To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040306185240.65631.qmail@web14424.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Morality and Racism - Selective quotation
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 19:42:23 -0500

Hi Daniel, thanks for your abundant posts. You wrote:
"I agree completely that quotation procedures that make sense in the one are not always appropriate in the other. However...
I never stated that the opposite was true, as this seems to imply (chalk that up as distortion number three). Nor did I suggest different standards of accuracy in one or the other. I suggested that since you have been less than scrupulous in one medium, we can suspect that you might carry this tendency over into another."

Peter Staudenmaier:
I think you aren't making sense. There is absloutely nothing unscrupulous about skipping over large swaths of text in a public email discussion group. Doing so leaves nothing hidden and misleads no-one. That is precisely why the quotation procedures that are appropriate to archival materials are not appropriate to email. Once again: the distorting kind of selectivity is only a problem when others do not have access to the original. Since that is obviously not the case with email lists like this one, your worry is quite beside the point, in my view. Misquoting somebody generally means to quote them inaccurately, that is, to attribute to them words that they did not say or write. I have not done that with you. Misquoting does not mean skipping over those portions of your posts that you wish I had commented on. There is nothing wrong with picking and choosing what you want to reply to on an email list. Email lists are not journal articles, and they are not POW camps.

Daniel:
Ok. I have noted you denial, and I think I understand your position. The fact remains, whether something is true or not is independet of whether the speaker believes it to be true or not. You can justify it any which way you want, your record remains.

Daniel wrote:
"It certainly helps you obscure the argument, as it makes tracking a thread difficult for subsequent readers of the archives. It bothers me in your case particularly because I have to check you so frequently, going back to see what I said and what statements I was responding to, in order to to figure out what you are responding to and how far off track the discussion has been directed, and this makes that research all the more difficult."

Peter Staudenmaier:
I do not find this difficult, and I have no idea why you find it difficult. If you think that someone has misunderstood you, all you need to do is re-state your position.

Daniel:
Indeed. And when I find myself doing this with just about every post, I start to wonder who I'm talking to and why they find it necessary to resort to such games. Is it perhaps that their arguement is so weak that it can't stand up to direct scrutiny?

Daniel wrote:
"And this is what sets you apart from serious historians."
Daniel comments: (What is it that I say sets Mr. Staudenmaier apart from other historians? Oh, I'll have to look it up, bucause it is not included here. How inconvienient. I hope it is at least under the same thread heading).

To this Peter Staudenmaier said:
Could you maybe say more about how you got your impression of what historians do? I think it is highly inaccurate. Intellectual and cultural history depends centrally on the sorts of sources I named, periodicals and official statements. You mentioned that you have some of George Mosse's books; surely you have noted that these are the sorts of things he relied on. Why do you think such an approach is improper in the case of anthroposophy?

Daniel responds:
Well, to reiterate (I found it, and it was under a different thread heading. Figures. Appearently keeping a discussion on-thread is "inconvienient"):

Daniel wrote:
"You have made no attempt whatsoever to determine what the majority of Anthroposophists thought about Hitler or Nazism at the time."
To which Peter Staudenmaier replied:
Indeed. What I focus on is what anthroposophical periodicals published at the time, what anthroposophical officials said at the time, and so forth.
And then Daniel said:
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 continues:
It makes a little more sense in context (chalk that up as number four) I think I am rather clear on what I expect of a "historian" in what I wrote above. What did Mr. Staudenmaier say to this? He questions my basic grasp of history. Slick moves.

In the snipped portion of the above text, I questioned whether SELECTIVE USE of ONLY periodicals and official documents can ever create a COMPREHENSIVE PICTURE of the period being investigated. If this is "highly inaccurate" then I'm living in a different reality than Mr. Staudenmaier. Uriel Tal relied not just on periodicals, but went to family archives and quoted extensively from personal letters of the principles involved in order to build a COMPREHENSIVE picture of those aspects of the time period he was studying. He quoted pro and con, from both sides of the issue, in order to recreate the mood and thought patterns of the time period. That is first rate scholarship. That is what I don't find in Peter Staudenmaier's articles. For pointing this out I am being accused of ignorace of basic methods and philosophy of history. Nice attempt to take back the initive.


Daniel wrote:
"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."

