There are 16 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1.1. Re: Homework    
    From: Margaret Sachs
1.2. Re: Homework    
    From: ensemble451705
1.3. Re: Homework    
    From: Brad Martin
1.4. Re: Homework    
    From: winters_diana
1.5. Re: Homework    
    From: winters_diana
1.6. Homework for Brad    
    From: Peter Staudenmaier
1.7. Re: Homework    
    From: Walden

2a. Best American Nonrequired Reading 2007    
    From: winters_diana
2b. Re: Best American Nonrequired Reading 2007    
    From: winters_diana
2c. Re: Best American Nonrequired Reading 2007    
    From: Margaret Sachs
2d. Re: Best American Nonrequired Reading 2007    
    From: winters_diana

3a. Re: Paltering Peter    
    From: Peter Staudenmaier
3b. Re: Paltering Peter    
    From: winters_diana

4a. bias in history    
    From: Peter Staudenmaier
4b. Re: bias in history    
    From: winters_diana

5a. Re: Who Speaks Truth?    
    From: Roger Rawlings


Messages
________________________________________________________________________

1.1. Re: Homework
    Posted by: "Margaret Sachs" powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com powerofjoy2004
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 1:23 am ((PDT))


Sorry!  When I posted this I took it from Diana's
response to Walden and forgot to remove Diana's name
and put "Walden wrote" at the top.

Margaret


--- Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com) wrote:

) 
) --- winters_diana (diana.winters verizon.net) wrote:
) 
) ) )I wonder if there have been court challenges to
) ) such a 
) ) )discriminatory policy? But lawyers don't come
) ) cheap, do they? And 
) ) )do homeschooled kids pay higher insurance rates 
) 
) All the homeschooled kids I know of are signed up
) with
) private homeschool services that serve as their
) school
) of record.  Mine were.  For a reasonable fee these
) services require regular written reports on dates
) and
) hours studied, material studied, academic
) assessments
) and... grades.  In return, the service provides
) curriculum guides, textbook recommendations, teacher
) ID for the homeschool teachers so that they can get
) teachers' discounts at bookstores, graduation
) diplomas, transcripts for college application
) purposes, and other services such as proof of grades
) to auto insurance companies.
) 
) In Los Angeles the public school system provides,
) free
) of charge, a taxpayer funded, independent studies
) program, which is basically a homeschooling program.
) 
) Students meet individually with a school district
) teacher once a week to go over the previous week's
) assignments and to get the following week's
) assignments.  This program was originally set up for
) students in special need, such as juveniles in gangs
) who might be in danger because they have testified
) or
) are going to testify in criminal trials of other
) gang
) members and teenagers in an advanced state of
) pregnancy, but it's not limited to people in such
) drastic situations. As far as I know, the program is
) pretty much open to anyone.  I know someone who had
) her teenage daughters in it because she felt there
) were too many badly behaved kids in the public
) schools. Both girls graduated and at least one of
) them
) subsequently graduated college. This program also
) provides grades, if needed, for insurance discounts.
) 
) Margaret
) 
) 
)      
)
____________________________________________________________________________________
) Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. 
) Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
)
http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
) 
) 
) 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/ 



Messages in this topic (77)
________________________________________________________________________

1.2. Re: Homework
    Posted by: "ensemble451705" davy.bd btinternet.com ensemble451705
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 1:37 am ((PDT))

--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, "Roger Rawlings" 
(downfromfog ...) wrote:
)
) --- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, "ensemble451705" 
(davy.bd ) wrote:
) ) 
 
) Help yourself to whatever you find useful.

Thank you.
) 
) I think the problem of "now-ness" may be especially acute in the 
USA, where we have little 
) sense of history. "Old" does not mean "venerable" or "our 
heritage" to us. It generally 
) means obsolete: tear it down.

And thanks again for this, it has helped enormously toward getting 
my head round the apparent disinterest in the attempted (Germanic)
hegemony of some of Steiner's stuff from outside Europe. *Now* I 
think I have a much better take on claims of Anthroposophy 
being 'Eurocentric'.
Since you posted this, I have passed the remnants of Edinburgh's 
city walls a couple of times. For the first time, I now see the 
mataphor (wee smile) and allegory of those remnants.
Anticipating accusations of being reactionary, I might add that the 
city does now extend far beyond the confines of those early modern 
walls: apply notions of metaphor and allegory to that as you will.
(How's that for Eurocentricity?)(g)   
) 
) In the case of Anthroposophy and Waldorf, I think very little has 
changed. It can't, really, if 
) these movements remain true to Steiner. 

Just kind of thinking out loud here, but I have to say that the 
Anthro care centre I was involved with does seem to have moved a 
bit. In my time there (seven years), it lurched from the late 1940s 
to somewhere around the late to mid 1980s. I *believe* the winning 
faction did make some serious attempts to face up to the conflicts 
that can arise between what Steiner said *then* and what 
Anthroposophy needs to provide now. 
Hell, they even stopped pretending that they didn't have t.v. in 
their accommodation!
This, of course is from a viewpoint of being involved, but not 
initiated. I don't know who the blue card holders were/are.
Does anthro-fundamentalism still occur surreptitiously from the 
oligarchs? I don't know. I'd like to think not, but I wouldn't bet 
my shirt one way or the other.
Davy





Messages in this topic (77)
________________________________________________________________________

1.3. Re: Homework
    Posted by: "Brad Martin" bradmartin sbcglobal.net bradm2254
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:41 am ((PDT))


) Does anthro-fundamentalism still occur surreptitiously from the 
) oligarchs? I don't know. I'd like to think not, but I wouldn't bet 
) my shirt one way or the other.
) Davy

There are a number of folks in the Waldorf world taking the words of 
Steiner literally, ie, "anthro-fundamentalism". The 'Steiner says.' 
On the other side of the fence, the Waldorf Critic Activists are 
doing their own 'Steiner says', focusing on the words, not the 
essence. 

The essence is the process of mind toward the human potential, in 
this case as applied to the field of education for young people. This 
human process of essence has gone by various names, such as the 
Perennial Philosophy AKA Philosophical Anthropology AKA Theosophy AKA 
Anthroposophy AKA Transpersonal Psychology AKA Consciousness Studies 
AKA the emerging academic field of Esoteric Studies AKA the emerging 
academic field of Consciousness Studies AKA the emerging scientific 
field of Second Order Cybernetics.

This is the 'dangling thread' the Waldorf Critic Activists have been 
leaving that has become exceedingly long lo these years. 

The image comes to mind of two groups of kids in the playground, 
hurling mud over the fence at each other. One side is the Anthro-
Fundamentalists, the other side is the Waldorf Critic 
Fundamentalists. Both slinging 'Steiner says' at each other. 

The WC Fundamentalists, and the anthro-fundamentalists could learn 
from Maria Montessori. Take the essence and leave the rest. Theo? 
Anthropo? Two peas in the same pod. 

Words are not IT. The theory is fine. The application of the theory 
is the problem. As well as the considerable training and staffing 
problems within Waldorf. 

Brad






Messages in this topic (77)
________________________________________________________________________

1.4. Re: Homework
    Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:59 am ((PDT))

Brad:

)There are a number of folks in the Waldorf world taking the words 
)of Steiner literally, ie, "anthro-fundamentalism". The 'Steiner 
)says.' On the other side of the fence, the Waldorf Critic Activists 
)are doing their own 'Steiner says', focusing on the words, not the 
)essence. 

