everything they can do to tar
Waldorf with their focus only on those taking Steiner far too seriously.
Until I have evidence that the Waldorf leadership is, in fact,
literalizing Steiner and focusing only on 'What Steiner said', including
all the nonsense, then I will continue to hold that Waldorf is a
legitimate holistic educational system, woe in need of a revamp.
Brad
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy Stocks and Index Funds for just $4 No Account or
Investment Minimums and No Inactivity Fees Automatically
invest weekly or monthly and build your future.
http://click.topica.com/caacvggb1dkiGb1IpcOf/Sharebuilder
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com) wrote:
"Subtle racism would be present almost any time that race is mentioned as if
it were a biological reality, as if people objectively belonged to this or that race."
There is nothing subtle about that and in fact to the individual who is the subject or victim of race-thinking, "subtle racism" is non-existent, if for no other reason than what may be subtle to one person will not be to another, which makes the word "subtle" undefinable because of its vagueness and amoebic-like quality. If there were such a thing as "subtle racism" then it would be worse than covert racism: 1) perhaps it is so "subtle" that one would have to explain to someone who has never been a victim of racism, why a particular act, word, etc. is race-based and, frankly, we have better things to do with our time and energy and 2) in an employment context, for example, it would be extremely difficult to produce anything close to a "smoking gun," e.g. disparate treatment.
"I have *not* attempted to find racist teachings in the Waldorf curriculum;
my suspicion is that they are present, i.e., that a diligent search would
Just look in the "Family Guide." That's where I first read about Waldorf "education" and realized its racial underpinnings. Perhaps this is an example of what people purport to be "subtle racism." To the woman from Brazil who showed me the passages, to me, and to her husband there is nothing at all subtle about appropriating from other peoples' cultures in order to build a new culture. In this time of new ageism, which from everything I have read on the subject involves the theft and manipulation of rituals, etc. from other belief systems, it apparently does not strike many people as problematic because it has become so mainstreamed. For those whose cultures are being appropriated, it is extremely problematic particularly in the case of North American indigenous cultures whose members comprise less than 1% of the population, which means that when they through their representatives and/or collectively scream against what is being done, they are not heard. That is why some
Nations (e.g. the Hopi) have had to resort to lawsuits to stop the theft of their intellectual property. The local anthrops are quite blatant in such theft and it forms the basis of much of their personal incomes. Such appropriation is considered to be no less than genocidal by traditional First Nations' people who are active in preserving their cultures and by extension their very people.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Questions-(was head-banging futility)
charlie frey (cffrey mindspring.com) wrote:
"Please...I was answering an accusation that I can't understand being
'out', and I get a lecture on the demographics of cocaine use."
If that is what you gleaned from what I wrote, then you clearly didn't understand it, which supports what I wrote concerning your lack of comprehension of what it means to be a member of an "out" group.
'You are OK with "Black" but not "Hispanic"?'
I don't know where you got that from. The use of the word "hispanic" has been controversial for decades, which is why the U.S. Census Bureau has changed its definition of "hispanic" in the past few censuses. I have yet to meet a single Latino(a) or Chicano(a) or Mexican-American or anyone who identifies her/himself as "hispanic." Doesn't it just mean that somewhere in one's ancestry is a relative who was related to the House of Castile?
While I am thinking of it, what do you think La Raza means?
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:02:43 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
momof2gals mindspring.com wrote:
)
) Brad, you have got to be kidding! Waldorf is based on )Anthroposophy,
) which is a clearly a religion. It is a system of )belief.
Well, Lisa, I see you are indoctrinated with the WC/PLANS catechism, as
well. Waldorf ='s Anthroposophy ='s religion.
)Lisa: What the heck does "experientially based" even mean?
If that is a serious question (indicating absence of knowledge of the
meaning of the phrase) and if that is a question that is truly
representative of the Waldorf Critic Activists, then no wonder there is
a profound misunderstanding and 'foodfight' going on.
I re-entered the fray with a posting on Aug 19, 2004 15:50 PDT. "For
Parents---" thread. I have posted several summations with references and
sites on what is meant, should you choose to research. I will enter
more.
As to 'whom am I', I have a niece who had two good years at Waldorf with
a good teacher. Her Mom can tell the difference between the literal and
the metaphor. For example, a gnome is an imaginative device, more
creative perhaps than the Easter bunny. She is now starting junior high
at a local public school.
I have an engineering degree (BSEE 1963) and post grad in systems
science, a career in engineering and management in feedback control
systems. I have had a wonderful lifetime of learning and experiencing in
the arts and humanities, which relates directly to the experiential and
the human capacity for inner growth. I can well separate the wheat from
the chaff, gold from the dross. Holistic education is for young people,
based upon the systems principles. All the evidence I see states that
Waldorf is an experientially based holistic education organization with
an important need for reformation. ie, take the essence of Steiner, stop
taking him literally, and come into the 21st century of systems
science, consciousness studies,
and humanistic/transpersonal psychologies.
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:03:37 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: taking criticism seriously
Thanks for taking the time to respond in a (mostly!) respectful way, Brad.
Used to be I spent a lot of time on this list and knew everyone and
everything that was being said. Now -- fortunately or unfortunately,
depending upon ones point of view! -- I don't have as much time to spend
here, so I often need the "Cliffs Notes" version of things.
Because I am once again short on time, I will address only one of the points
you made below. You said of your niece, who spent a short time in a Waldorf
school: ((Her Mom can tell the difference between the literal and
) the metaphor. For example, a gnome is an imaginative device, more
) creative perhaps than the Easter bunny. She is now starting junior high
) at a local public school.))
That's the problem, Brad: to Anthroposophists, gnomes are NOT the imaginary
creatures that inhabit story books aimed at entertaining young children.
Anthroposophists *believe* in gnomes and fairies: to them, they literally
exist and are are real as you and I!
Don't believe me? Check out the Anthro literature. (Now I am wishing I had
not given all my Anthro books away; had I not, I would have at my disposal
the titles of several Anthro/Steiner books with chapters devoted to gnomes
and fairies. In fact, I do vividly recall a book about "Nature Spirits" by
Anthro devotee Marjorie Spock. I can still see the paintings of the gnomes
and fairies with clarity.)
When I enrolled my child in a Waldorf school, I, too, thought that the
gnomes and fairies were imaginative devices aimed at allowing adults to
share the wonder of nature and life with children. I learned the hard way
that though that is what *I* thought, many of the devoted Anthroposophists
who taught at my daughter's former school thought differently. To them,
gnomes and fairies were real: something they could see with their "trained"
Anthro eyes. In fact, I well recall a most unpleasant conversation I
ultimately had with a kindergarten teacher known for her rigid adherence to
everything Steiner about this. When I told her that I had discovered that to
her and others, fairies and gnomes were real, she countered (and I am
paraphrasing here, as it has been some years!) "So? What I believe is none
of your business!" I retorted "What you believes *is* my business when you
are forcing those beliefs on my child without my permission and knowledge."
And, Brad, that's the crux of much of the critics' arguments: we will defend
any person's right to believe what he or she wants and even to teach those
beliefs in a private school. But we cannot and will not defend or tolerate
people forcing their religious beliefs on children and families without the
parents' knowledge in private schools, and we certainly cannot condone
public funding of any religious public school.
The Waldorf system's continued insistence on NOT revealing its religious
underpinnings created critics such as me. I came on this list many years ago
very excited to have discovered Waldorf for my daughter. I came to defend it
and to rave about it. Now I number myself among Waldorf's strongest critics.
If Waldorf schools would just own who they are and shout to the heavens they
believe in "We are Anthroposophist schools!" and explain even the basics of
what that means, critics like me would not have happened. I also happen to
believe that if they did that, they would not have schools large enough to
hold all the children whose parents would enroll them. The only difference
is that the schools would then be being honest, and the "right" parents --
meaning, those sympathetic to Anthro principles and ideas -- would enroll,
and the rest of us would stay away.
Lisa
) From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:02:43 +0000
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) Save on inkjet and toner, and get free shipping on orders over $50.
) http://click.topica.com/caacAsfb1dkiGb1IpcOa/Inksoutlet
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
) momof2gals mindspring.com wrote:
))
)) Brad, you have got to be kidding! Waldorf is based on )Anthroposophy,
)) which is a clearly a religion. It is a system of )belief.
)
) Well, Lisa, I see you are indoctrinated with the WC/PLANS catechism, as
) well. Waldorf ='s Anthroposophy ='s religion.
)
)) Lisa: What the heck does "experientially based" even mean?
)
) If that is a serious question (indicating absence of knowledge of the
) meaning of the phrase) and if that is a question that is truly
) representative of the Waldorf Critic Activists, then no wonder there is
) a profound misunderstanding and 'foodfight' going on.
)
) I re-entered the fray with a posting on Aug 19, 2004 15:50 PDT. "For
) Parents---" thread. I have posted several summations with references and
) sites on what is meant, should you choose to research. I will enter
) more.
)
) As to 'whom am I', I have a niece who had two good years at Waldorf with
) a good teacher. Her Mom can tell the difference between the literal and
) the metaphor. For example, a gnome is an imaginative device, more
) creative perhaps than the Easter bunny. She is now starting junior high
) at a local public school.
)
) I have an engineering degree (BSEE 1963) and post grad in systems
) science, a career in engineering and management in feedback control
) systems. I have had a wonderful lifetime of learning and experiencing in
) the arts and humanities, which relates directly to the experiential and
) the human capacity for inner growth. I can well separate the wheat from
) the chaff, gold from the dross. Holistic education is for young people,
) based upon the systems principles. All the evidence I see states that
) Waldorf is an experientially based holistic education organization with
) an important need for reformation. ie, take the essence of Steiner, stop
) taking him literally, and come into the 21st century of systems
) science, consciousness studies,
) and humanistic/transpersonal psychologies.
)
) Brad
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) Stories from the Civil Rights Movement. Extraordinary stories,
) ordinary people. Share your memories today!
