return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf]
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf]
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf]
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: a request about your group's web posting
By secretary waldorfcritics.org
Re: Joel's talking frog
By emanuel.landeholm gmail.com
Re: Public Discourse - Part 1: Dismembering Christainity
By emanuel.landeholm gmail.com
Re: P of F
By emanuel.landeholm gmail.com
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Public Discourse - Part 1: Dismembering Christainity
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Public Discourse - Part 1: Dismembering Christainity
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Article of interest
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Public Discourse - Part 1: Dismembering Christainity
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Article of interest
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
"Out to Lunch" was RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:52:33 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
Diana wrote:
Peter F.:
Actually, “bastard” is a term of endearment frequently used amongst old
friends in Australia.
Oh, well, my apologies to Michael Howell then. It isn't something
Americans would usually say in a friendly or casual way, but I guess we
must give him the benefit of the doubt it wasn't intended to be
offensive.
G’day Diana, there is a nice entry on this point in wikipedia. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_English_terms_for_people
See you, peter
*
Okay, if it’s in Wikipedia, then it’s reliable, so thanks Peter. So I
get to call someone a bastard, as long as I don’t preface it with “dirty
rotten”? Good to know, except I’m no doubt more likely to be the
beneficiary of Aussie endearments of that sort, at least around here
anyways.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:10:12 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
Diana: Will try to rephrase then. It is not news to most people here
that you are angry. You announce it periodically as if you have just had
a revelation. Just letting you know that others see it pretty
consistently, even though you direct it erratically at a variety of
targets.
*
This is one reason why I got out of Waldorf – all the amateur
psychologists, telling me what me issues were (and never examining their
own of course). Interesting how you love to bring up my character
shortcomings. From a conversational point of view that’s not surprising,
especially on the internet. I suppose I could just be flattered you
think of me as worthy of targeting, and leave it at that.
Now, on to revelation behind the revelation here. So I’m angry, huh?
Okay, then you’re full of hate. And it’s not news to people that you’re
full of hate – go ask anyone on the AT list. You announce periodically
that your comments are not hateful, sure. Just letting you know though
that others see it pretty consistently – that you direct that hate in a
very focused way at all things Steiner and Waldorf.
In other words, obviously two or more can play the game you’re playing
here. And it’s the exact same game many Waldorf people play with each
other in the faculty room and at Thursday meetings – during all those
times they aren’t ‘holding the children spiritually’. The thing with me
though is I don’t consider that sort of communication to be fun or
interesting in the way you seem or they seemed to. And it’s certainly
not enlightened or evolved. More than anything though, I’m confused at
to what any of it has to do with Waldorf Critics?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:49:17 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
Okay Diana, I figured out what this has to do with Waldorf Critics. Over
the years, I witnessed many examples of Waldorf teachers attacking one
individual’s character, or thinking processes, or even personality
believe it or not. And all for the purpose of defending their common
philosophy and/or protecting their collective interests.
So I get it. You’re them, and they’re you, only WC is the Ahrimanic
counterpart and Steiner people are more your Luciferic compliment.
Thanks for the insight. It’s too bad though that enlightenment sometimes
comes at the cost of people crapping on you. That part of life I’d
definitely change if I were in charge.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:43:02 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf]
)So Iím angry, huh?
)Okay, then youíre full of hate.
Diana and Baandje, just stop.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:58:24 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf]
Consider my mouth officially shut and my fingers taped to my belt loops.
Thanks for your even-handed approach to problem-solving, Dan ;) I'm
typing this with my nose, BTW...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:04:14 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf]
Yeah, me too, sorry.
-----Original Message-----
From: baandje [mailto:bangus nb.sympatico.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:58 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf]
Consider my mouth officially shut and my fingers taped to my belt loops.
Thanks for your even-handed approach to problem-solving, Dan ;) I'm
typing this with my nose, BTW...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:31:03 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
Um, baandje, I am more than happy to stop discussing your personal
psychological situation. You put it here, I replied to it in one sentence
(saying "We know"), and then you asked me to clarify. Essentially, you
insisted that your personal issues were the big topic of the day.
What's with this goofy tit-for-tat thing, if you're angry, I'm full of hate?
You SAID you were angry, silly! Now you make it sound like it's some trip
I've laid on you.
-----Original Message-----
From: baandje [mailto:bangus nb.sympatico.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:10 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
Diana: Will try to rephrase then. It is not news to most people here
that you are angry. You announce it periodically as if you have just had
a revelation. Just letting you know that others see it pretty
consistently, even though you direct it erratically at a variety of
targets.
*
This is one reason why I got out of Waldorf - all the amateur
psychologists, telling me what me issues were (and never examining their
own of course). Interesting how you love to bring up my character
shortcomings. From a conversational point of view that's not surprising,
especially on the internet. I suppose I could just be flattered you
think of me as worthy of targeting, and leave it at that.
Now, on to revelation behind the revelation here. So I'm angry, huh?
Okay, then you're full of hate. And it's not news to people that you're
full of hate - go ask anyone on the AT list. You announce periodically
that your comments are not hateful, sure. Just letting you know though
that others see it pretty consistently - that you direct that hate in a
very focused way at all things Steiner and Waldorf.
In other words, obviously two or more can play the game you're playing
here. And it's the exact same game many Waldorf people play with each
other in the faculty room and at Thursday meetings - during all those
times they aren't 'holding the children spiritually'. The thing with me
though is I don't consider that sort of communication to be fun or
interesting in the way you seem or they seemed to. And it's certainly
not enlightened or evolved. More than anything though, I'm confused at
to what any of it has to do with Waldorf Critics?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:10:03 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
"You SAID you were angry, silly!"
I think the correct Aussi term of endearment is "Silly Bastard"...
Ducking and Running...
Pete
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Um, baandje, I am more than happy to stop discussing your personal
) psychological situation. You put it here, I replied to it in one
) sentence
) (saying "We know"), and then you asked me to clarify. Essentially, you
) insisted that your personal issues were the big topic of the day.
)
) What's with this goofy tit-for-tat thing, if you're angry, I'm full of
) hate?
) You SAID you were angry, silly! Now you make it sound like it's some
) trip
) I've laid on you.
)
)
)
) -----Original Message-----
) From: baandje [mailto:bangus nb.sympatico.ca]
) Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:10 AM
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
)
)
) Diana: Will try to rephrase then. It is not news to most people here
) that you are angry. You announce it periodically as if you have just had
)
) a revelation. Just letting you know that others see it pretty
) consistently, even though you direct it erratically at a variety of
) targets.
)
) *
)
) This is one reason why I got out of Waldorf - all the amateur
) psychologists, telling me what me issues were (and never examining their
)
) own of course). Interesting how you love to bring up my character
) shortcomings. From a conversational point of view that's not surprising,
)
) especially on the internet. I suppose I could just be flattered you
) think of me as worthy of targeting, and leave it at that.
)
) Now, on to revelation behind the revelation here. So I'm angry, huh?
) Okay, then you're full of hate. And it's not news to people that you're
) full of hate - go ask anyone on the AT list. You announce periodically
) that your comments are not hateful, sure. Just letting you know though
) that others see it pretty consistently - that you direct that hate in a
) very focused way at all things Steiner and Waldorf.
)
) In other words, obviously two or more can play the game you're playing
) here. And it's the exact same game many Waldorf people play with each
) other in the faculty room and at Thursday meetings - during all those
) times they aren't 'holding the children spiritually'. The thing with me
) though is I don't consider that sort of communication to be fun or
) interesting in the way you seem or they seemed to. And it's certainly
) not enlightened or evolved. More than anything though, I'm confused at
) to what any of it has to do with Waldorf Critics?
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:33:45 -0700
From: PLANS Secretary (secretary waldorfcritics.org)
Cc: "Patrice Maynard" (pmaynard awsna.org)
Subject: Re: a request about your group's web posting
Patrice Maynard, you wrote to me. I'm copying my reply to the
waldorf-critics list as this has been and should continue to be a
matter for public discussion. Please subscribe to waldorf-critics if
you want to participate in a dialogue about it.
)Dear Mr. Dugan,
)
)Would you please remove the press release you have posted from November 1997
)concerning the tragic events of that time? There are many points in it that
)are untrue.
The press release can be read at:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/pressreleases/PR19971126.html
I recall that there was a thorough discussion of that press release
at the time. Please enumerate the points in it that you think are not
true.
)Though your goal in posting this may be to somehow expose the
)Denver school in some negative way, there are many individuals who suffered
)greatly during that time who deserve to be spared from suffering again.
It happened; it's history, it's instructive to examine it.
)You were so responsive to the request about the article on Topica, I write
)with hope that you will respond graciously again now.
My immediate response is a gracious "no." If there are errors, I am
willing to correct them.
)Thank you very much.
)
)Sincerely,
)
)Patrice Maynard
)Leader for Outreach and Development
)Association of Waldorf Schools of N. America
)65-2 Fern Hill Road
)Ghent, NY 12075
)1-518-672-7878 (office)
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
Secretary, PLANS, Inc.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:27:37 +0100
From: "Emanuel Landeholm" (emanuel.landeholm gmail.com)
Subject: Re: Joel's talking frog
) Joel was attempting to answer the question in the way he's able and
) knows how. And that process involves others quieting their own minds and
) perspectives for a time, and entering Joel's way thinking. And that
) can't and won't happen here.
You know, it's a very simple question: how does PoF relate to
Steiner's later works.
This is not a hard question. Why don't you think the answer will happen here?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:42:47 +0100
From: "Emanuel Landeholm" (emanuel.landeholm gmail.com)
Subject: Re: Public Discourse - Part 1: Dismembering Christainity
) Man, give the guy a break! He was a human being, and as full of shit as
) you, me or anyone else. And once he hopped out of bed and had his
) morning WC visit, he was just fine=85 as in empty and ready to filled wit=
h
) spiritual intuitions.
Why should we give Steiner a break? Yes, he was a human being but why
should we listen to what he said? I'd really like to know what you
like about Steiner, and why.
) Hey, you catch that abbreviation for Water Closet? That's the same as=85
) ah, never mind. Now excuse me while I go look up the meaning of word
) "scatological". I'll check my jazz reference handbook first obviously.
You're just being silly, as usual... :-)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:50:48 +0100
From: "Emanuel Landeholm" (emanuel.landeholm gmail.com)
Subject: Re: P of F
) To their shame. Anthroposophical medical training seduces doctors
) away from their scientific training into a pre-enlightenment world of
) spirits and magic.
I'd have to agree. What I'd really like to know is how do you combine
sympathetic magic with stae of the art clinical medicin? How can
someone trained in "allopathic" medicine be deceived into
anthroposophical "medicine" thinking? Tax payer money wants to know!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:58:14 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
Sheesh - are you sure we speak the same language? :) I've never heard of any
of those words, other than stuff like "mate" and "bloke." Stuff we learned
from Crocodile Dundee :)
Diana
)G'day Diana, there is a nice entry on this point in wikipedia. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_English_terms_for_people
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:28:36 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
Diana: I replied to it in one sentence (saying “We know”), and then you
asked me to clarify…. Now you make it sound like it’s some trip I've
laid on you.
*
I thought of that a half hour after I posted, realizing it could well
have been a simple response on your part. Everyone’s entitled to one
mistake in their lifetime I suppose.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:37:15 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
(Cringe) Dan asked us to stop, and about 14 snarky posts I wrote *before*
that are popping up now. I'm not doing on purpose, honest! How about a truce
baandje. I'm not "hateful" and you're not "angry." Happy Halloween.
-----Original Message-----
From: baandje [mailto:bangus nb.sympatico.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:29 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
Diana: I replied to it in one sentence (saying "We know"), and then you
asked me to clarify.. Now you make it sound like it's some trip I've
laid on you.