Brad - *that's* the criticism. Get it? The fact that many Steiner 
folks take it literally - and apply it literally to children. 
The "WC activists" don't "take it literally." We are *criticizing* 
the people who take it literally.

It's so funny that you can't see this situation, concerned as you 
are with taking things literally!

Of course there's also the problem that once it is not meant 
literally, what is left? You tell us:

)The essence is the process of mind toward the human potential, in 
)this case as applied to the field of education for young people. 


Brad, be serious with yourself for a few short moments. Who could 
argue with a notion like "apply the essence of the process of mind 
toward human potential"? It is vague and doesn't mean anything. Who 
can be opposed to human potential? No "WC activist" has a problem 
with anyone applying process of mind to anything. The question is 
always going to be what does this look like in practice. What does 
the teacher do and say with the children? And it's from there that 
specific criticisms arise. Isn't this obvious? If you keep arguing 
only meaningless points, does it surprise you that "WC activists" 
similarly reply "Well duh fine yeah." So then the merry-go-round 
continues with you feeling that critics "don't get it."

)The image comes to mind of two groups of kids in the playground, 
)hurling mud over the fence at each other. One side is the Anthro-
)Fundamentalists, the other side is the Waldorf Critic 
)Fundamentalists. Both slinging 'Steiner says' at each other. 


This particular situation arises because so many anthroposophists - 
at least the ones willing to try to defend the doctrine on public 
mailing lists - seem either to not actually know what Steiner said, 
or are deliberately trying to obfuscate the ugly parts.

Do you agree, for instance, that notions such as some races being 
more advanced than others, individuals incarnating in different 
races according to their personal level of spiritual development, 
are part of "Perennial Philosophy" or "Second Order Cybernetics"? Or 
course they're not - you can't believe that's true if you've studied 
these doctrines. (Which is why critics become suspicious that you 
haven't - that you're simply in love with a few pretty phrases, and 
some vague notion like All Truth Is One.) And since it is NOT TRUE 
that the content of all these doctrines is identical, critics go on 
trying to point this out to you. It MAKES A DIFFERENCE what the 
doctrines really say because they are applied in the classroom.

And since these were OUR CHILDREN, we became concerned to learn what 
the specific content being applied to them was. Real world Brad - it 
means a lot more to someone whose child sat in the front row 
being "spiritually guided" by a Steiner zealot, versus someone like 
you whose only interest in it is pontificating in an "adult 
education" classroom how groovy Process of Mind is.

If I recall, on the occasions you've expressed fleeting interest in 
how these doctrines are applied, it quickly became difficult for you 
to sustain the conversation. You were enraptured with the Waldorf 
gnomes, yet when I asked you to ask your niece what *she* thought of 
the gnomes - after all wasn't she the one who actually had to put up 
with the gnomes in school? Her - not you - you never bothered to 
follow up. 
Diana




Messages in this topic (77)
________________________________________________________________________

1.5. Re: Homework
    Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:52 am ((PDT))

Walden:

)Actually, I suppose it could be related if for no other reason than 
)there *is* a misconception that Waldorf education is linked to 
)Democratic education. I won't reply to all of what you wrote, 
)Diana - and you make some good points - as we clearly come from 
)different places. And that's OK. 

I agree. You know I admire your parenting not to mention your 
activism. 

I do think it's relevant to Waldorf because parents of young 
children are often struggling with all these issues, and unsure of 
what they're looking for a school - how structured should it be, how
much emphasis on academics, how do teachers and parents wield 
authority - a little, a lot, none at all, what does "freedom" 
or "choice" look like for young children etc.?

Walden wrote:

)Are you suggesting that if children have a choice to read and
)write -or not, they will choose not do so?

Diana replied:
)Of course I'm suggesting that some will choose not to do so. This
)isn't controversial, Walden, this is reality.

)There are indeed children who don't choose to do so, and this is 
)going to create a problem for them later in life in our society. 
)Basic literacy is necessary to function in our society 
successfully. (snip)

Walden:

)I think you're missing my point here.When children feel safe, 
)confident and happy in life, reading, writing and even math can 
)easily become part of that life. Often it is the institutional 
)coercion/frustration that creates the opposition to academics. THAT 
)is what is often frustrating for children, parents and teachers.

And if you recall, I agreed with you at the beginning of the thread 
that institutional coercion/frustration is real, and that homework 
can be stupid and cruel.

I think the point we don't agree on is that therefore simply 
deciding children don't have to do it solves these problems. 
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


I wrote:

)Many have problems that can indeed be remedied. But even for those
)who really just don't feel like it, and will never be inclined to
)even pick up a newspaper in adult life, they need to do it anyway.
)There are almost no jobs above subsistence level that require no
)reading and writing, 

W:

)See - you really have missed my point. I am NOT arguing in favour 
)of illiterate human beings. I don't think I have expressed such a 
)goofy thing - ever.

No, I know you didn't ö the point I was arguing was that if you look 
at any child's problems learning or resisting learning through this 
power and hierarchy lens, you will miss some of the real problems, 
and some of these missed problems will become the illiterate adults 
we were speaking of.

Walden:
)My experience with many kids is that their own personal interests
)often involve reading, writing and even . . . math. For some
)reason, many people tend to separate those "basic skills" from
)other areas of life as if we just need to get those kids through
)those skills and the bulk of their educational needs will be met.
)No pain - no gain. It really does not need to be such a struggle.
)Really.

Diana replied:
)Nonsense - there are quite a few children for whom it is an enormous
)struggle, and it doesn't come from their desire to "resist" power
)and oppression, it comes from as I wrote above a variety of failures
)on the part of teachers, family, schools etc. It comes from
)ignorance of how to address some of these problems, our society's
)failure to commit to solving these problems, lack of $$$$ to address
)problems, lack of time, lack of training, large class sizes, etc.
)The remedy is to address these failures that result in so many kids
)struggling - not decide that we just won't make them do it, problem
)solved.

Walden:

)Well, this makes no sense to me. You start with "nonsense" and then 
)go on to argue my point!

I did? Well, then maybe we agree on some of these problems after 
all. Now please don't just chuckle and shake your head sadly "No."

)Yes - the "struggle" DOES often come from the "failures on the part 
)of teachers, family, schools etc."
)Exactly.

I think maybe we disagree on what some those failures might be, 
though I'm sure we agree on others. It sometimes sounds to me like 
you think the only real failure is that the system has hierarchies 
and rules and requirements in it, that teachers can require students 
to complete assignments etc. I don't agree this is the 
quintessential failing in our schools, the sole problem to be 
remedied and then no children would fail or be unhappy.

the "resisting" child:

)Agreed. And dealing with that problem might actually involve 
)looking at the very nature of the model and institution.

I'm very open to and interested in looking at the nature of the 
model and institution, and it clearly needs some serious overhauling.

I wrote:

)"Resisting" reading and writing is not some kind of political 
)statement.

Walden:

)You started with that word - I find it remarkably appropriate. 
)Again - you seem to be missing my point. Why *would* a person 
)choose to resist reading and writing?

I gave a long list of possibilities, everything from needing glasses 
to family problems to boredom to dyslexia. The idea that all these 
children are resisting an oppressive hierarchy at school is 
oversimplified.

)Because something else is going on which has very little to do with 
)reading and writing. In my experience with Waldorf, conventional 
)schools and democratic type schools I can honestly tell you that I 
)know of NO child who just plain resists reading
)and writing. 

