return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Misleading the Public
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Misleading the Public
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:17:00 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Misleading the Public
LOL - which one do you mean, or all of them?
)This is the type of thing that adds fuel to the Waldorf controversy. This
)is pathetic: http://waldorfanswers.org/WaldorfFAQ.htm#1
)The entire site is worth a link from the PLANS site. Proves a point. The
)word "irony" comes to mind. The bogus FAQ's are pathetic.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:10:13 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Misleading the Public
Diana wrote:
)LOL - which one do you mean, or all of them?
Most of them. I mean, look at this:
Q. "What is Waldorf education?
A.Waldorf education is a unique and distinctive approach to educating
children that is practiced in Waldorf schools worldwide." Etc. (no answer)
Q. "What is unique about Waldorf education? How is it different from other
alternatives (public schooling, Montessori, unschooling, etc.)?"
A. "The best overall statement on what is unique about Waldorf education is
to be found in the stated goals of the schooling: "to produce individuals
who are able, in and of themselves, to impart meaning to their lives".
(unlike all those other schools who aim to *produce* individuals with
meaningless lives...)
"The aim of Waldorf schooling is to educate the whole child, "head, heart
and hands". (whole child - what about the feet, etc? i.e. what does this
actually MEAN?)
Q. "What is the curriculum at a Waldorf school like?"
A. "The Waldorf curriculum is designed to be responsive to the various
phases of a child's development. The relationship between student and
teacher is, likewise, recognized to be both crucial and changing throughout
the course of childhood and early adolescence." (as the child incarnates -
seems they forgot to mention that word - and "child's development" according
to Steiner - maybe a snippet of what *that* means would be useful)
Q. "How did Waldorf education get started?"
A. "In 1919, Rudolf Steiner, the Austrian philosopher, scientist and artist,
was invited to give a series of lectures to the workers of the
Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory in Stuttgart, Germany." (and did this
philosopher/scientist/artist speak about his works at the Louvre or his
contributions to "science" or "philosophy during these lectures? It seems
not. Why not? Because Rudolf Steiner
was an OCCULTIST. Let's have a look at what Steiner told the first teachers
in the first Waldorf School. Did this artist/scientist speak about "art" or
"science" and how those two particular disciplines should be used in
teaching? No. He spoke about that which moved him to speak. Here:
LECTURE I (The Study of Man)
Steiner said (to the first teachers): "My dear Friends,
We will begin by making a preliminary survey of our educational task; and to
this I would like to give you a kind of introduction to-day. Of necessity
our educational task will differ from those which mankind has set itself
hitherto. Not that we are so vain or proud as to imagine that we, of
ourselves, should initiate a new world-wide order in education, but because
from anthroposophical spiritual science we know that the epochs of human
evolution as they succeed each other must always set humanity fresh tasks.
The task of mankind in the first Post-Atlantean epoch was different, it was
different again in the second, and so on down to our fifth Post-Atlantean
epoch. And we must realise that, in actual fact, what has to be accomplished
in any one epoch of human evolution does not enter into the consciousness of
mankind until some time after this epoch has begun."
Back to the curious parent reading the "waldorfanswers" FAQ for a moment.
How odd that a scientist/artist/philosopher would talk to the first Waldorf
teachers about "Post-Atlantean epochs .. . " What the??? What else did
Steiner say to these first teachers? Read on:
Steiner said: "You will have to take over children for their education and
instruction - children who will have received already (as you must remember)
the education, or mis-education given them by their parents. Indeed our
intentions will only be fully accomplished when we, as humanity, will have
reached the stage where parents, too, will understand that special tasks are
set for mankind to-day, even for the first years of the child's education.
But when we receive the children into the school we shall still be able to
make up for many things which have been done wrongly, or left undone, in the
first years of the child's life. For this we must fill ourselves with the
consciousness through which alone we can truly teach and educate."
Steiner (the scientist) said: "We must consciously face this fact: that man
evolves through a long period between death and a new birth and that then,
within this evolution, he reaches a point where he dies, as it were, for the
spiritual world - where conditions of his life in the spiritual world oblige
him to pass over into another form of existence. He receives this other form
of existence in that he lets himself be clothed with the physical and
etheric body."
What "fact" is this? What is the "scientist" talking about here and how does
this relate to students in a school?
Steiner said: "Now when the child has come forth on to the physical plane,
we must realise what has really happened for him in the transition from a
spiritual to a physical plane."
Is there ANY of this stuff at the "Waldorf Answers" website? Anything to
help curious parents understand how their child will be seen and treated by
a teacher in a Waldorf school? Anything about what the teachers learn during
their Waldorf teacher training? That would be helpful to parents, would it
not? But no - the palatable "answers" are all about herding the flock in
through the doors. There is so much more nonsense up for comment (Eurythmy
anyone??) but enough from me for now.
Point: "Waldorfanswers" is a scam - the FAQ is bogus and more than
meaningless. It is misleading and shameful. I have no doubt the 2 or 3
well-intentioned people who created the site actually believe they are doing
something valuable but good grief - tell it like it REALLY is - share the
reality (the impulse, if you like) of Waldorf and Anthroposophy with the
public and stop the charade. Too many people have been duped over the years.
Enough.
-Walden
)This is the type of thing that adds fuel to the Waldorf controversy. This
)is pathetic: http://waldorfanswers.org/WaldorfFAQ.htm#1
)The entire site is worth a link from the PLANS site. Proves a point. The
)word "irony" comes to mind. The bogus FAQ's are pathetic.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2041
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Misleading the Public
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Misleading the Public
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: What are the Arts anyway?
By diana.winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:18:51 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Misleading the Public
Walden quoted from "Waldorf answers"
)Q. "What is Waldorf education?
)A.Waldorf education is a unique and distinctive approach to educating
)children that is practiced in Waldorf schools worldwide." Etc. (no answer)
Waldorf education is the education that is practiced in Waldorf schools!
That's called defining a word using the same word,and the kids know you
can't get away with that on a test :)
)A. "The best overall statement on what is unique about Waldorf education is
)to be found in the stated goals of the schooling: "to produce individuals
)who are able, in and of themselves, to impart meaning to their lives".
) unlike all those other schools who aim to *produce* individuals with
)meaningless lives...)
Yeah, that type of thing has always irritated me. Though, to be fair, other
schools have mumbo jumbo like this in promotional materials, too (meaningful
lives etc). In Waldorf, it's what they're leaving out that'll get ya. As a
statement of what is "unique" in Waldorf education, this is - I agree-
pathetic, and intended to mislead. (It's the reason parents like Tim come
away saying things like, "Anthroposophy sounds a lot like humanism."!!!)
)"The aim of Waldorf schooling is to educate the whole child, "head, heart
)and hands". (whole child - what about the feet, etc? i.e. what does this
)actually MEAN?)
The "whole child" rhetoric has caught on elsewhere, too. It's meaningless.
Nobody wants *part* of their child educated. Some people, though, do think
the school should focus on certain jobs, and aren't looking for the school
to provide spiritual mentoring (I recall Bob Schultz on SJU once saying the
school provides "incarnational support.")
)Point: "Waldorfanswers" is a scam - the FAQ is bogus and more than
)meaningless. It is misleading and shameful.
Agree. We need a major piece deconstructing that site, and perhaps the
"Americans for Waldorf Education" also, which is even lighter on the beef.
I believe Sune's main goal with "Waldorf Answers" was to separate his
Waldorf information from his other web site "The Bee." I think he may have
found that if parents were directed there, they got a little too much
anthroposophy ("cosmological cell biology" anyone?) with their Waldorf
disinformation. The effect was probably jarring to potential customers.
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:46:55 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Misleading the Public
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) I believe Sune's main goal with "Waldorf Answers" was to separate his
) Waldorf information from his other web site "The Bee." I think he may
) have
) found that if parents were directed there, they got a little too much
) anthroposophy ("cosmological cell biology" anyone?) with their Waldorf
) disinformation. The effect was probably jarring to potential customers.
)
) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
)
I got started dismembering Sune's site when I did my stint on
Mothering.com. I had only gotten a page or two into pointing out the
disinformation when both Sune and I and several others were ejected from
the forums and all trace of the controversial threads removed (freedom
of information isn't available at Mothering.com). As I recall, Sune had
nothing but extremely weak responses to justify misleading the public in
this way (too bad).
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:35:48 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: What are the Arts anyway?
Keith,
Yes, "art" is a big notion and doesn't have to apply only to visual or
musical arts - and we are all aware that art, some of the greatest art in
the world in fact, is often inspired by religion.
That is just not the point here, Keith. When parents are school shopping and
they hear "The arts are stressed at this school," they aren't thinking math
and grammar - they're thinking visual arts, music, theater. And even if art
is often inspired by religion, parents shopping for a school do not expect
that "art" is really a code word for "religious instruction."
)The role of art classes in schools is to teach the ideas and techniques
)of art/performance, and to assess in some manner the extent to which
)students have absorbed this understanding and developed skills.
It is only in later years that technique begins to be emphasized (in the
early years, there is blessed little of it). The focus is on transmitting
anthroposophical symbols and concepts in pictorial and sensory forms that is
easier for young children to grasp.
In watercolor painting, for example, technique is avoided as long as
possible, the same as direct reading instruction is avoided. That's one
reason they make it so *wet* - you *can't* use any technique when you are
basically dealing with a puddle of liquid on the paper. Something else is
going on - the "color experience," and the spiritual realms the child can
(supposedly) thereby access. (And the fluidity of the watercolors is more
spiritual than lines, which are supposed to be damaging to small children.)
Little technical info is provided - in handwork, for instance, children are
carefully *not* taught how to read the pattern for as long as possible.
Also, art simply takes up the time that might otherwise be available for
academics. It keeps kids "out of their heads." Spiritually, doing anything
'creative' is thought to be better than doing anything involving mental
effort, like reading and writing.
)The extent to which creative expression and freedom is allowed to be
)expressed by students is limited by the education program, themes and
)materials available and set by the teacher. Students can express
)themselves, but it is towards the goal of academic success not
)creativity for it's own sake.
In waldorf it's toward the goal of anthroposophic instruction - not
technical success or output in any particular medium. It's anthroposophic
Sunday School - it's the same as kids in Sunday school drawing pictures of
Jesus dividing the loaves and the fishes or Jonah in the whale's belly.
They're not doing it to get good at drawing loaves and fishes and whales,
Keith, or at using whatever particular art supplies the teacher passed out
to depict these scenes, whether it's pastel paints or charcoal pencils, but
to reinforce these *images* in their minds. You draw Jonah in the whale to
have an "experience" of Jonah in the whale - to "live into" the story in
anthro jargon. This is historically how children have always imbibed
religion - stories, rituals, songs. Vivid sensory experiences and
(hopefully) positive emotional associations help set the symbols and themes
firmly in their minds, and (hopefully) create positive emotional
associations that carry through their lives.
)So how different are Waldorf art activities to other schools in general?
)Like other schools, Waldorf sets definite programs and themes for
)students to follow; like art teaching in other schools, the teacher
)appears to lead the class and require the students perform certain
)tasks, to emulate certain techniques; like other art classes, Waldorf
)classes appear to be aimed at creatively responding to certain themes,
)even if this is more craft-based than conceptually creative. Unlike many
)schools, art in Waldorf is integrated into
)religious/theological/philosophical instruction rather than being taught
)as a discrete academic subject and skills development area.
That paragraph makes sense to me, but don't you think that if they leave
this out of their promotional materials - the
religious/theological/philosophical point of the instruction - that is a
pretty big omission?
)So what is the goal of arts instruction - what do we want to achieve by
)it? Are we developing a practical skills set, or a refining cultural
)sense, or a deepened intuitive and creative sensibility - or all of
)these?
I would say in Waldorf those aims are all part of the plan, but undergirding
it all is that the student will have spent many hours immersed in
anthroposophic symbolism and taking in anthroposophic themes on a deep,
unconscious level. The more forms or mediums in which similar stories and
symbols are presented, and the greater the repetition, the more deeply and
permanently they will be taken in. That is why the same story is told for
many weeks at a time. Often then the story will be retold with puppets,
which the children will view several times, and sometimes perform
themselves, or the littlest ones just play with the puppets. The children
will sing songs from the story/play, recite the verses during circle time,
and in the grades the children will practice reading and writing from that
story, copying and reciting lines from the story, and copying the
illustrations from that story that the teacher has drawn on the board.
I don't think critics dispute that many Waldorf students gain great facility
with various artistic techniques. Waldorf students produce some lovely work
- I am always impressed. Competence in, and enjoyment in, different artistic
pursuits is not a small thing to get from a school. I wish I had gotten it!