*
I thought of that a half hour after I posted, realizing it could well
have been a simple response on your part. Everyone's entitled to one
mistake in their lifetime I suppose.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:36:37 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
Diana asked:
)
)Sheesh - are you sure we speak the same language? :) I've never heard of
)any
)of those words, other than stuff like "mate" and "bloke." Stuff we learned
)from Crocodile Dundee :)
)Diana
)
)
)
)
) )G'day Diana, there is a nice entry on this point in wikipedia. See
)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_English_terms_for_people
Of course we don't speak the same language!!! But, I have seen enough
American culture on television and elsewhere and on visits so that it is not
an issue for me. People like Paul Hogan and the late Steve Irwin made a
living by taking advantage of and exaggerating the language differences.
Ask me what we call an eraser and how that might cause some confusion for an
Australian child moving to a US school.
What I find interesting about this issue here is how few misunderstandings
have arisen here as a result of the language differences. Joel would have us
believe that it is impossible to understand each other at all.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Research and compare new cars side by side at carpoint.com.au
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure%2Dau%2Eimrworldwide%2Ecom%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Fa%2Fci%5F450304%2Fet%5F2%2Fcg%5F801459%2Fpi%5F1004813%2Fai%5F833884&_t=54321&_r=hotmail_endtext&_m=EXT
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:54:08 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Public Discourse - Part 1: Dismembering Christainity
Emanuel: Why should we give Steiner a break? Yes, he was a human being
but why should we listen to what he said? I’d really like to know what
you like about Steiner, and why.
*
The “give Steiner a break” comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. But
I’d also say there’s too much unjustified criticism of Steiner in this
forum as well. His spiritual-racial commentary deserves scrutiny and
criticism, yes. And the Ahriman stuff is silly, sure. But he doesn’t
deserve the animosity people tend to dish out – calling him a charlatan,
for example. The man was a flawed human being, like everyone else. And
Anthroposophy is just one individual’s beliefs, and everyone has their
own personal belief system.
What I like about him is he attempted to make sense of life from a
higher spiritual perspective. I don’t relate to a lot of what he
believed, but IMO it’s the effort to live as a conscious being that’s
important. And FYI: if someone asked me to recommend a few spiritual
writers to read and study, Steiner would not be one. Like I said, I
appreciate his humanity and sincerity, but I don’t agree with most of
his writings.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:59:00 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
Diana: How about a truce baandje. I'm not “hateful” and you're not
"angry." Happy Halloween.
*
Thanks, no problem, and I don’t believe you’re hateful. I do get angry
at times, though, like everyone else. ;)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:59:01 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Public Discourse - Part 1: Dismembering Christainity
baandje wrote:
)But he doesn’t
)deserve the animosity people tend to dish out – calling him a charlatan,
)for example.
If he was a charlatan he deserves to be called one. I believe this to be the
most likely explanation for his behaviour.
See you, peter
_________________________________________________________________
Thousands of jobs, millions of opportunities at seek.com.au
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau&_t=757263760&_r=Hotmail_EndText_Oct06&_m=EXT
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:46:05 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Article of interest
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/school-council-sacked-over-steiner/2006/10/31/1162278142417.html
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Nothing but cars & over 100,000 of them at carsales.com.au
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure%2Dau%2Eimrworldwide%2Ecom%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Fa%2Fci%5F450304%2Fet%5F2%2Fcg%5F801577%2Fpi%5F1005244%2Fai%5F836752&_t=12345&_r=emailtagline_tig_over100k&_m=EXT
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:43:37 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Public Discourse - Part 1: Dismembering Christainity
If he was a charlatan he deserves to be called one. I believe this to be
the most likely explanation for his behaviour.
See you, peter
*
I was responding to Emanuel who asked why it is I thought people should
give Steiner a break. I understand you and others might believe Steiner
went out of his way to manipulate and deceive. I don’t. He appears to
have had ego issues that obviously affected the way he acted in some
situations. And everyone struggles with ego issues.
It’s a bit ironic really: Critics tend to put Steiner on a pedestal,
just like the Supporters do (two different sorts of pedestals of
course). Me, I keep insisting he was just a person who had his own take
on spiritual matters – some offensive, some harmless, some interesting.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:49:26 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Article of interest
Steiner teachers and public school teachers together in weekly faculty
meetings… I’m happy I missed out on the opportunity to work with that
group of colleagues.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:20:51 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: "Out to Lunch" was RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
Hm - sorting through last week's mail, it strikes me that the "Out to Lunch"
post is worthy of a repeat!
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Winters [mailto:diana.winters verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:53 PM
To: 'waldorf-critics topica.com'
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
baandje wrote:
)Steiner people are not Nazis. They are not child molesters. They are not
)racists. And somebody who thinks they are, simply because they're
)Anthroposophists, is hating on Steiner people, yes.
Let's see if I've got this straight. Someone who adheres to doctrines of
racial hierarchies, planetary effects on different races, races being
assigned different periods in history, racial karma and racial destiny,
different races having their own archangels, etc. - someone who holds
theories like this (i.e., an anthroposophist) - is not a racist. It's a vile
slander to suggest that they might be.
(We'll skip the child molester crap, 'cus you just throw that in all the
time even when nobody's said anything about child molestation in recent
memory.)
But somebody who calls a Waldorf teacher a "Nazi" because she is not very
good at making dads feel welcome at the school, and probably is a somewhat
dogmatic Steiner follower, and unaware of how uncomfortable she makes other
people and how poor her own people-skills are, despite her best intentions
to do everything that is best for the children . . .
- calling this person a Nazi is fully reasonable criticism. It's not "hate,"
and it's not even excessive. It's like the "Soup Nazi" in Seinfeld!
You are Out. To. Lunch. Speaking of soup.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 06:07:09 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
baandje wrote:
)
)This is one reason why I got out of Waldorf –
G'day Baandje,
I thought you were back in. I must have misunderstood something you wrote
some time back. Am I to understand you are back in the teaching game but not
at a Waldorf school?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Looking for a car that won't break the budget? Go to www.tradingpost.com.au
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eautotrader%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fbrowse%2Dauto%2FAutomotive%2F%3Freferrer%3Dplace1&_t=758874129&_r=emailtagline_nov&_m=EXT
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 10:25:55 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
G’day Baandje, I thought you were back in. I must have misunderstood
something you wrote some time back. Am I to understand you are back in
the teaching game but not at a Waldorf school?
See you, Peter
*
I haven’t been involved with a school for several years. I did interview
for a first grade position 3-4 years ago with a new initiative. But I
decided against it after my visit. The one kindergarten teacher held
monthly Steiner lectures for the parents, and the other told me she had
had a vision of the cosmic Christ, and was there to bring that awareness
to the community. Those are the two aspects of Waldorf education I have
no interest in: Anthroposophy and Christianity.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2304
-- Topica Digest --
discussions w Teachers
By jbiglow mindspring.com
Discussions w teachers
By jbiglow mindspring.com
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Discussions w teachers
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Discussions w teachers
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Discussions w teachers
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By cffrey mindspring.com
Re: Discussions w teachers
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Discussions w teachers
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Discussions w teachers
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Discussions w teachers
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By cffrey mindspring.com
Re: Discussions w teachers
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Discussions w teachers
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Discussions w teachers
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Discussions w teachers
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Discussions w teachers
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Discussions w teachers
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
anthroposophy by association
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: "Out to Lunch"
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: "Out to Lunch"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Discussions w teachers
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Discussions w teachers
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By jbiglow mindspring.com
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By cffrey mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 08:42:50 -0500
From: jbiglow mindspring.com
Subject: discussions w Teachers
I sent Dan Dugan's article to a few local teachers, and am wondering
if you might help me structure a friendly discussion about key issues
of Waldorf education. I would hope this would be constructive and
conciliatory, yet focusing on fundamental issues.
)Thanks for the forward, John. I attended a meeting in 2000 in New
)York, hosted by Eugene Schwarz, with Dan Dugan as guest.
)
)From my experience, you cannot find two Waldorf teachers who would
)agree sufficiently to be allowed into any cult. The only point he
)makes that I might begin to nod in agreement with is that, if not
)well governed and structured, Waldorf schools can put too many
)meetings onto the weekly schedule. Professionals in any realm must
)do their work and ours includes working to improve the social as
)well as the business health of the school. Our meetings are
)sometimes challenging and often very rewarding, both to the
)individuals in attendance and to the larger community of the school.
)
)If you have concerns about Mr. Dugan and our school in particular,
)please let me know what your concerns are and I'll be glad to meet
)with you to talk further.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 08:33:57 -0500
From: jbiglow mindspring.com
Subject: Discussions w teachers
I would like to ask for advice from those with more experience, for
how to have a constructive discussion with my son's Kindergarten
teacher, or any Waldorf teacher.
I picked up my son from school this week, and the teacher asked my
wife if I was still upset about her telling me not to talk to the
kids over the fence while they were in the playground, last year.
She offered to call me out of concern that I not feel shut out. I
already feel shut out, and unwelcome, and I am responding by staying
away and uninvolved. (I may be also challenged by having some
autistic traits).
I would hope the outcome would not be her explaining to me why
I need to stay out of the classroom,
Aidan should not learn math by Kumon,
and I should not talk to kids in the playground
I can get defensive and do not want the call to leave a bad
impression of me, which she may use against me later. I would like
to be mindful of certain principles or issues that she would be
likely to agree with, and then politely stick to those principles
during the discussion.
I welcome any advice as to how to approach this possible discussion.
Thank you,
John
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 14:42:52 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
baandje wrote:
Those are the two aspects of Waldorf education I have
) no interest in: Anthroposophy and Christianity.
That's funny!
That's like saying, "Teaching would be so much better if it wasn't for
all those kids!"
c
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 14:45:59 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
John: I would hope the outcome would not be her explaining to me why I
need to stay out of the classroom, Aidan should not learn math by Kumon,
and I should not talk to kids in the playground.
*
John, teachers inviting parents to sit in on the class once in a while
is not unusual. It happens in other schools. Main lesson isn’t something
you could get most teachers to agree to, but there’s absolutely nothing
wrong with sitting in on a specialty class, and especially one where you
could participate – painting or handwork comes to mind.
Talking with kids in the playground – if it’s going to happen – needs to
be with you in the playground with the kids, not talking through a
fence. I suggest you offer to help with recess supervision once in a
while. And while chatting up the kids during recess about school topics
is a pedagogical no-no, there’s nothing wrong with helping them shape
their play, or taking part yourself. Everyday conversations then
naturally spring out of situations like with the children.
As for the math, here’s what I would do: I would TELL the teacher that
you are going to enroll your child in a Kumon math class. Sorry, but I
draw the line at teachers asserting their authority in a family’s
private life. The math is your decision, not the school’s. And I don’t
know how to put this politely, so I’ll just say if they have a problem
with that, then they can go screw themselves.
The first two concerns are up to the teachers. Nothing you can do about
their decision. The math issue is your family’s decision to make. And
there’s nothing wrong with your asserting your authority here, just as
they have the right to assert theirs with regards to the in-school
issues.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:09:21 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
baandje wrote:
)
) John: I would hope the outcome would not be her explaining to me why I
) need to stay out of the classroom, Aidan should not learn math by Kumon,
)
) and I should not talk to kids in the playground.
)
) *
)
) John, teachers inviting parents to sit in on the class once in a while
) is not unusual. It happens in other schools. Main lesson isn’t something
)
) you could get most teachers to agree to, but there’s absolutely nothing
) wrong with sitting in on a specialty class, and especially one where you
)
) could participate – painting or handwork comes to mind.
)
) Talking with kids in the playground – if it’s going to happen – needs to
)
) be with you in the playground with the kids, not talking through a
) fence. I suggest you offer to help with recess supervision once in a
) while. And while chatting up the kids during recess about school topics
) is a pedagogical no-no, there’s nothing wrong with helping them shape
) their play, or taking part yourself. Everyday conversations then
) naturally spring out of situations like with the children.