Well, just to play devils advocate, has it occurred to you that 
parents of children who are already identified as having learning 
difficulties probably don't choose your school? It's possible those 
who realize the services or environment their child needs aren't 
there, self-select out of your school. You may view it that these 
people are simply intent on oppressing their children, who would 
thrive if only their misguided parents would send them to your 
school. I'm skeptical.

)What I have seen are plenty of children who resist being told what
)to do for many hours each day. I know many children who resent 
)being bullied - on the playground or in the classroom. Their 
)natural joy of learning is often squished by well intentioned 
)adults, some of whom do not even believe in what they are doing - 
)just look at the current battle (resistance!) coming from teacher 
)organizations with regards to standardized testing of children and 
)curriculum delivery. Look at how many teachers, after earning their 
)degrees, quit after a few years on the job. This is all part of 
)your "failures" bit (above). 

Yes, I agree. I've also said I disagree very much with regimentation 
and there's plenty of it in most schools. I'll never get old enough 
to forget how much I hated that crap in school myself.

)Pressure from above (ostensibly democratic governments) filters all 
)the way down to the bottom of the pile - the children. And they 
)feel it because they are living it daily. We (society) do not need 
)this top down approach to education in order to afford everyone to 
)opportunity to read, write and be part of society. You want more 
)people to read and write? Deal with those systemic problems and 
)stop buying into it with the reward-punishment system with kids.
)"Better do this or you can't do that - because I say so." Etc. Yuck.

I've also often agreed with you that I dislike reward-punishment 
systems. I started this thread saying it's one of the things I don't 
like about letter grades, they encourage children to focus 
on "scoring," ususally at the expense of others, and why I prefer 
that assessments are more substantive regarding what the child has 
learned or not learned, rather than scores, grades, stickers, stars, 
prizes, point systems, candy etc.

The focus should be on the material. When grades and tests are 
overemphasized, people are focusing on How can I get an A instead of 
B? Why did she get an A and I got a B? It sounds to me like at your 
school, people get overfocused on the "process" and analyzing their 
rights all day long. This doesn't sound healthy to me either. 

There is an inherent value in much of what children are taught in 
school and its value does not derive only from whether the child is 
interested in it at the moment. I would like to direct everyone's 
attention in such a debate back to the material - the story the 
class is reading, practice in identifying what is a noun and what is 
a verb, the study of geometric shapes in math, the history of China -
 whatever it is. Stop everyone obsessing about what grade they got, 
*and* stop obsessing about whether they have a "right" not to be 
bothered with the history of China. 

)Again - children will not simply resist reading and writing - 
)the "resistance" is about something else. Deeper. 

I agree, but I'm not sure you credit at all that anybody has any 
problem that can't be reduced to being oppressed by the system. 
Sometimes the "deeper" something is simply, for instance, needing 
glasses.

)And by the way - what is wrong with bussing tables?! You assume the 
)person is too stooopid to do something more "valuable" with her/his 
)time? 

Whoa, of course I didn't say a person bussing tables is stupid!  
I've said clearly that the person who doesn't learn to read and 
write was in most cases ill served by the school and the teachers, 
who failed to identify whatever was causing the problem reading and 
writing. Difficulties reading and writing don't have a correlation 
to intelligence. I have helped adults with reading who couldn't read 
a word yet who were clearly more intelligent and capable than me in 
many ways.

)She tells of two boys from similar backgrounds at her little 
)democratic school - roughly the same age but with different 
)interests. Long story short: One now teaches at Harvard and
)the other volunteers mega hours for an environmental group while 
)making money working as a janitor (is that worse than bussing 
)tables . . . ?) Bottom line - they both read and write and are both 
)very happy.

As I've said, I want children to have choices. The person who 
chooses a menial job because they want to put their time and energy 
into unpaid causes or voluntary activities is making a choice. 
That's a totally different scenario from someone who busses tables 
because they don't have the skills to qualify for a better job. I 
don't think we should romanticize menial labor ö it is really not 
any fun, and usually will not pay the bills, especially for a family.


)Hey - "resist" was your word - and it fits.

I said that my own child had put up resistance to homework plenty of 
times. I said that I had often agreed that certain projects were 
stupid, and that I encouraged resistance to them.

Diana wrote:
)I consider intense academics a positive thing - a desirable thing - 
)for some a very enjoyable thing.

)Great - we agree.

Okay, if you say so. You first said I should get him out of the 
intense academic environment. 

about the choice to play sports, you wrote:

)I completely disagree with this approach.
)Completely.

I know. Fortunately we don't have any children together :) FWIW, my 
husband will probably take his part if it comes to that, not so much 
from agreeing with you philosophically on this point as sharing the 
passion for sports.

)Our values are certainly not mutually exclusive. Assuming a child 
)will not work hard - in academics or elsewhere - is just plain 
)wrong. I value profound respect between people - from the guy 
)bussing tables to the Harvard prof to the illiterate village elder 
)to the curious child.

I can't disagree with that. I just don't think things like homework, 
grades, and tests are inherently disrespectful.

Diana





Messages in this topic (77)
________________________________________________________________________

1.6. Homework for Brad
    Posted by: "Peter Staudenmaier" pstaud hotmail.com pstauden
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:11 pm ((PDT))



Hi Brad,


) There are a number of folks in the Waldorf world taking the words of
) Steiner literally, ie, "anthro-fundamentalism".


That isn't fundamentalism. It's simply one of several reading methods, one that anthro-reformists rely on just as much as anthro-fundamentalists do. (And for what it's worth, I understood Davy's post to be making a different point about anthro-fundamentalism in the first place.)


)The 'Steiner says.'


That isn't fundamentalism either, and for that matter, it isn't even an instance of literal reading. It's just reading, period. Before you can decide whether to take Steiner's writings literally or metaphorically, before you can decide whether to take a fundamentalist or a pragmatic approach to Steiner's writings, you have to read Steiner's writings. Unless you know what Steiner said, you can't have any idea whether to take it literally, figuratively, fundamentally, or any other way.


) On the other side of the fence, the Waldorf Critic Activists are
) doing their own 'Steiner says', focusing on the words, not the
) essence.


Until you read Steiner, you won't have the faintest idea what "the essence" is, will you?


) The essence is the process of mind toward the human potential


No, that isn't the essence of Steiner's work. You could find this out for yourself by simply reading some Steiner.


) This
) human process of essence has gone by various names, such as the
) Perennial Philosophy AKA Philosophical Anthropology AKA Theosophy AKA
) Anthroposophy AKA Transpersonal Psychology AKA Consciousness Studies
) AKA the emerging academic field of Esoteric Studies AKA the emerging
) academic field of Consciousness Studies AKA the emerging scientific
) field of Second Order Cybernetics.


Just to choose one obvious example, cybernetics plays no role whatsoever in Steiner's work. Moreover, the emerging academic field of esoteric studies is obviously not the same thing as its object of study, such as theosophy and anthroposophy, any more than the academic field of German cultural studies is the same thing as German culture itself. It is difficult to see how that might be confusing in any way, and it seems to me that it ought to be immediately evident after roughly two seconds of reflection, but in case it isn't, consider your own preposterously broad claim above, about how all those diverse strands are really just the same thing. In the emerging academic field of esoteric studies, such claims have no place, indeed they are sometimes held up as classic examples of anachronism, naivete, and ahistorical thinking. You could determine this for yourself by consulting anyone else who works in the field. You might also like to check out the field's journal some time, Aries: Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism. You will quickly find that all those phenomena that you take to be identical are in fact quite distinct.


) The image comes to mind of two groups of kids in the playground,
) hurling mud over the fence at each other.


This is a common impression among those unused to public argument.


