|
This is an interesting admission by Peter Staudenmaier.
He is not actually trying to determine what the majority of
Anthroposophists thought about Hitler and Nazism. He will
only focus on the parts that help further his polemical cause.
Not even a pretext of objectivity.
To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040305234720.10061.qmail@web14426.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:29:32 -0500
Daniel wrote:
"You have made no attempt whatsoever to determine what
the majority of Anthroposophists thought about Hitler or Nazism
at the time."
Peter Staudenmaier:
Indeed. What I focus on is what anthroposophical periodicals
published at the time, what anthroposophical officials said
at the time, and so forth.
Daniel:
And this is what sets you apart from serious historians. Further,
the mere fact that you focus on what anthroposophical periodicals
published at the time and what anthroposophical officials
said at the time, etc. does not tell the whole story, for
you only focus on those aspects of these sources that support
your contention, and not what all these sourcs say on the
balance. You are stuck in polemic if all you do is look for
the parts you like and ignore the whole.
Daniel Hindes
Peter Staudenmaier respondes (in a fashion) to (some
elements) of this post.
|