) http://click.topica.com/caacvglb1dkiGb1IpcOf/AARP
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:34:19 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Brad Martin, you wrote,
)(I enjoy the occasional Waldorf graduate
)now in college, etc., who discovers WC and cannot imagine the absurdity
)he reads on this forum based upon his own direct experience.)
Here's a published account from a Waldorf graduate:
"Please don't think it is easy for me to point the finger at
Anthroposophy! I spent ten years of my life in a Waldorf school. I am
now questioning a lot that I was raised on and had taken for granted.
"Anthroposophy is a religion, and no matter how you slice it, you
cannot remove the Anthroposophy from Waldorf teaching methods.
Otherwise, the teachers might be free to teach normal science, such
as that the heart does indeed pump blood (something I was not
taught). And although children may bring matza and sing dreidel songs
in some (not most) Steiner schools, that does not take away from the
Christianity and paganism that Anthroposophy is made of."
[Yael Malfatto, "Three People Reflect on Waldorf Education:
Recollections." Natural Jewish Parenting, B''H No. 7 Spring
1999/5759, p. 44.]
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 04:22:14 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Here's a published account from a Waldorf graduate:
)
) "Please don't think it is easy for me to point the finger at
) Anthroposophy! I spent ten years of my life in a Waldorf school. I am
) now questioning a lot that I was raised on and had taken for granted.
)
) "Anthroposophy is a religion, and no matter how you slice it, you
) cannot remove the Anthroposophy from Waldorf teaching methods.
) Otherwise, the teachers might be free to teach normal science, such
) as that the heart does indeed pump blood (something I was not
) taught). And although children may bring matza and sing dreidel songs
) in some (not most) Steiner schools, that does not take away from the
) Christianity and paganism that Anthroposophy is made of."
Yes, there will be mindsets of orthodoxy, especially among the young,
such as this one, who have yet to mature. In fact, he may live his
entire life without focusing on the 'psychological inference and
metaphorical reference of the term (belief). My assumption would be,
that among those Waldorf schools which are not run by 'fundamentalist
anthros', but wiser teachers who see the whole picture, there will be a
larger percentage of students with good preparation for a life of
increasing wisdom.
Dan Dugan, how would you answer this earlier inquiry on leadership:
Walden, Thanks for your comments and experience. My question is: What
is the real story of the Waldorf/AWSNA leadership? I mean, the REAL
story. Good minds, 100 years later, surely can update it all with modern
experiential learning/holistic education knowledge, methods and
practice. It is no longer fringe. Throw out the bathwater, but not the
baby.
Who are the leaders? Who is making the decisions? What are their
positions?
If the leadership of AWSNA and the teacher training sees the good
essence and can bring it all up to date, then fine, let them be. If
there are mindsets in charge who remain in thrall to all that is
outdated and, as I have said, take Steiner too seriously, what is being
done about it? Who and what is being done to revamp and update?
The reality remains that all a parent wants is a good education for
their children and experientially based education has added benefits to
the rote 3 R's.
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com) wrote:
" All the evidence I see states that
Waldorf is an experientially based holistic education organization with
an important need for reformation. ie, take the essence of Steiner, stop
taking him literally, and come into the 21st century of systems
science, consciousness studies,
and humanistic/transpersonal psychologies."
Experiential based translates into empirically based. Holistic means nothing or perhaps means wholistic and that means "in its whole state" which means it is a meaningless word. "Important need" is redundant. As for "essence," one gets to the essence of something by understanding what the person who invented whatever one is attempting to get to the essence of says about it, which means reading it literally, i.e. following the actual words in their ordinary meaning. "Systems" are sets or arrangements of things so related or connected as to form a unity or organic whole as in a "solar system," an "irrigation system," or a "septic system." In same way, I suppose, those do have something to do with science, but what "systems science" is an enigma. "Consciousness studies" would be acts or processes of applying the mind in order to acquire knowledge as to the state of being aware. What might that mean in everyday parlance? "Humanistic/transpersonal psychologies" translates into
studying human nature across one's or a group's individual or private science dealing with the mind and mental processes. Offhand, I would say that this is a sticking together of words none of which has anything to do with the other.
It reminds me of the poem we made on the frig today with our magnetic poetry kit: "Flowers came out of the funny sun today."
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:55:35 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
)Dan Dugan, how would you answer this earlier inquiry on leadership:
)
)...Who are the leaders? Who is making the decisions? What are their
)positions?
I had marked that message for discussion; please forgive my delay.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 00:53:03 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Linda (was My - Linda's - struggle to understand)
Linda wrote:
"Now besides defending my metaphor, I'm going to have to take my leave
and perhaps in a few days I can come back to the rest of your post with
fresh eyes."
Hi again Linda,
Not wanting to upset you with questions in the ongoing discussion but as you
labeled the thread *your struggle to understand* and as I am a fan of
clarity and as you have been engaged in discussion involving asking and
answering of questions (with Peter S.) from both sides... I'd be pleased to
help with the struggle. I would also appreciate your feelings/thoughts
(answers to questions... pretty please? Methinks I've answered yours) about
my last post. We kinda left that chat hanging in mid-air.
Here is where we left off:
Hi Linda,
walden wrote:
) ** Parent, after reading the new FAQ) asks of a Waldorf teacher BEFORE
) enrolling: "What do you mean by Christ at the center? etcetera
Linda replied:
"Walden...............................................when you read in
the old FAQ that Waldorf stems from Steiner's work in Anthroposophy, did
you ask what them what THAT meant?"
Yes, I did. I was told that Anthroposophy simply means "wisdom of man."
That is the literal translation and is often used by Waldorf folks.
"This an illusion you're chasing here."
No Linda. I am seeking honesty and clarity. "The wisdom of Man"
description is an illusion and has as much to do with Steiner's Christology,
temperaments, theories on reincarnation, etc. (anthroposophy) as the game of
ice hockey has to ballet. Both hockey and ballet involve a group of people
moving together... but there are some major differences. Why not tell
potential Waldorf customers the truth? I am surprised this is difficult to
understand. If I am chasing an illusion, would you care to comment on the
feelings of master Waldorf teacher, Eugene Schwartz? I agree with his views
on the problem:
Schwartz: "I think we owe it to our parents to let them know that the child
is going to go through one religious experience after another. And if any of
the teacher trainees in the room feel that I'm not saying that clearly
enough to you, well, here it is, guys, if I haven't said it to you a hundred
times already: when we deny that Waldorf schools are giving children
religious experiences, we are denying the whole basis of Waldorf education."
"The time has come for us to stop pussyfooting around [theories] that will
sound too strange if we tell parents what we are really doing. Don't say I
didn't tell you guys--10 years ago!. Stop pussyfooting around. Tell
everybody what we are about. The day they walk into the school, let them
know then. If we are really to be a movement for cultural renewal, it is our
responsibility to share with the parents those elements of Anthroposophy
which will help them understand their children and fathom the mysterious
ways in which we work Yes, we are giving the children a version of
Anthroposophy in the classroom; whether we mean to or not, it's there. So
let's at least do it the right way. [32:50] Let's be bringing
Anthroposophical [light] in ..."
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/schwartz.html
Is this experienced, knowledgeable Waldorf teacher of teachers chasing an
illusion, Linda? Or does he recognize a problem that needs addressing?
Linda wrote:
"There is no possibility that the Perfect Promotional Material exists which
would satisfy the two of us, let alone the entire universe of potential
Waldorf families."
Linda, nobody is suggesting "the Perfect Promotional Material" can
accommodate the needs of all prospective Waldorf parents. Currently,
Waldorf public relations material is misleading and does not address many
important elements of the movement. Is the point of my argument really this
difficult to understand?
"So you say. You say if you want to understand this you look at it's
roots. I say if I want to understand this I look at it's fruit. You
say Waldorf's got some very screwed up roots. I say ALL of human kind's
got very screwed up roots. But despite those rotten roots, human kind
sure manages to put out some damn good fruit."
I think this attitude is naive and dangerous. Ignore the wrongs of the past
and present because some good people are here today and will continue be
here in the future.... BTW, I have had two Waldorf grads work for me over
the past 10 years. Both were very good employees and nice people. That has
nothing to do, however, with the problems in Waldorf public relations.
Linda wrote:
"So I say, I've yet to see a sick plant NOR healthy one get any healthier
by pulling it up, turning it upside down and poking, scrubbing,
disinfecting or pruning away at it's roots.
You have never examined the roots of a plant or re-potted a plant because of
a root problem?
"If you were to do this at your children's NEW school, especially in a very
public way, then I'd
say that the odds were excellent you'd make the "tree" desperately sick
in no time at all, and pose painful risks to much of it's fruit. And
you'd inspire alarm and bitter resentments as well."
Well, this statement tells me a great deal about our differences, Linda.
Please think about your choice of words. Why would examining Waldorf from
the roots up "inspire alarm and bitter resentment?"
In any case, what you say (above) is *exactly* what we are doing in one of
my children's new schools at this very moment. Matter of fact, I issued a
press release last week because of controversy revolving around the
propriety of public funding for the school - a non-coercive, democratic
school. We invited the public (via the press) into the school to examine
what we are doing. We - parents, faculty and children - are examining
everything having to do with the school. It looks like we need to make some
changes in order to remain a public, taxpayer supported school. This is
part of the ongoing nature of the school but at this particular time, we are
very public and invite advice or suggestions from taxpayers. And... there
is no alarm or bitter resentment, whatsoever. None. We believe we qualify
for public school status and we need to explain what we are all about. It
ain't easy and we need to talk philosophy with bureaucrats but he exercise
is healthy - for all. Actually, although we will need to make some changes,
our public navel gazing has resulted in other public schools re-thinking
some of their policies - especially with regards to conflict resolution.
This is a good thing. Honest communication. Check those roots....
Linda wrote:
"Funny how different you and I are in they way we look at the world, and
in what we "forsee" happening with suggestions like these. Isn't it?"
Yes. I look forward to hearing your comments after reading this post. You
also seem to see the Waldorf world (and this issue) differently than another
Waldorf supporter, Eugene Schwartz. I mentioned him (as an example) only
because I thought it might help you see the problem from a pro-Waldorf side.