) One side is the Anthro-
) Fundamentalists, the other side is the Waldorf Critic
) Fundamentalists. Both slinging 'Steiner says' at each other.


You mean they actually cite evidence for their claims? Why, how utterly outlandish.


) Theo?
) Anthropo? Two peas in the same pod.


Yes, anthroposophy is an offshoot of theosophy. It is not an offshoot of transpersonal psychology.


) The theory is fine.


Which parts of the theory? Once you figure that out, let us know. Looking forward to discussing these topics with you one day,


Peter S.






_________________________________________________________________
Explore the seven wonders of the world
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE

Messages in this topic (77)
________________________________________________________________________

1.7. Re: Homework
    Posted by: "Walden" awaldenpond shaw.ca awaldenpond
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:15 pm ((PDT))

I think this is fading out but before the gate slowly closes (or Dan cans it)  . . . .

Diana wrote:
)I think the point we don't agree on is that therefore simply 
)deciding children don't have to do it solves these problems. 
)Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Again - I just do not believe that given the opportunity to read and become part of a community that *does* read, a person will *choose* not to read.
If there is a problem with reading, then absolutely - a child should have help with reading. The "resistance" to reading might very well not be only related to
a feeling of disempowerment in the hierarchical world of education. The process by which the problem appears, however, is what I think of as being very important. And *that* is where the child/person can really feel empowered . . . to accept help in reading. Self motivation. That's where real learning happens and it almost always requires learning something from someone somewhere along the line. Gotta want it.


Walden:
)My experience with many kids is that their own personal interests
)often involve reading, writing and even . . . math. For some
)reason, many people tend to separate those "basic skills" from
)other areas of life as if we just need to get those kids through
)those skills and the bulk of their educational needs will be met.
)No pain - no gain. It really does not need to be such a struggle.
)Really.

Diana wrote:
)I think maybe we disagree on what some those failures might be, 
)though I'm sure we agree on others. It sometimes sounds to me like 
)you think the only real failure is that the system has hierarchies 
)and rules and requirements in it, that teachers can require students 
)to complete assignments etc. 

Nope - that's not what I think. Just ask the kids on my football team! As head coach of a large group of teenage boys, I make it LOUD and clear that the hierarchical buck stops with yours truly. You want to play QB and be the star player? Prove it. Study your playbook inside out and work your butt off before, during and after practise. Prove to *yourself* and to your team-mates and to me that you want to play a certain position on the team and you might get a shot. You gotta want it. We have many, many rules - kids don't listen and they run laps. Kids go offside during practise and they do push-ups. Kids miss an assignment during a game and they explain their mistake to their team-mates (and coaches) at the start of the next practise. Game film does not lie. Here's the point: The kids buy into this system - they love it and they have lots of FUN, too. Being undefeated helps but *that* comes from their passion and excellent work ethic. So, when the football player or the student in school *chooses* to play football or learn physics or read a book, the learning *will* happen at a remarkable rate. 

)I'm very open to and interested in looking at the nature of the 
)model and institution, and it clearly needs some serious overhauling.

All is not lost (g)

)Well, just to play devils advocate, has it occurred to you that 
)parents of children who are already identified as having learning 
)difficulties probably don't choose your school? It's possible those 
)who realize the services or environment their child needs aren't 
)there, self-select out of your school. 

Honestly, Diana this opposite to what often happens. It's a public school and often when kids are having problems elsewhere, they arrive 
at our democratic school. Sometimes the problems are not that the young person cannot read or write. It can be a school of last resort for some families. Not unlike Waldorf where parents do not always send their kids for the Anthroposophy, some democratic schools have kids whose families are not really interested in this particular educational philosophy ( but at least our schools are honest with what happens inside).  And that's not necessarily a bad thing - makes for some interesting and heated discussions at meetings. Sometimes the school becomes the community certain kids really need when things are not super kewl at home. Needless to say the "teachers" are very dedicated people. They are self motivated and . . . happy. 

)Yes, I agree. I've also said I disagree very much with regimentation 
)and there's plenty of it in most schools. I'll never get old enough 
)to forget how much I hated that crap in school myself.

Unless the entire school community is interested in exploring regimentation. Don't be so quick to call it crap (g)

)I've also often agreed with you that I dislike reward-punishment systems. 

Cross country team. I think the word was "threatened." Literally. Just sayin . . . .

)The focus should be on the material. When grades and tests are 
)overemphasized, people are focusing on How can I get an A instead of 
)B? Why did she get an A and I got a B? It sounds to me like at your 
)school, people get overfocused on the "process" and analyzing their 
)rights all day long. This doesn't sound healthy to me either. 

lol. Wrong. Come and visit.

)I said that my own child had put up resistance to homework plenty of 
)times. I said that I had often agreed that certain projects were 
)stupid, and that I encouraged resistance to them.

Yes! Join us, live long and prosper. We even have evening study groups for parents . . . (g)

You first said I should get him out of the intense academic environment. 

Hold on.  I'm interested in helping to enable kids to be involved in *their* education. If they are interested in intense academics - great. Btw, at the large conventional schools these days, the counsellors are starting to tell parents of senior high kids to consider laying off the pressure for intense academics. They cite studies, university requirements, etc. and encourage kids and parents to look at all options - travel, collage, work, trades . . . . The world is your oyster . . . .

)I know. Fortunately we don't have any children together :) FWIW, my 
)husband will probably take his part if it comes to that, not so much 
)from agreeing with you philosophically on this point as sharing the 
)passion for sports.

With respect - perhaps sharing your son's passion for sports is also very important to consider in this decision.

)I can't disagree with that. I just don't think things like homework, grades, and tests are inherently disrespectful.

Neither do I - when those involved understand and agree with the exercise - but I'm sounding like a broken record now . . . .

-Walden



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Messages in this topic (77)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

2a. Best American Nonrequired Reading 2007
    Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:27 am ((PDT))

I picked this up recently and was startled to see the introduction 
entitled "How I Trumped Rudolf Steiner and Overcame the Tribulations 
of Illiteracy, One Snickers Bar at a Time."

The author is Sufjan Stevens, a musician and songwriter whom I had not 
heard of but who apparently attended the Detroit Waldorf School. His 
memories of Waldorf are very amusing. I fear that in Brad's terms he 
did not grok anthroposophy, but he provides a straight-forward report 
on the instructional milieu.

Here are some snippets to give you the gist:

" . . .I'd like to reveal a dirty secret: I didn't learn to read until 
third grade. As an elementary school kid at the Detroit Waldorf 
School, I was encouraged to learn at my own pace. For the uninformed, 
let me tell you a little about Rudolf Steiner, the founder of the 
Waldorf system. An Austrian philosopher, writer, and social theorist, 
Steiner developed an educational system that was holistic, 
noncompetitive, and emotionally balanced, emphasizing social health, 
artistic expression, and pluralism in the classroom. In practice, this 
meant there were no textbooks, workbooks, reader's guides, or learning 
manuals - only paint, clay, knitting needles, and sheep's wool. I 
don't recall a library or a science lab in our school . . The 
classrooms were decorated with satin drapes and paper lanterns. There 
were no parallel walls or right angles . . .

"There were no vocabulary exercises or math quizzes. The syllabus was 
hand drawn on the chalkboard, oil pastels in Renaissance colors 
simulating the seasons, sweeping rainbow illustrations of unicorns and 
magic owls . . . the school did everything to blur all lines between 
fact and imagination . . .

