|
Peter Staudenmaier loves to make off-hand allegations
with serious implications and then back-off of them when pressed
(like having found serious problems in Rudolf Steiner's epistimology).
Here he implies that Anthroposophists are against examining
their own past, but there turns out to be little to the allegation.
To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040308170625.55286.qmail@web14422.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:36:33 -0500
I see. So there were a few apparently critical reviews to
Wagner's work, and later to Werner's book. I'll have to read
them myself, as I don't really trust your characterization
(you'll pardon me on this, but your track record to date isn't
very good on these type of things).
The statement of Wagner's you cite states that his work "Elicited
a brown tidal wave from certain circles of anthroposophists".
You've snipped it quite short, so I have no context, but my
first inclination is to read it to mean that his work encouraged
an outpouring from those anthroposophists who were fascists
(hence a "brown" i.e. fascist tidal wave), which
he probably found regrettable. I also note the careful "certain
circles"; Wagner is clearly not implicating the movement
in general. In it's full context I might come to a different
interpretation.
I initially speculated that there was probably some sort of
criticism, but also stated that an overwhelming majority of
Anthroposophists within the movement supported Wagner and
Werner. So far, I have heard nothing to convince me otherwise.
Oh, and don't worry about my feelings. If I ask an honest
question, I can handle an honest answer. Your concern is touching,
though.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
"I'm still curious why you think Arfst Wagner took a
lot of grief for taking a "full disclosure" approach
to the behavior of Anthroposophists during the Third Reich.
I realize that your comment was off-the-cuff, but the implications
are serious. You are suggesting that there is hostility on
the part of Anthroposophists to examining their own history.
I know of no such tendency, so I have to call you on this.
(Yes, I know, you never, ever work by implication, but consider
the implications of your accusation for a moment). What evidence
do you have that Arfst Wagner took a lot of grief for taking
a "full disclosure" approach to the behavior of
Anthroposophists during the Third Reich?"
I think you'll find this hard to believe, but I didn't reply
initially because I didn't want to make fun of you for this.
The controversy over Wagner's efforts is crucial to understanding
Uwe Werner's book, for example. While some anthroposophists
greeted Wagner's publications as a sign of historical maturation,
others were furious with him. Wagner himself described the
latter sort of reactions as "Eine braune Flutwelle aus
bestimmten Kreisen der Anthroposophenschaft." (Interview
with Wagner in the special anthroposophy issue of the taz,
11 March 1995, p. 12.) The differences between Wagner and
Werner are more nuanced, of course, but nevertheless significant.
I urge you to read the several critical reviews of Werner's
book that Wagner published in the anthroposophical press.
I'm afraid I don't have citations at hand, but I think one
of them appeared in the Swiss journal Die Gegenwart. Wagner
is usually happy to reply to correspondence, in my experience,
so you could just contact him directly if you prefer.
Peter
Peter Staudenmaier did not respond to this post.
|