Sometimes I wonder if people on various of sides of issues become so
entrenched in their position and so convinced that *the other side* is
wrong - no matter what - that room for common ground is all but impossible?
Stepping to one side (in this case, beside Schwartz) might help see the
issue from another angle. I'll step to one side right now....
How about keeping much of the Waldorf FAQ as is (with some editing) and
adding the religious/spiritual information a la Charlie, Eugene Schwartz,
etc? What is the danger in this honest approach? Do you think it would
inspire alarm and bitter resentment? If so, why?
Linda previously wrote:
) Again, you said (this is important):
) "The most sensible route is to "evidence of how Steiner's doctrines" are
) manifest in Waldorf schools is to actually
) experience a real Waldorf school."
) I responded: What if I do not want that experience - for myself or my
) child?
Linda wrote: "Choose another one for yourself and your children. It doesn't
get any easier."
That is what I did and the new school was very open and open BEFORE we
enrolled. We were required to attend 3 information meetings and our kids
needed to spend 2 hours in the school on two separate days. Parents and
kids are required to sign a paper stating that we understand the philosophy
of the school.
At Waldorf, we were given an information sheet which spoke of nurturing the
whole child. I asked and was told that anthroposophy simply means "wisdom
of man" and that was that. Nothing about the morning prayer, eurythmy or
other spiritual exercises. Nothing about karma, reincarnation, soul work or
occultism.
I bring up the new school because you asked. See the difference between
schools and their approach to new parents? I'm trying hard to help you with
this struggle, Linda. I honestly do not understand why it is so difficult.
If anyone else can communicate better than me, please jump in.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 01:06:45 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: taking criticism seriously
Lisa wrote:
) Brad, you have got to be kidding! Waldorf is based on )Anthroposophy,
) which is a clearly a religion. It is a system of )belief.
Brad replied:
"Well, Lisa, I see you are indoctrinated with the WC/PLANS catechism, as
well. Waldorf ='s Anthroposophy ='s religion."
)Lisa: What the heck does "experientially based" even mean?
Brad replied:
"If that is a serious question (indicating absence of knowledge of the
meaning of the phrase) and if that is a question that is truly
representative of the Waldorf Critic Activists, then no wonder there is
a profound misunderstanding and 'foodfight' going on.
As to 'whom am I', I have a niece who had two good years at Waldorf with
a good teacher. Her Mom can tell the difference between the literal and
the metaphor. For example, a gnome is an imaginative device, more
creative perhaps than the Easter bunny. She is now starting junior high
at a local public school."
Hi Brad,
I actually thought you were a Waldorf teacher, Brad. You've been telling us
all about Waldorf for a while now. You sound like you have years of
experience in Waldorf education. You've told us with some certainty that
"Waldorf is an experientially based holistic educational organization."
And now you lecture Lisa while telling us you had a niece in a Waldorf
school for two years?! Those of us who have had years and years of direct
Waldorf experience with many different Waldorf schools and who have studied
Waldorf/Anthroposophy for years subsequent to removing our kids from the
schools do not understand the subject... but you have more insight because
your niece was in a Waldorf school for two years?
You're kidding, right?
- Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:56:55 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: taking criticism seriously
Brad Martin wrote:
) I re-entered the fray with a posting on Aug 19, 2004 15:50 PDT. "For
) Parents---" thread.
I'm still waiting for you to enter the fray with me, Brad.
) I have an engineering degree (BSEE 1963) and post grad in systems
) science, a career in engineering and management in feedback control
) systems.
With that background, I'm even more puzzled about why it's so difficult
for you to substantiate your claim of a connection between anthroposophy
and second-order cybernetics. Still, never mind: why not try responding
to some of the rest of my response to your first post?
) I can well separate the wheat from
) the chaff, gold from the dross.
Self-praise is no recommendation.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:38:48 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: Taking Peter Staudenmeyer's racism seriously
Do not see it as personal, I could also include Dugan et alii..
do you remember me ? I already came on this forum two or three years
ago, and already you (Dugan I remember, and also you it seems to me)
discussed about Steiner's "racism".
I do not understand whence comes your obsessional hate.
You don't like Steiner ? ok. There are so much other paths of spiritual
development. Try one.
I shall just say to you one thing about Steiner's works : in this case
(as for Hegel, Schelling, and that kind of stuff), analytic
"compositionnality principle" (Fregean) does not work.
This as no sense to take just a few quotes and to draw conclusions,
especially when those conclusions are ridiculous as yours.
You must have first a "vue d'ensemble".
And about the question of racism, this "vue d'ensemble" is evident :
Steiner is an absolute opponent to racism, seen as "evil" and "contrary
to the sense of modern evolution".
Now I shall demonstrate to you that YOU (Staudenmeyer) are a racist, in
the "analytic " style you like.
Do you know this verse in islamic Qur'an which says (Surat 9, verse 5) :
"Kill all the infidels whrever you find them".
imagine a man who would say : "o , you see, those muslims are racist and
fascist, this is evident from this quote of their Qur'an".
How would you call such a person ? an "islamophobe", that is a racist.
Other example : in the Torah (Leviticus) it is said to kill homosexual
or women adulterin with stones ("lapidations").
A person who would say : "oh those jewish are barbarians, see from this
quote of the Leviticus" woud clearly be an antisemitic.
Antisemitism and islamophoby are horrible racisms.
You (Staudenmeyer, Dugen, et alii) do exactly the same kind of thing
from isolated quotes from Steiner.
So you are "anti-anthroposophist" racists, exactly as Poutine is an
islamophobe or Hitler is an antisemitic.
QED.
(perhaps try to have a nice little girl in your bed, or a boy if you are
homosexual, I am not homophobe : perhaps it will cure your obsessional
"anti-anthroposophiy" racist hate)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1459
-- Topica Digest --
Re: taking criticism seriously
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Taking Peter Staudenmeier seriously
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Questions-(was head-banging futility)part 2
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Questions-(was head-banging futility)part 2
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Linda (was My - Linda's - struggle to understand)
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
Barnaby: For parents seeking info on Waldorf
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
RE: Linda (was My - Linda's - struggle to understand)
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
Re: Linda (was My - Linda's - struggle to understand)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Hi, a few questions
By moh672 hotmail.com
Reason, Race, and choice
By mhelsher msn.com
RE: Taking Peter Staudenmeier seriously
By foncteur yahoo.fr
RE: Taking Peter Staudenmeyer's racism seriously
By lioncell gmx.net
RE: Taking Peter Staudenmeyer's racism seriously
By foncteur yahoo.fr
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 07:36:42 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: taking criticism seriously
on 8/31/04 10:03 PM, Lisa D. Ercolano at momof2gals mindspring.com wrote:
) (Now I am wishing I had
) not given all my Anthro books away; had I not, I would have at my disposal
) the titles of several Anthro/Steiner books with chapters devoted to gnomes
) and fairies. In fact, I do vividly recall a book about "Nature Spirits" by
) Anthro devotee Marjorie Spock. I can still see the paintings of the gnomes
) and fairies with clarity.)
Sharon: Now I am feeling bad because I have some of your books, which I'll
gladly return. "Nature Spirits" is a collection of lectures by Rudolf
Steiner, not Marjorie Spock. The book discusses how gnomes can be found in
the earth, especially metal mines. I highly recommend this book to anyone
interested in getting the deeper scoop of why Waldorf schools emphasize
gnomes and fairies in their curriculum. I'm paging through the book right
now and notice some racist passages (Abd take note). In fact the blatantly
racist passage about older races only persisting "because there are people
who cannot or will not move forward to a higher racial form" can be found in
the chapter entitled Gnomes, Undines, Sylphs and Salamanders" p.69. (Nature
Spirits, Rudolf Steiner Press 1995).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 07:53:05 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Taking Peter Staudenmeier seriously
on 9/1/04 5:38 AM, Foncteur at foncteur yahoo.fr wrote:
) So you are "anti-anthroposophist" racists, exactly as Poutine is an
) islamophobe or Hitler is an antisemitic.
Sharon: Pure adulterated, rubbish. Peter has studied Steiner's work in depth
and has pointed out that it is peppered with racism. He is calling for the
Anthroposophical movement to thoroughly revise, rescind, repudiate or
replace Steiner's racist content. He is drawing attention to an organization
that holds up such work as spiritually enlightened. He is placing Steiner's
worldview in its ideological and historical context because racial thinking,
within alternative spiritual movements, needs to see the light of day.
) (perhaps try to have a nice little girl in your bed, or a boy if you are
) homosexual, I am not homophobe : perhaps it will cure your obsessional
) "anti-anthroposophiy" racist hate)
Sharon: This is beyond the beyond.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:13:27 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Questions-(was head-banging futility)part 2
Sharon: Continuing to answer Abd's post to me. Sorry that this has become a
term paper! I don't have much time to spend on this but I'll at least
address part of it, and finish it up another time. (Waldorf defenders
rejoice, there's some crazy undines headed my way and I have to board up my
house. Yikes!)
)) But when racism exists in the founder's
)) texts which are read, promulgated, revered, published, re-published and
)) distributed within the movement, you can't say that racism is not blatant
)) there.
on 8/27/04 10:35 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax at abd lomaxdesign.com wrote:
)
) Show me a *blatantly* racist text that is so read and promulgated. I think
) you can easily find subtle racism, not difficult, but blatant racism is
) definitely de-emphasized in the practical reality of anthroposophy.
Sharon: Christianity as Mystical Fact, PHIL 102, first year Waldorf teacher
training. Why are they making teachers read this stuff in 2004 if racism is
de-emphasized? Why are Anthroposophists claiming that there is no racism in
Steiner's work when there jolly well is?
))Sharon: Show me one Steiner text that doesn't mention or allude to one part
)) or another of Steiner's racial doctrine, besides Philosophy of Freedom,
)) (which was written before Steiner's conversion to Theosophy and
)) Anthroposophical schism).
)
) Abd: "Mention" and "allusion" are not by any means a proof of centrality or
) importance. Especially allusion, but even mention, will be disregarded by
) many, even most readers.