)
) As for the math, here’s what I would do: I would TELL the teacher that
) you are going to enroll your child in a Kumon math class. Sorry, but I
) draw the line at teachers asserting their authority in a family’s
) private life. The math is your decision, not the school’s. And I don’t
) know how to put this politely, so I’ll just say if they have a problem
) with that, then they can go screw themselves.
)
) The first two concerns are up to the teachers. Nothing you can do about
) their decision. The math issue is your family’s decision to make. And
) there’s nothing wrong with your asserting your authority here, just as
) they have the right to assert theirs with regards to the in-school
) issues.
I pretty much agree with Baandje, here.
What I would encourage you to to first, though, is to do some work
toward gaining an understanding of why a Waldorf school would discourage
math in kindergarten, and try to understand that there is a specific
curriculum that is set up in a specific way.
There is certainly nothing wrong with American history, but most Waldorf
schools do not teach it until 8th grade, and there are specific reasons
for this.
On one hand, if your child changes schools in 6th grade, some people
might be shocked that he doesn't know who Thomas Jefferson is; on the
other hand, if you teach your child about American history at home, he
may be bored out of his wits when it comes up in school.
I am in favor of remedial help for children in need, and I even
understand that math should be taught at an early age because the window
for learning math is much smaller than the one for, for instance,
reading; but it seems to me that you're trying to solve a problem that
doesn't yet exist.
The reason a Waldorf teacher is reluctant to teach math before the age
of 7 (in a very small nutshell)is that we believe that childhood is a
very magical and VERY short time that needs to be protected and
preserved. It is very easy to force children to grow up more quickly in
the same way that plants and animals can be forced into an early
maturity...but it is detrimental to their long-term health.
Children are maturing VERY quickly these days, and childhood is getting
shorter all the time.
I would ask you to consider that a child in kindergarten now may well
live for another 100 years, but will never have another childhood.
What's the hurry?
c
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:12:34 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
Um - you seem to be misunderstanding. He's saying exactly that he's in it
for the kids, the education. KIDS are indeed what education is about, it's
the religious folderol he's rejecting.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lemuria [mailto:cffrey mindspring.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:43 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
baandje wrote:
Those are the two aspects of Waldorf education I have
) no interest in: Anthroposophy and Christianity.
That's funny!
That's like saying, "Teaching would be so much better if it wasn't for
all those kids!"
c
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:40:18 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
baandje wrote:
Those are the two aspects of Waldorf education I have no interest in:
Anthroposophy and Christianity.
That’s funny!
That’s like saying, “Teaching would be so much better if it wasn’t for
all those kids!”
c
*
I find that a surprising answer from you of all people, Lemuria. My
understanding up until now is that you’re aware of the difference
between “rigid and anthroposophical” and “holistic and healthy”.
I worked in a Waldorf school that made a conscious attempt to do away
with much of the Steiner-specific pedagogy, along with all
Christian-specific curriculum content and festivals. Michaelmas became
an equinox festival. Kwaanza and Hanukkah were celebrated along with
Christmas. Martin Luther King Day was one of the most planned and
jam-packed special event days of the school year, with guest speakers,
films and what have you.
As well, the school didn’t follow any of Steiner’s Threefold Social
organizational forms. As many parents were on the hiring committee as
teachers. Applicants for teaching positions sat for separate interviews
with the teachers and with the parents of the class the applicant was
apply for. And before being hired, the two groups had to come to an
agreement that the candidate was the right teacher for the class. A
teacher-parent issue-resolution committee handled all disagreements
between community members. And whether they were parents or teachers,
the parties having disagreement were called before the committee in an
effort to resolve the conflict.
None of this was done in the name of Steiner, Anthroposophy, cosmic
Christianity or even Waldorf – even though the teachers taught the
Waldorf curriculum. It was all for the benefit and well-being of the
entire community, and in particular the children. This was a school
after all, and people were there and taking part on behalf of their
children, or in the case of teachers such as myself, for the benefit of
other people’s children.
Makes your comments to me look a bit smug and shallow, wouldn’t you
agree? Not that that’s a big deal. But your response made me aware of
how I must appear to people at times, given I often come out with the
same sort of slap-happy remarks. So thanks for allowing me that glimpse
of myself ;) I also really enjoyed writing about that beautiful, happy
school. Made my day in some ways.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:39:13 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
The reason a Waldorf teacher is reluctant to teach math before the age
of 7 (in a very small nutshell)is that we believe that childhood is a
very magical and VERY short time that needs to be protected and
preserved. It is very easy to force children to grow up more quickly in
the same way that plants and animals can be forced into an early
maturity...but it is detrimental to their long-term health. Children are
maturing VERY quickly these days, and childhood is getting shorter all
the time. I would ask you to consider that a child in kindergarten now
may well live for another 100 years, but will never have another
childhood.
What's the hurry?
c
*
IMO, this is looking and dealing with this particular issue in a
backwards manner.
Assuming the child has an interest in math – which hasn’t been
determined here, or at least I didn’t read anything from John suggesting
that – then one is doing the child a disservice by not having him/her
learn math. What is “childhood”? Is it fairy tales and watercolor
painting FOR ALL CHILDREN? Or is it each children leaping into all that
life is FOR THEM, with all their heart and soul?
Waldorf/holistic teaching isn’t about teaching a specific curriculum in
a controlled and controlling learning environment. It’s about shaping
the needs of every individual child in the class, and incorporating and
balancing those needs within the framework of a conscious and healthy
social structure. That’s the “art” of being a Waldorf teacher. It’s a
living art, and it’s a social art. The classroom is the canvas, and the
students are the various shades and colors of paint. One doesn’t wish
the kids were all the color green; nor does one attempt to paint any
particular picture with those shades and colors. One happily works with
the colors they have, and then allows the picture to emerge out from the
painting activity itself.
Being an artistic Waldorf teacher has nothing to do with how well one
paints, or how good a story teller they are, or baking on Mondays and
knitting on Tuesdays. Nor does it have anything to do with broad
pedagogical tenets about the correct age for math and reading. On the
contrary, teachers USE those static tenets and beliefs as means to shy
away from the real and important classroom work. Because it’s a lot
harder and a lot more work to step into a class and respond in the
moment to the particular intellectual and emotional needs each and every
child, than it is to whip out the paintbrushes and have everyone paint a
boat on the sea using the colors red and blue.
One more thing: If a child takes pleasure in learning math or learning
to read – if he or she loves numbers and letters – how in the world
could that ever be “detrimental to their long-term health”? Quite the
opposite: if they’re given the freedom to explore the very things that
give them pleasure, they’ll grow up happy and free, which is going to
have a very positive affect on their health. There’s a screwy sort of
assumption here, and it’s that all children love and need the same
things at the same age. And that’s not even remotely true. Just ask any
parent that has two or more children. They’re all completely different,
and are all looking for and asking for and needing different things.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 08:38:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca) wrote:
"So I relate an instance of a teacher who dreamed up some lame
pedagogical story about white angels and children who are burned by the
sun. Are you saying that proves Steiner people are racist, and that it
blows your mind that anyone would think otherwise? Are you saying this
teacher is racist? That’s fine, and I don’t agree."
Have you asked a person or people of color how she/he or they perceive this story? As someone who is African-American, I can tell you that the story clearly was composed by someone who thinks in terms of race and racial superiority. Also, it isn't for someone of the dominant culture to define what is or is not racist.
---------------------------------
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new Yahoo.com
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:37:37 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
My point was merely that Waldorf Education can no more be separated from
Anthroposophy and Christianity than can school can be separated from
children.
c
baandje wrote:
)
) baandje wrote:
) Those are the two aspects of Waldorf education I have no interest in:
) Anthroposophy and Christianity.
)
)
) That’s funny!
) That’s like saying, “Teaching would be so much better if it wasn’t for
) all those kids!”
)
) c
)
) *
)
) I find that a surprising answer from you of all people, Lemuria. My
) understanding up until now is that you’re aware of the difference
) between “rigid and anthroposophical” and “holistic and healthy”.
)
) I worked in a Waldorf school that made a conscious attempt to do away
) with much of the Steiner-specific pedagogy, along with all
) Christian-specific curriculum content and festivals. Michaelmas became
) an equinox festival. Kwaanza and Hanukkah were celebrated along with
) Christmas. Martin Luther King Day was one of the most planned and
) jam-packed special event days of the school year, with guest speakers,
) films and what have you.
)
) As well, the school didn’t follow any of Steiner’s Threefold Social
) organizational forms. As many parents were on the hiring committee as
) teachers. Applicants for teaching positions sat for separate interviews
) with the teachers and with the parents of the class the applicant was
) apply for. And before being hired, the two groups had to come to an
) agreement that the candidate was the right teacher for the class. A
) teacher-parent issue-resolution committee handled all disagreements
) between community members. And whether they were parents or teachers,
) the parties having disagreement were called before the committee in an
) effort to resolve the conflict.
)
) None of this was done in the name of Steiner, Anthroposophy, cosmic
) Christianity or even Waldorf – even though the teachers taught the
) Waldorf curriculum. It was all for the benefit and well-being of the
) entire community, and in particular the children. This was a school
) after all, and people were there and taking part on behalf of their
) children, or in the case of teachers such as myself, for the benefit of
) other people’s children.
)
) Makes your comments to me look a bit smug and shallow, wouldn’t you
) agree? Not that that’s a big deal. But your response made me aware of
) how I must appear to people at times, given I often come out with the
) same sort of slap-happy remarks. So thanks for allowing me that glimpse
) of myself ;) I also really enjoyed writing about that beautiful, happy
) school. Made my day in some ways.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:29:02 -0800
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Discussions w teachers
Lemuria wrote:
)The reason a Waldorf teacher is reluctant to teach math before the age
)of 7 (in a very small nutshell)is that we believe that childhood is a
)very magical and VERY short time that needs to be protected and
)preserved.
Magical? Come now, Lemuria - this is a new Waldorf parent and you can do
better than cram the word "magical" into a nutshell. Of course, you'll need
to use words like "incarnation" and "soul." Help him to understand "the
reason a Waldorf teacher is reluctant to teach math before the age of 7."
Please.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:27:19 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
Baandje to John:
)As for the math, here's what I would do: I would TELL the teacher that you
)are going to enroll your child in a Kumon math class. Sorry, but I draw the
)line at teachers asserting their authority in a family's private life. The
)math is your decision, not the school's. And I don't know how to put this
)politely, so I'll just say if they have a problem with that, then they can
)go screw themselves.
Lemuria:
)I pretty much agree with Baandje, here.
Interestingly I have to say that I don't. I find it so ironic that Waldorf
supporters give him stronger and harsher advice than critics. Have you
forgotten that HIS WIFE DISAGREES apparently to the point of starting to cry
if the subject is raised?
His kid's wellbeing doesn't just depend on Kumon math. He's walking a
minefield. He is not in a position to say Screw You to this school - not if
he wants to stay married and I'm assuming that he does and perhaps more to
the point, I'm assuming that HIS KID NEEDS his parents to stay married.
)The reason a Waldorf teacher is reluctant to teach math before the age
)of 7 (in a very small nutshell)is that we believe that childhood is a
)very magical
And math isn't magical enough for you?