)Is the increasing trend towards vocational training in education
)displacing academic wisdom and knowledge that is solidifying a desire to
)produce functionally competent individuals destroying the finer lessons
)that the arts have for students?
You're parroting why Waldorf parents sign up, and how they *lure* parents -
not the truth of what they are about. We all wanted our children to have the
"finer lessons" in life and certainly didn't want them steered toward
vocational training.
)Why is art not spiritual?
Oh, here we go again, Keith. Who has claimed that art is not spiritual?!
)If it is spiritual, why is Waldorf art practise then not valid?
Who has claimed that Waldorf art practise is not valid? Waldorf art practise
is totally valid. They do some beautiful work.
(A little limited, from one POV - if you look at "anthroposophic art" on
other web sites, you will see what they are aiming for, and one does start
to wonder why *only* this aesthetic is favored. For real artists, this will
likely become stifling. For those mainly looking to use artistic techniques
as part of a spiritual practice, I'm sure it's fine. I have noted on this
list many times that I really enjoyed Waldorf watercolor painting, and I
totally get its meditative effects. I recommend it!)
)If the problem is that the philsophical influence behind Waldorf art -
)anthroposophy - is not genuinely spiritual, than what is it?
Who has claimed that anthroposophy is not genuinely spiritual? You will more
likely find critics here claiming the opposite.
The problem - you asked - is that the parents are often not sufficiently
informed of the specifics of the spiritual doctrines and their role in the
curriculum. Parents need this information to decide whether this school is
the best choice they can make for their children, given their family's
needs, beliefs etc.
For a family who already has their own religious beliefs and practices, the
imposition of someone else's is usually not welcome. And, for a child who
has actual artistic talent, the very specific program that is offered in the
name of "art" at Waldorf is sometimes a huge disappointment. It is *very*
restricted, and there is very little creative freedom, at least in the early
years. Starting with the odd fact that the crayon boxes in the kindergartens
have had the black crayon removed, parents/students will continue to find
odd omissions and odd little fetishes for just how things should be done.
Anthroposophy dictates ritualistic ways (per "occult indications") to do
many things and art is no exception. Anyone who's really creative will be
driven crazy trying to fit the anthroposophic mold.
)It claims to have spiritual *beliefs* and spiritual *practices*,
The problem is more often it claims *not* to have spiritual beliefs or
practices, or at least that these are not shared with students.
)so then why cannot it express these through art activities, art being among
)other things a conduit for spiritual ideas?
Who has suggested that they cannot express anything through art activities?
)It is clearly a valid comment and criticism that Waldorf should it make
)it clear to parents that the school's art classes and activity are
)geared towards the teaching of anthroposophical concepts.
That's all there is to the whole argument, Keith. You've got it!
)This does not entail, however, that Waldorf does not have the right to
)teach art in this way.
Of course they have a right to teach art in this way! As always I would find
it very interesting if you would point to a statement here, or elsewhere,
where someone has claimed that Waldorf does not have a right to teach art
this way.
)One can object to the beliefs behind the activity; but art is the
)expression of emotions and ideas, and in this sense it's "doing it's job"
)in reflecting Waldorf and anthroposophical principles.
That's it in a nutshell - the "art" in Waldorf is doing its job reflecting
anthroposophical principles.
Not much of what I have said here would raise eyebrows if stated in a
Waldorf faculty meeting, by the way. Everyone would nod, comments on the
anthroposophical themes or meditative experiences provided in the painting
exercise would not provoke much interest, as this is known.
Here, Waldorf supporters act shocked, shocked, but they are only shocked at
the philosophy behind it being *publicized*. Parents are supposed to be
intrigued by the growing impression they get that certain symbols and themes
come up all the time. They're supposed to find it quaint and wholesome, all
those rainbows and gnomes etc., but they're not supposed to ask concrete
questions about what is being taught to the children this way. (That's when
you turn into a critic and become "nutty" LOL.)
Diana
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2042
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Misleading the Public
By diana.winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:18:29 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Misleading the Public
Right Pete, but that's because you were there with an "agenda" (G) as was I.
Like Sune, Deborah, Serena, Daniel Hindes, Linda Clemens and various others
didn't go there to further their Waldorf agenda. (You'll notice they are
testing the waters again, now that some time has passed since the bad, scary
people like you and me were removed.)
Diana
Pete:
)I got started dismembering Sune's site when I did my stint on
)Mothering.com. I had only gotten a page or two into pointing out the
)disinformation when both Sune and I and several others were ejected from
)the forums and all trace of the controversial threads removed (freedom
)of information isn't available at Mothering.com). As I recall, Sune had
)nothing but extremely weak responses to justify misleading the public in
)this way (too bad).
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2043
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Misleading the Public
By diana.winters verizon.net
what do they do with early readers
By diana.winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:49:58 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Misleading the Public
I always think it's very funny, too, how mild and sweet Linda and Serena and
cohort manage to come across over there (Mothering forums). All the usual
questions are asked, which they've read a hundred times here, and they'll
scratch their heads and pretend they've never heard of anything so strange
in Waldorf in all their combined decades of experience. (Deborah this
morning, in response to a comment that active little boys sometimes have
trouble in Waldorf: "I'm a bit worried at what might be going on at your
local school. Sounds a bit strange based on my experience.") LOL!
That thread was typical. It included a clarification from someone burned in
Waldorf that it is indeed a religious ideology guiding the program, a
complaint that active little boys are often labeled "not in their bodies"
and held back for this reason - and that this "not in the body" thing refers
to reincarnation. (Linda and another pro-Waldorf poster had just been
assuring one another that there is nothing "religious" in Waldorf. Another
poster asks why they are objecting to people trying to understand what is
going on in Waldorf, obviously reacting to the dismissive tone.)
But from Linda & Co. ("Americans for Waldorf Education"), there's no hint of
the backbiting, scorn, dripping sarcasm, insults and "Your mama" type jab
that are their usual fare here. Maybe they do better when baby-sat? (as the
moderators do at Mothering)
http://mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=403895
Diana
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Winters [mailto:Diana.Winters verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:18 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Misleading the Public
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
http://click.topica.com/caaerelb1dkiGb3FC3aa/PC Powerscan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Right Pete, but that's because you were there with an "agenda" (G) as was I.
Like Sune, Deborah, Serena, Daniel Hindes, Linda Clemens and various others
didn't go there to further their Waldorf agenda. (You'll notice they are
testing the waters again, now that some time has passed since the bad, scary
people like you and me were removed.)
Diana
Pete:
)I got started dismembering Sune's site when I did my stint on
)Mothering.com. I had only gotten a page or two into pointing out the
)disinformation when both Sune and I and several others were ejected from
)the forums and all trace of the controversial threads removed (freedom
)of information isn't available at Mothering.com). As I recall, Sune had
)nothing but extremely weak responses to justify misleading the public in
)this way (too bad).
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your VoIP on with Packet8's Videophone.
Crystal clear images of your loved ones. Free Month.
30 day money back guarantee. 1-877-868-1135
http://click.topica.com/caaer6Eb1dkiGb3FC3af/ TMONE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:52:20 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: what do they do with early readers
A recent thread titled "what do they do with early readers" might be of
interest also:
http://mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=405332
A Waldorf graduate replies that early readers will probably be bored, and no
special accommodation will be made, nor the child's personal interests
encouraged.
Others point out that, of course, kids can be bored in other schools too.
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2044
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Misleading the Public
By pstaud hotmail.com
"the arrangement of the races"
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Misleading the Public
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Misleading the Public
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: Misleading the Public
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Misleading the Public
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Misleading the Public
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 12:17:43 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Misleading the Public
)Point: "Waldorfanswers" is a scam - the FAQ is bogus and more than
)meaningless. It is misleading and shameful. I have no doubt the 2 or 3
)well-intentioned people who created the site actually believe they are
)doing
)something valuable but good grief - tell it like it REALLY is - share the
)reality (the impulse, if you like) of Waldorf and Anthroposophy with the
)public and stop the charade. Too many people have been duped over the
)years.
)Enough.
As far as claims about anthroposophy go (as distinct from claims about
Waldorf schooling specifically), I think a big part of the problem with
sites like waldorfanswers is not deception or deliberate misrepresentation
but ignorance: many of the statements on the site appear to be due to
unfamiliarity with anthroposophy's historical background and current
content, along with considerable confusion about esoteric spiritual
movements in general. It also seems to be the product of multiple authors
who didn't bother to read each other's work; on one page we are told that
"Anthroposophy is not a system of beliefs" (which would render everything
else on the site nonsensical), while another page says "Anthroposophy is a
spiritual philosophy". In any case, a quick look at two of the more detailed
pages on the site reveals all sorts of errors. Here are a few examples:
On the page titled "Myth: "Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are racist"" we
read that the dissolution of the German Anthroposophical Society in 1935
shows that anthroposophy contains no racist elements. This is not so much a
historical error as a logical error, though it does indicate that the
authors of the page are unaware of basic information about Nazi Germany. A
similarly ahistorical approach runs through the whole page; at one point we
are told that the proper way to determine whether Rudolf Steiner's writings
and lectures in Germany and Switzerland from 1910 or 1920 contained racist
elements is to assess them according to "Dutch legislation on
discrimination" in the 1990s. The page also touts Steiner's
pre-anthroposphical work The Philosophy of Freedom as representative of his
anthroposophical thinking (an obvious mistake to begin with), and quotes
from the chapter in that work titled Individuality and Genus to display what
they take to be Steiner's anti-racist credentials. But their quote omits
this passage, which appears right in the middle of the rest of the text that
they do quote:
"Each member of a totality is determined, as regards its characteristics
and functions, by the whole totality. A racial group is a totality and
all the people belonging to it bear the characteristic features that are
inherent in the nature of the group. How the single member is
constituted, and how he will behave, are determined by the character of
the racial group."
A related page titled "Myth: "Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are
anti-Semitic"" begins with a discussion of Steiner's racial mythologies
about the "original Semites"; the authors apparently believe that this
mythical primeval racial group was, in Steiner's eyes, the direct precursor
to modern Jews (and they further appear to think that this would reflect
well on Steiner and his attitudes toward Jews). In fact Steiner emphasized
that the "original Semites" were "very different from today's Jewish people"
and were indeed the direct precursor to "our present Caucasian or, as we
also call it in spiritual science, Aryan race." (Rudolf Steiner, Die
Welträtsel und die Anthroposophie p. 146) Unaware of their own founder's
teachings, the authors of the page go on to claim that "In anthroposophy,
the development of humanity in connection with the development of our
present solar system is not described in terms of "root races"" and that in
any case Theosophical root race doctrines merely "seem" antisemitic. The
page does not mention Steiner's explicit statements that Jewish existence is
evolutionarily and cosmically obsolete, his expressed hope that the Jewish
people would cease to exist, his assertion that "the Jews have a great gift
for materialism, but little for recognition of the spiritual world," his
endorsement and defense of antisemitic works by other authors, his repeated
invocation of the Jews as prime example of racial stagnation and decline,
and so forth.
I think the authors of waldorfanswers would probably do better to ask a few
more questions, and brush up a bit on their own movement's history, before
comforting themselves with pleasing but historically false answers.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:28:19 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: "the arrangement of the races"
Last week I posted some passages on race and Atlantis by anthroposophist
author Sigismund von Gleich. I mentioned his magnum opus Der Mensch der
Eiszeit und Atlantis (Ice-Age Man and Atlantis), originally published in
1936 and re-published by anthroposophists several times after 1945. I would
like to provide some substantial passages from that book over the course of
several posts. I will quote from the 1990 edition: Sigismund von Gleich, Der
Mensch der Eiszeit und Atlantis, Stuttgart 1990. On occasion I will also
provide longer passages in German to give a sense of how this material reads
in the original.
As in the books I quoted last week, one of the striking features of this
work is its reliance on a range of Nazi racial theorists. In addition to the
expected citations of Steiner (particularly Cosmic Memory and The Mission of
the Folk Souls), Blavatsky (particularly The Secret Doctrine), Donnelly
(Atlantis: The Antediluvian World), Scott-Elliot (The Story of Atlantis),
Schuré (The Great Initiates), and so forth, here Gleich also cites Herman
Wirth, Oswald Menghin, and even Hans Günther.