Sharon: I mean that you'll be reading Steiner and all of a sudden you'll
read about Manu leading an advanced race to safety or you'll find references
to the wondering Jew myth or to Atlantis which are racist concepts woven
into the fabric of Steiner's work. You will also come upon the blatant stuff
which Peter has dealt with. Shoot, if I was reading Steiner at Waldorf
teacher training and I bumped into Steiner's blatent racist work, and I
understood the context of other "mentions" and "allusions", I'd wonder why
the heck the training school wanted me to read such stuff in 2004 and why
they hold Steiner up as spiritually enlightened.
)
)) I've yet to find one book that doesn't include
)) some of Steiner's race-thinking. I would say that racism is latent in
)) Waldorf schools because most people participating in Waldorf are clueless
)) about the subtext,
)
)Abd: Definitely. In other words, for them, it is *not* central.
Sharon: To the uninitiated right. To those who don't even know there is a
subtext or those who never read. But the teachers read that stuff, and some
parents read that stuff.
)
)) but those that follow Steiner's teachings and tell you
)) things like "change the hair from black to blonde", or "there is no racism
)) in Steiner's work" or "you cannot display those Mexican sculptures in the
)) store window" are being either Eurocentric or racist.
)
)Abd: Or simply mistaken. A person might accept the idea that angels have blonde
) hair without being thereby a racist. As I've mentioned, I find mention in
) Islamic texts that a certain angel had black hair; however, the general
) concept of angels is that they appear to people in a form that is not
) necessarily their *own* form, if they even have such a thing as their own
) form. Angels will appear to be people quite similar to those to whom they
) are appearing.
Sharon: OK, mistaken. But I think it reflects a certain unexamined
mentality, the kind of provincialism I found suffocating in Waldorf. (You
can learn about Steiner's Lunar Petris teachings in Steiner's book "Nature
Spirits".
)
)Abd: One might even think that blonde hair was a sign of some kind of
) superiority, of some kind, without thereby being racist, though it starts
) to get dangerously close. A genetic trait, like blondeness, is not
) equivalent to race, it is merely a marker of race. But if one thinks that
) "white people," and especially those with blonde hair and, say, blue eyes,
) are more spiritually advanced, one very likely holds racist concepts. That
) race has been mentioned is practically a proof. Steiner held and taught
) racist concepts, I don't think he can be successfully defended on that
) account.
Sharon: Agree.
)
))) Abd: As Mr. Staudenmaier will quite readily acknowledge, Steiner was
ambivalent
))) about racism. There are non-racist and anti-racist teachings in his corpus,
))) as well as blatantly and subtly racist teachings. For the most part, the
))) anti-racist sentiments are emphasized today, but some of the subtly racist
))) teachings survive, it appears.
))
)) Sharon: I don't think Steiner was ambivalent about racism, nor ambivalent
)) about race because he worked up a doctrine that rests on racist racial
)) notions, he put quite a bit of thought into his ideas and these ideas span
)) his entire life as a mystagogue.
)
) Abd: Note that Sharon is disagreeing with Staudenmaier. Steiner was
ambivalent,
) i.e., he taught things that are easily read as anti-racist, and he taught
) and said things that clearly showed racism. It is possible to take the
) latter fact and read the former teachings as subtly racist; but it is also
) possible to take the former, add a little rationalization, and come up with
) interpretations of the latter that are not racist. But it is more
) difficult, I'm certainly not up to the task.
Sharon: I don't think I'm disagreeing with Peter, I just think that if you
go on about race, and chuck in a few universal statements now and again
because you believe and teach that people must overcome their skin color,
you are still racist, especially when you teach that Manu led a small group
of spiritually advanced which developed into the Aryans and that older
racial forms should have died out and are digressing to an animal state plus
all the other racist stuff. The only way I could say that Steiner was not
racist would be if he had repudiated the racist things he wrote before he
died and said he was wrong. It's like Jan Smuts standing for segregation all
his life, then suddenly saying in his early 70s that black South Africans
are fellow South Africans and need to be armed because the Japanese are
going to attack. You can't look at that without seeing the rest.
)
)) He never wrote anything asking people to
)) forgive him for his racist-thinking or never said he was wrong about some of
)) his ideas.
)
) That's true about practically all his mistakes, racist or not.
Sharon: True. He thought he was spiritually enlightened and clairvoyant.
)
)) Just before he died he was still preaching racist sermons. It is
)) true that he contradicted himself frequently but if you believe and teach
)) that an elite group survived the Atlantis flood while others who should have
)) died out are regressing to an ape state, then everything that hinges on
)) that, or everything that relates to that notion is racist.
)
)Abd: Yes. No, does everything in anthroposophy -- and especially, in Waldorf --
) "hinge on that." Relation can be found between any two things, so finding
) *some* connection somewhere is of little or no consequence.
Sharon: They do claim to be "holists" you know. I think it does hinge on
that until the movement officially repudiates the racism. In Steiner's
theory of evolution, his followers wouldn't even exist had it not been for
Manu saving a spiritually advanced group from the Atlantis flood, (a racist
myth).
)
)) I can't
)) understand how you can divorce bits and pieces from that.
)
)Abd: Lack of understanding of a concept is not proof that the concept is
false.
Sharon: But I understand Steiner's myth and it's various racist threads that
are woven into the doctrine.
)
)) The corpus is
)) racist and I believe that some Anthroposophists know this and find
)) themselves in a quandary.
)
) Abd: Belief in a concept is not proof of it.
Sharon: True. Belief versus proof is what is at the heart of the SWA
controversy. As I said, a man representing the Anthroposophic movement came
to our ex-school and held a meeting after we left (after I had written to
the local paper), to say that you can't just pick the bits you like and say
"Steiner was clairvoyant when he said this but not clairvoyant when he said
that". A Theosophist parent who attended Annie Bessant's school in CA as a
child, told me this. She is a Waldorf supporter, a parent from our ex-class,
who understood where I was coming from and phoned me to tell me this. She
said she asked the man if they could just pick the parts that feel good and
leave the rest as something Steiner said when he wasn't clairvoyant. She is
a very trustworthy person, who said she attended the meeting and asked the
man this question, and I accept her testimony. I think a court would too.
)
)) One man visited our ex-school after we left and
)) told parents that they couldn't pick and choose from Steiner.
)
) Yes. That is not at all surprising. But people *do* pick and choose, and
) that man probably does also.
Sharon: Yes.
)
) The existence of an single example of something demonstrates almost nothing
) about a whole population including the example, beyond the simple existence
) of a single example.
Sharon: There are lots of examples, I just gave you one because I'm not
writing a paper. Just chatting on an internet discussion group.
)) If they did
)) this it would undermine all the teachings because it would invalidate the
)) doctrine.
)
) Abd: Ahem. Hogwash. Steiner is at least as accurate as a stopped clock, which
is
) right twice a day. What Steiner say that was correct -- or inspiring to
) truth, which is not the same thing -- is not invalidated no matter how much
) is might be mixed with what is false.
Sharon: It would depend on whether the stopped clock is traveling to a
different time zone as to whether it is right twice a day.
)
)) The Mormons knew this when they dealt with Smith's doctrine and
)) cleverly just had God whisper in leadership's ears that he'd changed his
)) mind. Which incidentally was a great thing for their movement which went on
)) to become the fastest growing new religious movement. (snip)
)
)Abd: Imputation as to the motives of others, in the manner found in this
) paragraph, is rarely accurate.
Sharon: Study it and see for yourself.
)
)) Waldorf education in the early years emphasizes color as light, quite
))) properly in my opinion. There is no color "Black." And if you look at
))) so-called "Black" people, you'll see that they do in fact, have color,
))) color in their skin and color in their hair.
))
)) Sharon: You are being coached by Anthroposophists and not doing your own
)) homework Abd! That's the outer form, but you have to dig deeper and
)) understand what Steiner's teachings on color and light are.
)
) My child is exposed to the outer form; and it would appear that most
) Waldorf teachers are quite ignorant of the inner form that Sharon claims is
) present.
Sharon: I don't doubt it. Though teachers at my ex-school did hint that they
knew about the deeper form.
)
)) Color is color
)) so all his color teachings relate in some way to each other.
)
)Abd: So and so walked on the same earth as Adolph Hitler, therefore so and so
is a nazi.
Sharon: No color = color, Hitler = Hitler, Nazi = Nazi, 1 = 1...
)
)) He says that
)) color is the organ of the spiritual world and that beings come to earth on
)) the wings of color.
)
) Yes.
)
)) He said that the soul lives in the actual color of the
)) skin which is peach-blossom.
)
)Abd: Perhaps racist. More silly than racist.
Sharon: Racist when you preach that advanced spirituality is tied to
external skin color and that white skin is a sign of spiritual progress:
Steiner:
This carrying down, this thorough impregnation of the flesh by the spirit,
this is characteristic of the mission, the whole mission of white humanity.
People have white skin color because the spirit works within the skin when
it wants to descend to the physical plane. That the external physical body
will become a container for the spirit, that is the task of our fifth
cultural epoch, which has been prepared by the four other cultural epochs.
And our task must be to acquaint ourselves with those cultural impulses that
tend to introduce the spirit into the flesh and into the ordinary. If we
recognize this completely, then it will become clear to us that where the
spirit is still supposed to function as spirit, where in a certain way the
spirit is supposed to be retarded in its development‹because in our time its
task is to descend into the flesh‹that where the spirit is retarded, where
it takes on a demonic character and does not fully penetrate the flesh, then
white skin color does not appear, because atavistic powers are present that
do not allow the spirit to achieve complete harmony with the flesh.
(Steiner, R. (1974). Die geistigen hintergrunde des ersten weltkrieges.
Lectures from 1914-1921. (GA 174b). Dornach, Switzerland: Rudolf Steiner
Verlag. (Staudenmaier, P., Trans. 2002, September 5.)
)
)) He said that black is the image of the lifeless
)) and that black skin is the sign of spiritual inferiority.
)
) Racist. Now, do Waldorf teachers think that "black skin is the sign of
) spiritual inferiority?" Have they even encountered this teaching, or, more
) importantly, if they encountered it did they accept it, or did they reject it?