)I would ask you to consider that a child in kindergarten now may well
)live for another 100 years,
Hey - possibly 140, if you follow a very restricted calorie diet, according
to an article in yesterday's NY Times. (Laying off the baked ziti.)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 18:39:00 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
My point was merely that Waldorf Education can no more be separated from
Anthroposophy and Christianity than can school can be separated from
children.
c
*
People in the movement were arguing this twenty years ago, so it’s not
unfamiliar to me. You’re partially correct: the “Waldorf” education
that’s taught in almost every Waldorf school is inseparable from
Anthroposophy and Christianity. But that doesn’t mean a Waldorf-like
curriculum, minus the Anthroposophical and Christian content, cannot be
drawn up and taught to children using the same or similar holistic
methodologies and principles. To suggest otherwise is thinking of an
incredibly limiting variety. On the other hand that’s been my complaint
with Anthroposophical thinking for years: it’s incredibly limiting. So
in that respect it makes sense an Anthroposophist and “Waldorf” teacher
could not envision something like that.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 18:45:01 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
Of course, this is an over-the-top comparison, but I have seen children
take pleasure in breathing in a plastic bag full of spraypaint.
The example does serve to illustrate, though, that we don't always give
children what they take pleasure in.
I understand what you are saying, of course, and there is a spectrum of
raising children in terms of how we address what gives them pleasure.
I think that if it is done mindfully, holding something back that a
child wants, and waiting for the correct time, enhances the experience
of finally receiving it.
I have a 6-year-old who goes to a school where he has classes with
childern several years older than he, and he is becoming very interested
in math, and we answer his questions as they arise, but we don't offer
much more.
I suppose I would have to look at things differently if he came home one
day and said, "Daddy...oh please, oh please, oh pleeeeease teach me how
to add and subtract." But something tells me that this doesn't happen
too often and it is parents (or situations that parents put childern
in), not children, who want more math.
) One more thing: If a child takes pleasure in learning math or learning
) to read – if he or she loves numbers and letters – how in the world
) could that ever be “detrimental to their long-term health”? Quite the
) opposite: if they’re given the freedom to explore the very things that
) give them pleasure, they’ll grow up happy and free, which is going to
) have a very positive affect on their health.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 19:01:27 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
Diana: Interestingly I have to say that I don’t. I find it so ironic
that Waldorf supporters give him stronger and harsher advice than
critics. Have you forgotten that HIS WIFE DISAGREES apparently to the
point of starting to cry if the subject is raised?
His kid’s wellbeing doesn’t just depend on Kumon math. He’s walking a
minefield. He is not in a position to say Screw You to this school - not
if he wants to stay married and I'm assuming that he does and perhaps
more to the point, I’m assuming that HIS KID NEEDS his parents to stay
married.
*
And you didn’t quote the part where I said it was the family’s decision.
Given he seems to be intelligent fellow, I have complete faith John will
do what’s needed as far as discussing the issue with his wife. I was
letting him know in no uncertain terms that a Waldorf teacher cannot
tell him what to do with his children. I also know that parents are
often intimidated to the point where they’re made to feel stupid or made
to feel they’re doing something wrong. They sometimes begin to question
themselves and their ability to make correct decisions for their kids.
Past the “ironic Waldorf supporters critique IN CAPS FOR EMPHASIS” you
offer here, your advice to John appears to be “the child doesn’t need
math”. So that’s your answer: the wife says no; the teacher says no; so
the answer is no? Or is the point simply “ironic Waldorf supporters
critique IN CAPS FOR EMPHASIS” and forget about the actual issue up for
discussion?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 19:02:48 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
I can totally envision it.
Along with many other things, I have been villified by my peers for my
views concerning "public Waldorf".
I appreciate the kind of school that you were describing and I feel
that Waldorf ***even when reduced to a mere pedagogy*** is a fabulous
way to educate children; definitely the best way for many who are not
ready for Waldorf school.
A good parallel would be the Christian Community being a great thing for
people who are not ready for Anthroposophy.
A school such as you describe, though, does not give a complete Waldorf
education as prescribed by the founder of the movement...for better or
worse.
And maybe the thinking is limited...and maybe limits aren't such a bad
thing.
I am also a professional musician and I play in a blues band; this is a
VERY limiting way to play music. We're pretty much stuck with 3 chords,
5 notes (pentatonic!)12 bars, and 4 beats to the bar...but some very
beautiful things happen in that very limiting framework.
Free Jazz has drastically fewer limitations, but it doesn't appeal to
me.
I guess I'm more of an Albert King teacher and less of an Ornette
Coleman.
c
baandje wrote:
)
) My point was merely that Waldorf Education can no more be separated from
)
) Anthroposophy and Christianity than can school can be separated from
) children.
) c
)
) *
)
) People in the movement were arguing this twenty years ago, so it’s not
) unfamiliar to me. You’re partially correct: the “Waldorf” education
) that’s taught in almost every Waldorf school is inseparable from
) Anthroposophy and Christianity. But that doesn’t mean a Waldorf-like
) curriculum, minus the Anthroposophical and Christian content, cannot be
) drawn up and taught to children using the same or similar holistic
) methodologies and principles. To suggest otherwise is thinking of an
) incredibly limiting variety. On the other hand that’s been my complaint
) with Anthroposophical thinking for years: it’s incredibly limiting. So
) in that respect it makes sense an Anthroposophist and “Waldorf” teacher
) could not envision something like that.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:08:19 -0800
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Discussions w teachers
Lemuria wrote:
)Of course, this is an over-the-top comparison, but I have seen children
)take pleasure in breathing in a plastic bag full of spraypaint.
)The example does serve to illustrate, though, that we don't always give
children what they take pleasure in.
Very over-the-top example and does not relate to the point I think you are
trying to make here. Btw, I suspect there are more alcoholic parents than
paint-sniffing kids and "we" seem to give adults all the booze then can
guzzle 24/7. If democracy were actually part of life for children - in
school and at home/community - perhaps kids could voice concerns and be
involved with decisions about grown-ups and behaviour and booze, etc. I
digress (a little) . . .
)I understand what you are saying, of course, and there is a spectrum of
)raising children in terms of how we address what gives them pleasure.
)I think that if it is done mindfully, holding something back that a
)child wants, and waiting for the correct time, enhances the experience
)of finally receiving it.
OUCH! (blood stops boiling . . . ) Another result of such a dynamic,
Lemuria, is that the child only really learns that someone (adult, teacher,
etc.) wants to have CONTROL over someone else (child, student, etc.) What
possibly could be something done "mindfully" for the child is in reality a
cruel power trip for that child. Who - WHO - gives one person the right to
know about the "correct time" for another person to do something - from
learning math to playing the violin, etc???
A Waldorf teacher? Rudolf Steiner? Who??
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 19:22:41 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
I have only heard tell of the horrors of children who have grown up
without the benefit of adult control.
If you are prone to cruel power trips, you should seek help.
I am not.
c
Walden wrote:
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )Of course, this is an over-the-top comparison, but I have seen children
) )take pleasure in breathing in a plastic bag full of spraypaint.
) )The example does serve to illustrate, though, that we don't always give
) children what they take pleasure in.
)
) Very over-the-top example and does not relate to the point I think you
) are
) trying to make here. Btw, I suspect there are more alcoholic parents
) than
) paint-sniffing kids and "we" seem to give adults all the booze then can
) guzzle 24/7. If democracy were actually part of life for children - in
) school and at home/community - perhaps kids could voice concerns and be
) involved with decisions about grown-ups and behaviour and booze, etc. I
) digress (a little) . . .
)
) )I understand what you are saying, of course, and there is a spectrum of
) )raising children in terms of how we address what gives them pleasure.
) )I think that if it is done mindfully, holding something back that a
) )child wants, and waiting for the correct time, enhances the experience
) )of finally receiving it.
)
) OUCH! (blood stops boiling . . . ) Another result of such a dynamic,
) Lemuria, is that the child only really learns that someone (adult,
) teacher,
) etc.) wants to have CONTROL over someone else (child, student, etc.)
) What
) possibly could be something done "mindfully" for the child is in reality
) a
) cruel power trip for that child. Who - WHO - gives one person the right
) to
) know about the "correct time" for another person to do something - from
) learning math to playing the violin, etc???
) A Waldorf teacher? Rudolf Steiner? Who??
)
) -Walden
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 19:40:10 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
Lemuria: The example does serve to illustrate, though, that we don’t
always give children what they take pleasure in. I understand what you
are saying, of course, and there is a spectrum of raising children in
terms of how we address what gives them pleasure. I think that if it is
done mindfully, holding something back that a child wants, and waiting
for the correct time, enhances the experience of finally receiving it.
*
I understand the Steiner theory of holding something back.
I don’t however agree with the idea that children are not given what
they take pleasure in, simply because of some theoretical pedagogical
indications. There’s an element of unhealthy control in that thinking
that’s at the heart of a lot of the turmoil that arises in schools
between teachers and children, or teachers and parents, or teachers and
the general community.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:43:13 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
C:
)I understand what you are saying, of course, and there is a spectrum of
)raising children in terms of how we address what gives them pleasure.
)I think that if it is done mindfully, holding something back that a
)child wants, and waiting for the correct time, enhances the experience
)of finally receiving it.
Walden:
)OUCH! (blood stops boiling . . . ) Another result of such a dynamic,
)Lemuria, is that the child only really learns that someone (adult, teacher,
)etc.) wants to have CONTROL over someone else (child, student, etc.) What
)possibly could be something done "mindfully" for the child is in reality a
)cruel power trip for that child. Who - WHO - gives one person the right to
)know about the "correct time" for another person to do something - from
)learning math to playing the violin, etc???
)A Waldorf teacher? Rudolf Steiner? Who??
I can see both sides here. I mean, my 13 year old yearns to learn to drive.
(shudder) Am I being too controlling if I hold him back? (G) Still I agree
with Walden that very often this "hold them back till a preapproved time" is
about power and control.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:40:03 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
)Given he seems to be intelligent fellow, I have complete faith John will
)do what's needed as far as discussing the issue with his wife. I was
)letting him know in no uncertain terms that a Waldorf teacher cannot
)tell him what to do with his children.
I agree with you, but I had the impression John was already clear on that.
The issue isn't really what the Waldorf teacher thinks - it's what his wife
thinks. They're at odds.
)Past the "ironic Waldorf supporters critique IN CAPS FOR EMPHASIS" you
)offer here, your advice to John appears to be "the child doesn't need
)math".
No, that's not my advice. I haven't made any comment at all on whether
John's child needs to do math. I don't know John's child (and am not too hot
at math, frankly, and rarely give anyone advice about math).
)So that's your answer: the wife says no; the teacher says no; so
)the answer is no?
My answer was (yes, very bizarre) to agree with what Joel originally wrote,
that the first issue is how they're going to resolve differences about their
child's education. That's got to come before discussions of Kumon math,
Waldorf teachers' views on early math instruction etc.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:56:29 -0800
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Discussions w teachers
How can you possibly conclude - from what I wrote - that *I* might be prone
to cruel power trips?
And now you've "heard tell of horrors . . . "
Reality check.
I suppose I reacted strongly to your previous post because the memory of a
stifling, controlling environment is still vivid for me - even though my
kids have been out of Waldorf for quite a few years now. I'll take a share
of the blame for the past. I should have clued in earlier that my kids were
not even seen as individual human beings by some teachers. Incarnating souls
be prepared and controlled for a "better" Anthro future according to their
karmic relationship with the spirituall evolved Anthro trained teachers . .
. . When our family was *in* it really was not easy to see the control.
Leaving Waldorf is not always simple but Freedom often comes with a price
tag. Born again . . . Human.
-Walden
) I have only heard tell of the horrors of children who have grown up
) without the benefit of adult control.
) If you are prone to cruel power trips, you should seek help.
) I am not.
) c
)
)
) Walden wrote:
))
)) Lemuria wrote:
)) )Of course, this is an over-the-top comparison, but I have seen children
)) )take pleasure in breathing in a plastic bag full of spraypaint.
)) )The example does serve to illustrate, though, that we don't always give
)) children what they take pleasure in.
))
)) Very over-the-top example and does not relate to the point I think you
)) are
)) trying to make here. Btw, I suspect there are more alcoholic parents
)) than
)) paint-sniffing kids and "we" seem to give adults all the booze then can
)) guzzle 24/7. If democracy were actually part of life for children - in
)) school and at home/community - perhaps kids could voice concerns and be
)) involved with decisions about grown-ups and behaviour and booze, etc. I
)) digress (a little) . . .