Gleich's positive references to Menghin can be found on pp. 12, 101-102,
113-114, 128-141, 145, 156, 201. The 1990 foreword to the book, by Gleich's
son, specifically points out the book's reliance on Menghin, without a
single word about his background (p. 6). Oswald Menghin was an Austrian
archeologist whose racist and antisemitic book Geist und Blut (Spirit and
Blood) appeared in 1933 and who was active in Nazi circles through the
1930s; when Nazi Germany annexed Austria in 1938, Menghin was named Minister
of Education and oversaw the "cleansing" of the University of Vienna; after
the war he went to Argentina.
Gleich's positive references to Herman Wirth can be found on pp. 103, 123-4,
202-203. Wirth was co-founder and until 1938 director of Himmler's
Ahnenerbe, one of the chief Nazi agencies devoted to the supposed
prehistoric origins of the Nordic and Aryan peoples; he is frequently cited
in anthroposophist writings on Atlantis from the 1930's, by Ernst Uehli
among others.
A major theme of Gleich's book, as one of the subchapter headings puts it,
is "the cosmic order in the arrangement of the races" ("die kosmische
Ordnung in der Rassengliederung", p. 192). To give a more concrete sense of
what Gleich meant by this, here are some selections from the early chapters.
Chapter 4 carries the title: “The evolutionary high point and decline of the
Atlanteans. The Atlantean primeval era of the red, yellow and white race.”
(p. 58) Gleich's racial imagery mixes theosophical-anthroposophical
terminology, Lucifer and Ahriman, Cain and Abel, Turanians and Semites, and
a variety of mythic elements which he presents as facts of spiritual
science.
The chapter begins by explaining that the arrangement of the various earthly
races of mankind reflects the “heavenly hierarchies” (p. 60). Drawing
primarily on Steiner’s Cosmic Memory: Prehistory of Earth and Man
(especially the section on "Our Atlantean Ancestors"), Gleich explains that
the “Aryan race” (which he sometimes calls simply “the white race”) arose on
Atlantis, the most developed of a series of races born on the now sunken
continent. The Aryan race, in both its prehistoric and present forms, is
markedly more spiritually advanced than the surrrounding races, and this
different spiritual level is reflected in the color of skin associated with
particular racial groups. According to Gleich, lighter skin color indicates
“more light of consciousness” (p. 70). In contrast to the noble Aryans stand
the Turanians, a dark Asiatic race:
“During the fourth Atlantean epoch, as souls that were filled with impure
urges immersed themselves deeper into the body, into the nerve system and
the blood, there arose among the Turanians an occult and sensuous-egoistic
colored intellectuality, a seductive magical-kabbalistic kind of reasoning,
that leads toward an impure and greedy addiction to knowledge and a
materialistic and egoistic exploitation of stolen insights. One was to feel
that all spiritual truth, when coveted and pilfered by these sorts of souls
in an impure way, is falsified into base and materialistically colored
occultism, as if killed by a poisonous scorpion sting.” (p. 71) Gleich then
compares the Turanians to vampires (p. 72) and declares them responsible for
Bolshevism (p. 77).
Next Gleich explains that some African peoples are descended from remnants
of the Lemurians, the inhabitants of another lost continent that pre-dated
Atlantis (p. 76). Expanding on the theme of racial differentiation, he
writes:
“Just as the black or Ethiopian-proto-Indian race originated out of the
second Atlantean race via the detour through Africa (Abyssinia), so the
equally martial and caustic race of the yellow Mongols originated out of the
portions of the warlike fourth Atlantean race that were transplanted to
inner Asia. The red race, meanwhile, developed entirely on the American part
of Atlantis. Finally, the white or Caucasian-Indo-Germanic race was from the
beginning joined with the European parts of Atlantis.” (p. 79)
Toward the end of the Atlantean era, “The emphasis of Atlantean evolution
shifted to north Atlantis, where a people lived whose skin color had
lightened completely to white, under the influence of the inner spiritual
work of the powers of the I. Through a special training and cultivation of
the I, the best members of this people were able to bring the Luciferic and
Ahrimanic soul impulses into a harmonious balance. This special
characteristic of the first white race can be understood when one takes into
account the fact that much older impulses also played into the Atlantean
evolution of humankind. Two polar opposite primeval human impulses are of
central importance here. The first of these elements we have already
characterized as the Lemurian-southeast-Asian, which gave rise to the black
or Indian-Ethiopian primeval race out of the Taurus-humankind of Atlantis
with its Cain and Vulcan abilities.” (pp. 79-80)
Gleich goes on to identify the southern lost continent of Lemuria as the
location of the Fall from grace, the original sin, whereas the “innocent
Abel-humankind of paradise” comes from the Hyperborean and Polar north,
particularly northern Europe. These northern peoples were purer and more
spiritual than their darker southern counterparts:
“Just as there were early Atlanteans who under changed conditions formed the
basis of the future Indian-Ethiopian race along with the remnants of
Lemurian peoples, so there were other Atlanteans who lived much more
spiritually, who under the special etheric and soil conditions of the
Hyperborean land (the northernmost part of Atlantis) had preserved much of
the originally pure childhood state of humankind into relatively late
Atlantean periods; these were able to exert a newly fruitful rejuvenating
effect on the aging Atlantean population. The north Atlantean peoples
developing under Hyperborean influences, whose original territory ranged
from around Ireland over the British isles to Scandinavia, had almost no
awareness of the blood-powers and life-fire powers seething in the
metabolism and the reproductive system – in contrast to the other
Atlanteans, above all the Turanians, who in the warmer regions of the earth
consciously misused these powers for the most wicked magic.” (p. 80)
This is followed by a particularly striking passage, reminiscent of Rudolf
Steiner's own statement that "the Negro is constantly cooking inside" :
“Thus under the paradisiacal and innocent Hyperborean impulses, the first
white race of humankind was formed in north Atlantis as a counter-pole to
the south Atlantean black race. Just as the life processes and reproductive
processes cooked inside the bodies of the Atlantean-Lemurian
Indo-Ethiopians, synchronized with the rampant vegetation of the tropics and
the Vulcan earth-fire powers, so the Atlantean-Hyperborean north Atlanteans
in cold mist regions developed the cool sensory and thinking life of the
mind.” (p. 81)
That last passage reads as follows in the original:
“Unter den paradiesisch-unschuldigen Hyperboräer-Impulsen wurde so in der
Nord-Atlantis die erste weiße Rasse der Menschheit zum Gegenpol der
südatlantisch-schwarzen ausgeformt. Kochten im Leibe der atlanto-lemurischen
Indo-Äthiopier die den vulkanischen Erdfeuerkräften verwandten und mit der
wuchernden Vegetation der Tropen gleichlaufenden Lebens- und
Zeugungsprozesse, so bildeten die atlanto-hyperboräischen Nordatlantier in
kalten Nebelregionen das kühle Sinnes- und Denkleben des Kopfes aus.”
Gleich continues:
“For the first time the inner spiritual sun of the I lit up in the hearts
and heads of the best members of the white race of Atlanteans, the
consciousness soul and the spirit-self which enables humankind to become a
free spiritual being.” (p. 83)
Free human beings, then, are paradigmatically members of the white race, in
explicit contrast to the insufficiently spiritual darker races with their
overpowering physical drives.
I will post more passages from the subsequent chapter in a later message.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 23:22:01 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Misleading the Public
For laughs, I sent a private message to the moderator asking if enough
time has passed that I might be un-banned (dis-banded?). She quoted my
comment below and said she didn't think so. I guess mothering.com's
ears were burning or something. LOL! As far as I'm concerned, as long
as they promote only one opinion, they are as much a part of the Waldorf
problem as the people you mentioned. Deceit has become synonymous with
Waldorf, and it's exactly these people who have made it this way.
People who lie about Waldorf do far more harm to Waldorf education than
people who are honestly critical.
Pete
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Right Pete, but that's because you were there with an "agenda" (G) as
) was I.
) Like Sune, Deborah, Serena, Daniel Hindes, Linda Clemens and various
) others
) didn't go there to further their Waldorf agenda. (You'll notice they are
) testing the waters again, now that some time has passed since the bad,
) scary
) people like you and me were removed.)
) Diana
)
)
)
) Pete:
) )I got started dismembering Sune's site when I did my stint on
) )Mothering.com. I had only gotten a page or two into pointing out the
) )disinformation when both Sune and I and several others were ejected from
) )
) )the forums and all trace of the controversial threads removed (freedom
) )of information isn't available at Mothering.com). As I recall, Sune had
) )
) )nothing but extremely weak responses to justify misleading the public in
) )
) )this way (too bad).
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 23:31:27 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Misleading the Public
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) I always think it's very funny, too, how mild and sweet Linda and Serena
) and
) cohort manage to come across over there (Mothering forums). All the
) usual
) questions are asked, which they've read a hundred times here, and
) they'll
) scratch their heads and pretend they've never heard of anything so
) strange
) in Waldorf in all their combined decades of experience. (Deborah this
) morning, in response to a comment that active little boys sometimes have
) trouble in Waldorf: "I'm a bit worried at what might be going on at your
) local school. Sounds a bit strange based on my experience.") LOL!
)
Yeah, she's never heard of this happening... LOL! That was part of my
frustration in dealing with them on MDC. Trying to be polite and play
along when someone is lying to your face is not my style.
) That thread was typical. It included a clarification from someone burned
) in
) Waldorf that it is indeed a religious ideology guiding the program, a
) complaint that active little boys are often labeled "not in their
) bodies"
) and held back for this reason - and that this "not in the body" thing
) refers
) to reincarnation. (Linda and another pro-Waldorf poster had just been
) assuring one another that there is nothing "religious" in Waldorf.
) Another
) poster asks why they are objecting to people trying to understand what
) is
) going on in Waldorf, obviously reacting to the dismissive tone.)
I feel so sorry for parents who just come to places like Mothering.com
looking for the truth. Children suffer because places like that don't
allow open expression and discussion and in fact promote dishonest
discussion. Their policies regarding discussion on breastfeeding, for
example, absolutely forbid any discussion suggesting anything contrary
to their own beliefs (which even conflict with the WHO). I guess
"mothering" doesn't necessarily mean protecting children.
) But from Linda & Co. ("Americans for Waldorf Education"), there's no
) hint of
) the backbiting, scorn, dripping sarcasm, insults and "Your mama" type
) jab
) that are their usual fare here. Maybe they do better when baby-sat? (as
) the
) moderators do at Mothering)
)
They sure didn't seem to like it when I produced their own comments from
other websites. LOL!
)
)
)
) http://mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=403895
)
)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) -----Original Message-----
)
) From: Diana Winters [mailto:Diana.Winters verizon.net]
)
) Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:18 AM
)
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)
) Subject: RE: Misleading the Public
)
)
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
)
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
)
) Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
)
) Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
)
) http://click.topica.com/caaerelb1dkiGb3FC3aa/PC Powerscan
)
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
)
) Right Pete, but that's because you were there with an "agenda" (G) as
) was I.
)
) Like Sune, Deborah, Serena, Daniel Hindes, Linda Clemens and various
) others
)
) didn't go there to further their Waldorf agenda. (You'll notice they are
)
) testing the waters again, now that some time has passed since the bad,
) scary
)
) people like you and me were removed.)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Pete:
)
) )I got started dismembering Sune's site when I did my stint on
)
) )Mothering.com. I had only gotten a page or two into pointing out the
)
) )disinformation when both Sune and I and several others were ejected from
) )
)
) )the forums and all trace of the controversial threads removed (freedom
)
) )of information isn't available at Mothering.com). As I recall, Sune had
) )
)
) )nothing but extremely weak responses to justify misleading the public in
) )
)
) )this way (too bad).
)
)
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
)
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) Get your VoIP on with Packet8's Videophone.
)
) Crystal clear images of your loved ones. Free Month.
)
) 30 day money back guarantee. 1-877-868-1135
)
) http://click.topica.com/caaer6Eb1dkiGb3FC3af/ TMONE
)
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
)
) ==^================================================================
)
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
) basic.
) New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 15:30:48 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Misleading the Public
Peter Staudenmaier, you wrote about waldorfanswers.com:
)The page also touts Steiner's pre-anthroposphical work The
)Philosophy of Freedom as representative of his anthroposophical
)thinking (an obvious mistake to begin with), and quotes from the
)chapter in that work titled Individuality and Genus to display what
)they take to be Steiner's anti-racist credentials. But their quote
)omits this passage, which appears right in the middle of the rest of
)the text that they do quote:
)
)"Each member of a totality is determined, as regards its characteristics
)and functions, by the whole totality. A racial group is a totality and
)all the people belonging to it bear the characteristic features that are
)inherent in the nature of the group. How the single member is
)constituted, and how he will behave, are determined by the character of
)the racial group."