Sharon: Good questions. Alas I must go now. Will get back to the rest when I
can.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:24:58 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Questions-(was head-banging futility)part 2
on 9/1/04 10:13 AM, mysplum at mysplum earthlink.net wrote:
Correction: I was in a rush when I answered this. Rereading, I realize I
need to make a correction because I glossed over something important in my
haste. Abd you wrote:
)) Abd: One might even think that blonde hair was a sign of some kind of
)) superiority, of some kind, without thereby being racist, though it starts
)) to get dangerously close. A genetic trait, like blondeness, is not
)) equivalent to race, it is merely a marker of race. But if one thinks that
)) "white people," and especially those with blonde hair and, say, blue eyes,
)) are more spiritually advanced, one very likely holds racist concepts. That
)) race has been mentioned is practically a proof. Steiner held and taught
)) racist concepts, I don't think he can be successfully defended on that
)) account.
)
) Sharon: Agree.
Whoops, Abd I don't agree with your statement in entirety. I don't believe
that blondeness is a marker of race because I don't believe in the concept
of race. It could be a marker of somebody else's mistaken belief about race,
but not mine.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:11:55 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Linda (was My - Linda's - struggle to understand)
walden wrote:
)
) Linda wrote:
)
) "Now besides defending my metaphor, I'm going to have to take my leave
) and perhaps in a few days I can come back to the rest of your post with
) fresh eyes."
)
) Hi again Linda,
)
) Not wanting to upset you with questions in the ongoing discussion but as
) you
) labeled the thread *your struggle to understand* and as I am a fan of
) clarity and as you have been engaged in discussion involving asking and
) answering of questions (with Peter S.) from both sides... I'd be pleased
) to
) help with the struggle. I would also appreciate your feelings/thoughts
) (answers to questions... pretty please? Methinks I've answered yours)
) about
) my last post. We kinda left that chat hanging in mid-air.
)
) Here is where we left off:
)
) Hi Linda,
)
) walden wrote:
)
) ) ** Parent, after reading the new FAQ) asks of a Waldorf teacher BEFORE
) ) enrolling: "What do you mean by Christ at the center? etcetera
)
) Linda replied:
) "Walden...............................................when you read in
) the old FAQ that Waldorf stems from Steiner's work in Anthroposophy, did
) you ask what them what THAT meant?"
)
) Yes, I did. I was told that Anthroposophy simply means "wisdom of man."
) That is the literal translation and is often used by Waldorf folks.
When you were told it simply means "wisdom of man", did you ask what
THAT meant?
)
) "This an illusion you're chasing here."
)
) No Linda. I am seeking honesty and clarity. "The wisdom of Man"
) description is an illusion and has as much to do with Steiner's
) Christology,
) temperaments, theories on reincarnation, etc. (anthroposophy) as the
) game of
) ice hockey has to ballet. Both hockey and ballet involve a group of
) people
) moving together... but there are some major differences. Why not tell
) potential Waldorf customers the truth? I am surprised this is difficult
) to
) understand.
If I were looking at a school based on claims made in its brochure,
where I found in it statements the school developed from educational
theories of Cantopopology, and this was described as simply a word
meaning "song of man", I wouldn't say to myself "oh, I get it now". I
have a difficult time believing you would (or did) either.
If I am chasing an illusion, would you care to comment on the
) feelings of master Waldorf teacher, Eugene Schwartz? I agree with his
) views
) on the problem:
)
) Schwartz: "I think we owe it to our parents to let them know that the
) child
) is going to go through one religious experience after another. And if
) any of
) the teacher trainees in the room feel that I'm not saying that clearly
) enough to you, well, here it is, guys, if I haven't said it to you a
) hundred
) times already: when we deny that Waldorf schools are giving children
) religious experiences, we are denying the whole basis of Waldorf
) education."
)
) "The time has come for us to stop pussyfooting around [theories] that
) will
) sound too strange if we tell parents what we are really doing. Don't say
) I
) didn't tell you guys--10 years ago!. Stop pussyfooting around. Tell
) everybody what we are about. The day they walk into the school, let them
) know then. If we are really to be a movement for cultural renewal, it is
) our
) responsibility to share with the parents those elements of Anthroposophy
) which will help them understand their children and fathom the mysterious
) ways in which we work Yes, we are giving the children a version of
) Anthroposophy in the classroom; whether we mean to or not, it's there.
) So
) let's at least do it the right way. [32:50] Let's be bringing
) Anthroposophical [light] in ..."
) http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/schwartz.html
)
) Is this experienced, knowledgeable Waldorf teacher of teachers chasing
) an
) illusion, Linda? Or does he recognize a problem that needs addressing?
From my perspective (which is equivalent to yours, neither of us being
Waldorf teachers), I think the unwelcome his argument received in the
Waldorf community speaks to the LACK of agreement with this depiction.
I have no idea what he meant when he said "Waldorf schools are giving
children religious experiences". If I'd chosen Waldorf FOR that very
reason, I'd be upset that 10 years later there still aren't any to be
found in the classroom.
Every now and then I take questions like this to my children. It's
hilarious, actually. Like "some people say that children with black
hair always have to sit by the windows". To many questions, like this
one, I get the "are these people whacked?" look in return. So this
morning I brought them this, "some people say your teacher is giving you
religion in the classroom", and my son says, after a bit, "well, yeah,
there's Buddha, Moses, Norse myths and stuff like that". That doesn't
qualify as "religious experience" by my definition. Perhaps Mr.
Schwartz means something else.
) Linda wrote:
) "There is no possibility that the Perfect Promotional Material exists
) which
) would satisfy the two of us, let alone the entire universe of potential
) Waldorf families."
)
) Linda, nobody is suggesting "the Perfect Promotional Material" can
) accommodate the needs of all prospective Waldorf parents. Currently,
) Waldorf public relations material is misleading and does not address
) many
) important elements of the movement. Is the point of my argument really
) this
) difficult to understand?
It mislead you, it didn't mislead me. Is it really so difficult to
understand?
)
) "So you say. You say if you want to understand this you look at it's
) roots. I say if I want to understand this I look at it's fruit. You
) say Waldorf's got some very screwed up roots. I say ALL of human kind's
) got very screwed up roots. But despite those rotten roots, human kind
) sure manages to put out some damn good fruit."
)
) I think this attitude is naive and dangerous. Ignore the wrongs of the
) past
) and present because some good people are here today and will continue be
) here in the future....
Walden, I think you must be an "oh, woe", "glass half empty" kinda guy.
You seem to be trying to force on me tickets for the "Magical Misery
Tour". It is hardly naive or dangerous that I'm traveling through life
on a different route.
) BTW, I have had two Waldorf grads work for me over
) the past 10 years. Both were very good employees and nice people. That
) has
) nothing to do, however, with the problems in Waldorf public relations.
Were they Christologists? Anthroposophists? Racists?
) "If you were to do this at your children's NEW school, especially in a
) very
) public way, then I'd
) say that the odds were excellent you'd make the "tree" desperately sick
) in no time at all, and pose painful risks to much of it's fruit. And
) you'd inspire alarm and bitter resentments as well."
)
) Well, this statement tells me a great deal about our differences, Linda.
) Please think about your choice of words. Why would examining Waldorf
) from
) the roots up "inspire alarm and bitter resentment?"
We're talking about any school, Walden. You seem to think everyone
negotiates through life and all the natural conflicts within it with
methods they learned in an EST workshop. This kind of deconstructism
applied toward people or institutions people care deeply for would
NORMALLY tick people off. You've been hyper-focused so long on Waldorf,
I think you've lost some perspective about human nature in general.
) In any case, what you say (above) is *exactly* what we are doing in one
) of
) my children's new schools at this very moment. Matter of fact, I issued
) a
) press release last week because of controversy revolving around the
) propriety of public funding for the school - a non-coercive, democratic
) school. We invited the public (via the press) into the school to
) examine
) what we are doing. We - parents, faculty and children - are examining
) everything having to do with the school. It looks like we need to make
) some
) changes in order to remain a public, taxpayer supported school. This is
) part of the ongoing nature of the school but at this particular time, we
) are
) very public and invite advice or suggestions from taxpayers. And...
) there
) is no alarm or bitter resentment, whatsoever. None. We believe we
) qualify
) for public school status and we need to explain what we are all about.
) It
) ain't easy and we need to talk philosophy with bureaucrats but he
) exercise
) is healthy - for all. Actually, although we will need to make some
) changes,
) our public navel gazing has resulted in other public schools re-thinking
) some of their policies - especially with regards to conflict resolution.
) This is a good thing. Honest communication. Check those roots....
What roots? You've described to me policies, philosophy and practices,
not roots. The "roots" of democracy are inextricably interwoven with
power clashes between a rich, land and slave owning male aristocracy and
a monarch/tyrant, and largely concentrated on issues of where to send
how many warriors to kill which competing warriors in battle. The
"roots" of democracy precipitated the decline and ultimate "clobbering"
of Athens, leading to Athenian subjucation under a Macedonian warrior
tyrant imperialist, followed later by Roman warrior tyrant imperialists.
If you were settling these questions by starting at the "roots", I'd be
very very surprised your school's "self-reflection" went swimmingly. If
I were a parent at this school, I'd have been alarmed, frustrated and
looking for a school which better suited my pragmatic approach in
focusing on problems and working toward solutions.
) Linda wrote:
) "Funny how different you and I are in they way we look at the world, and
) in what we "forsee" happening with suggestions like these. Isn't it?"
)
) Yes. I look forward to hearing your comments after reading this post.
) You
) also seem to see the Waldorf world (and this issue) differently than
) another
) Waldorf supporter, Eugene Schwartz. I mentioned him (as an example)
) only
) because I thought it might help you see the problem from a pro-Waldorf
) side.
) Sometimes I wonder if people on various of sides of issues become so
) entrenched in their position and so convinced that *the other side* is
) wrong - no matter what - that room for common ground is all but
) impossible?
From my perspective, I don't see the impossibility for "common ground"
as the problem. I see the problem here is the search for the some
simple and essential "one size fits all Waldorf". Eugene Schwartz
doesn't even speak to "common ground" WITHIN the Waldorf community, and
yet you seem bewildered not to find much between Waldorf and its
critics?