))
)) )I understand what you are saying, of course, and there is a spectrum of
)) )raising children in terms of how we address what gives them pleasure.
)) )I think that if it is done mindfully, holding something back that a
)) )child wants, and waiting for the correct time, enhances the experience
)) )of finally receiving it.
))
)) OUCH! (blood stops boiling . . . ) Another result of such a dynamic,
)) Lemuria, is that the child only really learns that someone (adult,
)) teacher,
)) etc.) wants to have CONTROL over someone else (child, student, etc.)
)) What
)) possibly could be something done "mindfully" for the child is in reality
)) a
)) cruel power trip for that child. Who - WHO - gives one person the right
)) to
)) know about the "correct time" for another person to do something - from
)) learning math to playing the violin, etc???
)) A Waldorf teacher? Rudolf Steiner? Who??
))
)) -Walden
))
))
))
))
)
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
) New threads are always welcome.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:14:50 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: anthroposophy by association
Since it looks like Emanuel's straightforward question about the relation
between Steiner's early book The Philosophy of Freedom and his later works
is not going to get an answer, I thought I'd try to drag something useful
out of the recent Joel and Frank merry-go-round on the matter.
Lots of anthroposophists are convinced that PoF is a preparation for and an
early version of Steiner's mature teachings. When asked to explain that
conviction, the only substance typically offered are things that Steiner
wrote or said after 1901. This makes no sense whatever. That approach
renders all sorts of historical figures, not just Rudolf Steiner,
inscrutable and nonsensical.
I think there are two likely explanations for why the conviction is
nevertheless so widespread among anthroposophists. One is that the vey
notion of Steiner or any other 'Initiate' as a historical figure is an
affront to basic assumptions central to esoteric worldviews,
anthroposophical and otherwise. To look at Steiner as a person whose ideas
changed over time is, from that perspective, simply a meaningless way to
view the matter.
The second possible reason is that many anthroposophists find out about
Steiner's biography and his cultural context solely through their own
immersion in anthroposophy, and see all related discussions through that
particular lens. In some ways this is an especially revealing instance of a
broader phenomenon, namely the inclination to view historical situations and
historical actors backwards from the point of view of their more recent
versions.
For example, many people think of Ronald Reagan, reasonably enough, as a
conservative Republican, based on his two terms as President of the United
States and perhaps on his earlier stint as governor of California. On that
basis, it might be tempting to think that Reagan was always a conservative
or always a Republican throughout his adult life. In fact, Reagan was a
Democrat for years before he became politically prominent. This comes as a
surprise to people who don't know much about his earlier career, just as
Steiner's pre-1900 philosophical and political commitments come as a
surprise to many anthroposophists who don't know much about those early
phases of Steiner's life and who have garnered most of what they do know
from anthroposophist sources.
All in all, this sort of approach to the complex question of how the early
Steiner relates to the later Steiner amounts to a version of the
guilt-by-association argument that so many would-be defenders of Steiner are
remarkably eager to attribute to non-anthroposophists. In this case,
however, the basic logical flaw isn't guilt by association, it is
anthroposophy by association: because Rudolf Steiner was an anthroposophist
after 1900, he must have been one before then; the ostensible connection
between the two depends solely on the personal identity of Steiner, not on
any concrete contents of his earlier publications or activities, much less
on the specific contexts within which those publications and activities
arose.
If there are any folks out there who would like to offer some other argument
in favor of the notion of PoF as a symbol of anthroposophy avant la lettre,
I would very much welcome it. Greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with
Live Search!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:12:49 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: "Out to Lunch"
This might be a good time for another reminder that some Steiner people are
actually Nazis, the real kind of Nazis, and that some Steiner people are
indeed racists, not because they're Anthroposophists, but because they are
Nazis and because they are racists. This is true not just historically, it
is still true today in some cases. Declaring categorically that Steiner
people are not Nazis and not racists is as silly as claiming that no
Catholics are socialists.
Another gentle reminder: The way to stop misusing discussions of racism and
of Nazism for "hating on" people is to take racism and Nazism seriously as
really existing phenomena, rather than crying wolf every time the topic
arises. Failure to recognize this elementary insight is, in today's world,
not a form of spiritual enlightenment, it is the same thing as giving a
green light to the real live racists and Nazis out there. That sort of
approach is just as corruptive and debilitating outside the borders of
Steiner-land as it is in our context here. People who are genuinely
concerned about racism and about Nazism can't continue the head-in-the-sand
routine. It doesn't work. Cheers,
Peter S.
)baandje wrote:
)
) )Steiner people are not Nazis. They are not child molesters. They are not
) )racists. And somebody who thinks they are, simply because they're
) )Anthroposophists, is hating on Steiner people, yes.
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:28:03 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "Out to Lunch"
Good points by Peter as usual. But if you're going to be calling certain
Steiner people Nazis, you better be prepared to name names. Otherwise
it's all just speculation and hot air. So go ahead, I'm listening...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:52:06 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
Walden wrote:
)
) How can you possibly conclude - from what I wrote - that *I* might be
) prone
) to cruel power trips?
) And now you've "heard tell of horrors . . . "
I mean, I haven't actually witnessed street children in the back alleys
of Sao Paulo, Brazil et.al.
Those are the type of children whom, I imagine, grow up without control.
) Reality check.
)
) I suppose I reacted strongly to your previous post because the memory of
) a
) stifling, controlling environment is still vivid for me - even though my
)
) kids have been out of Waldorf for quite a few years now. )
) -Walden
)
Once again, I'll agree with you.
It is a shame when authority becomes authoritarian.
It is clear to me that when Steiner spoke of the age of authority
(7-14), he meant the kind of authority that we seek out because we love
and appreciate what it (he, she) has to offer us; and YES the kind of
autonomy that a Waldorf teacher has is easily and often abused.
Waldorf is in a bit of trouble because of this.
I also think, though, that personality, ego, individuality, political
correctness, and a few other things that I'm leaving out are running a
bit rampant, and this is allowing many of our children to grow rank like
weeds rather than being tended like flowers.
In an environment where being asked to paint the same painting looks
like lock-step conformity rather than being taught the basics of
technique, it is easy to see how authority can, to some, look like
authoritarianism.
But the latter IS out there.
My son was just out with some of his old friends from the "Waldorf"
school, and he heard that students are no longer allowed to wear hats
anywhere in the building.
Now, what could that rule possibly be for, other than to cow the
students?
BUT...BUT!!!
The point I always need to reiterate is that this stuff is NOT built
into Waldorf.
Authoritarianism has no place in a Waldorf school; but there is an
ever-present danger of it creeping in if we don't keep our eyes on the
road and our hands upon the wheel (apologies to JM. RIP)
c
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:09:02 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
My answer was (yes, very bizarre) to agree with what Joel originally
wrote, that the first issue is how they're going to resolve differences
about their child's education. That's got to come before discussions of
Kumon math, Waldorf teachers' views on early math instruction etc.
Diana
*
)From what I read, I don’t see the issue as “differences”. IMO it’s a
classic case of one parent being infatuated with Waldorf to the point
where they won’t listen to reason. And her emotionalism is a dead
giveaway. The emotional stuff is tied in with the hold Waldorf can have
on people, and the hold teachers and their so-called spiritual
perspectives can have. And I feel all of that contributes to a kind of
hold on the other parent who is standing on the outside looking in. They
often don’t know what to think, let alone what to make of any of it.
(Sorry to be talking this way John, but you did bring all this up.)
And at the risk of being chastised for bizarre flip-flopping comments
and philosophical stances, I’m going to suggest this general issue is
related in part to the cult issue. And please note that my stance here
is I feel Waldorf itself is not a cult, but that many within the
movement – including parents – exhibit cult-like behavior with regards
to their behavior within the community, and relationship to the
philosophy and education. Not that this is news to many here, but check
any cult website and the similarities are startling:
- often an individual or small but powerful leadership group holds
control of the group’s teachings and practices.
- facilitate control over the members physically, intellectually,
financially, and emotionally.
- exercise control over members and individual family members, sometimes
through fear.
- possess methods to reinforce the cult’s beliefs and standards where
opposing views are ridiculed and often misrepresented.
And so on and so on. And I’m not suggesting anyone starts tossing out
the C word out in front of these people. But I know from experience that
Waldorf insanity of the type John describes can and sometimes does lead
to real and actual harm to the individuals involved. It took me years to
get over the toll it all took on me. And yes, people and couples are
responsible for working out their life issues. But the problems that
arise as a result of participation in a Waldorf community can be severe
(not news to people here, again) and must be properly identified, in
order to give those involved a complete picture as to what they’re
actually dealing with.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:14:47 -0500
From: jbiglow mindspring.com
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
This is an interesting thought. Maybe a new
school could be founded taking the best of
Waldorf without the other issues to compete with
Waldorf.
What would you call it?
)the ìWaldorfî education thatís taught in almost
)every Waldorf school is inseparable from
)Anthroposophy and Christianity. But that doesnít mean a Waldorf-like
)curriculum, minus the Anthroposophical and Christian content, cannot be
)drawn up and taught to children using the same or similar holistic
)methodologies and principles.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 01:18:01 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
john suggested:
)
)This is an interesting thought. Maybe a new school could be founded taking
)the best of Waldorf without the other issues to compete with Waldorf.
)
)What would you call it?
It doesn't really matter what you call it. The real question is what are the
best features of Waldorf that you'd like to keep and what are the bad
features you'd like to leave out.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Looking for a car that won't break the budget? Go to www.tradingpost.com.au
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eautotrader%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fbrowse%2Dauto%2FAutomotive%2F%3Freferrer%3Dplace1&_t=758874129&_r=emailtagline_nov&_m=EXT
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 01:33:36 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
A Waldorf Charter School.
jbiglow mindspring.com wrote:
)
) This is an interesting thought. Maybe a new
) school could be founded taking the best of
) Waldorf without the other issues to compete with
) Waldorf.
)
) What would you call it?
)
) )the ìWaldorfî education thatís taught in almost
) )every Waldorf school is inseparable from
) )Anthroposophy and Christianity. But that doesnít mean a Waldorf-like
) )curriculum, minus the Anthroposophical and Christian content, cannot be
) )drawn up and taught to children using the same or similar holistic
) )methodologies and principles.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2305
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Discussions w teachers
By jbiglow mindspring.com
RE: Discussions w teachers
By feetapparel hotmail.com
naming names
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Discussions w teachers
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:13:13 -0500
From: jbiglow mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Discussions w teachers
I thank those of you who have tried to answer "Lemuria".
As to my initial question: please advise as to what principles I can
keep in mind when talking to the teacher, so I can be polite and
focused on the key issues and not distracted by something else she
might bring up.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:46:38 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
Lemuria wrote:
)The reason a Waldorf teacher is reluctant to teach math before the age
)of 7 (in a very small nutshell)is that we believe that childhood is a
)very magical and VERY short time that needs to be protected and
)preserved. It is very easy to force children to grow up more quickly in
)the same way that plants and animals can be forced into an early
)maturity...but it is detrimental to their long-term health. Children are
)maturing VERY quickly these days, and childhood is getting shorter all
)the time. I would ask you to consider that a child in kindergarten now
)may well live for another 100 years, but will never have another
)childhood.
)What's the hurry?
This is the face that Waldorf education shows. The article by Steiner on
mathematics clearly demonstrates the fundamental reason is for delaying
mathematical education is religious. All this stuff about protecting
childhood is just marketing.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
House hunt online now!