Whew. What a spectacularly disingenuous act, from people who complain
about "distorted" and "out of context" quotations!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 00:45:50 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Misleading the Public
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)As far as claims about anthroposophy go (as distinct from claims about
)Waldorf schooling specifically), I think a big part of the problem with
)sites like waldorfanswers is not deception or deliberate misrepresentation
)but ignorance: many of the statements on the site appear to be due to
)unfamiliarity with anthroposophy's historical background and current
)content, along with considerable confusion about esoteric spiritual
)movements in general.
Unfamiliarity or unwillingness to become familiar? In this case - and as the
site is called "waldorfanswers" - one would think
the author have some familiarity with . . . "waldorf." And I think they do.
I understand you made the distinction (above) but as those who created the
site seem to understand (at least) the deep spiritual nature of their chosen
path, why have they chosen to ignore that useful information when describing
"waldorf" at the site? I don't see that particular issue as ignorance. Sure,
they could use a refresher on Steiner lectures and timelines with regards to
the historical foundation of Anthroposophy, but the casual reader of the
site will be mislead regarding the deep spiritual/religious reality of what
happens in a waldorf school - and these folks *know* all about that stuff.
The meat (tofu) of Waldorf is simply missing at "waldorfanswers."
Ex-trainer of waldorf teachers and respected Anthroposophist Eugene Schwartz
understands Waldorf education:
"To deny the religious basis of Waldorf education--I would say it again--to
satisfy public school superintendents, or a talk show host, or a newspaper
reporter, is very, very wrong. And the Waldorf leadership, I would say, are
waffling on this matter. I would say we are religious schools. Religious
schools plus; religious schools with a difference; religious schools
light--whatever you want to call it. But we are, we are schools that
inculcate religion in children."
And:
"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."
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/schwartz.html
Why do the folks at a site called "waldorfanswers" not share accurate
information (Schwartz - above) with well intentioned, curious, trusting
parents? Schwartz and others have had a hard time getting the word out - why
is that?
)It also seems to be the product of multiple authors
)who didn't bother to read each other's work; on one page we are told that
)"Anthroposophy is not a system of beliefs" (which would render everything
)else on the site nonsensical), while another page says "Anthroposophy is a
)spiritual philosophy". In any case, a quick look at two of the more
detailed
)pages on the site reveals all sorts of errors. Here are a few examples:
(snip)
And how about all the PLANS/Staudenmaier bashing at "waldorfanswers?"
Errors wrapped in errors. I hope the folks at PLANS link to the site as it
deserves it. PLANS would only need a few sentences to demonstrate the
absurdity of the claims. Maybe not even that as most of claims do a fine job
reinventing themselves with no need for editorializing. It's a pretty goofy
place and yet I see that many waldorf schools actually link to
"waldorfanswers!" Have any representatives from those schools actually
*read* what is written there about PLANS? I doubt it.
The rest of your post deserves comment. Here's mine: Interesting and
accurate analysis and I look forward to other comments from fellow list
members.
-Walden
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
"On the page titled "Myth: "Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are racist"" we
read that the dissolution of the German Anthroposophical Society in 1935
shows that anthroposophy contains no racist elements. This is not so much a
historical error as a logical error, though it does indicate that the
authors of the page are unaware of basic information about Nazi Germany. A
similarly ahistorical approach runs through the whole page; at one point we
are told that the proper way to determine whether Rudolf Steiner's writings
and lectures in Germany and Switzerland from 1910 or 1920 contained racist
elements is to assess them according to "Dutch legislation on
discrimination" in the 1990s. The page also touts Steiner's
pre-anthroposphical work The Philosophy of Freedom as representative of his
anthroposophical thinking (an obvious mistake to begin with), and quotes
from the chapter in that work titled Individuality and Genus to display what
they take to be Steiner's anti-racist credentials. But their quote omits
this passage, which appears right in the middle of the rest of the text that
they do quote:
"Each member of a totality is determined, as regards its characteristics
and functions, by the whole totality. A racial group is a totality and
all the people belonging to it bear the characteristic features that are
inherent in the nature of the group. How the single member is
constituted, and how he will behave, are determined by the character of
the racial group."
A related page titled "Myth: "Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are
anti-Semitic"" begins with a discussion of Steiner's racial mythologies
about the "original Semites"; the authors apparently believe that this
mythical primeval racial group was, in Steiner's eyes, the direct precursor
to modern Jews (and they further appear to think that this would reflect
well on Steiner and his attitudes toward Jews). In fact Steiner emphasized
that the "original Semites" were "very different from today's Jewish people"
and were indeed the direct precursor to "our present Caucasian or, as we
also call it in spiritual science, Aryan race." (Rudolf Steiner, Die
Welträtsel und die Anthroposophie p. 146) Unaware of their own founder's
teachings, the authors of the page go on to claim that "In anthroposophy,
the development of humanity in connection with the development of our
present solar system is not described in terms of "root races"" and that in
any case Theosophical root race doctrines merely "seem" antisemitic. The
page does not mention Steiner's explicit statements that Jewish existence is
evolutionarily and cosmically obsolete, his expressed hope that the Jewish
people would cease to exist, his assertion that "the Jews have a great gift
for materialism, but little for recognition of the spiritual world," his
endorsement and defense of antisemitic works by other authors, his repeated
invocation of the Jews as prime example of racial stagnation and decline,
and so forth.
I think the authors of waldorfanswers would probably do better to ask a few
more questions, and brush up a bit on their own movement's history, before
comforting themselves with pleasing but historically false answers."
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 00:00:26 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Misleading the Public
Interesting, Pete. This habit of avoiding problems and potential controversy
in public is fascinating. And disturbing. We've seen it here over the years
and it appears as censorship on other forums. Why not take a step into the
light and discuss ideas/experiences? And history. As long as one casts
blessings here and there while speaking in glowing terms of pretty well
anything . . . all is well. Or so it seems.
-Walden
Pete wrote:
)For laughs, I sent a private message to the moderator asking if enough
)time has passed that I might be un-banned (dis-banded?). She quoted my
)comment below and said she didn't think so. I guess mothering.com's
)ears were burning or something. LOL! As far as I'm concerned, as long
)as they promote only one opinion, they are as much a part of the Waldorf
)problem as the people you mentioned. Deceit has become synonymous with
)Waldorf, and it's exactly these people who have made it this way.
)People who lie about Waldorf do far more harm to Waldorf education than
)people who are honestly critical.
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Right Pete, but that's because you were there with an "agenda" (G) as
) was I.
) Like Sune, Deborah, Serena, Daniel Hindes, Linda Clemens and various
) others
) didn't go there to further their Waldorf agenda. (You'll notice they are
) testing the waters again, now that some time has passed since the bad,
) scary
) people like you and me were removed.)
) Diana
)
)
)
) Pete:
) )I got started dismembering Sune's site when I did my stint on
) )Mothering.com. I had only gotten a page or two into pointing out the
) )disinformation when both Sune and I and several others were ejected from
) )
) )the forums and all trace of the controversial threads removed (freedom
) )of information isn't available at Mothering.com). As I recall, Sune had
) )
) )nothing but extremely weak responses to justify misleading the public in
) )
) )this way (too bad).
)
)
)
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
First Month Free! Save up to 50% on your phone bill.
Free Activation, Free Equipment! Packet8
30-day money back guarantee. 1-877-868-1135
http://click.topica.com/caaer6nb1dkiGbPRG0Jf/ TMONE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2045
-- Topica Digest --
RE: What are the Arts anyway?
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
Re: Misleading the Public
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Misleading the Public
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: What are the Arts anyway?
By pstaud hotmail.com
Waldorf magnet school in Kentucky
By secretary waldorfcritics.org
RE: What are the Arts anyway?
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Misleading the Public
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
indigo children
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 17:52:42 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: What are the Arts anyway?
Diana,
[Keith:]
So how different are Waldorf art activities to other schools in general?
Like other schools, Waldorf sets definite programs and themes for
students to follow; like art teaching in other schools, the teacher
appears to lead the class and require the students perform certain
tasks, to emulate certain techniques; like other art classes, Waldorf
classes appear to be aimed at creatively responding to certain themes,
even if this is more craft-based than conceptually creative. Unlike many
schools, art in Waldorf is integrated into
religious/theological/philosophical instruction rather than being taught
as a discrete academic subject and skills development area.
[Diana:]
That paragraph makes sense to me, but don't you think that if they leave
this out of their promotional materials - the
religious/theological/philosophical point of the instruction - that is a
pretty big omission?
------
Yes, pretty big and rather unnecessary. Marketing to a smaller clientele
base with an interest in the alternative instruction being offered
(rather than trying to develop a large following in the public) seems
like a good idea.
[Diana:]
I don't think critics dispute that many Waldorf students gain great
facility
with various artistic techniques. Waldorf students produce some lovely
work
- I am always impressed. Competence in, and enjoyment in, different
artistic
pursuits is not a small thing to get from a school. I wish I had gotten
it!
------
Yes, certainly an interesting area.
[Keith:]
Is the increasing trend towards vocational training in education
displacing academic wisdom and knowledge that is solidifying a desire to
produce functionally competent individuals destroying the finer lessons
that the arts have for students?
[Diana:]
You're parroting why Waldorf parents sign up, and how they *lure*
parents -
not the truth of what they are about. We all wanted our children to have
the
"finer lessons" in life and certainly didn't want them steered toward
vocational training.
------
Okay, we're all concerned about the issues. Yes, I was making an
observation based on societal trends as a whole, and intimating that
this has relevance to the Waldorf area too. It is no small issue this
vocational versus academics stuff - it's pretty damn significant, and
can't be repeated enough.
[Keith:]
Why is art not spiritual?
[Diana:]
Oh, here we go again, Keith. Who has claimed that art is not spiritual?!
------
Well, if Waldorf is a cultlike or a product of a cult, and cults (by the
popular modern usage) are groups of deluded individuals believing in a
lie or a deception - in short, they are deceived - and the spiritual
concerns genuine belief and interest in truth, then anything Waldorf
does can't be spiritual but rather deception. If one believes this about
Waldorf, then one can't really entertain the idea that artwork produced
in Waldorf schools has any sense of spiritual integrity but rather
expresses disingeniousness instead.
It's been made pretty clear here by contributers that they think Waldorf
is cultlike, irrational and anti-academic. The spiritual (or claims to
spiritual knowledge) is seen as a cover for cultlike manipulation, so
any attempt to express this commitment and belief structure is seen as a
cynical and/or misguided attempt to channel students (and parents)
towards dubious, non-intellectual outcomes.
[Keith:]
If the problem is that the philsophical influence behind Waldorf art -
anthroposophy - is not genuinely spiritual, than what is it?
[Diana:]
Who has claimed that anthroposophy is not genuinely spiritual? You will
more
likely find critics here claiming the opposite.
The problem - you asked - is that the parents are often not sufficiently
informed of the specifics of the spiritual doctrines and their role in
the
curriculum. Parents need this information to decide whether this school
is
the best choice they can make for their children, given their family's
needs, beliefs etc.
For a family who already has their own religious beliefs and practices,
the
imposition of someone else's is usually not welcome. And, for a child
who
has actual artistic talent, the very specific program that is offered in
the
name of "art" at Waldorf is sometimes a huge disappointment. It is
*very*
restricted, and there is very little creative freedom, at least in the
early
years. Starting with the odd fact that the crayon boxes in the
kindergartens
have had the black crayon removed, parents/students will continue to
find
odd omissions and odd little fetishes for just how things should be
done.
Anthroposophy dictates ritualistic ways (per "occult indications") to do
many things and art is no exception. Anyone who's really creative will
be
driven crazy trying to fit the anthroposophic mold.
------
Yes, critics think they're "spiritual", meaning them having beliefs
about such-and-such. But Anthroposophy is cultlike and hence filled with
loony followers, right? So, yeah, we say it's spiritual alright, like
the "head in the clouds" variety of spirituality.
Agreed, it does come down to a difference of beliefs and personal
objectives. I would rather I was clearly informed about what I was
getting into.
[Keith:]
It is clearly a valid comment and criticism that Waldorf should it make
it clear to parents that the school's art classes and activity are
geared towards the teaching of anthroposophical concepts.
[Diana:]
That's all there is to the whole argument, Keith. You've got it!
[Keith:]
This does not entail, however, that Waldorf does not have the right to
teach art in this way.
[Diana:]
Of course they have a right to teach art in this way! As always I would
find
it very interesting if you would point to a statement here, or
elsewhere,
where someone has claimed that Waldorf does not have a right to teach
art
this way.