) Stepping to one side (in this case, beside Schwartz) might help see the
) issue from another angle. I'll step to one side right now....
)
) How about keeping much of the Waldorf FAQ as is (with some editing) and
) adding the religious/spiritual information a la Charlie, Eugene
) Schwartz,
) etc? What is the danger in this honest approach?
I've already told you. I think the explanation that is ALREADY in the
FAQ says it as clearly and captures it as nicely as anyone can.
"Waldorf schools are non-sectarian and non-denominational. They educate
all children, regardless of their cultural or religious backgrounds. The
pedagogical method is comprehensive, and, as part of its task, seeks to
bring about recognition and understanding of all the world cultures and
religions. Waldorf schools are not part of any church. They espouse no
particular religious doctrine but are based on a belief that there is a
spiritual dimension to the human being and to all of life. Waldorf
families come from a broad spectrum of religious traditions and
interest."
This is, in my experience, DEAD ON. It's just fine as it is. The
characterizations YOU want put in do more to confuse the issue than
describe it. They're highly misleading, imo.
Do you want to ask me this question another six times?
) Do you think it would
) inspire alarm and bitter resentment? If so, why?
Not to mention confusion. Because they're by themselves highly
misleading.
)
) Linda previously wrote:
) ) Again, you said (this is important):
) ) "The most sensible route is to "evidence of how Steiner's doctrines" are
) ) manifest in Waldorf schools is to actually
) ) experience a real Waldorf school."
)
) ) I responded: What if I do not want that experience - for myself or my
) ) child?
)
) Linda wrote: "Choose another one for yourself and your children. It
) doesn't
) get any easier."
)
) That is what I did and the new school was very open and open BEFORE we
) enrolled. We were required to attend 3 information meetings and our
) kids
) needed to spend 2 hours in the school on two separate days. Parents and
) kids are required to sign a paper stating that we understand the
) philosophy
) of the school.
)
) At Waldorf, we were given an information sheet which spoke of nurturing
) the
) whole child. I asked and was told that anthroposophy simply means
) "wisdom
) of man" and that was that. Nothing about the morning prayer, eurythmy or
) other spiritual exercises. Nothing about karma, reincarnation, soul
) work or
) occultism.
)
Perhaps, Walden, we can agree that carefully investigating a school is a
good idea. We perhaps can disagree that it is the reponsibility of the
school to do all the work FOR you. I've never in my life experienced a
school that goes to greater lengths to explain the pedagogy and concepts
of child development than Waldorf. Every open house has recommended
readings all spread out on tables. There are two or three meetings a
year where prospective parents talk to educators and students and can
ask, ask ask questions for hours. There are two days a year where
prospective parents "go through the grades". New parents are
interviewed first by administrators acting as "enrollment coordinators"
and later by the teacher. Within weeks of starting school, parents
participate in their first class meeting where issues are further
elaborated upon for an even MORE in depth discussion, and this goes on
and on and on about once a month until your child graduates. I don't
know your school. But if you were a parent in my child's class, and you
persisted at our Waldorf school for 5 years before leaving, wailing as
you did about Waldorf's "failure to answer questions", I'd wonder about
your sanity.
) I bring up the new school because you asked. See the difference between
) schools and their approach to new parents?
Not really.
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:28:26 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: Barnaby: For parents seeking info on Waldorf
Barnaby McEwan wrote:
Could it be that two of your
) favourite writers, Steiner and Blavatsky, just made a lot of stuff up?
Clearly, you have not followed what I have said. When you inquire into
the "study of man" from the dawn of history, whether called
Philosophical Anthropology, the Wisdom Tradition, the Perennial
Philosophy, Romanticism, etc., in the late 19th century, you come to
Steiner and Blavatsky. They are marginal characters in the larger scope.
As I have said numerous times, I saw that they made inquiry into the
Wisdom Tradition, but it was overlaid with excessive rhetorical baggage,
easily dismissed. I extracted the essence and dismissed the rest. This
does not, by any stretch, make them a "favourite writer". Of course they
made a lot of stuff up, by intent or imagined. Whether what one imagines
is wisdom or folly depends upon the person, and more importantly, for
each of us to, over time, understand the difference, wheat from the
chaff. Mozart and Beethoven claimed that a symphony would "appear" in
their mind, then 'merely' to be written down. This is wisdom of a higher
order capacity of nature. There are humans claiming to be "channeling"
the writings of some external entity. They write it down and most
discerning humans can see that it is folly. Steiner had a core of wisdom
with a great deal of folly. This was obvious to me. Welcome to the world
of humanity, where a vast proportion of the human species concretizes
the metaphor, literalizes, resulting in behavior ranging from social
snubs to wars of attrition.
)
) )Brad: Steiner's work has been superceded by modern humanistic and
) ) transpersonal psychologies. (Wm. James, Carl Jung, Abraham Maslow, and
) ) more recently, Stanislav Grof).
)
) Barnaby: Perhaps you haven't yet seen this recent post of mine about
) Jung. He
) certainly wasn't humanistic:
Barnaby, you quoted from a source, Richard Noll. Your last post said,
"And please, forget quoting Theodor Roszak. Arguments from authority are
worthless." Inconsistent. Should we ban all books that have
cited/referenced bibliographies?
CG Jung was one of the pioneers in humanitic/transpersonal psychology. I
have read other of the pioneers on the same area of knowledge: Wm.
James, Jung, Maslow, Grof, Roberto Assagioli, Teilhard de Chardin,
Martin Buber, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean Gebser---and others.
I read both of Noll's books. Richard Noll had a tenuous relationship
with Harvard and is now teaching in an obscure college. Trying to learn
about Jung by reading Noll is like getting your knowledge from a
sensationalist rag like the National Enquirer.
) It's precisely the defenders of Steiner who have been unable to dismiss
) his racism, his scientifically worthless 'Goethean science', the bizarre
)
) myths about Atlantis, and so on.
I am not defending Steiner. I am acknowledging that the non-literalizing
core of Steiner has value as one person's expression of the Wisdom
Tradition. He has a Peterbilt truck of bizarre nonsense to be dumped.
The evidence states that some Waldorf teachers of wisdom and love can do
this. Others cannot.
)
) ) When you read through the archives of the various
) ) Waldorf/Steiner online forums, you will see quite good minds and
) ) analyses dismissing the Waldorf Critic Activists as myopic and on
) ) personal vendettas.
)
) That's a contradiction in terms. 'Good minds' present arguments based on
)
) fact and don't resort resort to the ad hominem attacks you describe.
Minds of insight and discernment have written in WC and about WC on
other sites. They observe, rightly in my opinion, that a good part of
what motivates the Waldorf Critic Activist's passions is what they
described as their bad experiences in Waldorf with their child. Thus,
"personal vendetta" has a ring of truth. Their experiences were
unfortunate, to say the least. The evidence states that there are
parents with similar bad experiences and parents with good experiences
and feel the Waldorf education was beneficial. What I do not know is the
distribution of experiences. I gather that the bad experiences are in
the minority, but not a 'small' minority. Nor do I know yet what the
REAL attitudes/comprehensions of the Waldorf leadership, their capacity
for and actuality of this necessity for discerning the wheat from the
chaff.
) ) Anthroposophy...is now being investigated in
) ) many academic areas of consciousness studies and second order
) ) cybernetics.
)
) Please cite some examples. Perhaps I'm being myopic, or maybe it's
) because I'm being secretly controlled by religious fundamentalists, but
) the only connection I can discern between Steiner and second-order
) cybernetics is that Heinz von Foerster, one of its pioneers, was also
) Austrian.
By this statement, you give me evidence of your incomplete knowledge of
the subject. I will respond later.
) And yet, there are no Montessori critics' or survivors' groups.
For response separately.
) ) Many within Waldorf know this and are working
) ) to minimize the influence of those who take the excessive metaphorical
) ) verbiage of Steiner literally.
)
) Again, examples, please.
That is one of the crux questions. I have been curious and reading the
various related sites over the past two+ years. I recall comments from
those on the inside Waldorf of either the teaching or administration (I
have not filed them) that stated they are aware of the excessive
reliance on "What Steiner said--" and are concerned about how they can
get past the excessive rhetoric and into the heart of good inner
directed experiential holistic education, which refers to understanding
the systemic process of mind of the young human being.
) ) Humankind has a weakness in this area.
)
) Baranby: No, only a minority become gripped by bizarre doctrines.
The majority of humankind concretizes (literalizes) the metaphor. That
would be a good area for research. Why? A minority are so gripped that
they do harm to others.
Brad: One wonders what
) ) other covert fundamentalist support and funding they solicit.
)
)Barnaby: That's just ridiculous; check out the ongoing discussion of
)funding of
) religious schools. Would a fundamentalist front devote so much time to
) defending the separation of church and state?
If the experiential/wisdom is received/taught, it is not religion. Those
taking Steiner far too seriously and not updating the theory and
practice of their holistic education based upon modern systems science
and humanistic/transpersonal psychologies, are causing the problem in
Waldorf. That is why I asked Dan Dugan's opinion about who is running
the show and are they discerning of wisdom and folly.
I have a suspicion that when PLANS takes the excerpts on the Christ from
Steiner and lays them in front of the fundamentalist mindset, it is red
flags in front of the bulls time. By definition, the mind of a
fundamentalist most often cannot comprehend the inner directed wisdom
that each of us has the capacity for, but believes that it derives from
an external entity, anthropomorphized and separate from nature.
My view is that Steiner, Blavatsky and Gurdjieff (as Prof. Roszak has
written) attempted, however badly, to bring the west a step forward from
the totally dominant, authoritarian fundamentalist Church from the
middle ages. This is what the Wisdom Tradition is about, advancing
civilization from the authoritarian, fundamentalist mindset.
The present time are the events of 9/11 and the knowledge that the
Wahabbi's of Saudi Arabia are funding fundamentalist mosques and schools
all over the globe, including the United States. Essays have been
written to suggest that these mosques, including in the United States,
are breeding grounds for terrorism.
