Assimilation
Tarjei Straume (February 22nd 2004):
"Steiner did not *insist* on assimilation; he recommended
it. (Please notice the difference.)"
Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
I disagree. His recommendations on this score were categorical
and emphatic.
[Indeed. His recommendations
on this score were categorical and emphatic - that assimilation
come from the Jews themselves.]
Tarjei Straume (February 22nd 2004):
If assimilation is regarded as something anti-Semitic,
all Jews who embrace religions and philosophies and worldviews
that differ from Judaism, and Jews who marry non-Jews, are
anti-Semite according to such a definition. It's a semantic
quicksand.
Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
I don't think its quicksand at all. The issue isn't really
all that murky, is it? Some antisemites were assimilationists.
Others weren't. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether
assimilation itself is antisemitic (it isn't, obviously);
it has to do with differences among antisemites in late nineteenth
and early twentieth century Germany.
Tarjei Straume (February 22nd 2004):
"There are orthodox Jews who share your misgivings about
assimilation"
Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
I do not have misgivings about assimilation as such. I do
have misgivings, as everyone should, about the specific version
of assimilation that Steiner propagated. What he understood
by assimilation was very different from what pro-assimilationist
Jews understood by it. These Jews were anything but Orthodox.
[The above rests on a willful
misunderstanding of Steiner's actual position on assimiliation
(below).]
Andrea (February 22nd, 2004):
"The right balanced way it should have been the birth
of a federal Palestine's Republic where Arabs, Jews and Christians
should have had the same rights."
Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
Sounds great to me. I don't see what this has to do with the
history of Austrian and German philosemitism and antisemitism
from 1880 to 1925, which to my mind is the proper context
for assessing Steiner's views on Jews. I think that history
is what our discussion ought to focus on.
[And that is the problem,
since Steiner's allegedly anti-Semetic position (below)
indicates that indeed Steiner was talking about the then-current
Palestine problem.]
Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
Hi Andrea, thanks for your sketches. I agree with you that
many varieties of Nazi antisemitism had a 'materialist' cast
in the sense you seem to mean, and were heavily indebted to
Darwinist notions. But Nazi antisemitism was very different
from the kinds of antisemitism that predominated during most
of Rudolf Steiner's life. One of the chief stumbling blocks
in trying to get historical perspective on the development
of antisemitism is the temptation to view the entire phenomenon
through the lens of the holocaust. That won't help us understand
where antisemitism came from and why it played such a prominent
role in German culture before 1933.
Christine (February 22nd, 2004):
"Is the idea of the "Jewish people" assimilating
into society at large a racist idea?"
Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
No, definitely not. Most German Jews during Steiner's lifetime
were assimilationists. In fact the majority of them had already
achieved a considerable measure of integration into "society
at large". What they had not done, and what most of them
quite reasonably declined to do, was abandon their Jewish
identity in the process. In contrast to these pro-assimilationist
Jews, assimilationist antisemites demanded a complete dissolution
of Jewishness as such. I think that Steiner, in several stages
of his career, fit into this latter pattern. But this sort
of antisemitism was by no means racist, at least not necessarily
so, and in several crucial respects it was fundamentally different
from the racial versions of antisemitism that were also current
at the time. <snip>
Yes, segregation and purity of "blood" generally
belong to the arsenal of racial antisemites, not of assimilationist
antisemites. In fact one of the best scholars on this issue,
Donald Niewyk, distinguishes between "integrationist"
and "segregationist" antisemites, whereas I tend
to use the terms "assimilationist" and "dissimilationist".
Most of the integrationist/assimilationist antisemites --
a group which included several of the most infamous and influential
antisemites of the time -- were not racial antisemites, though
they were typically racists in other respects.
Daniel Hindes(February 22nd 2004):
"Was there anyone at all in Austria or Germany between
1870 and 1930 who publicly held a view of the Jews that you
would not consider anti-Semitic by the standards of today?"
Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
Yes, of course. A very large majority of Austrian and German
Jews held entirely reasonable views on the "Jewish question"
(although I disagree with any number of those views for various
reasons), and with rare exceptions did not adopt antisemitic
positions. But there were lots of gentiles who held perfectly
sensible and non-antisemitic views as well (again, I disagree
with many of them). I completely reject the argument put forth
by scholars like Goldhagen that all of German and Austrian
culture was permeated by aggressive antisemitism for decades
before the Nazis came to power. My perspective is much closer
to that of historians like Mosse, Aschheim, Greive, and so
forth. I know you read German, and if you like, I could recommend
some of the secondary literature, both classics and the latest
research, that I think makes a valuable contribution to understanding
the vexed relations between German Jews and non-Jewish Germans
during that turbulent era. Or I'd be happy to tell you more
about my own viewpoint and the parameters of my current research.
I would be very interested to hear your own thoughts on the
matter.
[Note how carefully this is phrased.
Jews had reasonable views of the Jewish question; some gentiles
were not anti-Semetic in general, but he has been careful
not to necessarily claim that some gentiles were not anti-Semetic
about the Jewish question.]
Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004 to Tarjei):
I think you have misunderstood Steiner's writings and lectures
about Jews. In any case, Jews aren't a race, and in Steiner's
day they weren't resisting integration, assimilation, and
evolution (whatever that might mean).
[Actually Steiner said that Jews
should assimilate themselves - a subtle but important distinction
- something that Peter Staudenmaier has just finished explaining
that they were doing.]
Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004 to Tarjei):
But Steiner didn't say that Germans should disappear, he said
that Jews should disappear, not in the future, but now.
[Steiner also said that all "Volk"
elements should disappear (in the very same paragraph) and
Jews should assimilate themselves, not cease to be]
Tarjei Straume (February 22nd 2004):
"He saw a special need for Jews to assimilate because
of the social problems that were present in Europe in connection
with the so-called "Jewish question." "
Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004 to Tarjei):
Yes, that is what we've been discussing. Why do you suppose
that Steiner believed in the disappearance of Jewishness as
a sensible response to the "Jewish question"? And
why are you so insistent that his emphasis on this "special
need for Jews to assimilate" couldn't possibly have had
anything to do with the antisemitic ideologies of the time?
[Appearently Peter Staudenmaier
is unable to grasp the difference between the Volk element
of "Jewishness" and Jews as individuals]
Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004 to Tarjei):
"Your notion that Steiner was anti-Semitic is a pink
elephant; calling a pro-assimilation stance anti-Semitism
is playing abstract games with words, and you know it."
