|
This post shows a number of typical twists by Peter
Staudenmaier. Responding to my accusation that he is
not trying to build a complete picture of the behavior of Anthroposophists
during the Nazi era, he questions why I think
the question is not worth persuing. Then he questions why I
think that historians ought to be comprehensinve, anyway.
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 21:38:29 -0500
Daniel wrote:
"You have picked through for the few prominent examples
that support your case, and made it your job to publicize
these as representative of the movement as a whole."
Peter Staudenmaier:
Aside from the fact that I look at a lot more than just a
few examples, whether these examples are representative of
the movement as a whole remains an interesting question, in
my view. Do you think that this question is not worth exploring?
Daniel:
I think the question is worth exploring. I am exploring it
myself. The mere fact that you look at a lot of examples belies
the fact that you systematically ignore the ones that don't
support your case (again evidence of polemical writing and
not history).
Daniel wrote:
"This is not indicative of the work of a real historian."
Peter Staudenmaier:
If I may say so, I think you have an odd conception of what
historians do. Picking through the available evidence and
analyzing prominent examples is a big part of the job.
Daniel:
While picking through the available evidence and analyzing
prominent examples is a big part of the job of a historian,
the job does not end there. A historian has the responsibility
for attempting to the best of their ability to fairly present
the entire case, and not just the part that fits their pet
theory. Subsequent scholars generally have a dim view of so-called
historians with obvious biases.
Daniel Hindes
This thread continues.
|