If PLANS is concerned about present danger to children, they should
redirect their energies to a real danger. By comparison, the Waldorf
food fight is a flea to an elephant.
)Barnaby:---- and I'm pleased to see that the equally pseudoscientific
) ideas of Freud, Jung and Roszak are going the same way, along with
) macramé for adults, hessian wallcoverings, and 'earth shoes'.
My life has been "middle America" in the industrial corporation. You
remind me of the guy I knew in the corporate world. When I mentioned
that I learned to meditate because of the research on the subject I had
read in Scientific American (Feb 1972) and that it seemed to make sense
from what I had read on good nutrition that whole grains, fruits and
veggies are better than junk food, he said, "You're not one of those
hippy, health food nuts, are you?" "No, I'm just wanting to stay
healthy." Simple and logical. Today, the Whole Foods stores are
mainstream.
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:19:48 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Linda (was My - Linda's - struggle to understand)
L G Clemens wrote:
Brad: Linda, I like your comments on 'roots'. That is what I mean when I
use the term essence.
) Linda: When you were told it simply means "wisdom of man", did you ask
) what
) THAT meant?
This is my response to Barnaby on the same issue:
Barnaby McEwan wrote:
Could it be that two of your
favourite writers, Steiner and Blavatsky, just made a lot of stuff up?
Brad: Clearly, you have not followed what I have said. When you inquire
into
the "study of man" from the dawn of history, whether called
Philosophical Anthropology, the Wisdom Tradition, the Perennial
Philosophy, Romanticism, etc., in the late 19th century, you come to
Steiner and Blavatsky. They are marginal characters in the larger scope.
As I have said numerous times, I saw that they made inquiry into the
Wisdom Tradition, but it was overlaid with excessive rhetorical baggage,
easily dismissed. I extracted the essence and dismissed the rest. This
does not, by any stretch, make them a "favourite writer". Of course they
made a lot of stuff up, by intent or imagined. Whether what one imagines
is wisdom or folly depends upon the person, and more importantly, for
each of us to, over time, understand the difference, wheat from the
chaff. Mozart and Beethoven claimed that a symphony would "appear" in
their mind, then 'merely' to be written down. This is wisdom of a higher
order capacity of nature. There are humans claiming to be "channeling"
the writings of some external entity. They write it down and most
discerning humans can see that it is folly. Steiner had a core of wisdom
with a great deal of folly. This was obvious to me. Welcome to the world
of humanity, where a vast proportion of the human species concretizes
the metaphor, literalizes, resulting in behavior ranging from social
snubs to wars of attrition.
) ) Schwartz: "I think we owe it to our parents to let them know that the
) ) child
) ) is going to go through one religious experience after another.
I will give Mr. Schwartz the benefit of the doubt of being one of the
wise, discerning minds in Waldorf. I would use the term spiritual rather
than religion. (A further thread is needed on the difference and
distinction between the terms spirituality and religion) When a child
has an imaginative, 'spiritual' experience, it is not about God or
belief or a religion. It is about the actual experience that child, as
an integral part of nature, is having toward his/her own process of mind
toward accelerating the systemic growth toward maturity, learning and
aesthetics.
Others for the "study of man" include: Wm. James, Jung, Maslow, Grof,
Roberto Assagioli, Teilhard de Chardin, Martin Buber, Maurice
Merleau-Ponty, Jean Gebser, Alfred North Whitehead---just for starters.
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:22:52 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Linda (was My - Linda's - struggle to understand)
I wrote:
I was told that Anthroposophy simply means "wisdom of man."
) That is the literal translation and is often used by Waldorf folks.
Linda asked:
"When you were told it simply means "wisdom of man", did you ask what
THAT meant?"
Yes and I cannot remember the response - something innocent enough that did
not make me feel like pushing further. After all, I had been told this was
a nonsectarian, arts based school. Steiner was an "educator, scientist,
philosopher." Should I have assumed the Waldorf PR was false or misleading?
I am generally a trusting person whose glass is more than half full.
Linda wrote:
"If I were looking at a school based on claims made in its brochure,
where I found in it statements the school developed from educational
theories of Cantopopology, and this was described as simply a word
meaning "song of man", I wouldn't say to myself "oh, I get it now". I
have a difficult time believing you would (or did) either."
See above. And of course I was told that anthroposophy guides the teachers.
Sounded good to me - wisdom of man (woman too, I hoped) inspired by an
Austrian philosopher/scientist/educator... my kids will not be learning it
directly but it guides the teachers. Art, music, theatre, lots of time
outside, wisdom, no vending machines and no junk food in the school. Sign
us up.
Linda wrote:
"From my perspective (which is equivalent to yours, neither of us being
Waldorf teachers), "
S'cuse me. No, our perspectives are not equivalent. Our families have had
different experiences, I have spent a couple of years now researching
anthroposophy/Waldorf - including various anthro "initiatives." You claim
you have read very little Steiner and have demonstrated a lack of
understanding with regards to Waldorf pedagogy or the crux of the
controversy.
"I think the unwelcome his argument received in the
Waldorf community speaks to the LACK of agreement with this depiction.
I have no idea what he meant when he said "Waldorf schools are giving
children religious experiences".
If you are interested in having an idea what he meant, why not spend a
little time researching the subject? For starters, I suggest the required
reading list (year one)Waldorf teachers:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/RSC_reading_list.html
Linda wrote:
"Every now and then I take questions like this to my children. It's
hilarious, actually. Like "some people say that children with black
hair always have to sit by the windows". To many questions, like this
one, I get the "are these people whacked?" look in return."
Fascinating. Your penchant for exaggeration and generalization leaves me
wondering why...? Let's look at this particular incident - you with your
Waldorf schooled children. Structuring your question/statement the way you
did, could not help but solicit the answer you received - the answer you
were looking for in order to add weight to your own feelings that Waldorf
critics really are "whacked." Have you ever, Linda, heard a Waldorf critic
state that children with black
hair (in Waldorf schools) always have to sit by the windows?" You have
taken an incident totally out of context and twisted it to fit your
pre-conceived position.
As this black hair windows thing is most certainly not the case in most
Waldorf schools, it is not at all surprising that your own children would
find the statement at odds with their own experiences in their Waldorf
school. So what? Your children now seem to think that people critical of
Waldorf education are "whacked." What have you accomplished with this
exercise?
Linda wrote (re: Waldorf PR):
"It mislead you, it didn't mislead me. Is it really so difficult to
understand?"
Not at all. I understand that. Many people (besides me) feel mislead by
the PR. Many people inside the movement also feel it needs addressing -
from Schwartz to Charlie Fry to other Waldorf teachers I know and, of
course, PLANS. You do not feel mislead. OK.
Linda wrote:
"Walden, I think you must be an "oh, woe", "glass half empty" kinda guy.
You seem to be trying to force on me tickets for the "Magical Misery
Tour". It is hardly naive or dangerous that I'm traveling through life
on a different route."
I spend the better part of most days roaming the streets moaning "oh woe."
Life sucks. Only half a beer left in my glass - might as well not even
bother with the bottom half - probably flat now, anyway.... Nothing like
generalizing about my character - thanks for caring (g) Actually, Linda,
I'm more of a *try to fix it kinda guy.* I find working with Amnesty
International or PLAN International (hungry kids) a little demoralizing from
time to time. But I also enjoy the work immensely.
I gotta do what I gotta do. See a problem - do something. Waldorf is not
all doom and gloom but it needs fixing. Please don't concern yourself with
my half empty glass. It's really half full. Actually, totally full right
now as an important hockey game is about to begin on ... TV. Ya, I'm
obsessed with hockey too.
I wrote:
) BTW, I have had two Waldorf grads work for me over
) the past 10 years. Both were very good employees and nice people. That
) has
) nothing to do, however, with the problems in Waldorf public relations.
Linda replied:
"Were they Christologists? Anthroposophists? Racists?"
You try so very hard *not* to understand this controversy. Nobody has ever
said that Waldorf creates racists. That type of comment really stinks.
Actually, both kids were from Anthroposophist families. One still follows
the path in some ways while the other thinks the *philosophy* is not for
her.
I might continue with your post later. Torn between obsessions - Waldorf or
hockey of TV. Ahriman wins for now.
- Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 03:22:40 +0000
From: Ian O'Brien (moh672 hotmail.com)
Subject: Hi, a few questions
I was browsing the web and I came across your site through Google. I was
intrigued by your organizations description, "Educating the public about
Waldorf education." As I read further into your literature, which is
well organized, superbly constructed and thoroughly researched, I became
somewhat disturbed. Education, as it is defined by the American Heritage
Dictionary, is "The act or process of educating or being educated; The
knowledge or skill obtained or developed by a learning process.; A
program of instruction of a specified kind or level: driver education; a
college education; The field of study that is concerned with the
pedagogy of teaching and learning." This of course implies the need for
impartial statement of facts with no bearing on which is the "more
correct" of any two opposing sides. The impression that your website
gave to me was not Education per say, but leaning more towards
Propaganda. This is of course, totally excusable, but I also note within
your literature, that you say there is a need to be brutally honest. I'm
sure that when one reads through your website, one certainly knows which
"side" your organization is on. Would your site then not be more
properly named "Teaching the public about Waldorf education through OUR
view"? This would be more honest and would give a much better standing
of your actual position. I also would like to point out on your website
you say: "Why do so many Waldorf classes have problems with bullying,
and what is the school's policy for dealing with this?" When are they
ever not problems with bullying? Also, when was the last time you heard
of a massacre of dozens of children through a crazed waldorf-student
running through the halls with an automatic weapon? I hear this quite
frequently about public schools. Also, drugs? Are waldorf schools more
of a haven for drugs than more "normal" public schools are? Also I quote
from your website, "Where is the American flag?..." The American flag
stems from a military requirement used to "rally the troops" in a time
of war. Should such a symbol of violence be displayed for all to see
every single day?
These are just my concerns. I don't mean to attack in any way. But the
impartialness and dishonesty you accuse Waldorf of having does not seem
to differ to far from your own. Should you, and the public, be concerned
about this? Should there be a website about you, saying how you are good
enough to preach about what is wrong but not practice what you teach?