------
I think the fact that dissatisfied people are directing vitriol and
sarcasm at Waldorf and it's teaching methods - just that type of
behavior on it's own - indicates a desire to damage Waldorf more than
help it or reform it. I'm not talking about legal or political attempts
to control Waldorf (although I wouldn't be surprised that this is being
attempted also), but simply the attitude and act of denigrating
something. It's destructive behaviour:
"What is bullying?
People who are bullied find that they are:
* constantly criticised and subjected to destructive criticism
(often euphemistically called constructive criticism, which is an
oxymoron) - explanations and proof of achievement are ridiculed,
overruled, dismissed or ignored
* forever subject to nit-picking and trivial fault-finding (the
triviality is the giveaway)
* undermined, especially in front of others; false concerns are
raised, or doubts are expressed over a person's performance or standard
of work - however, the doubts lack substantive and quantifiable
evidence, for they are only the bully's unreliable opinion and are for
control, not performance enhancement
* overruled, ignored, sidelined, marginalised, ostracised
* isolated and excluded from what's happening (this makes people
more vulnerable and easier to control and subjugate)
* singled out and treated differently (for example everyone else can
have long lunch breaks but if they are one minute late it's a
disciplinary offence)
* belittled, degraded, demeaned, ridiculed, patronised, subject to
disparaging remarks
* regularly the target of offensive language, personal remarks, or
inappropriate bad language
* the target of unwanted sexual behaviour
* threatened, shouted at and humiliated, especially in front of
others
* taunted and teased where the intention is to embarrass and
humiliate"
[Source: "Bullying: what is it?" (
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/bully.htm )]
I'm not talking about the validity of the reasons for the anger with
Waldorf - being deceived - but how the problems are addressed by
victims. Attempting to create bad feeling and/or guilt in an attempt to
redress injustice doesn't work. So, the art topic is wrapped up in this
too being that it's taught in Waldorf schools.
[Keith:]
One can object to the beliefs behind the activity; but art is the
expression of emotions and ideas, and in this sense it's "doing it's
job"
in reflecting Waldorf and anthroposophical principles.
[Diana:]
That's it in a nutshell - the "art" in Waldorf is doing its job
reflecting
anthroposophical principles.
Not much of what I have said here would raise eyebrows if stated in a
Waldorf faculty meeting, by the way. Everyone would nod, comments on the
anthroposophical themes or meditative experiences provided in the
painting
exercise would not provoke much interest, as this is known.
Here, Waldorf supporters act shocked, shocked, but they are only shocked
at
the philosophy behind it being *publicized*. Parents are supposed to be
intrigued by the growing impression they get that certain symbols and
themes
come up all the time. They're supposed to find it quaint and wholesome,
all
those rainbows and gnomes etc., but they're not supposed to ask concrete
questions about what is being taught to the children this way. (That's
when
you turn into a critic and become "nutty" LOL.)
------
http://shop.com.edgesuite.net/ccimg.catalogcity.com/220000/227400/227456/Products/14841682.jpg
"WTF???!!!!"
(G)
Ironically, it would be gnomic to ask the pertinent questions (see
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=gnomic&searchmode=none ). (G)
Regards,
Keith
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Keith,
)
)
) Yes, "art" is a big notion and doesn't have to apply only to visual or
) musical arts - and we are all aware that art, some of the greatest art
) in
) the world in fact, is often inspired by religion.
)
) That is just not the point here, Keith. When parents are school shopping
) and
) they hear "The arts are stressed at this school," they aren't thinking
) math
) and grammar - they're thinking visual arts, music, theater. And even if
) art
) is often inspired by religion, parents shopping for a school do not
) expect
) that "art" is really a code word for "religious instruction."
)
)
) )The role of art classes in schools is to teach the ideas and techniques
) )of art/performance, and to assess in some manner the extent to which
) )students have absorbed this understanding and developed skills.
)
) It is only in later years that technique begins to be emphasized (in the
) early years, there is blessed little of it). The focus is on
) transmitting
) anthroposophical symbols and concepts in pictorial and sensory forms
) that is
) easier for young children to grasp.
)
) In watercolor painting, for example, technique is avoided as long as
) possible, the same as direct reading instruction is avoided. That's one
) reason they make it so *wet* - you *can't* use any technique when you
) are
) basically dealing with a puddle of liquid on the paper. Something else
) is
) going on - the "color experience," and the spiritual realms the child
) can
) (supposedly) thereby access. (And the fluidity of the watercolors is
) more
) spiritual than lines, which are supposed to be damaging to small
) children.)
) Little technical info is provided - in handwork, for instance, children
) are
) carefully *not* taught how to read the pattern for as long as possible.
)
) Also, art simply takes up the time that might otherwise be available for
) academics. It keeps kids "out of their heads." Spiritually, doing
) anything
) 'creative' is thought to be better than doing anything involving mental
) effort, like reading and writing.
)
)
) )The extent to which creative expression and freedom is allowed to be
) )expressed by students is limited by the education program, themes and
) )materials available and set by the teacher. Students can express
) )themselves, but it is towards the goal of academic success not
) )creativity for it's own sake.
)
) In waldorf it's toward the goal of anthroposophic instruction - not
) technical success or output in any particular medium. It's
) anthroposophic
) Sunday School - it's the same as kids in Sunday school drawing pictures
) of
) Jesus dividing the loaves and the fishes or Jonah in the whale's belly.
) They're not doing it to get good at drawing loaves and fishes and
) whales,
) Keith, or at using whatever particular art supplies the teacher passed
) out
) to depict these scenes, whether it's pastel paints or charcoal pencils,
) but
) to reinforce these *images* in their minds. You draw Jonah in the whale
) to
) have an "experience" of Jonah in the whale - to "live into" the story in
) anthro jargon. This is historically how children have always imbibed
) religion - stories, rituals, songs. Vivid sensory experiences and
) (hopefully) positive emotional associations help set the symbols and
) themes
) firmly in their minds, and (hopefully) create positive emotional
) associations that carry through their lives.
)
)
) )So how different are Waldorf art activities to other schools in general?
) )
) )Like other schools, Waldorf sets definite programs and themes for
) )students to follow; like art teaching in other schools, the teacher
) )appears to lead the class and require the students perform certain
) )tasks, to emulate certain techniques; like other art classes, Waldorf
) )classes appear to be aimed at creatively responding to certain themes,
) )even if this is more craft-based than conceptually creative. Unlike many
) )
) )schools, art in Waldorf is integrated into
) )religious/theological/philosophical instruction rather than being taught
) )
) )as a discrete academic subject and skills development area.
)
) That paragraph makes sense to me, but don't you think that if they leave
) this out of their promotional materials - the
) religious/theological/philosophical point of the instruction - that is a
) pretty big omission?
)
) )So what is the goal of arts instruction - what do we want to achieve by
) )it? Are we developing a practical skills set, or a refining cultural
) )sense, or a deepened intuitive and creative sensibility - or all of
) )these?
)
) I would say in Waldorf those aims are all part of the plan, but
) undergirding
) it all is that the student will have spent many hours immersed in
) anthroposophic symbolism and taking in anthroposophic themes on a deep,
) unconscious level. The more forms or mediums in which similar stories
) and
) symbols are presented, and the greater the repetition, the more deeply
) and
) permanently they will be taken in. That is why the same story is told
) for
) many weeks at a time. Often then the story will be retold with puppets,
) which the children will view several times, and sometimes perform
) themselves, or the littlest ones just play with the puppets. The
) children
) will sing songs from the story/play, recite the verses during circle
) time,
) and in the grades the children will practice reading and writing from
) that
) story, copying and reciting lines from the story, and copying the
) illustrations from that story that the teacher has drawn on the board.
)
)
) I don't think critics dispute that many Waldorf students gain great
) facility
) with various artistic techniques. Waldorf students produce some lovely
) work
) - I am always impressed. Competence in, and enjoyment in, different
) artistic
) pursuits is not a small thing to get from a school. I wish I had gotten
) it!
)
)
) )Is the increasing trend towards vocational training in education
) )displacing academic wisdom and knowledge that is solidifying a desire to
) )
) )produce functionally competent individuals destroying the finer lessons
) )that the arts have for students?
)
) You're parroting why Waldorf parents sign up, and how they *lure*
) parents -
) not the truth of what they are about. We all wanted our children to have
) the
) "finer lessons" in life and certainly didn't want them steered toward
) vocational training.
)
) )Why is art not spiritual?
)
) Oh, here we go again, Keith. Who has claimed that art is not spiritual?!
)
)
) )If it is spiritual, why is Waldorf art practise then not valid?
)
) Who has claimed that Waldorf art practise is not valid? Waldorf art
) practise
) is totally valid. They do some beautiful work.
)
) (A little limited, from one POV - if you look at "anthroposophic art" on
) other web sites, you will see what they are aiming for, and one does
) start
) to wonder why *only* this aesthetic is favored. For real artists, this
) will
) likely become stifling. For those mainly looking to use artistic
) techniques
) as part of a spiritual practice, I'm sure it's fine. I have noted on
) this
) list many times that I really enjoyed Waldorf watercolor painting, and I
) totally get its meditative effects. I recommend it!)
)
)
) )If the problem is that the philsophical influence behind Waldorf art -
) )anthroposophy - is not genuinely spiritual, than what is it?
)
) Who has claimed that anthroposophy is not genuinely spiritual? You will
) more
) likely find critics here claiming the opposite.
)
) The problem - you asked - is that the parents are often not sufficiently
) informed of the specifics of the spiritual doctrines and their role in
) the
) curriculum. Parents need this information to decide whether this school
) is
) the best choice they can make for their children, given their family's
) needs, beliefs etc.
)
) For a family who already has their own religious beliefs and practices,
) the
) imposition of someone else's is usually not welcome. And, for a child
) who
) has actual artistic talent, the very specific program that is offered in
) the
) name of "art" at Waldorf is sometimes a huge disappointment. It is
) *very*
) restricted, and there is very little creative freedom, at least in the
) early
) years. Starting with the odd fact that the crayon boxes in the
) kindergartens
) have had the black crayon removed, parents/students will continue to
) find
) odd omissions and odd little fetishes for just how things should be
) done.
) Anthroposophy dictates ritualistic ways (per "occult indications") to do
) many things and art is no exception. Anyone who's really creative will
) be
) driven crazy trying to fit the anthroposophic mold.
)
)
) )It claims to have spiritual *beliefs* and spiritual *practices*,
)
) The problem is more often it claims *not* to have spiritual beliefs or
) practices, or at least that these are not shared with students.
)
) )so then why cannot it express these through art activities, art being
) )among
) )other things a conduit for spiritual ideas?
)
) Who has suggested that they cannot express anything through art
) activities?
)
)
) )It is clearly a valid comment and criticism that Waldorf should it make
) )it clear to parents that the school's art classes and activity are
) )geared towards the teaching of anthroposophical concepts.
)
) That's all there is to the whole argument, Keith. You've got it!
)
) )This does not entail, however, that Waldorf does not have the right to
) )teach art in this way.
)
) Of course they have a right to teach art in this way! As always I would
) find
) it very interesting if you would point to a statement here, or
) elsewhere,
) where someone has claimed that Waldorf does not have a right to teach
) art
) this way.
)
) )One can object to the beliefs behind the activity; but art is the
) )expression of emotions and ideas, and in this sense it's "doing it's
) )job"
) )in reflecting Waldorf and anthroposophical principles.
)
) That's it in a nutshell - the "art" in Waldorf is doing its job
) reflecting
) anthroposophical principles.
)
) Not much of what I have said here would raise eyebrows if stated in a
) Waldorf faculty meeting, by the way. Everyone would nod, comments on the
) anthroposophical themes or meditative experiences provided in the
) painting
) exercise would not provoke much interest, as this is known.
)
) Here, Waldorf supporters act shocked, shocked, but they are only shocked
) at
) the philosophy behind it being *publicized*. Parents are supposed to be
) intrigued by the growing impression they get that certain symbols and
) themes
) come up all the time. They're supposed to find it quaint and wholesome,
) all
) those rainbows and gnomes etc., but they're not supposed to ask concrete
) questions about what is being taught to the children this way. (That's
) when
) you turn into a critic and become "nutty" LOL.)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 14:43:00 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Misleading the Public
Dan wrote:
)Whew. What a spectacularly disingenuous act, from people who complain about
)"distorted" and "out of context" quotations!
What makes it even more interesting is that they have the entire quote,
unabridged, at another page within the site -- this time with no reference
of their own to racism. It's as if it didn't occur to them that people
perusing the site might stumble across the discrepancy.