I don't, as it happens, know that, but it does seem to me
that you are still having an unusually difficult time understanding
my argument about Steiner's views on Jews. There were lots
of pro-assimilationist antisemites in Steiner's day. If you
are unaware of that fact, you would do well to familiarize
yourself with the history of antisemitism. As for Steiner's
own views, why don't we discuss those? Then you can show everybody
here how wrong I am. Tell me what you think of Steiner's assertion
that the very existence of Jewry as such is a mistake of world
history. I will gladly entertain an explanation of why this
statement was not antisemitic.
Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004 to the list):
Sorry to have caused confusion. I will try to restate what
I think is relevant about the concept of assimilation and
its role in Rudolf Steiner's views on Jews, Judaism, and Jewishness.
Assimilation is most certainly not antisemitic in and of itself.
In the Germany of Steiner's day, most Jews were firmly in
favor of assimilation, and they definitely weren't antisemites;
in fact the most prominent organization of pro-assimilationist
Jews, the Centralverein, was also a major opponent of antisemitic
agitation. There were other tendencies within German Jewry
that were much more ambivalent toward assimilation, including
many Orthodox Jews and many Zionists, but these were minority
viewpoints at the time.
[Summary: assimilationist Jews
are not anti-Semitic.]
Within the non-Jewish population (which is to say, the vast
majority of Germans), there were many supporters and defenders
of Jewish rights; these people are sometimes called philosemites
(though that term, particularly in Germany, carries a quite
a few complicated connotations). In my view, Steiner belonged
to this stream around the turn of the century, when he published
a series of articles denouncing organized antisemitism. Along
with these philosemites, there were of course also many antisemites,
who appeared in a great variety of ideological types, from
religious antisemites to cultural antisemites to political
antisemites to economic antisemites to racial antisemites
and more. To complicate matters further, the range of general
attitudes toward assimilation among non-Jewish Germans was
spread more or less evenly across this ideological spectrum:
some antisemites were in favor of assimilation, as they understood
it, and others were opposed. Moreover, many philosemites also
shared an emphatically pro-assimilationist perspective.
[Non-Jewish defenders of Jewish
rights are philosemites. They could also simultaneously be
anit-Semites. Steiner was an anti-Semetic philosemite.]
The trouble is that for the most part, Jews and non-Jews meant
very different things by the term 'assimilation'. For Jews,
especially assimilationist Jews, it generally meant fuller
integration into mainstream German society while retaining
their Jewish identity. For many non-Jews, in contrast, assimilation
meant the abandonment of Jewish identity as such. This is
how Steiner understood the concept, for example. This fundamental
difference greatly exacerbated the existing social conflicts
surrounding the so-called "Jewish question" in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries.I hope this won't muddle
things even further, but it's important to keep in mind that
racism and antisemitism are two different things. Although
they do often coincide, there are certainly racists who are
not antisemites and antisemites who are not racists. This
is relevant to the contested notion of assimilation because
most racial antisemites -- those who viewed Jews as racially
distinct from 'German' or 'Aryans' -- opposed assimilation.
However, there are instances of antisemites who favored assimilation
and who also held a more or less racial conception of Jewishness;
in my view, some of Steiner's mature views on Jews (after
his turn to Theosophy) fall into this category.
[Steiner was an anti-Semetic
philosemite because his view of assimilation involved the
loss of separate Jewish identity.]
In summary: assimilation itself is neither necessarily antisemitic
nor necessarily racist; it is, instead, a significant distinguishing
issue in the complex debates over the status of Jews within
German culture and society in Steiner's day. The difference
between Jewish and gentile understandings of 'assimilation'
is a mainstay of the abundant historical research on German-Jewish
history; when I get back to the computer later today I will
try to post a selection of quotes from various works that
will hopefully give a fuller picture of this multifaceted
question.
[In the end, whether your view
of assimilation is anti-Semetic or not depends entirely on
whether or not your version of assimilation results in a loss
of separate Jewish identity.]
Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004 to Tarjei):
I do not believe that antisemitism is the consequence of pro-assimilationism.
Tarjei Straume (February 23rd 2004):
Steiner believed that traditional religious rituals and beliefs
should be replaced by a new apprach to the spiritual. Catholics
don't cease to exist only because they stop being Catholics
and become New Agers instead. Jews don't cease to exist because
they become Buddhists and marry Thai. Muslims don't cease
to exist if they change religion, unless the fatwa against
such conversions are enforced. If you're looking forward to
a cultural-spiritual revolution, you're not anti anybody just
because you consider old traditions passé.
Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004 to Tarjei):
That may be, but what does it have to do with his statement
that "Jewry as a people" should cease to exist?
He didn't say that Judaism as a religion should cease to exist,
he said that Jews as an ethnic group should cease to exist,
that is, should cease being Jewish. If you believe that "Jewry
as a people" is structured around traditional religious
rituals and beliefs, either now or in Steiner's day, I invite
you to say so. If you do not believe that, I fail to see how
your claim above is a response to my question: what do you
think Steiner meant when he said that Jewry should cease to
exist, and why do you think this stance was not antisemitic?
["Jewry as a people"
is a selective mistranslation. It reads "Jewishness as
a Volk". Subtle, I know, but important.]
Tarjei Straume (February 23rd 2004):
You know very well by now what I mean and what Rudolf Steiner
meant. You don't need to let the dictionary definitions of
"people", "Jewry", "cease" and
"exist" and their juxtapositions get in your way.
If you fail to see that my previous post was a response to
your question, perhaps I didn't care to answer your question.
Some of your questions carry the "Have you stopped beating
your wife?" syndrome. In other words, what I wrote was
a comment on what you wrote, and I do believe it clarified
my understanding of the issue and my perception of what Steiner's
position was with regard to this topic.
Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004 to Tarjei):
I can't force you to discuss the issue, but I am still very
curious about your reticence. You wrote:
"You know very well by now what I mean and what Rudolf
Steiner meant."
I have no idea what you meant, and you and I evidently disagree
about what Steiner meant. Why are you avoiding a debate on
the matter?
"If you fail to see that my previous post was a response
to your question, perhaps I didn't care to answer your question."
Yes, I got that impression. I don't understand this attitude.
It seems to me a fairly straightforward issue, which can be
answered by simply advancing a few basic claims and substantiating
them. The issue before us, as I see it, is this:
Why did Steiner want Jewishness to disappear? [Now
it is Jewishness, before it was Jews - a rather big difference.
It seems Peter Staudenmaier sees these terms as interchangeable]
(Or, for those of you who think I have misunderstood the several
passages I quoted to this effect, What did Steiner really
mean when he said the best thing would be for Jewry as a people
to disappear?) [He said he wanted
the Volk elements of Jewishness to disappear, see below]
Why did both the early and the late Steiner portray Jews as
a closed totality dominated by racial qualities?