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Erealestate%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Frsearch%3Fa%3Dbhp%26t%3Dres%26cu%3DMSN&_t=758874163&_r=HM_EndText_Oct06&_m=EXT
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:03:39 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: naming names
Hi Baandje,
)Good points by Peter as usual. But if you're going to be calling certain
)Steiner people Nazis, you better be prepared to name names. Otherwise
)it's all just speculation and hot air. So go ahead, I'm listening...
I'm guessing you mean Steiner people today, more than historically, but I'll
answer in both cases.
During the Third Reich, a number of anthroposophists were Nazis. Some of
them were prominent anthroposophists, though not especially prominent Nazis.
(The possible exceptions to that latter point are figures like Rudolf Hess,
Alwin Seifert, and Otto Ohlendorf; I think there are good reasons for
viewing the former two as anthroposophists, under a broad understanding of
that term, whereas I'm inclined to see Ohlendorf as a sympathizer of
anthroposophy rather than an anthroposophist.)
Anthroposophists who were Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s include:
Hanns Rascher, a follower of Steiner (and member of the German Section of
the Theosophical Society which Steiner lead at the time) since 1908, a
founding member of the Anthroposophical Society, and during the Nazi era a
leading member of the Board of Directors of the Anthroposophical Society in
Germany. Rascher began working with the Nazis in 1928 and joined the Nazi
party in 1931 (keep in mind that the Nazis didn't come to power until 1933).
He worked for the SD, the Nazi security service, under Hitler's rule.
Franz Lippert, one of the most prominent figures in the biodynamic movement
and the original head gardner at Weleda, oversaw the biodynamic plantation
at Dachau from 1941 to 1945. He volunteered for this position, and became an
SS officer. The Dachau project was the centerpiece in the SS's system of
biodynamic plantations at concentration camps, which were worked by camp
inmates.
Lippert's colleague Erhard Bartsch, the acknowledged leader of the
biodynamic movement, also offered to cooperate with the SS in its plans for
establishing German agricultural settlements in conquered territories in
Eastern Europe. Bartsch was an outspoken supporter of Hitler and Nazism even
after the beginning of WWII and made these views public in the biodynamic
movement's journal Demeter. Another leading biodynamic activist, Max Karl
Schwarz, worked for the Nazi construction corps, the Organisation Todt.
Several Waldorf representatives were also Nazis. Els Moll, for example, a
longtime member of the Anthroposophical Society and a teacher at the
original Waldorf school in Stuttgart, described herself as a "dedicated
National Socialist". Other Waldorf activists who were also committed Nazis
included Eugen and Margarete Link. Neither of the two foremost Waldorf
representatives during the Nazi era, Rene Maikowski and Elisabeth Klein,
were Nazis, but both expressed sympathies for Nazism at various times.
Maikowski wrote a long letter to Hitler in February 1934 detailing the
compatibilities between Waldorf and Nazism, while Klein was particularly
close to Nazi official Alfred Baeumler. I covered much of this ground in my
post a couple months ago on Waldorf schools in Nazi Germany. For yet another
example: the anthroposophist Richard Karutz, one of the chief interpreters
of Steiner's racial doctrines, explicitly and publically endorsed Nazi
racial policy in an anthroposophical publication in 1934.
As for Steiner people today who are Nazis, the most important current
example is probably Andreas Molau. In the 1990s Molau was a prominent
publicist (using his real name) on Germany's far-right fringe. He was also a
history teacher at a Waldorf school in Braunschweig for eight years. He was
fired in 2004 when the school administration learned that Molau was also an
official of the NPD, the
major neo-Nazi party in Germany today. Even after leaving the school, Molau
continues to support Waldorf education strongly. In 2005 a Waldorf student
here in Berlin invited Molau to speak at his Waldorf school about the
upcoming elections, in which Molau was an NPD candidate. During his talk at
the school, Molau quoted from Steiner's 'Folk Souls' book. His campain
materials also emphasized his experience as a Waldorf teacher.
Molau isn't an isolated case. In Switzerland in 2002, the Anthroposophical
Society expelled Hans
Krattiger, an important figure in the Swiss biodynamic movement, when
Krattiger's position as treasurer of the far-right PNOS party became public.
Ten years earlier another Waldorf history teacher in Switzerland, Bernhard
Schaub, published a book that among other things denied the holocaust while
celebrating Steiner and anthroposophy. His school fired him the next year.
Holocaust denial, while not an exclusively Nazi phenomenon, pops up again
and again among Steiner people; other pertinent examples include Gennadi
Bondarew, Willy Lochmann, and Robert Mason. Then there's Werner Georg
Haverbeck, who died in late 1999; he was in many respects the grandfather of
the contempoary far-right anthroposophist scene (his followers include
Andreas Ferch). During the Third Reich Haverbeck (who was an active Nazi for
years before 1933) played important roles in a variety of SS offices and
other Nazi agencies. After the war he became a priest in the Christian
Community (he presided over Ohlendorf's funeral after Ohlendorf was executed
for his part in the holocaust) and in 1989 wrote a book called Rudolf
Steiner - Advocate for Germany, yet another mixture of neo-Nazi
anthroposophy and holocaust denial.
But perhaps those are enough names for now. Hope you've been listening,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:09:43 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
Baandje, replying to Dan:
)Dan: Critics understand that the racism in Anthroposophy isn’t about
)hate. It’s ignorant racism, based on demonstrably false (or at least
)demonstrably faith-based) premises.
)
)baandje: The Steiner crowd BELIEVES Steiner’s racial commentary ISN’T
)RACIST. They believe it’s SPIRITUAL. In other words, there’s no racist
)intent in their interpretation of Steiner.
)
)Dan: I agree.
)
)*
)
)Nice, Dan: that’s two things we agree on this morning ;) Thanks for the
)sincere, honest response and for seeing beyond my silly demonizing
)comments – which apparently don’t apply after all!
I'd still be interested in hearing some sort of explanation from Baandje
about how he managed to conclude in the first place that critics of
anthroposophical racism impute racist intentions to Steiner or other
anthroposophists. You've been asked this simple question several times,
Baandje, and haven't responded at all. If I said that the Detroit Tigers
just lost the World Series, would you think I meant that they intended to
lose the World Series? It isn't a trick question. Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:18:58 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
John:
)I would like to ask for advice from those with more experience, for how to
)have a constructive discussion with my son's Kindergarten teacher, or any
)Waldorf teacher.
Regarding how to deal with this teacher who doesn't want you to talk to kids
on the playground, I wonder if you saw a message I wrote on talking to kids
the Waldorf way, about a week or so ago. It is here:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?
I wrote this hoping it might help you to figure out just what she wants from
you in terms of interacting with the kids. I don't agree, myself, with
certain Waldorf recommendations (basically it's rather narrow and
constricting, and when applied rigidly, can turn downright mean). On the
other hand, some of these ideas are harmless and a few truly useful. And if
the alternative is staying away from, and feeling ostracized by, your
child's school, that just sucks. Better to go along with the program to some
extent, at least for the time being?
Maybe you saw it and didn't find it useful, which is fine, but it occurred
to me you didn't see it, in the sometimes dozens of posts flying around
here.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:55:23 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
Peter: I'd still be interested in hearing some sort of explanation from
Baandje about how he managed to conclude in the first place that critics
of anthroposophical racism impute racist intentions to Steiner or other
anthroposophists.
*
I read all the posts here about “Steiner’s racist comments” along with
the occasional reply of “Yes, baandje, Waldorf teachers ARE racist!”
Past that, I can’t understand why you’d ask such an obvious question.
Thanks for the ‘Naming names’ post, Peter. That was fascinating.
Definitely some real skeletons in the Anthropop closet (then and even
now from the sounds of it) that people in Steiner movement need to be
dealing with.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:09:23 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
John: This is an interesting thought. Maybe a new school could be
founded taking the best of Waldorf without the other issues to compete
with Waldorf.
What would you call it?
*
Well John, given Waldorf people insist Anthroposophy and Christianity
are not part of the Waldorf curriculum (with the exception of Lemuria of
course) it would be completely correct to call it “Waldorf”. Since
Waldorf apparently has nothing to do with Anthroposophy and
Christianity, then the term “Waldorf” obviously refers to the
non-denominational, non-sectarian, holistic aspects of the education and
curriculum, which is what I'm talking about.
I’m quite serious about continuing to call it Waldorf. And it’s not a
big deal really, as schools are completely free do as they please. All
it takes is a group of Waldorf teachers and community members who have
the same vision and desires. And there are people in the movement who
understand that the Anthroposophy and Christianity actually get in the
way of the education. All it would take would be for a few kindred souls
to end up teaching together in one school, and the change would happen
naturally and from within.
And given “community development” means the community runs the show –
and not the teachers, Anthroposophical pedagogy or the ghost of Steiner
– you of course would be put in charge of the Playground Supervision
Committee ;)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2306
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By jbiglow mindspring.com
RE: naming names
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: a request about your group's web posting
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: Discussions w teachers
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: a request about your group's web posting
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By pkcompany netzero.net
for John- How to Talk to Children on the Playground
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: anthroposophy by association
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Discussions w teachers
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Discussions w teachers
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Discussions w teachers
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Public Discourse - Part 1: Dismembering Christainity
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Discussions w teachers
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Laura's charter school (#2 of 2)
By dan dandugan.com
Laura's charter school (#1 of 2)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Discussions w teachers
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Laura's charter school (#1 of 2)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Laura's charter school (#1 of 2)
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Laura's charter school (#2 of 2)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By diana.winters verizon.net
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Humboldt=2DUniversit=E4t_Berlin_conference_on?=
Anthroposophy a
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
By flower_in_the_moonlight yahoo.com
RE: anthroposophy by association
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: naming names
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 08:25:47 -0500
From: jbiglow mindspring.com
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
How can I find out if my local school is based on
Anthroposophy or Christianity? If these issues
are hidden within, what would I ask to learn the
truth?
)John: This is an interesting thought. Maybe a new school could be
)founded taking the best of Waldorf without the other issues to compete
)with Waldorf.
)
)What would you call it?
)
)*
)
)Well John, given Waldorf people insist Anthroposophy and Christianity
)are not part of the Waldorf curriculum (with the exception of Lemuria of
)course) it would be completely correct to call it ìWaldorfî. Since
)Waldorf apparently has nothing to do with Anthroposophy and
)Christianity, then the term ìWaldorfî obviously refers to the
)non-denominational, non-sectarian, holistic aspects of the education and
)curriculum, which is what I'm talking about.
)
)Iím quite serious about continuing to call it Waldorf. And itís not a
)big deal really, as schools are completely free do as they please. All
)it takes is a group of Waldorf teachers and community members who have
)the same vision and desires. And there are people in the movement who
)understand that the Anthroposophy and Christianity actually get in the
)way of the education. All it would take would be for a few kindred souls
)to end up teaching together in one school, and the change would happen
)naturally and from within.
)
)And given ìcommunity developmentî means the community runs the show ñ
)and not the teachers, Anthroposophical pedagogy or the ghost of Steiner
)ñ you of course would be put in charge of the Playground Supervision
)Committee ;)
)
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
)here, no matter how basic. New threads are
)always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:09:39 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: naming names
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
I have been listening, and what I hear is that the Anthroposophical
movement has no place for such people; this is made clear by the fact
that, when exposed, they are fired from their jobs.
Thank you for your research leading to proof that the
Waldorf/Anthroposophical movement does not tolerate anti-Semitism or
racial hatred.
c
) But perhaps those are enough names for now. Hope you've been listening,
)
)
) Peter Staudenmaier
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live
) Spaces
) http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:20:26 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
At the risk of sounding glib...you could meet with your teacher or an
administrator and ask if the school is based on Anthroposophy or
Christianity.
jbiglow mindspring.com wrote:
)
) How can I find out if my local school is based on
) Anthroposophy or Christianity? If these issues
) are hidden within, what would I ask to learn the
) truth?
)
) )John: This is an interesting thought. Maybe a new school could be
) )founded taking the best of Waldorf without the other issues to compete
) )with Waldorf.