"For some, the disregard for standards was galvanizing. My peers took 
up the violin, sopke French, learned botany . . . painting, weaving, 
and the classical guitar. But I was a slow learner . . . easily 
distracted, unmotivated, listless, prone to daydreaming. I spent much 
of my time huddled by the radiator, keeping my beeswax warm, humming 
the theme to Star Search. The classroom's lack of parallel surfaces 
coddled me in a fluid womb of sleep and thumb-sucking . . . I lived in 
a world of fantasy and make-believe . . .

"Years went by - preschool, kindergarten, first grade, second grade - 
the dreamy sweep of a Steiner childhood. I was shuffled from 
calligraphy class to recorder lessons to eurythmy . . . I would learn 
to read and write by the powers of the Maypole, the winter solstice, 
the constellations, and Orion's enchanted belt. Waldorf teachers were 
less concerned with literacy and standardized testing . . . than with 
watercolor pencils and cotton balls . . . the passing of the seasons, 
Baroque music, folk songs, and Nordic mythology . . . cultivating joy, 
encouraging artistry and a lifetime of learning.

"Truth be told, I wasn't learning anything. I rode the absent-minded 
wave for four nebulous years . . . by the time I finished second 
grade, it was clear something was wrong. I still couldn't read or 
write. I had no friends. I had no ambitions . . .

"That summer I went to live with my father . . . my father apologized 
for everything - for Waldorf, for watercolor pencils, for recorder 
lessons, for est training, for past-lives seances, for macrobiotics, 
for pot-smoking, for the ridiculous, holistic trial and error called 
parenting . . . 'It's time you became a man,' he told me. 'It's time 
you learned to read.'

"So in the beginning of third grade, I was transferred to a public 
school, a cinderblock prison camp with metal lockers and industrial 
carpeting and fluorescent lights . . . Right angles abounded. Maps of 
the USSR. Protractors. Carbon copies. Vending machines. The sterile 
metal surfces of the modern age. Computers, textbooks, worksheets, 
MEAP, SAT, PTA, all the formidable abbreviations of public 
schooling . . .

"The other children - raised on hot dogs and homogenized milk . . . 
spent their free time at the arcade downtwon . . . but at least they 
could read. I couldn't even spell my own name, so I was beaten up at 
recess . . . I was forced to take a series of multiple-choice tests - 
reading comprehension, basic math, language arts - each of which I 
failed, having artfully filled every blank with affectionate shades of 
the color wheel using my Swiss watercolor pencils. That's when i was 
ordered to special ed . . .

"They sent me to a boxy trailer slumped behind the cafteria with a 
stack of flash cards and a vocabulary book . . . 'Give me a ball of 
beeswax,' I begged, 'or a slab of clay, and I will shape the letters 
from the earth and choreograph a dance for each vowel while pulling 
the streamers of the Maypole around the school yard, singing the folk 
songs of the ancients!' [The English teacher said:] 'What is wrong 
with you? Are you retarded?'"

He goes on to describe humorously how the public school teacher 
advised him to get up to speed reading - by sending him to the grocery 
store, video store, the pharmacy, scanning aisles and reading 
packaging. This worked, of course, and also provided a "crash course 
in modern society, capitalism, free enterprise, pop culture . . ." all 
the stuff, of course, that Waldorf exhorts parents to shield our 
children from. "I kept my eyes open for the literature of the 
advertising world. Palmolive. Antibacterial. Tough on grease . . . 
Crafted with pride. Made in America . . . 'Our rich thick lather / 
moisturizes and lubricates . .' Later at home, I moved on to other 
documents, junk mail, restaurant receipts, speeding tickets . . . Soon 
I was reading whole sentences, paragraphs, pages and pages of 
newspapers, National Geographics, the National Enquirer, the Detroit 
Free Press, the New York Times Magaizine, The Tibetan Book of the 
Dead . . .

" . . . I had triumped over the educational armies of Rudolf Steiner 
and basked in the glories of commerce and capitalism . . . I finally 
could read! I brought in a can of Campbell's tomato soup and read 
every word on the label, to prove it to the rest of the class . . . 
Mrs. Lubbers gave me a proud look, a row of stars, and A+ . . ."

A triumph or a horror story, I suppose, depending on your point of 
view!

Diana










Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________

2b. Re: Best American Nonrequired Reading 2007
    Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:41 am ((PDT))

I guess I enjoyed that so much because in many ways it parallels my 
son's experience. He didn't get as far as second grade, but his 
experiences transferring to public school were similar, leaving the 
coddled world of "no right angles" for the cinderblocks and 
fluorescent lights of public school with worksheets and computers, to  
suddenly being actively encouraged rather than discouraged from 
studying the shampoo bottle or the side of the cereal box . . .

And I guess it reminded me of why, post-Waldorf, though with a nod to 
Walden it is of course all terribly oppressive, and it *was* sort of a 
culture shock, I have some affection left after all for the "rows of 
stars and A+" the hideously misguided public school teacher gave him 
as a reward for being able to read the side of the tomato soup can. 

Diana



Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________

2c. Re: Best American Nonrequired Reading 2007
    Posted by: "Margaret Sachs" powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com powerofjoy2004
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:58 pm ((PDT))

Hilarious!  The guy has writing talent. He was lucky
his father woke up, saw the light, and got him out of
Waldorf and into a school that started him on the path
to developing that talent.

Dan, this would make a great addition to the PLANS Web
site.

Diana, where exactly did you find this and is there a
way we can see the rest of it?

Best,
Margaret

--- winters_diana (diana.winters verizon.net) wrote:

) I picked this up recently and was startled to see
) the introduction 
) entitled "How I Trumped Rudolf Steiner and Overcame
) the Tribulations 
) of Illiteracy, One Snickers Bar at a Time."
) 
) The author is Sufjan Stevens, a musician and
) songwriter whom I had not 
) heard of but who apparently attended the Detroit
) Waldorf School. His 
) memories of Waldorf are very amusing. I fear that in
) Brad's terms he 
) did not grok anthroposophy, but he provides a
) straight-forward report 
) on the instructional milieu.
) 
) Here are some snippets to give you the gist:
) 
) " . . .I'd like to reveal a dirty secret: I didn't
) learn to read until 
) third grade. As an elementary school kid at the
) Detroit Waldorf 
) School, I was encouraged to learn at my own pace.
) For the uninformed, 
) let me tell you a little about Rudolf Steiner, the
) founder of the 
) Waldorf system. An Austrian philosopher, writer, and
) social theorist, 
) Steiner developed an educational system that was
) holistic, 
) noncompetitive, and emotionally balanced,
) emphasizing social health, 
) artistic expression, and pluralism in the classroom.
) In practice, this 
) meant there were no textbooks, workbooks, reader's
) guides, or learning 
) manuals - only paint, clay, knitting needles, and
) sheep's wool. I 
) don't recall a library or a science lab in our
) school . . The 
) classrooms were decorated with satin drapes and
) paper lanterns. There 
) were no parallel walls or right angles . . .
) 
) "There were no vocabulary exercises or math quizzes.
) The syllabus was 
) hand drawn on the chalkboard, oil pastels in
) Renaissance colors 
) simulating the seasons, sweeping rainbow
) illustrations of unicorns and 
) magic owls . . . the school did everything to blur
) all lines between 
) fact and imagination . . .
) 
) "For some, the disregard for standards was
) galvanizing. My peers took 
) up the violin, sopke French, learned botany . . .
) painting, weaving, 
) and the classical guitar. But I was a slow learner .
) . . easily 
) distracted, unmotivated, listless, prone to
) daydreaming. I spent much 
) of my time huddled by the radiator, keeping my
) beeswax warm, humming 
) the theme to Star Search. The classroom's lack of
) parallel surfaces 
) coddled me in a fluid womb of sleep and
) thumb-sucking . . . I lived in 
) a world of fantasy and make-believe . . .
) 
) "Years went by - preschool, kindergarten, first
) grade, second grade - 
) the dreamy sweep of a Steiner childhood. I was
) shuffled from 
) calligraphy class to recorder lessons to eurythmy .
) . . I would learn 
) to read and write by the powers of the Maypole, the
) winter solstice, 
) the constellations, and Orion's enchanted belt.
) Waldorf teachers were 
) less concerned with literacy and standardized
) testing . . . than with 
) watercolor pencils and cotton balls . . . the
) passing of the seasons, 
) Baroque music, folk songs, and Nordic mythology . .
) . cultivating joy, 
) encouraging artistry and a lifetime of learning.
) 
) "Truth be told, I wasn't learning anything. I rode
) the absent-minded 
) wave for four nebulous years . . . by the time I
) finished second 
) grade, it was clear something was wrong. I still
) couldn't read or 
) write. I had no friends. I had no ambitions . . .
) 
) "That summer I went to live with my father . . . my
) father apologized 
) for everything - for Waldorf, for watercolor
) pencils, for recorder 
) lessons, for est training, for past-lives seances,
) for macrobiotics, 
) for pot-smoking, for the ridiculous, holistic trial
) and error called 
) parenting . . . 'It's time you became a man,' he
) told me. 'It's time 
) you learned to read.'
) 
) "So in the beginning of third grade, I was
) transferred to a public 
) school, a cinderblock prison camp with metal lockers
) and industrial 
) carpeting and fluorescent lights . . . Right angles
) abounded. Maps of 
) the USSR. Protractors. Carbon copies. Vending
) machines. The sterile 
) metal surfces of the modern age. Computers,
) textbooks, worksheets, 
) MEAP, SAT, PTA, all the formidable abbreviations of
) public 
) schooling . . .
) 
) "The other children - raised on hot dogs and
) homogenized milk . . . 
) spent their free time at the arcade downtwon . . .
) but at least they 
) could read. I couldn't even spell my own name, so I
) was beaten up at 
) recess . . . I was forced to take a series of
) multiple-choice tests - 
) reading comprehension, basic math, language arts -
) each of which I 
) failed, having artfully filled every blank with
) affectionate shades of 
) the color wheel using my Swiss watercolor pencils.
) That's when i was 
) ordered to special ed . . .
) 
) "They sent me to a boxy trailer slumped behind the
) cafteria with a 
) stack of flash cards and a vocabulary book . . .
) 'Give me a ball of 
) beeswax,' I begged, 'or a slab of clay, and I will
) shape the letters 
) from the earth and choreograph a dance for each
) vowel while pulling 
) the streamers of the Maypole around the school yard,
) singing the folk 
) songs of the ancients!' [The English teacher said:]
) 'What is wrong 
) with you? Are you retarded?'"
) 
) He goes on to describe humorously how the public
) school teacher 
) advised him to get up to speed reading - by sending
) him to the grocery 
) store, video store, the pharmacy, scanning aisles
) and reading 
) packaging. This worked, of course, and also provided
) a "crash course 
) in modern society, capitalism, free enterprise, pop
) culture . . ." all 
) the stuff, of course, that Waldorf exhorts parents
) to shield our 
) children from. "I kept my eyes open for the
) literature of the 
) advertising world. Palmolive. Antibacterial. Tough
) on grease . . . 
) Crafted with pride. Made in America . . . 'Our rich
) thick lather / 
) moisturizes and lubricates . .' Later at home, I
) moved on to other 
) documents, junk mail, restaurant receipts, speeding
) tickets . . . Soon 
) I was reading whole sentences, paragraphs, pages and
) pages of 
) newspapers, National Geographics, the National
) Enquirer, the Detroit 
) Free Press, the New York Times Magaizine, The
) Tibetan Book of the 
) Dead . . .
) 
) " . . . I had triumped over the educational armies
) of Rudolf Steiner 
) and basked in the glories of commerce and capitalism
) . . . I finally 
) could read! I brought in a can of Campbell's tomato
) soup and read 
) every word on the label, to prove it to the rest of
) the class . . . 
) Mrs. Lubbers gave me a proud look, a row of stars,
) and A+ . . ."
) 
) A triumph or a horror story, I suppose, depending on
) your point of 
) view!
) 
) Diana
) 
) 
) 
) 
=== message truncated ===



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz


Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________

2d. Re: Best American Nonrequired Reading 2007
    Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:43 pm ((PDT))

Margaret:

) Hilarious!  The guy has writing talent. He was lucky
) his father woke up, saw the light, and got him out of
) Waldorf and into a school that started him on the path
) to developing that talent.

To be fair, I looked around to find stuff on him on the web, since I'd 
never heard of him, and found an interview where he says that he still 
pursues various crafts as hobbies and credits this to Waldorf - he 
knits and crochets etc. and says it's important to him because he went 
to Waldorf. And it sounded like his experiences weren't unpleasant - 
he just didn't learn to read and write. The classrooms and teachers 
sounded downright pleasant compared to some of the stories we hear. 

A Waldorf supporter could even read it as a testimonial to Waldorf - 
he spent four "nebulous years" drifting in the enchanted Waldorf land 
and then . . . learned to read in third grade - as it should be!

)Dan, this would make a great addition to the PLANS Web
)site.
 
)Diana, where exactly did you find this and is there a
)way we can see the rest of it?

It's in the book "Best American Nonrequired Reading 2007." It's part 
of the "Best American" series that comes out every year, there's Best 
American Short Stories, Best American Essays, I forget what-all. 
The "nonrequired reading" one is sort of a catch-all for quirky pieces 
that don't fit standard genres. I happened to buy this one because a 
friend wrote one of the essays. I don't think it is online anywhere.

Diana



Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

3a. Re: Paltering Peter
    Posted by: "Peter Staudenmaier" pstaud hotmail.com pstauden
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:10 pm ((PDT))


Hi Diana,


) This question of bias, is it good or evil or simply part of life, is
) something anthroposophists seem irretrievably confused about.


I think this is fairly common among many esotericists. The seductive notion of Timeless Truths awaiting Great Minds to be revealed to the Enlightened is central to much of the esoteric milieu, whereas historical scholarship is based on a very different conception of truth, of argument, of analysis, of evidence, of interpretation, and of reasoning.


) Daniel
) Hindes is about as sophisticated as anthroposophists get in
) historical discussions, and that's not saying much.


It may be worth noting that the quotes from me that Daniel Hindes assembles were taken from my many attempts to engage him in a meaningful discussion of anthroposophy's history, in public discourse on an anthroposophical mailing list. Here, for example, is the original context for the first of these quotes; in a March 2004 exchange on the Anthroposophy Tomorrow list, I wrote to Daniel:

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

In response, Daniel wrote:

"Thanks for condescending to educate me by proxy on the methods and practices of history."

So much for dialogue with anthroposophists. To give a sense of how historians approach these topics, I will re-post in a moment a substantial excerpt from the Yehuda Bauer book; Peter Zegers originally posted it to this list six years ago. I strongly encourage folks who think that bias is unhistorical and the opposite of objectivity to take a look at it. Other worthwhile discussions of the issue include Alan Spitzer's book Historical Truth and Lies About the Past and Thomas Haskell's book Objectivity Is Not Neutrality: Explanatory Schemes in History.