[I think that greatly overstates Steiner's position, especially
the word "totally"] Why did he think that
the mere existence of Jews was a mistake of world history?
Why did he use Jews as an example of decadent racial groups
that refuse to progress?
I do not think that these views exhaust Steiner's perspective
on the "Jewish question", but they were certainly
a big part of it. To my mind, each one of those statements
by Steiner, in the context within which he expressed them,
counts as antisemitic. I can see that several members of this
list disagree, and I'd be very interested to learn why. [Because
they are presented out of context, and don't accurately represent
Steiner's position. See this topic about the problem of blatant
mistranslation.] If Tarjei doesn't care to answer
my question, I invite anybody else to do so.
Tarjei Straume (February 23rd 2004):
I cannot fathom that a person with your intelligence has not
grasped the true essence of Rudolf Steiner's relationship
to the Jews after all these years you have spent so much time
on it. Neither can I understand why you are still blank about
my own take here.
Steiner once said something interesting about debates. It
was in connection with the Transubstantiation. When "This
is my body" and "This is my blood" became the
subject of debate, it was no longer understood. For this reason,
Steiner said that when people begin to discuss something,
they no longer understand it.
A debate can be fruitful if it is intended to get more knowledge
and gain new insights, but that is not the case here. I see
no point in debating as if it were a game of football or ping
pong; I see no point in *arguing* - which usually entails
a shouting match - for the purpose of persuading
other people to change their minds about something, especially
when their minds are very made up and determined.
Why did you say in your last post, "It isn't a trick
question"? Is it because there are so many jokers in
your deck that you are promising not to pull this time or
something?
Everything you're asking for is right at your fingertips,
where it has been all along. You cannot possibly be unfamiliar
with the papar, "ANTHROPOSOPHY
AND ANTI-SEMITISM: Was Rudolf Steiner An Anti-Semite?"
http://www.waldorfschule.info/aktuell/anti.pdf
Dottie Zold (February 24th 2004):
Jesus Peter you really are too much. You feel like a blockhead
to me. No matter how many times someones responds to this
question year in and year out you still do not get the answer
you want and therefore negate that anyone responded to you
in the first place.
So, lets see. What do you think Dr. Steiner meant by 'Jewery
to end'?
Again for the umpteenth time Steiner was of the thought that
holding onto blood and national ties was not a good thing
for the whole of humanity. Kind of goes against the heart
of your other racial arguments but hey so what right?
Peter Staudenmaier (February 24th, 2004 to Tarjei):
Hello again Tarjei, you inquired:
"And RS is considered a racist for favoring assimilation?"
Uh, no, he isn't. May I ask where you got this idea from?
I've explained several times now that assimilationist antisemitism
and racist antisemitism were two different things. Did you
miss all that? It wouldn't even make sense to consider Steiner
an antisemite simply for favoring assimilation, as I have
also explained several times. Since no-one in this exchange
has made such arguments, why do you keep trying to rebut them?
Wouldn't it make more sense to respond to the arguments that
I actually made? Who knows, that might even make things less
boring.
Detlef Hardorp (February 24th 2004):
Permit me to jump in on this thread.
PS wrote: >"That may be, but what does it have to
do with his statement that "Jewry as a people" should
cease to exist?"
Where do you, PS, get the statement ""Jewry as a
people" should cease to exist" from?
I am inclined to believe - but maybe you will prove me wrong
- that this is not a statement by Steiner, but your interpretation
of Steiner's meaning. Now everybody is entitled to their opinions.
But these should be clearly delineated from statements of
someone else.
This "statement" does not come from the controversial
paragraph we have been discussing (from the 1888 Hamerling
Humunculus review). There Steiner writes that Jewry as a self-contained
entity (he uses the expression "Jewry as such";
the "as such" is referring back to the previous
sentence where he is speaking about Jewry as a self-contained
entity) "has outlived itself and has no justification
within the modern life of nations". From this you can
only conclude that Steiner is saying that that Jewry as a
self-contained entity has no justification within the modern
life of nations" (or peoples, if you prefer). This clearly
does not indicate a positive stance towards a state like Israel.
But it is not saying that ""Jewry as a people"
should cease to exist".
Steiner then continues in his essay: "Wir meinen hier
nicht die Formen der jüdischen Religion allein, wir meinen
vorzüglich den Geist des Judentums, die jüdische
Denkweise."
“By this we mean not only the forms of the Jewish religion
but above all the spirit of Judaism and of the Jewish way
of thinking."
Summary of this statement: Although Judaism has had a very
favourable influence on Western culture, it has outlived itself
as a self-contained entity and as a distinct Jewish way of
thinking.
I don't want to enter into the debate whether or not this
statement is anti-Semitic. Intelligent people have argued
both ways. In the end this will certainly depend a lot on
your definition of anti-Semitism. There are certain very broad
definitions which will classify even mildly critical statements
about Israel as anti-Semitic - because anything remotely critical
of anything to do with Jewish people and their instirutions
is, by definition, anti-Semitic. Other definitions are less
broad. In the end, it matters less how people judge this.
What matters more is how much people understand. In order
to understand and certainly to judge statements made by Steiner
in the context of Hamerling's thoughts in 1888, a minimal
understanding of the historical context is necessary. An attempt
to go into this in detail is the book by Bader, Ravagli and
Leist, which can be found in English at http://www.waldorfschule.info/aktuell/anti.pdf.
A summary of some of this has been recently condensed into
a short text, as yet unpublished in English, from which I
would like to paste the nitty gritty in a long excerpt here.
Maybe this will add some meat to this discussion. Much more
meat can be found at the above mentioned link!
Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004 to Detlef):
"I am inclined to believe - but maybe you will prove
me wrong - that this is not a statement by Steiner, but your
interpretation of Steiner's meaning."
Obviously that is my interpretation of Steiner's meaning,
Detlef. Since Steiner is dead, we cannot ask him what he meant.
Instead, we all have to interpret his words, as they appear
in the published editions of his work. If you disagree that
Steiner says in this lecture that the best thing would be
for Jewry as a people to cease to exist, then I urge you to
provide your own interpretation of the passages in question.
Here are the two Steiner quotations that I provided earlier.
I highly recommend that you check the original.
