|
Peter Staudenmaier claims to be looking for
an honest exchange of ideas - to learn and to determine the
merits of his own argument. But look what he does with a straigthforward
attempt to meet him on this:
To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040221211634.93337.qmail@web14425.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:54:16 -0500
Peter,
I hope the following is the type of comment you were looking
for when you joined the list.
You wrote:
"In the writings and lectures that I consider tendentially
antisemitic, Steiner did not espouse the kind of racial antisemitism
that was becoming increasingly prominent during his era; instead
his stance remained emphatically assimilationist throughout
his life. I do think, however, that his mature views on Jews
can only be understood in conjunction with his broader racial
doctrines. In Steiner's opinion, the best response to what
was then known as the 'Jewish question' was for "Jewry
as a people" to disappear by blending into other peoples.
He viewed this disappearance of Jewishness as the solution
to aggressively antisemitic agitation and hatred, as well
as to the ostensibly closed and anachronistic nature of Jews
themselves."
I don't think that Steiner's "tendentially antisemitic"
lectures were primarily concerned with "fixing"
the problem of aggressively antisemitic agitation and hatred
(thought that was certainly a secondary goal). While Steiner
of course frequently spoke out against hatred of all types
as well as agitation in general, his pro-assimilationist views
were simply an extension of his general philosophy, and completely
consistent with his views on race and nationality. Any and
all group ties that have a basis in heredity Steiner felt
were harmful in the then-present, and he predicted that they
would become even more harmful in the future (our present
and future). There have been a number of quotes posted here
that speak to this. That the individuals overcoming of heredity
influences would also of consequence eliminate "Jewishness"
as it existed in his time was merely a side effect of his
philosophy of individual autonomy. On the few occasions when
he was asked about Jews (and these were really only a few
occasions over decades, or a couple of dozen pages out of
89,000) this was the background out of which he answered.
Of course, in as much as any assimilationist view is "tendentially
antisemitic" this applies to Steiner as well. But Steiner
did not have a separate approach for Germans and Jews; his
warnings and efforts applied to both in equal measure, as
well as all other nationalities and all races. That Steiner
was trying to prevent the type of racial and national chauvenism
that animated the Third Reich is testified to by the Nazis
themselves in their systematic denunciations of Anthroposophy
and Steiner himself and their unambiguous efforts to destroy
the Anthroposophical Society.
In addition to understanding the historical aspects of Austrian
and German anti-Semitism during Steiner's lifetime and beyond,
it is necessary to have a comprehensive view of Steiner and
a thorough understanding of his philosophical foundations
in order to come to this type of overview. Picking out a score
of isolated quotes from 300 volumes of Steiner's work and
selecting a few counter-examples from the history of the Third
Reich (from the inconsequential Agricultural Ministry, of
all places) is not sufficient to understand the full historical
context. If you are serious about reaching an honest understanding
of Steiner and his work (even an extraordinarily narrow selection
of his work) it is not possible to avoid coming to terms with
Steiner's central philosophy.
Daniel Hindes
Follow the replies.
|
