Daniel wrote:
"Now what of people who advocated Jewish rights out of principle, but disparraged Jews out of habit or cultural prejudice? Would they not be anti-Semetic philosemites?"

Peter Staudenmaier:
No, they'd just be antisemites. Even Treitschke defended (some) Jewish rights on principle.

Daniel:
Ok, so then anti-Semitism trumps philosemitism? The definition you gave earlier of a philosemite was simply someone who defended Jewish rights. So I asked about someone who advocated Jewish rights but also disparraged Jews out of habit or cultural prejudice. By your earlier definition, they ought to have been an anti-Semetic philosemite. But now we just drop the philosemitism part if anit-Semitism is present? How much disparaging is required before the anti-Semitism erases the philosemitic elements in labeling? (Sorry to make you think here, but it is something I would like to be clear on, though it seems that despite great effort it is hard to get you to be clear on anything).
------------------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"So how would you describe Steiner overall?"

Peter Staudenmaier:
I wouldn't, not in terms of philosemitic or antisemitic (though we could do so in terms of his conception of assimilation as amalgamation). It makes little sense to describe Steiner's views on Jews "overall", except with vague characterizations like "ambivalent" or "changing" or what have you. The same is true for figures like Panizza, Bloem, and so forth.

Daniel:
So you go on the record as saying "Steiner was not an anti-Semite, he merely held some anti-Semitic ideas at certain points."?

-------------------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"So you are arguing that Steiner fits the profile of someone who advocated Jewish rights out of principle, but disparraged Jews out of habit or cultural prejudice?"

Peter Staudenmaier:
Partly. But his defenses of Jewish rights stem from his philosemitic period around the turn of the century. Do you mean that he advocated Jewish rights in 1888, or in 1924?

Daniel:
Do you mean to suggest that Steiner expressed his opinion that Jews should have restricted civil rights in 1888 or 1924? If you honestly believe this, I would certainly like to see the quotes that would support this. Saying that in principle Jews ought to assimilate is a long way from saying that they should be denied civil rights!

----------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"Did Steiner participate in existing antisemitic discourses about Jews?"

Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. He depicted Jewry as a closed totality, saw Jews as prone to materialism, frowned upon Jewish influences on the German language, and so forth.

Daniel:
This would be the 1888 essay, correct? Or somewhere else?

--------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"Did Steiner publicly praise prominent antisemites and endorse their views on Jews?"

Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. He did so with Wagner, for example (see Steiner, Die okkulten Wahrheiten alter Mythen und Sagen pp. 138-139).

Daniel:
You don't honestly mean to argue that a praise of Wagner's music constitutes anti-Semitism! Really, Peter, I though you had more brains than that! Nor would praising Trietzschke's history or Gobineau's literature indicate the least bit of anit-Semitism in my mind.

------------------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"Did Steiner defend anti-Jewish tracts against charges of antisemitism?"

Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, of course. That's what the 1888 article is all about. It's a defense of Hamerling's Homunkulus.

Daniel:
That is the tract which you have rejected every reasonable reading in favor of your own interpretation. If your case for Steiner's anti-Semitism rests on this alone, it is weak indeed.

--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"Did Steiner derive terminology or central concepts from sources in which antisemitic features played a prominent role?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. Theosophical literature (including the stuff that makes Detlef giddy) is a fine example.
Daniel wrote (anticipating the answer):
"(Isn't this a bit of a guilt-by-association argument?)"
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, of course not. I think you have a loose grasp of that concept in general.

Daniel:
Peter, you haven't addressed my objection. How does borrowing a few names from a work that may be anit-Semetic require that the derivitve work automatically be tainted with the anti-Semitism of the source? That line of argumentation is incredibly lame, if I may say so.

---------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"Did Steiner express his views on Jews, Judaism, and Jewishness within contexts in which antisemitic themes were already conspicuous?"

Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. His first public statements about Jews were made in the pages of Austrian pan-German periodicals.

Daniel:
And if what he said was pro-Jewish? That makes him an anti-Semite? This case is getting flimsier and flimsier.

-----------------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"(Wouldn't this apply to anyone speaking of Jews or Jewishness in Austria or Germany between 1860 and 1945?)"

Peter Staudenmaier:
No, of course not. Lots of Austrians and Germans rejected pan-Germanism, rejected Theosophy, and so forth.

Daniel:
You have again dodged the question. (And your answer seems to indicate a belief that all pan-Germanism and all Theosophy was anti-Semitic - would you like to explicitly make this claim?) Austro-German culture between 1860 and 1945 was arguably anti-Semitic as a whole. This would make anything said about Jews in that context, by your definition, anti-Semitic. You seem to be setting up your criteria with Steiner in mind, but I must point out that when applied consistently, they appear ridiculous.

------------------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"Did Steiner incorporate longstanding antisemitic tropes into his own doctrines?"

Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. His repeated invocations of the myth of Ahasver are a striking example.

Daniel:
How is merely discussing the myth of Ahasver anti-Semitic? Is all discussion of this off-limits for non-Jews? Would it not make more sense to examine what Steiner said about the subject?

-----------------------------------------------

Daniel:
In summary, the case for Steiner being an anti-Semite rests on the following charges:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury!
The accused did once profess his admiration of Wagner's music!
The accused did transgress in the most grievous manner and mention legends involving Jews! (And not just those in the Old Testament).
The accused did say things about Jewry that I feel is anti-Semitic, and did so in no less a place than a pan-German periodical! (Hang him, Hang him!)
The accused didst once defend a poet against charges of anti-Semitism. And since the poet was obviously anti-Semitic, so must the defender be!
And the accused did advocate full and unequivocal assimilation! (Although I have already stated that this is not anti-Semetic, but I'll continue to throw it in anyway!).
Ignore his statments about human equality, about the dignity of all human beings and their inherent right to equal civil liberties in any state. Ignore his denunciations of all hatred based on national or ethnic prejudices (he only said it about 3000 times!).
If the quote fits, you can't acquit!
The prosecution rests?

Daniel Hindes