Rudolf Steiner (May 8, 1924 answering
the question "Has the Jewish Volk fulfilled its Mission?):
""Dieses Gespräch, das ich Ihnen jetzt erzählt
habe, hat stattgefunden vor dem großen Kriege 1914 bis
1918, sehen Sie, und daß die Menschen nicht mehr wollen
die großen allgemein-menschlichen Prinzipe, sondern
sich absondern, Volkskräfte entwickeln wollen, das hat
eben gerade zu dem großen Krieg geführt! Und
so ist das größte Unglück dieses 20. Jahrhunderts
gekommen von dem, was die Juden auch wollen. Und so kann man
sagen: Da alles dasjenige, was die Juden getan haben, jetzt
in bewußter Weise von allen Menschen zum Beispiel getan
werden könnte, so könnten die Juden eigentlich nichts
Besseres vollbringen, als aufgehen in der übrigen Menschheit,
sich vermischen mit der übrigen Menschheit, so daß
das Judentum als Volk einfach aufhören würde. Das
ist dasjenige, was ein Ideal wäre. Dem widerstreben heute
noch viele jüdische Gewohnheiten - und vor allen Dingen
der Haß der ändern Menschen. Und das ist gerade
dasjenige, was überwunden werden müßte.
Die Dinge werden nicht überwunden, wenn alles beim alten
bleibt."
"This discussion [among the founders of Zionism] that
I have just described to you took place before the Great War
of 1914 to 1918, you see, and that people no longer want the
broad, universally-human principles, but rather desire to
segregate, to develop the forces of 'Volk', this is precisely
which has led to the great war! And so the greatest tragedy
of this 20th century [WWI] came from that same thing which
the Jews also desired. And so you can say: since everything
that the Jewish Volk has done can now be done in a conscious
way by all human beings, for example, the Jews could accomplish
nothing better than to become absorbed into the rest of humanity,
to intermingle with the rest of humanity, so that Jewishnes
as a Volk would simply cease to exist. That is something which
could be an ideal. Against this still struggle many Jewish
habits, especially a hate for other human beings. And it is
precicely that which must be overcome. These things will not
be overcome if everything remains as it was in ancient times."
(Translation by Daniel Hindes)
Notes:
in etwas aufgehen = to become absorbed in
sich vermischen = mix oneself
aufhören = stop
Train of though: Separation into Folk is bad in principle.
It caused WWI. Not only Jews, but all humanity can desire
to separate themselves into Folks, rather than forge a universally
human culture. It would be ideal if Jews mixed THEMSELVES
into humanity, if the Jewish Folk BECAME ABSORBED into humanity
as a whole.
Since the statement is within the context of a discussion
of then-contemporary Zionism and references the developments
in Palestine - deploring the hatred of another people (the
Palestinians) by the Jews - it shows a considerable degree
of foresight. Steiner is saying that Jews should not attempt
to create an Old Testament state in Palestine at the cost
of hatred of other peoples, but should instead assimilate
into the larger culture of wherever they live. And the statement
applies not just to German Jews and Austrian Jews, but to
all Jews, wherever they might live in the world. This is Steiner's
actual position, and not that individual German Jews should
"cease to exist." Whether this position is "anti-Semitic"
or not can be discussed, and will depend largely on how you
define "anti-Semitic".
And of course the context does lead to a reinterpretation
of several phrases (the supposedly Jewish-hostile additional
positions that purportedly make Steiner's pro-assimilation
stance here an anti-Semitic one). For example, the phrase
"everything that the Jewish Volk has done can now be
done in a conscious way by all human beings" refers to
the five pages of description of the special tasks of the
Jewish Volk that preceded this quote. Calling a hate for other
peoples a "Jewish habit" seems at first glance to
be harsh, but it is specifically directed to Zionist behavior
in Palestine, which is largely agreed to have been deplorable
even back then.
Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004 to Tarjei):
> "Steiner' obviously believed so strongly that the
time for complete
> Jewish emancipation had come that he himself did not
regard the formulation
> as an attack on the Jewish existence as such."
This is historical nonsense, Tarjei. Jewish emancipation in
the Habsburg lands took place long before 1888.
Paulina (February 24th, 2004):
Just a quick reply ...
Not really emancipation, toleration, perhaps - up to a limit
in Hapesburg land.
For example, just one brief example, actually:
Gustav Mahler had to convert to Catholicism before he was
allowed to conduct the Vienna orchestra.
It would be mor appropriate to say the jews were facilitated
when advantagous to the Hapsburgs, but, the term "emancipation"
doesn't quite define the history of that period.
Lets' stop playing fast and loose with facts. Please. :-)
Patrick Evans (February 25th, 2004):
Although I wish to communicate with you regarding Steiner's
views on evolving cultures, allow me to comment on your response
to my previous post. I commented that you are a master at
rhetoric. <snip>
Back now to the more important line of thinking: I think that
Steiner is completely consistent in his remarks about evolving
cultures. You're not looking at the whole of his thought when
you talk about his "phases". His views about evolving
cultures can be expressed quite simply. Different cultures
arise throughout history that bring different gifts to the
evolution of humanity. They play their role and then melt
back into the whole. This is true for all cultures, not just
the ones under discussion. You asked in one of your responses
-- and I paraphrase -- tell me where Steiner ever said that
the Germans should disappear. If you read the whole of Steiner,
especially his cycles regarding the evolution of cultures,
you will find that the present leading cultures will fade
away and others will arise. So, yes, the German culture, the
central European cultures, the American culture will all disappear
and others will take their places. This does not mean that
a particular culture that has completed its main role or task
is no longer valued. It is the same with individuals and their
contributions. Rudolf Steiner was ever truthful; he looked
for the truths in others. He found something worthy in Nietzsche,
Haeckel, and Stirner and defended them. He spoke positively
about the contributions of Jewish culture to humanity. He
was also honest to speak the truth when it was clear to him
that a person or culture was bringing an influence to the
evolution of humanity that was not progressive or in its best
interests. He was not anti-anyone! He did oppose that which
retarded a healthy development of humankind. Both Sune and
Tarjei and others have given the detailed renditions of the
same thoughts I have just uttered. If you want to find the
truth I would advise you to look at Steiner's work comprehensively
with an open mind.
Peter Staudenmaier (February 25th, 2004):
"He was also honest to speak the truth when it was clear
to him that a person or culture was bringing an influence
to the evolution of humanity that was not progressive or in
its best interests. He was not anti-anyone! He did oppose
that which retarded a healthy development of humankind."
Honesty has nothing to do with it. I do not doubt that Steiner
honestly believed the various things he said about Jews. I
simply think that some of those things were antisemitic. Let's
abstract from Steiner for the moment and look at the substance
here: I think that the claim that the existence of Jews as
a people retards the healthy development of humankind can
accurately be described as antisemitic. Do you disagree?
[It would be helpful to understand
Steiner first. Put like that the answer is obvious, but what
was Steiner's position really?]