) )
) )What would you call it?
) )
) )*
) )
) )Well John, given Waldorf people insist Anthroposophy and Christianity
) )are not part of the Waldorf curriculum (with the exception of Lemuria of
) )course) it would be completely correct to call it ìWaldorfî. Since
) )Waldorf apparently has nothing to do with Anthroposophy and
) )Christianity, then the term ìWaldorfî obviously refers to the
) )non-denominational, non-sectarian, holistic aspects of the education and
) )curriculum, which is what I'm talking about.
) )
) )Iím quite serious about continuing to call it Waldorf. And itís not a
) )big deal really, as schools are completely free do as they please. All
) )it takes is a group of Waldorf teachers and community members who have
) )the same vision and desires. And there are people in the movement who
) )understand that the Anthroposophy and Christianity actually get in the
) )way of the education. All it would take would be for a few kindred souls
) )to end up teaching together in one school, and the change would happen
) )naturally and from within.
) )
) )And given ìcommunity developmentî means the community runs the show ñ
) )and not the teachers, Anthroposophical pedagogy or the ghost of Steiner
) )ñ you of course would be put in charge of the Playground Supervision
) )Committee ;)
) )
) )
) )==^================================================================
) )You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) )here, no matter how basic. New threads are
) )always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:29:55 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
John: How can I find out if my local school is based on Anthroposophy or
Christianity? If these issues are hidden within, what would I ask to
learn the truth?
*
John, here’s a typical Waldorf teacher employment notice:
Merriconeag Waldorf School –
Seeking applications for the 2007-2008 school year First Grade Class
Teacher… There are opportunities in the community for monthly meetings
of the First Class of the School of Spiritual Science, and quarterly
gatherings of a The Christian Community. A foundation studies program of
the Center of Anthroposophy has taken root here, as has an extension of
Antioch University’s Waldorf teacher training program…
http://www.waldorfworld.net/Employment/Positions/First_Grade/
Anthroposophy is the foundation of the work in pretty well every school.
The standard and typical Waldorf curriculum, along with the community
development work, are simply Steiner’s Anthroposophical
“cosmic-spiritual” visions and indications from his many lectures, in a
public educational form and format. And (esoteric) Christian gatherings
and festivals are also the norm in most schools: St. Michael festival,
St. Martin’s lantern walk, Advent, St. John’s summer celebration… these
are some the typical Christian-specific festivals schools celebrate. Two
schools I worked at did things differently. I mentioned a couple of
examples already: Michaelmas became an equinox celebration, or the
school celebrated Kwanzaa and Hanukkah, along with Christmas.
If it were me, I’d start by asking which festivals they celebrate during
the year. If it’s the typical Waldorf esoteric Christian slate of
celebrations, that pretty much tells you where they’re at with the
Christianity issue. Be aware you’ll probably get zero information when
you ask what, say, Michaelmas is all about. They’ll tell you it’s about
dragons and courage and conquering fear. What they won’t tell you is St.
Michael is considered the representative of Christ, the Archangel who is
currently “looking out for” humanity during this particular epoch of
time. He’s the head of the spirit police, so to speak, who are on the
lookout for an evil being named Ahriman who is going to incarnate on
earth soon. No, I am not making this up. This is what Anthroposophical
people believe. This is why they celebrate their esoteric Christian
festivals. They are aiding and supporting the work of these mighty
spirit beings. The costumes and swords they give to children are more
than simply props. They’re the kids’ Christian-initiation tools of the
trade.
The ‘Anthroposophy in the curriculum’ issue is tougher to get to the
bottom of, given it’s much more subtle and not ‘out there’ like the
festivals are. Maybe all that needs to be recognized is if the school
only celebrates those Christian festivals, and if the people you talk to
seem to have no sense of there being anything wrong with that, then
that’s a pretty good indication you’re dealing with a ‘committed’
Anthroposophical group of people. I’d also check to see if they’re
offering books for sale. Are those books Waldorf-parent-child oriented,
or do you see a lot of Steiner’s Anthroposophical books being pushed?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:32:46 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: a request about your group's web posting
PLANS Secretary wrote:
)
) Patrice Maynard, you wrote to me. I'm copying my reply to the
) waldorf-critics list as this has been and should continue to be a
) matter for public discussion. Please subscribe to waldorf-critics if
) you want to participate in a dialogue about it.
)
) )Dear Mr. Dugan,
) )
) )Would you please remove the press release you have posted from November
) )1997
) )concerning the tragic events of that time? There are many points in it
) )that
) )are untrue.
)
) The press release can be read at:
)
) http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/pressreleases/PR19971126.html
)
) I recall that there was a thorough discussion of that press release
) at the time. Please enumerate the points in it that you think are not
) true.
To Dan Dugan:
Have you no shame?
Frank
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 15:04:07 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Discussions w teachers
John: As to my initial question: please advise as to what principles I
can keep in mind when talking to the teacher, so I can be polite and
focused on the key issues and not distracted by something else she might
bring up.
*
I think the first thing to keep in mind is that teachers are working in
the best interests of your child… in their mind and from their
perspective, that is. I’m not saying they ARE doing what’s best for your
child, but they certainly believe they are. In other words, their
intention isn’t the issue. Teachers have good intentions.
IMO, most problems that occur between teachers and parents – when in
fact it’s apparent there is definite conflict between what the teacher
sees as best for the child and what the parent believes – have to do
with “resolution”. If you’re lucky, the teacher will be someone who is
willing to not only listen, but to take into account who you are, and
what it is that you yourself need to make you feel comfortable and okay
with things.
Example: some teachers will tell all parents their children are not
allowed to watch TV, period. And that just doesn't work for all
families. I approached that issue on a family-to-family basis. My
general rule was if TV appears to be interfering with a particular
child’s schoolwork, then the parents of that child needed to consider
other options, such as TV on weekends only. But I never insisted they
had to do this or that or the other thing – that would be their family’s
decision to make.
While you’re speaking with the teacher, it should become obvious quite
quickly if that teacher is there to listen and really resolve your
concerns, or is simply there to tell you what’s what and how things are
going to be on their watch. I would get distracted and uncomfortable (to
put it politely) speaking with the latter type of individual. It’s
difficult, but if you find yourself in that sort of situation, remind
yourself again that this person believes their intentions are good,
regardless of how much it appears the opposite.
Understanding that all of us are stumbling through life acting like
jackasses at times can go a long way towards accepting unconscious
behavior in others. Another general rule of thumb is the more open you
remain to the other person, the better the chances they’ll remain open
as well. Plus smiling is always good :)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 15:13:54 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: a request about your group's web posting
To Dan Dugan:
Have you no shame?
Frank
*
Hi to you as well Frank. You ask one question but mean something else.
What is that something else? Speak, Frank, speak!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:17:26 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
My position has always been - reveal or reform. Waldorf needs to either
say what the do, or do what they say. I don't agree there is a good
chance of Anthroposophy ever leaving Waldorf (reform) - so I think it
would be easier for them to reveal its presence thoroughly.
Pete
baandje wrote:
)
) John: This is an interesting thought. Maybe a new school could be
) founded taking the best of Waldorf without the other issues to compete
) with Waldorf.
)
) What would you call it?
)
) *
)
) Well John, given Waldorf people insist Anthroposophy and Christianity
) are not part of the Waldorf curriculum (with the exception of Lemuria of
)
) course) it would be completely correct to call it “Waldorf”. Since
) Waldorf apparently has nothing to do with Anthroposophy and
) Christianity, then the term “Waldorf” obviously refers to the
) non-denominational, non-sectarian, holistic aspects of the education and
)
) curriculum, which is what I'm talking about.
)
) I’m quite serious about continuing to call it Waldorf. And it’s not a
) big deal really, as schools are completely free do as they please. All
) it takes is a group of Waldorf teachers and community members who have
) the same vision and desires. And there are people in the movement who
) understand that the Anthroposophy and Christianity actually get in the
) way of the education. All it would take would be for a few kindred souls
)
) to end up teaching together in one school, and the change would happen
) naturally and from within.
)
) And given “community development” means the community runs the show –
) and not the teachers, Anthroposophical pedagogy or the ghost of Steiner
) – you of course would be put in charge of the Playground Supervision
) Committee ;)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:18:37 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Kumon Math and Waldorf
If it's a private Waldorf school, there is no doubt at all.
Pete
jbiglow mindspring.com wrote:
)
) How can I find out if my local school is based on
) Anthroposophy or Christianity? If these issues
) are hidden within, what would I ask to learn the
) truth?
)
) )John: This is an interesting thought. Maybe a new school could be
) )founded taking the best of Waldorf without the other issues to compete
) )with Waldorf.
) )
) )What would you call it?
) )
) )*
) )
) )Well John, given Waldorf people insist Anthroposophy and Christianity
) )are not part of the Waldorf curriculum (with the exception of Lemuria of
) )course) it would be completely correct to call it ìWaldorfî. Since
) )Waldorf apparently has nothing to do with Anthroposophy and
) )Christianity, then the term ìWaldorfî obviously refers to the
) )non-denominational, non-sectarian, holistic aspects of the education and
) )curriculum, which is what I'm talking about.
) )
) )Iím quite serious about continuing to call it Waldorf. And itís not a
) )big deal really, as schools are completely free do as they please. All
) )it takes is a group of Waldorf teachers and community members who have
) )the same vision and desires. And there are people in the movement who
) )understand that the Anthroposophy and Christianity actually get in the
) )way of the education. All it would take would be for a few kindred souls
) )to end up teaching together in one school, and the change would happen
) )naturally and from within.
) )
) )And given ìcommunity developmentî means the community runs the show ñ
) )and not the teachers, Anthroposophical pedagogy or the ghost of Steiner
) )ñ you of course would be put in charge of the Playground Supervision
) )Committee ;)
) )
) )
) )==^================================================================
) )You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) )here, no matter how basic. New threads are
) )always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:19:25 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: for John- How to Talk to Children on the Playground
John mentioned off list that he couldn't find this post, and the link I gave
does seem uncooperative, so I'm going to just paste it in again:
Hi John,
)What has been hard for me is feeling shut out. I am not allowed in the
class room, and if I )try to talk to the kids at recess, the teacher tells
me it is best for the children if I do )not. That and now the reaction to
my wanting to explore Kumon more.
I hear you. That's sad. You aren't alone in these feelings. I'd like to give
you a little background, from our Waldorf days, as to what this means, the
reasons they shut you out. Maybe it will help a *little* to feel less left
out if you have some idea why they're doing this to you - it isn't personal.
(I'm going to try to make this more or less neutral, or at least not too
inflammatory, though I'm sure it's clear I don't think too much of it.)
Parents barred from the classroom, and discouraging you from talking to the
kids on the playground, have several sources. There's a big theory in
Waldorf that adults today talk to kids too much in general, and in
particular in too "intellectual" a way. They'd like to educate you on how
you *should* be talking to the kids - it's a very specific way. (But until
you figure it out, they'll just shut you out.) Your wife - I think you said
she is working there - can no doubt give you some pointers. Basically, don't
ever ask a kid anything about themselves, and don't ask a kid their opinion,
views, or feelings on anything, likes and dislikes etc. Don't say stuff
like, "What did you do today at school?" That is thought to make a child
self-conscious.
If you want to stay on safe topics, comment about their play, but only in a
sort of detached way - join in *imaginatively*, but don't address children
as *people*. So if they have built a castle with the chairs, you can say,
"Oh, does the king live in this castle?" but don't say, "So you like to
build castles?" (just an example) Always encourage the fantasy - always
respond to children as if their imaginative play were real. Another general
rule is it is always safe to comment on how things *look*. You can comment
on the colors in a child's paintings, for instance, or you can comment about
things in the environment, like, "Oh, look at the chrysanthemums, aren't
they pretty" or, "Oh, look at the blue sky in your painting." You're right
that you can't talk . . . to the kids.