There's lots more very revealing material at yet another page on their site,
titled "Myth: "Waldorf education is racist"":
http://waldorfanswers.org/WRacismMyth.htm
Here we are told that Ernst Uehli and Max Stibbe (two of the more notorious
racists in 20th century anthroposophy) are isolated and forgotten figures,
peripheral at best to Waldorf education, with no influence on the
development of the Waldorf movement; the waldorfanswers folks even claim
that their works were ignored within Waldorf and published by an
insignificant anthroposophist press. Even so, the waldorfanswers authors are
at pains to portray Uehli's and Stibbe's racism as simply par for the course
during their lifetimes.
All of these claims are false. Uehli lived until 1959, and Stibbe until
1973. Even in North America and Europe racial views like theirs were
considered utterly preposterous by numerous scientists, scholars, and
citizens at this time and were very far from the mainstream; whereas the
critical works of Boas, Benedict, Finot, Zollschan, Feist, Hertz et al.,
which make a mockery of these anthroposophists' racial myths, had been
widely available and highly publicized for decades.
Uehli's books were published directly by the Goetheanum in Dornach, the
world headquarters of anthroposophy, in the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer
Verlag, not to mention the Verlag Freies Geistesleben and other major
anthroposophist publishers, and are still in print today. Indeed his book
Norse Mythology and the Modern Human Being (a cleansed translation) is
published in English by The Association of Waldorf Schools of North America
-- publication date 1999 -- and can be purchased at the AWSNA website right
now. It is one of the recommended "Waldorf curriculum guides" on "history,
myth, culture" at waldorfbooks.com. Dozens of Uehli's articles -- very much
including the racist ones -- have been published in the flagship
anthroposophical journals, from Anthroposophie to Die Drei to Das
Goetheanum. Stibbe, meanwhile, had five separate books re-published after
his death in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, quite apart from his numerous
articles. The Anthroposophic Press distributes both Uehli's and Stibbe's
work; you can buy them this very minute at steinerbooks.
Far from the "isolated cases" imagined by the waldorfanswers authors, it
would be hard to find two figures more central to the development of Waldorf
education that Ernst Uehli and Max Stibbe. Uehli became Steiner's student in
1905, and Steiner considered him one of the leading personalities in the
entire anthroposophical movement, on the same level as Marie Steiner and
Albert Steffen. Uehli was one of the two or three most prominent
anthroposophist authors and public speakers in the final years of Steiner's
life, and was one of the three members of the Central Council of the German
Anthroposophical Society in the 1920s. Uehli was the founding editor
(appointed by Steiner personally) of the original anthroposophist journal,
Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus, which then became Anthroposophie,
and he was founding editor of Die Drei as well; Anthroposophie and Die Drei
were the premier German anthroposophical publications of the 1920s and
1930s.
Uehli was a leading teacher at the original Waldorf school in Stuttgart from
1921 until 1937, covering the subjects religion, literature, German, and
history, and according to anthroposophist accounts he profoundly shaped the
curriculum and pedagogical practice. There are myriad sources on this, among
others Gisbert Husemann and Johannes Tautz, Der Lehrerkreis um Rudolf
Steiner in der ersten Waldorfschule 1919-1925 (The Circle of Teachers Around
Rudolf Steiner in the First Waldorf School, published by Verlag Freies
Geistesleben, Stuttgart 1977), pages 227-240 on Uehli; also Hans Reichert
and Jakob Hugentobler, Ernst Uehli: Leben und Gestaltung, Bern 1945.
Max Stibbe became an anthroposophist as a teenager and worked closely with
Steiner and the anthroposophical leadership in Dornach in the years before
Steiner's death. He was a founding member of the Dutch Anthroposophical
Society in 1923 and a longtime member of its Board of Directors. The first
Waldorf schools outside of Germany were founded in the Netherlands, with
Stibbe as one the chief founders. He was also the editor of the Dutch
waldorf journal Ostara, as well as the founding editor of an even more
influential Waldorf journal, Vrije Opvoedkunst, in 1933. Vrije Opvoedkunst
is where Stibbe published his racist articles in the 1960s, which formed the
basis for the "racial ethnography" courses in Dutch Waldorf schools well
into the 1990s.
Stibbe taught at the Waldorf school in The Hague from its founding in 1923
until he left Holland for Indonesia in 1939; after the war he taught at the
Amsterdam Waldorf school and founded another Waldorf school in Haarlem.
Stibbe was a vocal defender of apartheid and spent the last decade of his
life in white-ruled South Africa. He founded the Waldorf school in Pretoria,
and it is still named after him today.
All of these facts reduce the waldorfanswers claims about Uehli and Stibbe
to nonsense. None of the information above is particularly difficult to come
by, yet none of it appears at the waldorfanswers site. This seems to me yet
another example of the remarkable historical ignorance of anthroposophists
toward the very topics in which they take the most interest.
Peter Staudenmaier
)
)Peter Staudenmaier, you wrote about waldorfanswers.com:
)
))The page also touts Steiner's pre-anthroposphical work The Philosophy of
))Freedom as representative of his anthroposophical thinking (an obvious
))mistake to begin with), and quotes from the chapter in that work titled
))Individuality and Genus to display what they take to be Steiner's
))anti-racist credentials. But their quote omits this passage, which appears
))right in the middle of the rest of the text that they do quote:
))
))"Each member of a totality is determined, as regards its characteristics
))and functions, by the whole totality. A racial group is a totality and
))all the people belonging to it bear the characteristic features that are
))inherent in the nature of the group. How the single member is
))constituted, and how he will behave, are determined by the character of
))the racial group."
)
)Whew. What a spectacularly disingenuous act, from people who complain about
)"distorted" and "out of context" quotations!
)
)-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 14:55:56 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Misleading the Public
Hi Walden,
)Unfamiliarity or unwillingness to become familiar? In this case - and as
)the
)site is called "waldorfanswers" - one would think
)the author have some familiarity with . . . "waldorf." And I think they do.
)I understand you made the distinction (above) but as those who created the
)site seem to understand (at least) the deep spiritual nature of their
)chosen
)path, why have they chosen to ignore that useful information when
)describing
)"waldorf" at the site? I don't see that particular issue as ignorance.
)Sure,
)they could use a refresher on Steiner lectures and timelines with regards
)to
)the historical foundation of Anthroposophy, but the casual reader of the
)site will be mislead regarding the deep spiritual/religious reality of what
)happens in a waldorf school - and these folks *know* all about that stuff.
)The meat (tofu) of Waldorf is simply missing at "waldorfanswers."
Good question. I think it's plausible that the waldorfanswers folks fail to
emphasize these facets because they do not strike them as remarkable; their
own conception of the relation between science and religion, for example, is
notably fuzzy, one of the hallmarks of the theosophical tradition as a
whole. It's also worth keeping in mind that both authors of the
waldorfanswers site are computer professionals; their only educational
experience is in Waldorf; their background is not in the humanities; they
are not historians or philosophers etc. and do not have training in these
fields. In any case, I think you are right that much of the site sounds
distinctly like True Believers trying hard to make their wares palatable to
a broader audience by downplaying the wackier elements.
)And how about all the PLANS/Staudenmaier bashing at "waldorfanswers?"
)Errors wrapped in errors. I hope the folks at PLANS link to the site as it
)deserves it. PLANS would only need a few sentences to demonstrate the
)absurdity of the claims. Maybe not even that as most of claims do a fine
)job
)reinventing themselves with no need for editorializing. It's a pretty goofy
)place and yet I see that many waldorf schools actually link to
)"waldorfanswers!" Have any representatives from those schools actually
)*read* what is written there about PLANS? I doubt it.
I don't know enough about the English-speaking Waldorf world today to be
able to say something useful on that score, though I do think much of the
"PLANS/Staudenmaier bashing" is reserved for their sister site, americans
for waldorf education, where it is somewhat difficult to imagine a competent
reader finding their arguments compelling. This may have to do with a kind
of self-selecting dynamic in anthroposophical circles, where credulous types
are drawn further in while critical thinkers are pushed away, which in turn
might help to account for the low quality of so much internal
anthroposophist discussion. But I don't really know how that plays out in
Waldorf contexts.
One interesting recent incident may be relevant here: A few months ago the
editor of a journal considering publishing an article of mine on Steiner's
racial theories invited Sune Nordwall, one of the waldorfanswers authors,
with my explicit endorsement and encouragement, to write a response to my
article which they would publish alongside. Sune refused. In an environment
structured around standards of peer review, he seems to have realized that
his stories would have found few takers. So it goes in the continuing
non-conversation between those who believe in anthroposophy and those who
study anthroposophy.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 15:14:54 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: What are the Arts anyway?
Hi Keith,
I don't have much of substance to say about the particular point under
dispute, but I do think it's worth pointing out that your argument about
"bullying" is completely goofy. If there really were no such thing as
constructive criticism, and if all criticism were merely destructive
behavior, then your own post would obviously be disqualified, along with
every other post that takes the trouble to subject another position to
critical scrutiny. Perhaps Australian schoolyards are different from
American schoolyards in this regard, but the bullies I grew up with did not
bother to back up their arguments with evidence and reasoning (in fact they
didn't bother making any arguments at all), and they did not expend effort
on attempting to parse the arguments put forward by those they bullied. To
wave away the very possibility of critique as nothing but an instance of
workplace harassment is childish.
Beyond that simple matter, it isn't clear to me why you think that something
cannot be both spiritual and deluded (or deluding) at the same time. Very,
very many spiritual experiences plainly fall into both categories, and
entire spiritual systems have been built around such dual phenomena. To
recognize that something is spiritual is no help in determining whether it
is accurate, true, reliable, significant, benevolent, damaging,
inconsequential, or none of the above. Figuring those things out sometimes
requires criticism. It would be a bad day for spirituality if everyone whose
spiritual views were critically examined denounced the whole practice as
bullying.
Yours for the arts,
Peter Staudenmaier
)
)Well, if Waldorf is a cultlike or a product of a cult, and cults (by the
)popular modern usage) are groups of deluded individuals believing in a
)lie or a deception - in short, they are deceived - and the spiritual
)concerns genuine belief and interest in truth, then anything Waldorf
)does can't be spiritual but rather deception. If one believes this about
)Waldorf, then one can't really entertain the idea that artwork produced
)in Waldorf schools has any sense of spiritual integrity but rather
)expresses disingeniousness instead.
)
)
)It's been made pretty clear here by contributers that they think Waldorf
)is cultlike, irrational and anti-academic. The spiritual (or claims to
)spiritual knowledge) is seen as a cover for cultlike manipulation, so
)any attempt to express this commitment and belief structure is seen as a
)cynical and/or misguided attempt to channel students (and parents)
)towards dubious, non-intellectual outcomes.
)
)
)Yes, critics think they're "spiritual", meaning them having beliefs
)about such-and-such. But Anthroposophy is cultlike and hence filled with
)loony followers, right? So, yeah, we say it's spiritual alright, like
)the "head in the clouds" variety of spirituality.
)
)Agreed, it does come down to a difference of beliefs and personal
)objectives. I would rather I was clearly informed about what I was
)getting into.
)
)
)I think the fact that dissatisfied people are directing vitriol and
)sarcasm at Waldorf and it's teaching methods - just that type of
)behavior on it's own - indicates a desire to damage Waldorf more than
)help it or reform it. I'm not talking about legal or political attempts
)to control Waldorf (although I wouldn't be surprised that this is being
)attempted also), but simply the attitude and act of denigrating
)something. It's destructive behaviour:
)
)"What is bullying?
)
)People who are bullied find that they are:
)
) * constantly criticised and subjected to destructive criticism
)(often euphemistically called constructive criticism, which is an
)oxymoron) - explanations and proof of achievement are ridiculed,
)overruled, dismissed or ignored
) * forever subject to nit-picking and trivial fault-finding (the
)triviality is the giveaway)
) * undermined, especially in front of others; false concerns are
)raised, or doubts are expressed over a person's performance or standard
)of work - however, the doubts lack substantive and quantifiable
)evidence, for they are only the bully's unreliable opinion and are for
)control, not performance enhancement
) * overruled, ignored, sidelined, marginalised, ostracised
) * isolated and excluded from what's happening (this makes people
)more vulnerable and easier to control and subjugate)
) * singled out and treated differently (for example everyone else can
)have long lunch breaks but if they are one minute late it's a
)disciplinary offence)
) * belittled, degraded, demeaned, ridiculed, patronised, subject to
)disparaging remarks
) * regularly the target of offensive language, personal remarks, or
)inappropriate bad language
) * the target of unwanted sexual behaviour
) * threatened, shouted at and humiliated, especially in front of
)others
) * taunted and teased where the intention is to embarrass and
)humiliate"
)
)[Source: "Bullying: what is it?" (
)http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/bully.htm )]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:02:48 -0800
From: PLANS Secretary (secretary waldorfcritics.org)
Cc: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Waldorf magnet school in Kentucky
To: Chris Kenning
Louisville Courier-Journal
Dear Chris, you wrote:
)Friday, February 3, 2006
)
)Creative twists in education
)Byck Elementary adds Waldorf style
)By Chris Kenning
)ckenning courier-journal.com
)The Courier-Journal
)
)Byck Elementary teacher Patty Gilderbloom handed out drums as
)students sang an American Indian song about the earth during a
)social studies lesson.