Patrick Evans (February 27th, 2004):
I reply, "I disagree." I disagree for two
reasons. First all, your suggestion that we abstract from
Steiner and look at the substance will just as likely lead
us away from the truth as towards it. The truth is in Steiner's
meaning and that can be only arrived at after a comprehensive
study and understanding of the evolution of humanity. Every
culture has contributed something to the healthy development
of humankind. One might say, each culture has a gift to give.
In time every culture completes its task and another takes
its place. The present leading cultures will complete their
tasks and then melt back into the whole as the others before
them. According to anthroposophy, any people or culture that
separates itself in an unhealthy way from the rest of humanity
is impeding the progression of humanity. Rudolf Steiner spoke
in the same spirit when he criticized President Wilson's idea,
the self-determination of nations. He saw it to be social
Darwinism at its worst. We see a result of this idea in the
Balkan tragedy. Secondly, the word anti-Semitic isn't merely
descriptive. It attaches a stigma to anyone that is labeled
by it. Surely you understand that by saying that anthroposophy
and Rudolf Steiner are racist and anti-Semitic you contribute
mightily to the perception of them as such. This could not
be further from the truth. But as you know, perception becomes
reality. anthroposophy brings forth the spiritual ideal that
humanity is progressing towards universal brotherhood. It
encourages us to look at the individual not the color of his
skin. This idea opposes racist ideologies. In our time one
must use these terms with care. When you use them you bear
the responsibility of their effects. Do you disagree?
Peter Staudenmaier (March 1st, 2004):
Hi Patrick, you wrote:
"According to anthroposophy, any people or culture that
separates itself in an unhealthy way from the rest of humanity
is impeding the progression of humanity."
Neither Jewish culture nor the Jewish people as such separated
itself in an unhealthy way from the rest of humanity in 1888
or in 1924. If anything, the opposite was the case.
[A silly claim. What were the
Jewish ghettos, then?]
"anthroposophy brings forth the spiritual ideal that
humanity is progressing towards universal brotherhood. It
encourages us to look at the individual not the color of his
skin."
That is indeed what Steiner sometimes said. At other times
he said very different things about skin color. Some of those
things were racist, in my estimation.
[Note the utter absence of examples.
Staudenmaier is fond of generalizations.]
[Patrick Evans replied
in general to Peter Staudenmaier's techniques onMarch
2nd, 2004, starting a new thread.]
Daniel Hindes (March 14th, 2004):
Peter,
I was going through the archives, trying to see if my notoriously
unreliable short-term memory had omitted anything of significance.
I came across this, and wanted to ask you a question about
it.
Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004 to the list):
Sorry to have caused confusion. I will try to restate what
I think is relevant about the concept of assimilation and
its role in Rudolf Steiner's views on Jews, Judaism, and
Jewishness.
Assimilation is most certainly not antisemitic in and of
itself. In the Germany of Steiner's day, most Jews were firmly
in favor of assimilation, and they definitely weren't antisemites;
in fact the most prominent organization of pro-assimilationist
Jews, the Centralverein, was also a major opponent of antisemitic
agitation. There were other tendencies within German Jewry
that were much more ambivalent toward assimilation, including
many Orthodox Jews and many Zionists, but these were minority
viewpoints at the time.
Daniel:
Summary: Assimilationist Jews are (mostly) not anti-Semitic.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Within the non-Jewish population (which is to say, the vast
majority of Germans), there were many supporters and defenders
of Jewish rights; these people are sometimes called philosemites
(though that term, particularly in Germany, carries a quite
a few complicated connotations). In my view, Steiner belonged
to this stream around the turn of the century, when he
published a series of articles denouncing organized antisemitism.
Along with these philosemites, there were of course also
many antisemites, who appeared in a great variety of ideological
types, from religious antisemites to cultural antisemites
to political antisemites to economic antisemites to racial
antisemites and more. To complicate matters further, the
range of general attitudes toward assimilation among non-Jewish
Germans was spread more or less evenly across this ideological
spectrum: some antisemites were in favor of assimilation,
as they understood it, and others were opposed. Moreover,
many philosemites also shared an emphatically pro-assimilationist
perspective.
Daniel:
Non-Jewish defenders of Jewish rights are philosemites. They
could also simultaneously be anit-Semites. Steiner was
an anti-Semetic philosemite.
Peter Staudenmaier:
he trouble is that for the most part, Jews and non-Jews meant
very different things by the term 'assimilation'. For Jews,
especially assimilationist Jews, it generally meant fuller
integration into mainstream German society while retaining
their Jewish identity. For many non-Jews, in contrast,
assimilation meant the abandonment of Jewish identity as
such. This is how Steiner understood the concept, for example.
This fundamental difference greatly exacerbated the existing
social conflicts surrounding the so-called "Jewish
question" in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.I
hope this won't muddle things even further, but it's important
to keep in mind that racism and antisemitism are two different
things. Although they do often coincide, there are certainly
racists who are not antisemites and antisemites who are
not racists. This is relevant to the contested notion of
assimilation because most racial antisemites -- those who
viewed Jews as racially distinct from 'German' or 'Aryans'
-- opposed assimilation. However, there are instances of
antisemites who favored assimilation and who also held
a more or less racial conception of Jewishness; in my view,
some of Steiner's mature views on Jews (after his turn
to Theosophy) fall into this category.
Daniel:
Steiner was an anti-Semetic philosemite because his view
of assimilation involved the loss of separate Jewish identity.
Peter Staudenmaier:
In summary: assimilation itself is neither necessarily antisemitic
nor necessarily racist; it is, instead, a significant distinguishing
issue in the complex debates over the status of Jews within
German culture and society in Steiner's day. The difference
between Jewish and gentile understandings of 'assimilation'
is a mainstay of the abundant historical research on German-Jewish
history; when I get back to the computer later today I
will try to post a selection of quotes from various works
that will hopefully give a fuller picture of this multifaceted
question.
Daniel:
In the end, whether your view of assimilation is anti-Semetic
or not depends entirely on whether or not your version
of assimilation results in a loss of separate Jewish identity.
Daniel:
So summing the whole thing up again:
Assimilationist Jews are (mostly) not anti-Semitic. Non-Jewish
defenders of Jewish rights are philosemites. They could also
simultaneously be anit-Semites. Steiner was an anti-Semetic
philosemite. Steiner was an anti-Semetic philosemite because
his view of assimilation involved the loss of separate Jewish
identity. In the end, whether your view of assimilation is
anti-Semetic or not depends entirely on whether or not your
version of assimilation results in a loss of separate Jewish
identity.
Is this correct?
Peter Staudenmaier (March 1st, 2004):
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
" Summary: Assimilationist Jews are (mostly) not anti-Semitic."
Yes.
" Non-Jewish defenders of Jewish rights are philosemites."