(Also, never try to have a conversation with another adult, with kids
present, unless it is tailored to the kids, in the same way. Just don't do
it - she'll definitely escort you out, and I know it's really embarrassing.)
And never tell your own child it's time to go now, for instance, without
turning it into some kind of fantasy scenario. Don't just say, "Joey, you've
got to get your shoes on, 'cus you have piano lesson at four o'clock and we
need to get going." If Joey is playing with the toy horses, say, "Oh, it's
time for the horses to go to sleep. Let's put them back in the barn. Night,
night, horsie" and trot one of the horses over to the barn/toy shelf. Try it
- you'll see the teacher is suddenly beaming at you.
When you've got this stuff mastered, you'll be allowed in the classroom.
You're barred from the classroom for the same reason. They figure you'll
ruin it. Not you, personally, if that helps - but most adults who don't
"get" Waldorf. The teacher orchestrates *everything*, in every detail, and
the *worst* thing an outside can do is *comment* on it. That will ruin it.
So if she tells the class a story, and you say to the kids, "Did you like
that story?" you will be considered to be ruining the story for them. You're
kept out just to prevent you from saying this stuff. The kids are supposed
to be "living into" everything and never thinking about it at all. To the
Waldorf teacher, if you come into her classroom, especially with
kindergarteners, and *talk* to the kids or talk about what is going on in
the classoom, it would be as if, in a regular school, you walked in in the
middle of class and walked up to the front of the room and erased everything
the teacher had written on the board. (So you can see why, from that point
of view, you'd end up getting banned from the classroom!)
That's just for starters, but maybe it helps. The deeper reasons behind all
this are Steiner's seven-year cycles of childhood. Before age 7, the
"etheric body" has not yet been born and must be protected, Steiner said.
The child must be protected from "intellectualization" in particular. I can
write lots more on this but don't know what else you may want to know (or
not).
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:59:04 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
I’d still be interested in hearing some sort of explanation from Baandje
about how he managed to conclude in the first place that critics of
anthroposophical racism impute racist intentions to Steiner or other
anthroposophists. You've been asked this simple question several times,
Baandje, and haven’t responded at all. If I said that the Detroit Tigers
just lost the World Series, would you think I meant that they intended
to lose the World Series? It isn't a trick question. Cheers,
Peter S.
*
Peter, I went over this again because it simply makes no sense to me.
With all that has been discussed on the subject, and with all the
comments and concerns people have shared regarding “Steiner’s racist
theories”, which part of all that DOESN’T have to do with “critics of
anthroposophical racism imputing racist intentions to Steiner or other
anthroposophists”?
And not to appear to be a total dunce, but I don’t get the baseball
analogy/question either. The Tigers lost. That’s a fact. I don’t argue
facts. I argue opinions and viewpoints. You might say Steiner people are
racist. And I would argue they aren’t. I believe most Waldorf schools
are dysfunctional. That’s my opinion. And most Waldorf teachers would
disagree with me. What’s the issue here?
I understand how believing in Steiner’s spiritual-racial theories is a
kind of “indirect racism”… and I know I’ll be nailed for that term.
(“What does THAT mean??!! It’s Sunday, and you are out to BRUNCH!!”) But
really, what do you want from me? At least I acknowledge the issue. All
Anthropostriches do is go hide their heads in a denial hole when the
subject comes up.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:04:46 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association
Hi Peter,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) Since it looks like Emanuel's straightforward question about the
) relation
) between Steiner's early book The Philosophy of Freedom and his later
) works
) is not going to get an answer, I thought I'd try to drag something
) useful
) out of the recent Joel and Frank merry-go-round on the matter.
)
) Lots of anthroposophists are convinced that PoF is a preparation for and
) an
) early version of Steiner's mature teachings. When asked to explain that
) conviction, the only substance typically offered are things that Steiner
)
) wrote or said after 1901. This makes no sense whatever. That approach
) renders all sorts of historical figures, not just Rudolf Steiner,
) inscrutable and nonsensical.
See below. (G)
)
) I think there are two likely explanations for why the conviction is
) nevertheless so widespread among anthroposophists. One is that the vey
) notion of Steiner or any other 'Initiate' as a historical figure is an
) affront to basic assumptions central to esoteric worldviews,
) anthroposophical and otherwise. To look at Steiner as a person whose
) ideas
) changed over time is, from that perspective, simply a meaningless way to
)
) view the matter.
Indeed.
...But see below. :)
)
) The second possible reason is that many anthroposophists find out about
) Steiner's biography and his cultural context solely through their own
) immersion in anthroposophy, and see all related discussions through that
)
) particular lens. In some ways this is an especially revealing instance
) of a
) broader phenomenon, namely the inclination to view historical situations
) and
) historical actors backwards from the point of view of their more recent
) versions.
Maybe because Steiner tends to be viewed by avid occult readers of his
books as a wisdom teacher, over and above that of a thinker proffering
an argument/s.
But see below.
)
) For example, many people think of Ronald Reagan, reasonably enough, as a
)
) conservative Republican, based on his two terms as President of the
) United
) States and perhaps on his earlier stint as governor of California. On
) that
) basis, it might be tempting to think that Reagan was always a
) conservative
) or always a Republican throughout his adult life. In fact, Reagan was a
) Democrat for years before he became politically prominent. This comes as
) a
) surprise to people who don't know much about his earlier career, just as
)
) Steiner's pre-1900 philosophical and political commitments come as a
) surprise to many anthroposophists who don't know much about those early
) phases of Steiner's life and who have garnered most of what they do know
)
) from anthroposophist sources.
Indeed, but keep scrolling down for the good bits.
)
) All in all, this sort of approach to the complex question of how the
) early
) Steiner relates to the later Steiner amounts to a version of the
) guilt-by-association argument that so many would-be defenders of Steiner
) are
) remarkably eager to attribute to non-anthroposophists. In this case,
) however, the basic logical flaw isn't guilt by association, it is
) anthroposophy by association: because Rudolf Steiner was an
) anthroposophist
) after 1900, he must have been one before then; the ostensible connection
)
) between the two depends solely on the personal identity of Steiner, not
) on
) any concrete contents of his earlier publications or activities, much
) less
) on the specific contexts within which those publications and activities
) arose.
Well, it seems that Steiner had a different view of the progress of his
thinking, as presented in his autiobiography on events at the turn of
the 19th-20th turn of the century:
"The decision to give public expression to the esoteric from my own
inner experience impelled me to write for the Magazine for August 28,
1899, on the occasion of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of
Goethe's birth, an article on Goethe's fairy-tale of The Green Snake and
the Beautiful Lily, under the title Goethes Geheime Offenbarung(1). This
article was, of course, only slightly esoteric. But I could not expect
more of my public than I there gave. In my own mind the content of the
fairy-tale lived as something wholly esoteric, and it was out of an
esoteric mood that the article was written.
Since the 'eighties I had been occupied with imaginations which were
associated in my thought with this fairy-tale. I saw set forth in the
fairy-tale Goethe's way from the observation of external nature into the
interior of the human mind as he placed this before himself, not in
concepts, but in pictures of the spirit. Concepts seemed to Goethe far
too poor, too dead, to be capable of representing the living and working
forces of the mind.
Now in Schiller's letters concerning education in aesthetics, Goethe saw
an endeavour to grasp this living and working by means of concepts.
Schiller sought to show how the life of man is under subjection to
natural necessity by reason of his corporeal aspect and to mental
necessity through his reason. And he thought the soul must establish an
inner equilibrium between the two. Then in this equilibrium man lives in
freedom a life really worthy of humanity.
This is clever, but for the real life of the soul it is far too simple.
The soul causes its forces, which are rooted in the depths, to shine
into consciousness, but to disappear again in the very act of shining
forth after they have influenced other forces just as fleeting. These
are occurrences which even in arising also pass away; but abstract
concepts can be linked only to that which continues for a longer or
shorter time. All this Goethe knew through experience; he placed his
picture-knowledge in a fairy-tale over against Schiller's conceptual
knowledge. In experiencing this creation of Goethe's, one had entered
the outer court of the esoteric.
This was the time when I was invited by Count and Countess Brockdorff to
deliver a lecture at one of their weekly gatherings. At these meetings
there came together seekers from all sorts of circles. The lectures
there delivered had to do with all aspects of life and knowledge. I knew
nothing of all this until I was invited to deliver a lecture; nor did I
know the Brockdorffs, but heard of them then for the first time. The
theme proposed was an article about Nietzsche. This lecture I gave. Then
I observed that among the hearers there were persons with a great
interest in the spiritual world. Therefore, when I was invited to give a
second lecture, I proposed the subject “Goethe's Secret Revelation,” and
in this lecture I became entirely esoteric in relation to the
fairy-tale. It was an important experience for me to be able to speak in
words coined from the world of spirit after having been forced by
circumstances throughout my Berlin period up to that time only to let
the spiritual shine through my presentation.
The Brockdorffs were leaders of a branch of the Theosophical Society
founded by Blavatsky. What I had said in connection with Goethe's
fairy-tale led to my being invited by the Brockdorffs to deliver
lectures regularly before those members of the Theosophical Society who
were associated with them. I explained, however, that I could speak only
about that which I vitally experienced within me as spiritual knowledge.
In truth, I could speak of nothing else. For very little of the
literature issued by the Theosophical Society was known to me. I had
known theosophists while living in Vienna, and I later became acquainted
with others. These acquaintance ships led me to write in the Magazine
the adverse review dealing with the theosophists in connection with the
appearance of a publication of Franz Hartmann. What I knew otherwise of
the literature was for the most part entirely uncongenial to me in
method and approach; I could not by any possibility have linked my
discussions with this literature.
So I then gave the lectures in which I established a connection with the
mysticism of the Middle Ages. By means of the ideas of the mystics from
Master Eckhard to Jakob Böhme, I found expression for the spiritual
conceptions which in reality I had determined beforehand to set forth. I
published the series of lectures in the book Die Mystik im Aufgange des
neuzeitlichen Geisteslebens(2). At these lectures there appeared one day
in the audience Marie von Sievers, who was chosen by destiny at that
time to take into strong hands the German section of the Theosophical
Society, founded soon after the beginning of my lecturing. Within this
section I was then able to develop my anthroposophic activity before a
constantly increasing audience.
No one was left in uncertainty of the fact that I would bring forward in
the Theosophical Society only the results of my own research through
perception. For I stated this on all appropriate occasions. When, in the
presence of Annie Besant, the German section of the Theosophical Society
was founded in Berlin and I was chosen its General Secretary, I had to
leave the foundation sessions because I had to give before a
non-theosophical audience one of the lectures in which I dealt with the
spiritual evolution of humanity, and to the title of which I expressly
united the phrase “Eine Anthroposophie.”(3) Annie Besant also knew that
I was then giving out in lectures under this title what I had to say
about the spiritual world.
When I went to London to attend a theosophical congress, one of the
leading personalities said to me that true theosophy was to be found in
my book Mysticism ..., I had reason to be satisfied. For I had given
only the results of my spiritual vision, and this was accepted in the
Theosophical Society.
There was now no longer any reason why I should not bring forward this
spiritual knowledge in my own way before the theosophical public, which
was at first the only audience that entered without restriction into a
knowledge of the spirit. I subscribed to no sectarian dogmatics; I
remained a man who uttered what he believed he was able to utter
entirely according to what he himself experienced in the spiritual
world. Prior to the founding of the section belongs a series of lectures
– which I gave before Die Kommenden, entitled Von Buddha zu Christus(4).
In these discussions I sought to show what a mighty stride the mystery
of Golgotha signifies in comparison with the Buddha event, and how the
evolution of humanity, as it strives toward the Christ event, approaches
its culmination. In this circle I spoke also of the na