) Anthroposophists, like many people certain of revealed religious
) truths, are convinced "bias" is a dirty word, and they post these
) quotes of Peter's triumphantly all over the internet, apparently
) absolutely convinced they make Peter look bad. Sune Nordwall posted
) these and/or similar quotes at wikipedia too, apparently thinking
) they provided evidence Peter is an unreliable source.


Can you tell me more about this? I haven't had an opportunity to look at wikipedia entries on anthroposophical subjects in some time, but last I checked, they don't cite my work.


) There is no
) way to discuss it with them - they don't bother discussing it, they
) think the quotes speak for themselves. They don't understand the
) point involved. There's a page of these quotes at the AWE site
) (Americans for Waldorf Education) too.


Yes, as far as I can tell, they think these quotes somehow reflect poorly on me. I think that itself is remarkable indeed, and indicates just how far removed the anthroposophical mainstream is from contemporary scholarly discussion. Here is one notable example; in another exchange on Anthroposophy Tomorrow in February 2004, I wrote:


"I don't know enough about Waldorf education to make an interesting case either way, and I don't have strong feelings about Waldorf as such. I get the sense that Waldorf schools, especially in North America, comprise a very wide range of beliefs and practices, some of which have relatively little to do with the aspects of anthroposophy that I study. [...] I am very critical of the academic realm and the stultifying conception of objectivity that is so often associated with it. That is one of the main reasons I have avoided an academic career so far and remained an independent scholar (though I must confess that I am currently in the midst of throwing in that particular towel); one of my goals is to move historical discussions out of the academic realm so that non-academics can participate in them. My published work on anthroposophy is not objective in the sense I think you mean, and no competent reader could mistake it for such; I am very up front about my own skeptical stance. Much of what I write on anthroposophy is a mixture of scholarship and polemic, addressed to a non-specialist audience. It is not a neutral reflection on the pros and cons of Steiner's various doctrines. [...] I think that terms like "racist" and "Nazi" have specific meanings that can and should be used responsibly, not as terms of abuse but as analytical descriptions. I spend an enormous chunk of my time reading documents written by Nazis (actual Nazis, the kind who proudly call themselves Nazis), and I pay close attention to what distinguishes their perspectives from those of other authoritarian right-wingers. Rudolf Steiner was certainly not a Nazi, but a number of his followers were, and there was a significant strand within the Nazi movement that looked favorably on various aspects of Steiner's work. The point of exploring these historical connections is not to call up an emotional response but to prompt informed consideration of the ambiguous record of alternative spiritual movements and their wide-ranging political affiliations."

This, as it happens, is one of the favorite passages among anthroposophists who think I have damned myself with my own words. My best guess is that part of this yawning gap between historians and esotericists has to do with esotericists' inability to distinguish popular genres of writing (including, for example, my first series of articles on anthroposophy) from academic publications (including, for example, my recent articles on Steiner). The problem even extends to fairly straightforward matter such as proper quotation practice; consider the following passage from one of my replies to Daniel Hindes:

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

To Daniel, this is apparently somehow evidence of my mischevious disregard for accurate quotation. Similar examples are legion; the discrepancy between the world of anthroposophy and the world outside of anthroposophy is sometimes striking indeed.


) "Polemic" is another word they have trouble with - a whole
) philosophical gestalt around this notion that they can't relate to.


Yes, that is indeed one that anthroposophists routinely trip over, from Daniel Hindes to Mike Helsher. Polemic has a very honorable pedigree that extends back a very long time. As an approach to philosophical disputation, polemic is traditionally understood as the contrary of apology; it is designed to unsettle received opinion on a given topic. That is why my early articles on anthroposophy are polemical. Those articles were specifically calibrated to fit the existing state of public debate on anthroposophical racism at the time I wrote them. They were quite explicitly directed against the numerous apologies for Steinerâs racial theories that abound within the contemporary anthroposophical movement -- with figures like Nordwall and Hindes themselves offering prominent examples of such apologias for anthroposophical racism. In my judgement, a deliberately polemical approach is exactly what a responsible public intellectual is obliged to provide in such instances. In the context of such debates, in popular forums and publications for general audiences, polemic is very much the appropriate critical lens and rhetorical choice. The same is not true of academic publications, which is why my articles for historians (including articles about Steiner and anthroposophy) are not polemical. All of this seems to be entirely incomprehensible to many anthroposophists.


) Fish out of water. Theirs is a world in which there is a thing
) called "Truth" we should all aspire to know of through earnest
) striving. There are no nuances there. This is an approach to
) understanding that is certainly compatible with following the
) teachings of a guru who claimed "clairvoyance"; it isn't an approach
) that is fostered in - school. (Schools that promote intensive
) academics, in particular )
)
) Here's Daniel Hindes' understanding of "polemics":
)
)
) "A number of critics of Anthroposophy have acknowledged that they
) are writing polemical history when they attack Rudolf Steiner. Some
) even seem puzzled as to why that is considered a 'bad' thing. And
) certainly, from one point of view there is nothing 'bad' about
) polemic; it is what it is, after all. I have further argued that
) polemic history has important differences from standard, or what I
) even might call 'ideal' history."
)
) Daniel Hindes is, last I heard, a Waldorf high school history
) teacher. My son is in ninth grade at a (non-Waldorf) school and they
) have better discussions than this. "Ideal" history?????


The notion of ideal history is probably very appealing to an esoteric mindset. (By the way, Daniel Hindes goes on to say that what determines polemic is not the content of a text, but the intentions of its author; this is yet another indication of the distance between anthroposophical thinking and scholarly approaches to texts, to evidence, to argument, and so forth.) For historians, objectivity involves among other things treating specific subjects (such as anthroposophy) as *objects of inquiry*, not as sources of inspiration or spiritual guidance or Timeless Truths etc. This is precisely why anthroposophists have such a difficult time adopting an objective viewpoint on anthroposophy. But even beyond that fundamental paradox built into anthroposophy as it currently exists, the sad fact is that anthroposophy roundly rejects history as such, building on Steiner's denunciations of history as a hindrance to supernatural perception and spiritual inisght and access to the Higher Worlds, where the events in this world are determined, as anthroposophists believe. I think this repudiation of the very project of historical scholarship and reasoned reconstruction of the past probably helps account for much of the anthroposophical hostility directed toward historians who study anthroposophy.

I am grateful to Roger and Diana for taking the time to review these exchanges. I would very much welcome other perspectives on this constellation of issues. Greetings to all,


Peter S.

_________________________________________________________________
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy!
http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us

Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________

3b. Re: Paltering Peter
    Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:59 pm ((PDT))

I mentioned disputes on wikipedia:
Peter:
)Can you tell me more about this? I haven't had an opportunity to 
)look at wikipedia entries on anthroposophical subjects in some 
)time, but last I checked, they don't cite my work.

Nope, your work is disallowed on those pages at the moment precisely 
because you are "polemical." This is actually interesting in view of 
the current discussion of "bias." Anthroposophists manning the fort 
at wikipedia (Sune, Harlan Gilbert in particular tag-teamed it) 
managed to get an arbitrator to agree that if a source 
was "polemical" in regard to anthroposophy or Waldorf education, it 
didn't meet wikipedia standards. This was a double edged sword 
because it also meant the dozens of wikipedia articles on 
anthroposophy and all its metastases can't cite anthroposophical 
publications - in fact they can't even cite Rudolf Steiner. Both 
sides were gagged. It's no great loss, as the articles were and are 
a total train wreck, and wikipedia's reputation overall so 
diminished at present that most thinking people don't credit much of 
what they read there anyway.