Yes.
" They could also simultaneously be anit-Semites."
No, not if you mean they could be antisemites and philosemites
at the very same time. But a number of German intellectuals
went through shifting phases on this score, and developed
from philosemites into antisemites or vice-versa, at different
times in their lives.
" Steiner was an anti-Semetic philosemite."
I think he had both antisemitic and philosemitic phases.
I outlined them in my first post to this list.
" Steiner was an anti-Semetic philosemite because his view
of assimilation involved the loss of separate Jewish identity."
No, that criterion alone won't serve to distinguish philosemitic
from antisemitic positions. Mommsen's view of assimilation
was very similar to Steiner's and Treitschke's, for example,
and Mommsen was a philosemite, not an antisemite. To discern
the significant differences, we need to take a number of
other contextual factors into account, as I've tried to explain
before.
" In the end, whether your view of assimilation is anti-Semetic
or not depends entirely on whether or not your version of
assimilation results in a loss of separate Jewish identity."
No, not in my view. This version of assimilation-as-disappearance
could be incorporated into both philosemitic and antisemitic
paradigms, as the debate between Treitschke and Mommsen shows.
" Assimilationist Jews are (mostly) not anti-Semitic. Non-Jewish
defenders of Jewish rights are philosemites. They could also
simultaneously be anit-Semites."
Not in the sense of "simultaneous" that I think
you mean. They could be both philosemites and antisemites
in the course of their careers, however.
" Steiner was an anti-Semetic philosemite."
No, he was both a philosemite and an antisemite at different
points in his life, in my view.
" Steiner was an anti-Semetic philosemite because his view
of assimilation involved the loss of separate Jewish identity."
He held this view of assimilation in both the philosemitic
and the antisemitic phases. It is one of the unifying factors
in Steiner's attitudes toward Jews overall throughout his
life.
" In the end, whether your view of assimilation is anti-Semetic
or not depends entirely on whether or not your version of
assimilation results in a loss of separate Jewish identity."
No, that is not my argument. Here are some of the contributing
factors that I discussed previously: Did the figures in question
participate in existing antisemitic discourses about Jews?
Did they publicly praise prominent antisemites and endorse
their views on Jews? Did they defend anti-Jewish tracts against
charges of antisemitism? Did they derive terminology or central
concepts from sources in which antisemitic features played
a prominent role? Did they express their views on Jews, Judaism,
and Jewishness within contexts in which antisemitic themes
were already conspicuous? Did they incorporate longstanding
antisemitic tropes into their own doctrines? I think that
Steiner did all of those things at various points in his
life.
Daniel Hindes (March 16th, 2004):
Peter,
Thanks for your reply.
" Summary: Assimilationist Jews are (mostly) not anti-Semitic."
Yes.
" Non-Jewish defenders of Jewish rights are philosemites."
Yes.
" They could also simultaneously be anit-Semites."
No, not if you mean they could be antisemites and philosemites
at the very same time. But a number of German intellectuals
went through shifting phases on this score, and developed
from philosemites into antisemites or vice-versa, at different
times in their lives.
Daniel:
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Let's see if I got it:
" Within the non-Jewish population (which is to say, the vast
majority of Germans), there were many supporters and defenders
of Jewish rights; these people are sometimes called philosemites.
... Along with these philosemites, there were of course also
many antisemites... ... ...the range of general attitudes
toward assimilation among non-Jewish Germans was spread more
or less evenly across this ideological spectrum: some antisemites
were in favor of assimilation, as they understood it, and
others were opposed. Moreover, many philosemites also shared
an emphatically pro-assimilationist perspective."
So nobody at that time was simultaneously a philosemite and
an anti-Semite. (From elsewhere) A person's view of assimilation
is not enough to determine philosemitism or anti-Semitism.
If a person defends Jewish rights and is therefore a philosemite,
whether or not their view of assimilation ends with the disappearance
of a separate Jewish identity will not in itself cause them
to be an anti-Semite. To be an anti-Semite they must be shown
to have advocated unequal treatment of Jews and/or to have
disparraged Jews as a group.
Now what of people who advocated Jewish rights out of principle,
but disparraged Jews out of habit or cultural prejudice?
Would they not be anti-Semetic philosemites?
------------------------------------------------------------
" Steiner was an anti-Semetic philosemite."
I think he had both antisemitic and philosemitic phases.
I outlined them in my first post to this list.
Daniel:
So how would you describe Steiner overall?
----------------------------------------------------------
" Steiner was an anti-Semetic philosemite because his view
of assimilation involved the loss of separate Jewish identity."
No, that criterion alone won't serve to distinguish philosemitic
from antisemitic positions. Mommsen's view of assimilation
was very similar to Steiner's and Treitschke's, for example,
and Mommsen was a philosemite, not an antisemite. To discern
the significant differences, we need to take a number of
other contextual factors into account, as I've tried to explain
before.
Daniel:
So you are arguing that Steiner fits the profile of someone
who advocated Jewish rights out of principle, but disparraged
Jews out of habit or cultural prejudice?
------------------------------------------------------------
" In the end, whether your view of assimilation is anti-Semetic
or not depends entirely on whether or not your version of
assimilation results in a loss of separate Jewish identity."
No, not in my view. This version of assimilation-as-disappearance
could be incorporated into both philosemitic and antisemitic
paradigms, as the debate between Treitschke and Mommsen shows.
Daniel:
Ok. I am glad we have established this.
---------------------------------------------------
" Steiner was an anti-Semetic philosemite because his view
of assimilation involved the loss of separate Jewish identity."
He held this view of assimilation in both the philosemitic
and the antisemitic phases. It is one of the unifying factors
in Steiner's attitudes toward Jews overall throughout his
life.
Daniel:
Ok. I am glad we have established this.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" In the end, whether your view of assimilation is anti-Semetic
or not depends entirely on whether or not your version of
assimilation results in a loss of separate Jewish identity."
No, that is not my argument. Here are some of the contributing
factors that I discussed previously: Did the figures in question
participate in existing antisemitic discourses about Jews?
Did they publicly praise prominent antisemites and endorse
their views on Jews? Did they defend anti-Jewish tracts against
charges of antisemitism? Did they derive terminology or central
concepts from sources in which antisemitic features played
a prominent role? Did they express their views on Jews, Judaism,
and Jewishness within contexts in which antisemitic themes
were already conspicuous? Did they incorporate longstanding
antisemitic tropes into their own doctrines? I think that
Steiner did all of those things at various points in his
life.
Ok. Thanks for the clarity. So, since you seem to be more
up to date on the issue, I would appreciate it if you could
perhaps provide the examples you have found in Steiner's
writing that fit each of the categories:
Did Steiner participate in existing antisemitic discourses
about Jews?