Thank you for listening.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:46:20 -0700
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher msn.com)
Subject: Reason, Race, and choice
I'd like to commend Linda Clemens for the following statement over on the critics list:
*******************************
My working theory at this point is that your definitions aren't about
race, they're a rebuttal in an ongoing societal debate about race, and
absent that "debate" they have no inherent value really:
**********************************
I would agree that they aren't about "Race" as much as they are about the orthodox rational definitions of "race" that can be had, and adhered to, by intellectuals that admire the idea of mathematically assigning meaning to words. Intellectual dreamers, most often like to consider rationalism as the only appropriate venue to gaining understanding, and deriving conclusions like "Anthroposophy is racist to the core".
Rationalism also tends to Poo on the idea of free will, hence the ferocious need for the merry-go-round debates about the meaning of words.
If Life is a gift (and I do believe that it is) then the "inherent value" tends to come form gratitude (Steiner used the word Reverence). If it's an unconsciousness accident, and we are like ants, or if it is created and controlled by some omnipotent all knowing God, then we all better start squawking at each other, because the "inherent value" tends to come only from soothing the soul with witty debate.
Of course this is just my opinion.
Mike
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:49:37 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: RE: Taking Peter Staudenmeier seriously
) Sharon: Pure adulterated, rubbish. Peter has studied Steiner's work in
) depth
) and has pointed out that it is peppered with racism. He is calling for
) the
) Anthroposophical movement to thoroughly revise, rescind, repudiate or
) replace Steiner's racist content. He is drawing attention to an
) organization
) that holds up such work as spiritually enlightened. He is placing
) Steiner's
) worldview in its ideological and historical context because racial
) thinking,
) within alternative spiritual movements, needs to see the light of day.
oh, I see....that good Peter, "who studied Steiner's work in depth" ,
is calling the Anthroposophic movement to thoroughly revise Steiner's
racist content.
But, you see, men and women are free, be they anthroposophist or
not...and
I am sorry, but I do not see "racist content" in Steiner's work..
so...what are we to do about this situation ? what do you propose for me
? gas chambers ? electric chair ?
Perhaps the good apostle Peter could go to Irak, especially after you
american folks created a so original mess there, to "call islamic
movement to thoroughly revise the racist content of the Qur'an" ? what
do you think of this proposal ?
or perhaps he could go to Gaza, to call jewish racist fanatics to
"thoroughly revise their racist hate against arabs, inspired by quotes
from Torah or Qabbalah" ?
but I see that your name is Sharon ... are you from the family of the
great "anti-racist" democrat israeli chief sharon, you know, the great
friend of Bush the other great democrat ??
(that was my attempt to go beyond the beyond the beyond lol)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:30:16 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: RE: Taking Peter Staudenmeyer's racism seriously
Foncteur, you were trying to compare critics' use of Steiner quotes to
what you call antisemitic and homophobic issues.
You sighted two examples, one from the Qur'an and the other one from the
Torah /Bible, kill al infidels wherever you'll find then and the stoning
of [male] homosexuals and adulterers. You could easily add another quote
to those which I will briefly quote from the KJV:
Exodus 34:12-24
Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of
the land wither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down
their groves:
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD whose name is Jealous,
is a jealous God:
Now, Christian or Jew who acts upon these or a Muslim kill what s/he
perceives to be an infidel could be considered more than just simply
intolerant. As long as adherents of any group sees it fit to kill
homosexuals, harrass LGBT individuals or otherwise discriminate said
people and refuse to address the underlying issues they can easily be
labeled homophobic, just as any group or individual who uphold the idea
of male superiorty can be considered sexist. Even those individuals
whose beliefs do not directly translate into physical abuse usually act
upon those, one way or another. An individual who upholds racist ideas
may not physically harm a Ghanian, Indian or say Lakota but their racism
might well be expressed in very patronizing ways. One of those typical
references I often came across is something like 'Our black brother who
can achieve a lot. We can educate them at seminaries, universities
......... and so fourth' Like it or not this approach is just as racist
as calling a Black person inheritently dumb. In fact, it is just another
version of this sort of claim. A system which hierachically structures
individuals according to their (presumed) ethnic identity, with
reference to their spiritual elevation or whatever else can and should
be labeled racist. If homophobia or sexism had been discussed here in
regard to Steiner's teachings and how this may or may not translate into
Waldorf pedagogy or anthroposophical daily life I assume hardly anyone
on this list would conclude these issues have been resolved in the world
outside Waldorf / anthroposophy, just as hardly anyone would say similar
things about racism. The thing critics have repeatedly tried to address
here is racism in Steiner's works and racist tendencies in Waldorf
schools and may I add other anthroposophic facilities, and the refusal
on behalf of a considerable number of adherents and sympathizers to deal
with those. Now it is really beyond me how this perfectly warranted
criticism translates into an alleged anti anthroposophic racist attitude
on behalf of Peter Staudenmaier whose criticism has been more than
balanced from what I am able to see. Maybe you could help us clarify
what you were trying to get at.maybe you explain how these comparisons
made you sense racism on behalf of Peter Staudenmaier or Dan Dugan?
Akua
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:28:29 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: RE: Taking Peter Staudenmeyer's racism seriously
Hi Akua,
Please do not see more in my post than an attempt of mockery...
as I said, already to or three years ago those same persones (Dugan,
Peter, and some others) were already on this same forum and discussing
about Steiner's racism...is this their only aim in life, proving that
Steiner was a racist ?
Believe me or not, I am not an anthroposophist, I was not educated in a
Waldorf school, and my children are not..
So I am not an "expert" (if those words may have a sense) in Steiner's
thought.
And besides I have some difficulties to write correctly in English (I am
French).
But I really and seriously think that : to say that there is racism (or
"peppered racism") in Steiner's works is...beyond the beyond the beyond
the beyond etc..etc.. (thanks Sharon, you help me to express what I
think in English).
And I also do think that "analytic thinking" simply does not work here:
you cannot use and isolated and "out of context" quote to draw
conclusions about the thought of such a man like Steiner, or Hegel, or
Heidegger (there were similar attempts to show that Heidegger's thought
is "essentially" nazi : but it is not, even if Heidegger was really a
nazi in 1934).
I am a scientist, and I was for a long time an "adept" of analytic
thinking and "compositionnality principle" : this says that the meaning
of a phrase, or of a set of propositions, can be comletely deduced form
the meaning of "elementary" propositions (or elementary fragments).
This does not work with (real) philosophers.
and for me Steiner is a philosopher. I know that anthroposophists have
a different conception, and Steiner himself said that anthroposophy is
beyond philosophy. But I am not an anthroposophist, because I never had
a spiritual experience. My only experience is that of reason.
I am not an expert in Steiner's thought, but I read enough to know for
sure that anthroposophy is an, and even THE, real alternative and issue
AGAINST all racist modes of thinking. And here racism must be taken in a
"larger" and global issue...not only ethnic or "physically racial": for
instance in the past, and even now, christian think that pagan religion
or cultures were false or decadent. But Steiner showed what great
secrets were hidden in greek of northern pagan myths and mysteries (and
also, I think, in arabian ante-islamic religion). Anthroposophy is
"pagano-christian"...and this is good for me : I prefer to talk of
"gods" than of "G-od".
Yes homophoby is a racism; yes sexism is a racism. And if it is possible
to be "racist against a religion or spiritual movement", if for instance
"islamophoby" is a racism, then it must be ALSO possible to be
"anti-anthroposophy" racist. And I think that Peter's obsession for
finding "racism" in anthroposophy is not honest. Exactly in the same way
that it is not honest to say that "all muslim are terrorist", or that
"the Qur'an is a book which calls to mass murder".
Here in France we have a law against racism. So if anthroposophy is
racist, it must be forbidden in France. Try to forbid it.
this is my challenge for Peter and others.
Akua Desta wrote:
)
) Foncteur, you were trying to compare critics' use of Steiner quotes to
) what you call antisemitic and homophobic issues.
)
) You sighted two examples, one from the Qur'an and the other one from the
)
) Torah /Bible, kill al infidels wherever you'll find then and the stoning
)
) of [male] homosexuals and adulterers. You could easily add another quote
)
) to those which I will briefly quote from the KJV:
)
) Exodus 34:12-24
) Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of
) the land wither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
) But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down
) their groves:
) For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD whose name is Jealous,
)
) is a jealous God:
)
) Now, Christian or Jew who acts upon these or a Muslim kill what s/he
) perceives to be an infidel could be considered more than just simply
) intolerant. As long as adherents of any group sees it fit to kill
) homosexuals, harrass LGBT individuals or otherwise discriminate said
) people and refuse to address the underlying issues they can easily be
) labeled homophobic, just as any group or individual who uphold the idea
) of male superiorty can be considered sexist. Even those individuals
) whose beliefs do not directly translate into physical abuse usually act
) upon those, one way or another. An individual who upholds racist ideas
) may not physically harm a Ghanian, Indian or say Lakota but their racism
)
) might well be expressed in very patronizing ways. One of those typical
) references I often came across is something like 'Our black brother who
) can achieve a lot. We can educate them at seminaries, universities
) ......... and so fourth' Like it or not this approach is just as racist
) as calling a Black person inheritently dumb. In fact, it is just another
)
) version of this sort of claim. A system which hierachically structures
) individuals according to their (presumed) ethnic identity, with
) reference to their spiritual elevation or whatever else can and should
) be labeled racist. If homophobia or sexism had been discussed here in
) regard to Steiner's teachings and how this may or may not translate into
)
) Waldorf pedagogy or anthroposophical daily life I assume hardly anyone
) on this list would conclude these issues have been resolved in the world
)
) outside Waldorf / anthroposophy, just as hardly anyone would say similar
)
) things about racism. The thing critics have repeatedly tried to address
) here is racism in Steiner's works and racist tendencies in Waldorf
) schools and may I add other anthroposophic facilities, and the refusal
) on behalf of a considerable number of adherents and sympathizers to deal
)
) with those. Now i