)
)Down the hall, Debbie Graf's third-graders chanted math multiples.
)Ahead of them was a day that might range from knitting and painting
)to playing the recorder and illustrating history concepts in a large
)sketchbook.
)
)It's all part of Jefferson County Public Schools' Waldorf-inspired
)magnet program, where academics are interwoven with rhythm, song,
)dance, handiwork, drawing, poetry, storytelling and drama.
)
)The program - the only one of its kind in Kentucky - stresses
)community and respect for each other and nature.
)
)"It's an everyday part of classroom activities" and has helped
)8-year-old Basie Campbell connect to her studies, said her father,
)Eddie Campbell.
This superficial description of Waldorf Education misses the elephant
in the living room. Waldorf is the most visible activity of a
cult-like religious sect that calls itself "Anthroposophy." Never
heard of it? Better read up on it, because Waldorf students live and
breathe the world-view of Anthroposophy, like fish in water.
)Public Waldorf-inspired charter schools have opened in California
)and Ohio, said Mary Goral, an assistant education professor at
)Bellarmine University.
In California, publicly-funded Waldorf schools are being sued by our
organization, People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS), for
violation of the Establishment Clause.
)But Byck's program mixes Waldorf methods with Kentucky's curriculum.
)Supporters say the approach helps reach students in different ways.
)About 150 of Byck's 400 students participate, while the others
)remain in regular classes.
All Waldorf teacher training comes from Anthroposophical seminaries,
where the courses include subjects like "Knowledge of the Higher
Worlds," "Karma and Reincarnation," and "Christology."
)"We like to say that we educate the heart and hands, not just the
)head," principal Shannon Conlon said.
Does any school claim to educate just the head? It's standard
practice in the Waldorf movement to convince parents not only that
Waldorf is superior, but that other forms of education are damaging.
)Founded in Germany after World War I, Waldorf education was so named
)because the first school was for children of Waldorf Astoria
)cigarette-factory workers. It has since given rise to 900 private
)schools worldwide.
)
)Attempting to balance the analytical and intellectual with creative,
)artistic and spiritual elements, the schools emphasize the use of
)natural materials for play, stress community values and teach using
)art, music and recreation.
"Balance" in Waldorf means trying to avoid rational thinking before
the age of puberty. It's anti-intellectual. The "community values"
are the values of Anthroposophy, often quite a distance from the
community they happen to be in. For example, the public Waldorf
school in Nevada City, California, had a celebration of Michaelmas on
the day everybody else in town attended the annual Veterans Day
parade.
)The private Waldorf School in Louisville, for example, teaches all
)students Japanese and German, several musical instruments and arts
)such as pottery.
It's true that all Waldorf schools teach at least one and ideally two
foreign languages, usually including German because of Waldorf's
allegiance to its roots. It's also true that after years of study
Waldorf students rarely display any useful fluency in foreign
languages.
)Children spend a lot of time outside. National research has shown
)that the arts help enrich academic learning by helping foster
)creativity, critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
)
)"I think it really helps me learn because I love to do all that
)stuff," said Isabel Gadd, 11, who is in the fifth grade.
The integration of art into the whole curriculum was what most
attracted my family to Waldorf. After we were in it we discovered
that art is very rigidly controlled both as to subject matter and
media. In many Waldorf schools, for example, students are not allowed
to use the color black in the early grades.
)At Byck, Conlon said she has not compared children in the
)Waldorf-inspired program with other students to compare test scores.
)But several teachers said they have seen it help students embrace
)learning.
It would be good to keep an eye on those scores. Waldorf students are
typically, and it's intentional, about three years behind other
schools in reading in the early grades. Despite undocumented claims
that they then leap ahead, PLANS has been told many sad stories about
children who needed extensive remedial work to get up to grade level
after Waldorf.
)Graf said that each morning her third-grade students have "circle"
)time, which could mean reciting tongue twisters, telling stories or
)singing songs related to math or social studies. Later they might
)learn symmetry by drawing Celtic crosses and geometry through
)origami.
)
)"Students learn differently," Graf said. "Not all learn through
)textbooks and worksheets." One time, she said, she was doing math on
)the overhead projector and her students broke into a song they had
)learned earlier about the concept.
)Skilled teachers can integrate the arts and other elements without
)losing any time for state-mandated curriculum, said Caroline Pinne,
)coordinator of Jefferson County Public Schools' Curriculum Resource
)Center.
)
)Reporter Chris Kenning can be reached at (502) 582-4697.
For the children's sake, I hope they can do that. Parents should be
aware that both public and private Waldorf schools immerse students
in a hidden agenda. Families that profess New Age, occultist, or
Buddhist philosophies may feel at home. Others may discover problems
when they get past the public relations level.
-Dan Dugan, Secretary
PLANS, Inc.
290 Napoleon St. Studio E
San Francisco, CA 94124
(415) 821-9776 secretary waldorfcritics.org
--
_________________________________________________________________________
People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools http://www.waldorfcritics.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 22:24:31 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: What are the Arts anyway?
Keith,
)Marketing to a smaller clientele base with an interest in the alternative
)instruction being offered (rather than trying to develop a large following
)in the public) seems like a good idea.
Yes. Follow the money. The attraction of the "larger public," in the US, is
simply the money: tax support, rather than squeaking by on private funding,
relying on rich donors etc. (As I think you know, in the US religious
schools are not supposed to receive taxpayer funding. This is the
ridiculously simple explanation behind both their venture into the public
schools here, and their attempts to downplay the religious elements in the
program.) (That's my two cents on the simultaneously running "Are they
deceitful" discussion here. Of course they are deceitful. I know that they
are deceitful because even in the private school I worked in - which has
every legal right to operate as a religious school if it wants to - I was
explicitly told that we should downplay anthroposophy to potential
customers, and to new families at the school, because it "puts people off."
The deceit also comes out of the long tradition of secrecy in small esoteric
sects, coded language understood only by "initiates" etc. in order to fly
under the radar of the authorities. This lingers today in their sense that
it would be unfitting, unseemly, to print "esoteric truths" in a school
brochure.)
Mainstream religion does not have this particular problem - they have plenty
of other problems, but mainstream religion is generally not squeamish about
writing it down, printing it up, playing it on the radio, knocking on doors,
passing it out at the supermarket etc. (burning an embassy . . .)
)It is no small issue this vocational versus academics stuff - it's pretty
)damn significant, and can't be repeated enough.
I agree, Keith, that that is not a small issue; I just think that you
consistently confuse this issue with the issues usually raised by critics
here. Did you note Dan's post tonight mentioning that the arts were why his
family signed up at Waldorf? This is true of most of the critics. We didn't
dislike Waldorf after we found out it was artsy-fartsy. We signed up BECAUSE
it was artsy-fartsy.
Will continue this in a few minutes - or in the morning.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:18:49 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Misleading the Public
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)There's lots more very revealing material at yet another page on their
site,
)titled "Myth: "Waldorf education is racist"":
)http://waldorfanswers.org/WRacismMyth.htm
Yes - very revealing. At this link we learn:
"A multi-cultural orientation has also been a marked trait of Waldorf
education since its inception 80 years ago, especially in building an
understanding of the historical origin of the different major cultures of
the world."
Problem. Steiner's version of "the historical origin of the different major
cultures of the world" is quite literally out of this world. I will never
forget my own child explaining, for example, the reality of Atlantis while
showing his main lesson book from Waldorf. Steiner also believe that some
groups of human beings were destined to die out. First Nations, for example,
would not be considered major cultures - to put it mildly. Again, this has
to do with Atlantis, etc. Yet, the waldorfanswers folks expect people to
believe all is well in Steinerville and if anyone should care and dare
enough to ask questions or point to inconsistencies . . . such questions
will be ignored. We're talking about education but no thinking aloud. And no
questions.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:41:31 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: admin kimberton.org
Subject: indigo children
An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer talked about the "indigo
children" fad. We discussed this here on January 13 and 14 after
there was an article in the New York Times. The Philadelphia article
is at:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/13631238.htm
In this article we have the rare pleasure of seeing a Waldorf teacher
speak up for rationality! An excerpt:
)Hay House, the publishing firm that Louise Hay built with self-help
)and spiritual titles, reports that sales of Indigo-related books are
)at the half-million mark.
)
)Among them, with 250,000 copies sold, is The Indigo Children: The
)New Kids Have Arrived, by Lee Carroll and Jan Tober.
)
)Carroll and Tober define Indigos as "restless, fearless" individuals
)who "believe in themselves,... have difficulty with absolute
)authority," and "often see better ways of doing things, at home and
)in school." They are in every country, on every continent, the
)authors say, and only a clairvoyant can see their auras.
)
)Carroll and Tober recommend that Indigo children attend private
)schools that focus on individual needs, such as Montessori or
)Waldorf schools.
)
)But educator Paula Moraine, faculty director at the Kimberton
)Waldorf School, says she's not sure there is such a thing as an
)Indigo. It is just as likely, she says, that parents are raising
)their children with more freedom of expression - certainly with more
)permissiveness.
)
)Carroll and Tober's descriptors, she says, are "so vague that they
)encompass being human."
)
)"You can find almost every child in those definitions."
As we mentioned in the previous discussion, the Anthroposophical
version of this fad is "star children." I wonder what Paula Moraine
thinks about that.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2046
-- Topica Digest --
RE: What are the Arts anyway?
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: What are the Arts anyway?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: What are the Arts anyway?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: indigo children
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: What are the Arts anyway?
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: What are the Arts anyway?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: What are the Arts anyway?
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: What are the Arts anyway?
By pstaud hotmail.com
"the origin of Aryan mankind"
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Misleading the Public
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: "the origin of Aryan mankind"
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:14:44 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: What are the Arts anyway?
Hi Peter,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) Hi Keith,
)
)
) I don't have much of substance to say about the particular point under
) dispute, but I do think it's worth pointing out that your argument about
)
) "bullying" is completely goofy. If there really were no such thing as
) constructive criticism, and if all criticism were merely destructive
) behavior, then your own post would obviously be disqualified, along with
)
) every other post that takes the trouble to subject another position to
) critical scrutiny.
It's the individual context or situation that detemines the validity or
invalidity of the behaviour and criticism, and whether bullying is
involved. The problem or task is determining a pattern of behaviour, and
whether the behaviour is normal or acceptable.
The author of the website said, "...constantly criticised and subjected
to destructive criticism (often euphemistically called constructive
criticism, which is an oxymoron) - explanations and proof of achievement
are ridiculed, overruled, dismissed or ignored"
[Source: "Bullying: what is it?" (
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/bully.htm ) ]
Here he's pointing to a typical behaviour of a workplace bully to twist
conventional ideas, and then use them to cover their real motivation in
criticism, which is anything but positive. Constrast this with someone
you uses the term "constructive criticism", and really means and intends
constructive dialogue.
Perhaps Australian schoolyards are different from
) American schoolyards in this regard, but the bullies I grew up with did
) not
) bother to back up their arguments with evidence and reasoning (in fact
) they
) didn't bother making any arguments at all), and they did not expend
) effort
) on attempting to parse the arguments put forward by those they bullied.
In what environment does the bully operate? They will attempt to conform
to the environment in which they find themselves - whether it be
assembly line, schoolroom, law courts, medical facility, corporate
office, etc. The language or representations to his/her
authorativeness/managerial role from the bully are superficial to some
point, and abuse and discrimination is couched somewhere in those
communications.
"...bullying is one of the most widespread social evils of today and is
present in all forms of harassment, discrimination, abuse, violence,
etc."
(source: http://www.bullyonline.org/welcome.htm)
To
) wave away the very possibility of critique as nothing but an instance of
)
) workplace harassment is childish.
