Selective Quotation

Peter Staudenmaier (to the Waldorf Critics List):
Hi Walden, thanks for your contributions on the morality and racism thread.
You wrote:

>What
>a wonderful chance for discussion of Steiner's ideas (racism,
>anti-Semitism - or not) and what do we see? The Staudenmaier Inquisition
>complete with character attacks and paranoia.
[The statement "what a wonderful opportunity.." presupposes with absolute certainty that the ideas are indeed racist and anti-Semitic. All objections, however reasonable, become an Inquisition. That is how things work in the Waldorf Critics Cult.]

I think there is a logic to this approach, one that lines up well with the premise that people cannot discuss topics like racism without impugning one another's moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline to endorse this basic error. The recent discussion of my politics is a perfect example of this view of 'morality'; it fits right in with the notion that critically describing and discussing Steiner's racial doctrines is in and of itself insulting to his moral character.
[In reality the objections are to manufacturing evidence and taking quotes out of context, but Peter Staudenmaier will never admit to this behavior. His opponents are merely all ignorant.]
It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical contexts and assessed on that basis.
[This sweeping put-down is typical of Peter Staudenmaier. All Anthroposophists are ignorant, both in general and about those things Peter Staudenmaier would like to convince them Steiner valued. And, of course, it is not substantiated.]
Once that recognition is in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner was as a person.
[Reality according to Staudenmaier. Anthroposophists on the Anthroposophy Tomorrow list have been trying to do exactly that, but Peter Staudenmaier objects whenever the historical context would exonerate Steiner of the ludicrous charges that Staudenmaier levels, and his objections are always frivolous or illogical.]

Christine Natale (March 2nd, 2004):
Are you saying, Peter that none of the people on this list have "come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief sytems?" Are you saying that none of the people on this list, and by extension "all" Anthroposophists have any knowledge or experience by which to examine racism and/ or antisemitism as "belief systems, as world views"? Are you saying that there is something that "we" don't recognize about these "belief systems [these] world views" in regard to their historical contexts? Mind you - you said "historical contexts" NOT "Anthropsophical contexts". Are you saying that we are all too stupid and/ or uneducated to be able to understand racism and antisemitism as "belief systems [and] world views" within their "historical contexts" and therefore are unable to "assess [them] on that basis."?
Because that is exactly what you are saying AND what would make it "much easier to talk about what Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical context," would be if we all were actually too stupid and uneducated to assess racism and antisemitism within their historical contexts. That way, we would all just accept what you say about the issue as truth and say "Amen, brother" and oh, boy, it would certainly be easier for you to talk with all of us, now wouldn't it?

Peter Staudenmaier (March 2nd, 2004):

Hi Christine, thanks for your post. You wrote:

"Are you saying, Peter that none of the people on this list have "come to
terms with racism and antisemitism as belief sytems?" "

No, I'm saying that some of you have not done so, as far as I can tell.

" Are you saying that none of the people on this list, and by extension "all" Anthroposophists have any knowledge or experience by which to examine racism and/ or antisemitism as "belief systems, as world views"?"

No, but I do think this is true of many of the anthroposophists I have encountered.

" Are you saying that there is something that "we"
don't recognize about these "belief systems [these] world views" in regard to their historical contexts?"

Yes, several of you are apparently unfamiliar with some of the basic historical context of antisemitic thinking, for example. I think that is getting in the way of an informed discussion of the matter.

" Are you saying that we are all too stupid and/ or uneducated to be able to understand racism and antisemitism as "belief systems [and] world views" within their "historical contexts" and therefore are unable to
" assess [them] on that basis."?"

No, I don't think that stupidity or education level have anything to do with it.

" That way, we would all just accept what you say about the issue as truth and say "Amen, brother" and oh, boy, it would certainly be easier for you to talk with all of us, now wouldn't it?"

No, that would obviously make it much harder to talk meaningfully about the topic. You shouldn't believe anything anybody says just because they say it. In this case, I have not offered my own private views on the general historical context, I have provided very well established background information in order to frame our more specific discussion of Steiner's doctrines. I've offered you all sorts of book recommendations and article recommendations about the history of antisemitism and the history of racist thought. I think we could have a more fruitful discussion if you would take a moment to look into some of them. What do you say?

Daniel Hindes (March 2nd, 2004):

Quoting Peter Staudenmaier:
I think there is a logic to this approach, one that lines up well with the premise that people cannot discuss topics like racism without impugning one another's moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline to endorse this basic error.
The recent discussion of my politics is a perfect example of this view of 'morality'; it fits right in with the notion that critically describing and discussing Steiner's racial doctrines is in and of itself insulting to his moral character. It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical contexts and assessed on that basis. Once that recognition is in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner was as a person.
-------------------------------------------

Point one:
" It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical contexts and assessed on that basis."

Daniel:
This seems incredibly disrespectful of anthroposophists. You are basically accusing us of not understanding what racism and anti-Semitism are, now or in the past. While that might be true in a few cases, it is untenable when applied to all anthroposophists (you just got done praising Sonnenberg, and labled him an anthropsophist). But putting it like this certainly paints a dismal picture of anthroposophists as a group. It is simply not true, and you of all people certainly know this.

Point two:
" Once that recognition is in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner was as a person."

Daniel:
I really don't hold much hope that you'll ever be satisfied. Much has been published by anthroposophists attempting to place Steiner and anthroposophy in the proper historical context. However, since for the most part it doesn't support the version you would like to read, so you simply dismiss it out of hand.
Don't you find it odd that the raw source material for most all the information of the behavior of anthroposophists during the Third Reich comes from anthroposophists themselves?

Daniel Hindes

PS: Notice that in order to avoid the charge of selective quotation, and to leave readers free to judge the entire argument based on all of what was said, I have not selectively quoted you or otherwise mischaracterized your statements to make my own argument appear more informed. I would like to suggest this format for future correspondence on this list.

Peter Staudnemaier (March 2nd, 2004):

HI Daniel, you wrote:

" This seems incredibly disrespectful of anthroposophists."

I think perhaps we disagree about what counts as respectful discourse. I know absolutely nothing about calculus, for example. You show me no disrespect whatever if you point out that fact.

" You are basically accusing us of not understanding what racism and anti-Semitism are, now or in the past."

I am certainly not accusing you in particular of that, Daniel. You are one of the few members of this list who have shown a serious interest in the topic.

" While that might be true in a few cases, it is untenable when
applied to all anthroposophists"

Indeed it is.

" But putting it like this certainly paints a dismal picture of anthroposophists as a group."

I didn't paint a picture of anthroposophists as a group, I painted a picture of those anthroposophists who believe that people cannot discuss racism without impugning one another's moral status.

"Much has been published by anthroposophists attempting to place Steiner and anthroposophy in the proper historical context."

Yes, and most of it is of really low quality as far as the history of antisemitism and racism go.

" However, since for the most part it doesn't support the version you would like to read, so you simply dismiss it out of hand."

That's silly. It makes no sense to dismiss something out of hand simply because it doesn't support one's own reading of the material.

" Don't you find it odd that the raw source material for most all the
information of the behavior of anthroposophists during the Third Reich comes from anthroposophists themselves?"

No, not in the least. Hardly anybody else studies anthroposophy's history. Why do you find this odd, if I may ask?

"Notice that in order to avoid the charge of selective quotation"

Selective quotation is only a bad idea when others do not have access to the original. That is obviously not the case on a public email list. Everybody reading your reply to me has already read the post that you're replying to, and so forth. In these circumstances it makes much more sense to quote the specific portion you'd like to reply to. The rest of us can always go back and check the earlier post for the full argument.