Peter Staudenmaier:
I disagree completely. I think you have a naive view of historians. There is nothing wrong with biases. The point is to make them explicit. I urge you to read the first three pages of chapter one in Yehuda Bauer's book Rethinking the Holocaust; you will get a very different view of bias. I also highly recommend the superb study of this very question by Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession, particularly the Introduction. Last, on the question of relativism, I recommend the Postscript to Michael Bentley's book Modern Historiography: An Introduction.

Daniel responds:
Thanks for condescending to educate me by proxy on the methods and practices of history. I think you'll find that I am at least as well prepared as yourself in this area. There is only "nothing wrong with biases" in that everybody necessarily has one. Reducing bias is the aim, not indulging it to all its excesses. If you indulging your biases to all their excesses, you are writing polemic, or polemical history. This is not to say that such writing doesn't have its place or uses, but it is generally a poor subsititute for the real thing. If you disagree, I encourage you to formulate your objection yourself, or post the authorities you wish to cite directly to the list. I could, for example, give you a long list of books on empiricism vs. idealism, but I take it upon myself to speak directly on the subject.


Daniel wrote:
"It is precicely in the fact that you fail to see how the rest of Steiner's work relates to his views on race that I consider your greatest weakness."

Peter Staudenmaier:
Great, let's argue about that.

Daniel:
I don't see that there is much to argue. I have presented a case for why it is important. You have agreed with every example, and then leap away again whenever we come back to Steiner. Basically, you say that it is good in principle, but unnecessary in this case. That is illogical. Doubtless you will continue to argue.

Daniel wrote:
"If you did that, you would have an incomplete view of Besant. You could not claim to understand Besant, only her athiest writings."
Daniel comments: (Did what and you would have an incomplete view of Besant? Is Mr. Staudenmaier even responding to my point, or is he arguing my point back against me? Oh, I'll have to look it up, because it is not included here. How inconvienient. I hope it is at least under the same thread heading.)

Peter Staudenmaier:
No kidding. That's the point. If you want to get an accurate account of Steiner's views on race and ethnicity, it doesn't make sense to focus on his views on eurythmy.

Daniel:
Well, if you reject a priori that his views on Eurythmy could have any relationship to his views on race and ethnicity, then you certainly will never discover if they do. Back to Besant (I found what I wrote, and it was under a different thread heading. Figures. Appearently keeping a discussion on-thread is "inconvienient"):

First Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
I don't think that would be a sensible way to approach the matter. If you want to study Annie Besant's atheist writings, for example, you'd do well to set aside her Theosophical writings.
To which Daniel replied:
If you did that, you would have an incomplete view of Besant. You could not claim to understand Besant, only her athiest writings. The same applies to Steiner. If you want to be an expert on those quotes that make Steiner appear racist, so be it. If you want to be an expert on Steiner, you'll have to do a little more work than that. I can understand you hesitency to attempt an full understanding of Steiner - it is a lot of work, after all - but I don't feel that you can get around the basic problem that if you don't understand Steiner's main points, you simply don't possess the historical context in which to evaluate the rest of the quotes.

Daniel continues:
It appears that Peter Staudenmaier has missed the point on this completely. I essentially stated that you can't fully understand Steiner unless you know BOTH his allegedly racist statements AND his views on eurythmy. Peter Staudenmaier sarcastically states "no kidding" and then argues the opposite. (Distortion number five; reading only what he provided, you would think I had just argued the opposite of what I did).


Daniel wrote:
"I don't feel that you can get around the basic problem that if you don't understand Steiner's main points, you simply don't possess the historical context in which to evaluate the rest of the quotes."

Peter Staudenmaier:
If I understand you correctly, I think you've made a major error. It is entirely backwards, in my view, to first decide what you think "Steiner's main points" were, and then slot his specific statements about race into that pre-fabricated construct.

Daniel:
It doesn't matter what direction you approach things from, the point is to look at the whole picture. So no, I have not made a "major error". You can either decide what Steiner's main points are and then look at his appearently racist statements and their context, both within his work and within his entire culture, or you can look first at his appearently racist statements and their context, both within his work and within his entire culture, and then consider what Steiner's main points are. Either way you should come to the same results, and if you don't, then it is time to start considering where the errors of understanding lay. What I accuse you of is starting at one end and then stopping half way through. It makes little sense to stop halfway, whichever end you start at.

Daniel Hindes

You would think this is pretty clear, but you can't imagine the ways it gets distorted!