It's the emotional content of the language and other factors in the
context that influences the ethical status of the critique. An example
would be one of Australia's former Prime Ministers - Paul Keating: He
often "critiqued" his opponents in politics as "scumbags", and in one
case used the label "recalcitrant" to describe one foreign politican who
wouldn't cooperate (which in the context was considered by some as
extremely patronising or divisive).
)
) Beyond that simple matter, it isn't clear to me why you think that
) something
) cannot be both spiritual and deluded (or deluding) at the same time.
) Very,
) very many spiritual experiences plainly fall into both categories, and
) entire spiritual systems have been built around such dual phenomena.
It depends what you mean by delusion. What I'm saying is that delusion
is psychological manipulation of beliefs and convictions of a group of
people, in contrast to beliefs which are adhered to in freedom or
according to free will by people in expectation that there is a
spiritual or supernatural reality to be believed in. True, virtually all
religious belief systems are imposed in some way on the consciousness or
awareness of people (such as via family tradition) and employ a fair bit
of latitude in what is claimed to be factual in doctrines. Bit there is
a world of difference between someone who intentionally lies and creates
a "spiritual environment" for hapless people who he/she abuses, and one
who professes in all sincereity a belief in a spiritual reality.
To
) recognize that something is spiritual is no help in determining whether
) it
) is accurate, true, reliable, significant, benevolent, damaging,
) inconsequential, or none of the above.
Well, I think we're both talking about the motivation and behaviour of
people who claim spiritual belief and knowledge. As to evidence of the
reality of the spiritual world itself, I don't think we can say
anything, expect to evoke a preference for one or another "theory of
everything". As to the ethical status of religious groups, that is
something we can talk about with some usefulness, I think.
Figuring those things out sometimes
) requires criticism. It would be a bad day for spirituality if everyone
) whose
) spiritual views were critically examined denounced the whole practice as
)
) bullying.
Yes.
Unless it was in fact bullying that was occuring. I only need to point
to my own cultural origin (Northern Ireland) to show that bullying
and/or percepton of bullying is rife in the critiqing of religious
stances in political terms.
)
) Yours for the arts,
)
) Peter Staudenmaier
)
Regards,
Keith
)
) )
) )Well, if Waldorf is a cultlike or a product of a cult, and cults (by the
) )popular modern usage) are groups of deluded individuals believing in a
) )lie or a deception - in short, they are deceived - and the spiritual
) )concerns genuine belief and interest in truth, then anything Waldorf
) )does can't be spiritual but rather deception. If one believes this about
) )Waldorf, then one can't really entertain the idea that artwork produced
) )in Waldorf schools has any sense of spiritual integrity but rather
) )expresses disingeniousness instead.
) )
) )
) )It's been made pretty clear here by contributers that they think Waldorf
) )is cultlike, irrational and anti-academic. The spiritual (or claims to
) )spiritual knowledge) is seen as a cover for cultlike manipulation, so
) )any attempt to express this commitment and belief structure is seen as a
) )cynical and/or misguided attempt to channel students (and parents)
) )towards dubious, non-intellectual outcomes.
) )
)
) )
) )Yes, critics think they're "spiritual", meaning them having beliefs
) )about such-and-such. But Anthroposophy is cultlike and hence filled with
) )loony followers, right? So, yeah, we say it's spiritual alright, like
) )the "head in the clouds" variety of spirituality.
) )
) )Agreed, it does come down to a difference of beliefs and personal
) )objectives. I would rather I was clearly informed about what I was
) )getting into.
) )
)
) )
) )I think the fact that dissatisfied people are directing vitriol and
) )sarcasm at Waldorf and it's teaching methods - just that type of
) )behavior on it's own - indicates a desire to damage Waldorf more than
) )help it or reform it. I'm not talking about legal or political attempts
) )to control Waldorf (although I wouldn't be surprised that this is being
) )attempted also), but simply the attitude and act of denigrating
) )something. It's destructive behaviour:
) )
) )"What is bullying?
) )
) )People who are bullied find that they are:
) )
) ) * constantly criticised and subjected to destructive criticism
) )(often euphemistically called constructive criticism, which is an
) )oxymoron) - explanations and proof of achievement are ridiculed,
) )overruled, dismissed or ignored
) ) * forever subject to nit-picking and trivial fault-finding (the
) )triviality is the giveaway)
) ) * undermined, especially in front of others; false concerns are
) )raised, or doubts are expressed over a person's performance or standard
) )of work - however, the doubts lack substantive and quantifiable
) )evidence, for they are only the bully's unreliable opinion and are for
) )control, not performance enhancement
) ) * overruled, ignored, sidelined, marginalised, ostracised
) ) * isolated and excluded from what's happening (this makes people
) )more vulnerable and easier to control and subjugate)
) ) * singled out and treated differently (for example everyone else can
) )have long lunch breaks but if they are one minute late it's a
) )disciplinary offence)
) ) * belittled, degraded, demeaned, ridiculed, patronised, subject to
) )disparaging remarks
) ) * regularly the target of offensive language, personal remarks, or
) )inappropriate bad language
) ) * the target of unwanted sexual behaviour
) ) * threatened, shouted at and humiliated, especially in front of
) )others
) ) * taunted and teased where the intention is to embarrass and
) )humiliate"
) )
) )[Source: "Bullying: what is it?" (
) )http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/bully.htm )]
)
)
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:44:27 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: What are the Arts anyway?
Keith continues on the "We're being bullied" tack:
)It's the individual context or situation that detemines the validity or
)invalidity of the behaviour and criticism,
Right, Keith . . . so how about we stick to the topic. It isn't "bullying"
if the criticism is *justified*. Isn't that the real point under discussion?
Deflecting this to "you're bullying us if you criticize Waldorf schools" is
just childish whining.
)It's the emotional content of the language and other factors in the
)context that influences the ethical status of the critique. An example
)would be one of Australia's former Prime Ministers - Paul Keating: He
)often "critiqued" his opponents in politics as "scumbags", and in one
)case used the label "recalcitrant" to describe one foreign politican who
)wouldn't cooperate (which in the context was considered by some as
)extremely patronising or divisive).
I suppose this just gets into individual sensitivities, then, but "scumbag"
applied to some politicians is totally appropriate in my book. And maybe
"recalcitrant" has some resonance in Australian politics that I wouldn't
understand, but from where I sit "recalcitrant" is hardly harsh criticism.
Perhaps Australian political dialogue is much politer than American . . .
actually, much of the American electorate wouldn't know the meaning of
"recalcitrant."
)there is a world of difference between someone who intentionally lies and
)creates a "spiritual environment" for hapless people who he/she abuses, and
)one who professes in all sincereity a belief in a spiritual reality.
In the real world, there is not, necessarily, a "world of difference" there.
Ever hear the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"? Sorry
for the cliché, but I can't think of a better way to point out the problem
here.
)Well, I think we're both talking about the motivation and behaviour of
)people who claim spiritual belief and knowledge.
No, too simple, because people aren't always even aware of their own
motivation. And peoples' motivation changes over time. A lot of gurus, I
think, start off well intentioned, and certainly hold sincere beliefs. They
become corrupted by followers' adoration, money, power, sex, other things.
)As to evidence of the reality of the spiritual world itself, I don't think
)we can say anything, expect to evoke a preference for one or another
)"theory of everything".
Huh? We can't say anything about the reality of the spiritual world? What
are you talking about?
)As to the ethical status of religious groups, that is something we can talk
)about with some usefulness, I think.
Yes - that's one of the usual subjects here - the behavior, in the world, of
anthroposophy.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:52:15 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: What are the Arts anyway?
Keith, yesterday (continuing):
)Well, if Waldorf is a cultlike or a product of a cult, and cults (by the
popular modern )usage) are groups of deluded individuals believing in a lie
or a deception - in short, they )are deceived - and the spiritual concerns
genuine belief and interest in truth, then anything )Waldorf does can't be
spiritual but rather deception. If one believes this about Waldorf, )then
one can't really entertain the idea that artwork produced in Waldorf schools
has any )sense of spiritual integrity but rather expresses disingeniousness
instead.
That's very interesting . . . but I think the reasoning is flawed in several
ways. Things aren't so black and white! I wouldn't define a cult as a group
of people who are deluded or believing in a lie. How to define a cult could
take the discussion in a dozen directions, of course, as there are many
different definitions, serving different interests. So this is just my
personal take - but what we commonly think of as a "cult" isn't necessarily
all bad. People in a cult may believe some things that are true and some
things that are not, and often it is not a question of empirical "truth" but
simply of beliefs. All religious beliefs are wacky, deluded etc., from a
certain POV. (And of course not all cults are religious cults; there are
political cults, therapy cults, etc.) The beliefs of a "cult" are no more or
less wacky or deluded than the beliefs of mainstream Protestantism,
Catholicism, Judaism etc. Cults are often doing good works, making important
charitable contributions or providing useful services. All this can and does
coexist with more "dangerous" or "deceptive" elements of a cult. Each one is
a mix - some are totally harmless, and almost all are providing an emotional
and social network for some people, or an outlet for impulses to help
society etc. At the other extreme are violent cults that abuse their members
physically and emotionally, persuade people to have sex with the leader or
give him all their money or leave their families, or even threaten society
with violent actions. Anthroposophy is seldom accused of this sort of thing,
to my knowledge.
Anyway - what this means for the purpose of this discussion is that we
definitely can't simply say, Waldorf is a cult, therefore the art the
students are doing is no good! Waldorf should be stopped from offering this
art instruction! Of course not! To me, this goes without saying, but it
always seems to me, in conversing with you, that you are disputing various
things that no one has said.
Okay? Nobody here is saying anything like what you are arguing against
above: "Anything Waldorf does can't be spiritual but rather deception" or
"Artwork produced in Waldorf schools can't have any spiritual integrity."
)It's been made pretty clear here by contributers that they think Waldorf is
cultlike, )irrational and anti-academic. The spiritual (or claims to
spiritual knowledge) is seen as a )cover for cultlike manipulation, so any
attempt to express this commitment and belief )structure is seen as a
cynical and/or misguided attempt to channel students (and parents)
)towards dubious, non-intellectual outcomes.
I keep thinking you're figuring this out, and then you say something like
the above. The complaint is hardly that we disapprove of "any attempt to
express this commitment and belief structure" etc. What we disapprove of,
Keith, is that they DON'T express this commitment and belief structure! They
HIDE this commitment and belief structure!! They slip this commitment and
belief structure into the songs and verses and poems and plays, and DON'T
TELL THE PARENTS.
Keith:
)If the problem is that the philsophical influence behind Waldorf art -
anthroposophy - is not )genuinely spiritual, than what is it?
Diana:
)Who has claimed that anthroposophy is not genuinely spiritual? You will
more likely find )critics here claiming the opposite.
Keith (resorting to sarcasm while complaining about critics' sarcasm):
)Yes, critics think they're "spiritual", meaning them having beliefs about
such-and-such. But )Anthroposophy is cultlike and hence filled with loony
followers, right? So, yeah, we say it's )spiritual alright, like the "head
in the clouds" variety of spirituality.
So you're going to pout, now. Let's get it out in the open: I, personally,
am entitled to *my* belief that *your* belief is loony, and you to yours if
you think *mine* are loony.
Okay? World over, people believe what they believe (and often privately
think other peoples' beliefs are loony). I have no doubt I believe things
that you would think are loony, or at least severely mistaken.
Anthroposophists have labeled me personally, for my various convictions, as
everything from mentally retarded white trailer trash to a knowing agent for
evil spirits working to enslave or destroy humanity (Sorath, or whatever his
name is). It would be an understatement to say that anthroposophists think
I believe all the wrong things.
So get over it? People believe different things.
I asked:
)Of course they have a right to teach art in this way! As always I would
Find it very )interesting if you would point to a statement here, or
elsewhere, where someone has claimed )that Waldorf does not have a right to
)teach art this way.
Keith:
)I think the fact that dissatisfied people are directing vitriol and sarcasm
at Waldorf and )it's teaching methods - just that type of behavior on it's
own - indicates a desire to damage )Waldorf more than help it or reform it.
Yeah - okay - in other words, you would not be able to point to any such
statement, because no one has made such a statement. You're going to point
to our "behavior" in vague terms and next you've started sending definitions
of "bullying" to the list.
Here it is one more time Keith: What they don't have a right to is 1) US tax
$$$$ because - according to our constitution - tax money does not go to
religious schools here; and 2) use of deceptive advertising and recruiting
to get customers.
Incidentally, Keith, I've read a variety of posts authored by you in which
you "denigrate" various things.
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message ha