Did Steiner publicly praise prominent antisemites and endorse
their views on Jews?
Did Steiner defend anti-Jewish tracts against charges of
antisemitism?
Did Steiner derive terminology or central concepts from sources
in which antisemitic features played a prominent role? (Isn't
this a bit of a guilt-by-association argument?)
Did Steiner express his views on Jews, Judaism, and Jewishness
within contexts in which antisemitic themes were already
conspicuous? (Wouldn't this apply to anyone speaking of Jews
or Jewishness in Austria or Germany between 1860 and 1945?)
Did Steiner incorporate longstanding antisemitic tropes into
his own doctrines?
Peter Staudenmaier (March 16th, 2004):
Hi Daniel,
you wrote:
"
A person's view of assimilation is not enough to determine
philosemitism or anti-Semitism."
Agreed.
"
If a person defends Jewish rights and is therefore a philosemite,
whether or not their view of assimilation ends with the disappearance
of a separate Jewish identity will not in itself cause them
to be an anti-Semite."
Agreed.
"
To be an anti-Semite they must be shown to have advocated
unequal treatment of Jews and/or to have disparraged Jews
as a group."
Or disparaged Jewishness as a phenomenon. The very notion
of "antisemitism" was orginally based on the idea
that there was something like "semitism" which
Jewishness represented.
"
Now what of people who advocated Jewish rights out of principle,
but disparraged Jews out of habit or cultural prejudice?
Would they not be anti-Semetic philosemites?"
No, they'd just be antisemites. Even Treitschke defended
(some) Jewish rights on principle.
" So how would you describe Steiner overall?"
I wouldn't, not in terms of philosemitic or antisemitic (though
we could do so in terms of his conception of assimilation
as amalgamation). It makes little sense to describe Steiner's
views on Jews "overall", except with vague characterizations
like "ambivalent" or "changing" or what
have you. The same is true for figures like Panizza, Bloem,
and so forth.
" So you are arguing that Steiner fits the profile of someone
who advocated Jewish rights out of principle, but disparraged
Jews out of habit or cultural prejudice?"
Partly. But his defenses of Jewish rights stem from his philosemitic
period around the turn of the century. Do you mean that he
advocated Jewish rights in 1888, or in 1924?
" Ok. Thanks for the clarity. So, since you seem to be more
up to date on the issue, I would appreciate it if you could
perhaps provide the examples you have found in Steiner's
writing that fit each of the categories: Did Steiner participate
in existing antisemitic discourses about Jews?"
Yes. He depicted Jewry as a closed totality, saw Jews as
prone to materialism, frowned upon Jewish influences on the
German language, and so forth.
" Did Steiner publicly praise prominent antisemites and endorse
their views on Jews?"
Yes. He did so with Wagner, for example (see Steiner, Die
okkulten Wahrheiten alter Mythen und Sagen pp. 138-139).
" Did Steiner defend anti-Jewish tracts against charges of
antisemitism?"
Yes, of course. That's what the 1888 article is all about.
It's a defense of Hamerling's Homunkulus.
" Did Steiner derive terminology or central concepts from sources
in which antisemitic features played a prominent role?"
Yes. Theosophical literature (including the stuff that makes
Detlef giddy) is a fine example.
"(Isn't this a bit of a guilt-by-association argument?)"
No, of course not. I think you have a loose grasp of that concept in general.
" Did Steiner express his views on Jews, Judaism, and Jewishness within
contexts in which antisemitic themes were already conspicuous?"
Yes. His first public statements about Jews were made in the pages of Austrian
pan-German periodicals.
" (Wouldn't this apply to anyone speaking of Jews or Jewishness in Austria
or Germany between 1860 and 1945?)"
No, of course not. Lots of Austrians and Germans rejected pan-Germanism, rejected
Theosophy, and so forth.
" Did Steiner incorporate longstanding antisemitic tropes into his own doctrines?"
Yes. His repeated invocations of the myth of Ahasver are a striking example.
Daniel Hindes (March 18th, 2004):
Daniel wrote:
" Now what of people who advocated Jewish rights out of principle,
but disparraged Jews out of habit or cultural prejudice?
Would they not be anti-Semetic philosemites?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, they'd just be antisemites. Even Treitschke defended
(some) Jewish rights on principle.
Daniel:
Ok, so then anti-Semitism trumps philosemitism? The definition
you gave earlier of a philosemite was simply someone who
defended Jewish rights. So I asked about someone who advocated
Jewish rights but also disparraged Jews out of habit or cultural
prejudice. By your earlier definition, they ought to have
been an anti-Semetic philosemite. But now we just drop the
philosemitism part if anit-Semitism is present? How much
disparaging is required before the anti-Semitism erases the
philosemitic elements in labeling? (Sorry to make you think
here, but it is something I would like to be clear on, though
it seems that despite great effort it is hard to get you
to be clear on anything).
------------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"
So how would you describe Steiner overall?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
I wouldn't, not in terms of philosemitic or antisemitic (though
we could do so in terms of his conception of assimilation
as amalgamation). It makes little sense to describe Steiner's
views on Jews "overall", except with vague characterizations
like "ambivalent" or "changing" or what
have you. The same is true for figures like Panizza, Bloem,
and so forth.
Daniel:
So you go on the record as saying "Steiner was not an
anti-Semite, he merely held some anti-Semitic ideas at certain
points."?
-------------------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"
So you are arguing that Steiner fits the profile of someone
who advocated Jewish rights out of principle, but disparraged
Jews out of habit or cultural prejudice?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
Partly. But his defenses of Jewish rights stem from his philosemitic
period around the turn of the century. Do you mean that he
advocated Jewish rights in 1888, or in 1924?
Daniel:
Do you mean to suggest that Steiner expressed his opinion
that Jews should have restricted civil rights in 1888 or
1924? If you honestly believe this, I would certainly like
to see the quotes that would support this. Saying that in
principle Jews ought to assimilate is a long way from saying
that they should be denied civil rights!
----------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"
Did Steiner participate in existing antisemitic discourses
about Jews?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. He depicted Jewry as a closed totality, saw Jews as
prone to materialism, frowned upon Jewish influences on the
German language, and so forth.
Daniel:
This would be the 1888 essay, correct? Or somewhere else?
--------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"
Did Steiner publicly praise prominent antisemites and endorse
their views on Jews?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. He did so with Wagner, for example (see Steiner, Die
okkulten Wahrheiten alter Mythen und Sagen pp. 138-139).
Daniel:
You don't honestly mean to argue that a praise of Wagner's
music constitutes anti-Semitism! Really, Peter, I though
you had more brains than that! Nor would praising Trietzschke's
history or Gobineau's literature indicate the least bit of
anit-Semitism in my mind.
------------------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"
Did Steiner defend anti-Jewish tracts against charges of
antisemitism?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, of course. That's what the 1888 article is all about.
It's a defense of Hamerling's Homunkulus.
Daniel:
That is the tract which you have rejected every reasonable
reading in favor of your own interpretation. If your case
for Steiner's anti-Semitism rests on this alone, it is weak
indeed.
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"
Did Steiner derive terminology or central concepts from sources
in which antisemitic features played a prominent role?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. Theosophical literature (including the stuff that makes
Detlef giddy) is a fine example.
Daniel wrote (anticipating the answer):
"(Isn't this a bit of a guilt-by-association argument?)"
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, of course not. I think you have a loose grasp of that concept in general.
Daniel:
Peter, you haven't addressed my objection. How does borrowing a few names from
a work that may be anit-Semetic require that the derivitve work automatically
be tainted with the anti-Semitism of the source? That line of argumentation
is incredibly lame, if I may say so.
---------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"
Did Steiner express his views on Jews, Judaism, and Jewishness within contexts
in which antisemitic themes were already conspicuous?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. His first public statements about Jews were made in the pages of Austrian
pan-German periodicals.
Daniel:
And if what he said was pro-Jewish? That makes him an anti-Semite? This case
is getting flimsier and flimsier.
-----------------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"
(Wouldn't this apply to anyone speaking of Jews or Jewishness in Austria or
Germany between 1860 and 1945?)"
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, of course not. Lots of Austrians and Germans rejected pan-Germanism, rejected
Theosophy, and so forth.
Daniel:
You have again dodged the question. (And your answer seems to indicate a belief
that all pan-Germanism and all Theosophy was anti-Semitic - would you like
to explicitly make this claim?) Austro-German culture between 1860 and 1945
was arguably anti-Semitic as a whole. This would make anything said about Jews
in that context, by your definition, anti-Semitic. You seem to be setting up
your criteria with Steiner in mind, but I must point out that when applied
consistently, they appear ridiculous.
------------------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"
Did Steiner incorporate longstanding antisemitic tropes into his own doctrines?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. His repeated invocations of the myth of Ahasver are a striking example.
Daniel:
How is merely discussing the myth of Ahasver anti-Semitic? Is all discussion
of this off-limits for non-Jews? Would it not make more sense to examine what
Steiner said about the subject?
-----------------------------------------------
Daniel:
In summary, the case for Steiner being an anti-Semite rests on the following
charges:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury!
The accused did once profess his admiration of Wagner's music!
The accused did transgress in the most grievous manner and mention legends
involving Jews! (And not just those in the Old Testament).
The accused did say things about Jewry that I feel is anti-Semitic, and did
so in no less a place than a pan-German periodical! (Hang him, Hang him!)
The accused didst once defend a poet against charges of anti-Semitism. And
since the poet was obviously anti-Semitic, so must the defender be!
And the accused did advocate full and unequivocal assimilation! (Although I
have already stated that this is not anti-Semetic, but I'll continue to throw
it in anyway!).
Ignore his statments about human equality, about the dignity of all human beings
and their inherent right to equal civil liberties in any state. Ignore his
denunciations of all hatred based on national or ethnic prejudices (he only
said it about 3000 times!).
If the quote fits, you can't acquit!
The prosecution rests?
Daniel Hindes (March 25th, 2004):
Hi Daniel,
you wrote:
" Ok, so then anti-Semitism trumps philosemitism?"
In many cases, yes. How else would one be able to designate
Treitschke or Lagarde or even Marr as antisemites?
"
So you go on the record as saying "Steiner was not an
anti-Semite, he merely held some anti-Semitic ideas at certain
points."?"
That is an entirely reasonable position, but it isn't my
position. I think Steiner was an antisemite at several points
in his life, and a philosemite at other points.
" Do you mean to suggest that Steiner expressed his opinion
that Jews should have restricted civil rights in 1888 or
1924?"
No, of course not. That would hinder assimilation, not speed
it up. That's exactly why Treitschke supported civil rights
for Jews.
" Saying that in principle Jews ought to assimilate is a long
way from saying that they should be denied civil rights!"
Indeed. They are essentially opposites of one another. Assimilationist
antisemites generally did not oppose civil rights for Jews.
" That is the tract which you have rejected every reasonable
reading in favor of your own interpretation. If your case
for Steiner's anti-Semitism rests on this alone, it is weak
indeed."
I'm not sure what you're getting at. It almost sounds like
you're trying to say that you think Steiner's 1888 review
of Hamerling's Homunkulus did *not* defend the book against
charges of antisemitism. If that is what you mean, could
you explain why you think this?
" And if what he said was pro-Jewish?"
Saying that Jews constitute a closed totality and that their
existence is a mistake of world history is not pro-Jewish.
" Austro-German culture between 1860 and 1945 was arguably
anti-Semitic as a whole."
I think that thesis is quite mistaken. It has been thoroughly
dismantled by a wide variety of historical and comparative
studies. Aside from the vexed question of just what it might
mean to say that any culture "as a whole" is antisemitic,
this claim ignores the fact that France and Russia, to choose
the two most obvious examples, displayed considerably more
virulent and more widespread forms of antisemitism than Germany
or Austria during much of the period you point to. In any
case, such sweeping claims deprive the concept of antisemitism
of its descriptive force and analytical usefulness.
"How is merely discussing the myth of Ahasver anti-Semitic?"
It isn't. Invoking the myth of Ahasver in order to portray
Jews as paradigmatic of racial stagnation is antisemitic.
"
Would it not make more sense to examine what Steiner said
about the subject?"
Yes, it certainly would. I encourage you to do so. I've
given you a number of Steiner's antisemitic statements
about Ahasver. Now might be a good time to examine them.
"
The accused did once profess his admiration of Wagner's
music!"
Where do you think Steiner did this? (A helpful hint: take
a quick look at Lindenberg's biography on this one.)
"
The accused didst once defend a poet against charges of
anti-Semitism. And since the poet was obviously anti-Semitic,
so must the defender be!"
Your position on this question remains unclear to me. Are
you now trying to say that you agree with Steiner that
Hamerling's Homunkulus contains no significant antisemitic
elements?
"
Ignore his denunciations of all hatred based on national
or ethnic prejudices (he only said it about 3000 times!)."
You should not ignore these. You should, instead, examine
them to figure out why Steiner thought that Jewishness
itself was based on national or ethnic prejudices.
|