It's kind of funny but the level of historical argumentation is 
right up Daniel Hindes' alley: We can't have any bias around here, 
goddammit, so nobody say anything!

I know that Sune posted some of your quotes on a talk page there at 
one point - I'll try to find the time to dig it up, it's buried in 
the rubble of "mediation" and "arbitration" squabbling. I definitely 
recall that he quoted your saying that you were critical of the 
stultifying academic realm. It clearly did not compute to him that 
although you were "critical" of academia, you were, in fact, an 
academic. He felt that these quotes showed that you could not 
possibly be a good academic - here you were admitting it yourself. I 
tried to explain to him that, unlike in esoteric movements, there 
are realms of human endeavor where it is possible to be critical and 
actually still participate without disgrace or forcible ejection.  
This is simply evidence of bad character to him. You must be "lying" 
again and are clearly an untrustworthy scholar and Bad Human Being.

)Yes, as far as I can tell, they think these quotes somehow reflect 
)poorly on me.

That's exactly what they think. It still puzzles me that Linda 
Clemens can't think it through a little better than this, but I 
think she exhausted herself. She busies herself now 
fighting "vandalism" at wikipedia so as to maintain the credibility 
to contribute to articles on Waldorf and anthroposophy without being 
accused of being a "single-purpose" editor - this is also a way to 
discredit yourself at wikipedia - to prove to be singularly 
interested in, and confine your editing to, one or two topics. This, 
like "bias," is another thing that is considered to indicate a 
person's unsuitability or unreliability to contribute to particular 
topics, and I think it's similarly confused. (And, of course, 
enforcing it simply leads to people gaming the system like Linda's 
doing, but now I'm ranting about wikipedia.)


)This, as it happens, is one of the favorite passages among 
)anthroposophists who think I have damned myself with my own words. 
)My best guess is that part of this yawning gap between historians 
)and esotericists has to do with esotericists' inability to 
)distinguish popular genres of writing (including, for example, my 
first series of articles on anthroposophy) from academic 
publications (including, for example, my recent articles on 
Steiner). The problem even extends to fairly straightforward matter 
such as proper quotation practice; consider the following passage 
from one of my replies to Daniel Hindes:

)"There is absloutely nothing unscrupulous about skipping over large 
)swaths of text in a public email discussion group. 

Oh, Christ, yes, I think that's just childishness, though. He just 
really got insecure if any of his own words didn't get carried from 
post to post. He got this mixed up with his worries about "selective 
quotation" of Rudolf Steiner. In order not to be accused of 
selective quotation, you were supposed to quote ALL of it. (Then, of 
course, Linda can pop up to accuse you of copyright violation.)

Thanks for reminding me why this I still find this so entertaining :)

)The notion of ideal history is probably very appealing to an 
)esoteric mindset.

Yes, but I guarantee you even ninth graders can understand 
that "writing ideal history" it is a childlike notion and not what 
real historians try to do.

)(By the way, Daniel Hindes goes on to say that what determines 
)polemic is not the content of a text, but the intentions of its 
)author; this is yet another indication of the distance between 
)anthroposophical thinking and scholarly approaches to texts, 


Very polite of you. I think it's just an example of childishness. 
They point fingers and say you are mean and they don't like you, 
basically.

Diana



Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

4a. bias in history
    Posted by: "Peter Staudenmaier" pstaud hotmail.com pstauden
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:19 pm ((PDT))



As promised, here is an excerpt from Yehuda Bauer's book RETHINKING THE HOLOCAUST (Yale University Press, 2001); the passage below is the opening section of the first chapter of the book:


"The objectivity of the historian becomes an issue with subjects besides
the Holocaust, but a historian dealing with the Holocaust cannot avoid
the issue.
   Following upon some ideas put forward by Karlheinz Deschner, among
others, it is important to start by denying the possibility of an
"objective" stance.1 Many have said this before: we are the product of
our environment, tradition, education, prejudices, and so on. The
influence of our environment can be disastrous, for we may be swayed by
a regime and its consensual impact, or even by a consensus created by
our fellow-historians, and hence write what is "politically
correct," even knowingly suppress what we feel should be said. Worse, we
sometimes really believe that what we say is our own view, even when it
is nothing but a reflection of the views of a majority, or a group, or a
charismatic individual, or some other outside source. We need to be
aware of our biases, our subjective approach, in order to formulate an
interpretation of facts that will be legitimately rooted in the
atmosphere and the context of whatever period we describe. We must be
aware of the obvious truth that the very decision to deal with some
facts, some aspects of reality, rather than with others, is a subjective
choice. Goethe said, "Every fact is already a theory." Johann G. Droysen, the
nineteenth-century German historian, said, "Only a mindless person is
objective"--and indeed, objectivism is basically uninteresting, because
it reflects the chaos of an infinite chain of events, a chaos that in
itself has no meaning.2

Do we then conform to a subjectivism that dictates the rewriting of
history in every generation? In a sense, we do, partially. After all,
people in every period look at past events from a different perspective:
the historians of 2089 will look at the French Revolution differently
from the way the historians of 1789, 1889, or 1989 looked at it. Yet the
knowledge and self-perception that accompany an approach whose biases
are articulated can neutralize those biases to a considerable
degree--never completely, but sufficiently to enable the historian to
draw what may be termed "legitimate" conclusions from his or her study. Such
conclusions would avoid the traps of a mindless objectivism, a
solipsistic subjectivism, and an endless relativization of facts. A
legitimate conclusion is one that not only avoids identification with
known outside pressures or interferences but also reflects an attempt to
understand the period under discussion from its own perspective and in
its own terms. We realize that another age will reinterpret the same
events in its own distinct way; hopefully. our own findings will become
part of any future analysis, if we state, to ourselves as well as to our
public, what our biases may be.

Let me state my biases. I think that the planned total murder of a
people was an unprecedented catastrophe in human civilization. It
happened because it could happen; if it could not have happened, it
would not have done so. And because it happened once, it can happen
again. Any historical event is a possibility before it becomes a fact,
but when it becomes a fact, it also serves as a possible precedent. And
although no event will ever be repeated exactly, it will, if it is
followed by similar events, become the first in a line of analogous
happenings. The Holocaust can be a precedent, or it can become a
warning. My bias is, in a sense, political: I believe we ought to do everything in our power to make sure it is a
warning, not a precedent.

My second bias is that I am not neutral as between Nazism and
anti-Nazism. I detest Nazism. I am against antisemitism and racism of
any sort. I am not neutral there, either. I believe, on the strength of
the historical evidence, that the Nazi regime was just about the worst
regime that ever disfigured the face of this earth. Worst from what
point of view? From a basically liberal point of view that, in line with
Jewish and other traditions, sees human life as a supreme value. In all
this I am not being "objective"; but an objectivity that would reject
these starting points would be nonobjective, besides being totally unacceptable to me because
it would run counter to what I assume--another clear bias--to be the
understanding that most people have of morality. Morality, in this
context, is based on the idea that acts or intentions that run counter
to the right of individuals and groups to exist, to live fully, also run
counter to the existence of human life altogether, hence their
unacceptability. Morality as here presented is an absolute value,
then--absolute, that is, as long as one posits the continuation of the
human race as a desired condition."


_________________________________________________________________
News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now!
http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx

Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________

4b. Re: bias in history
    Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:08 pm ((PDT))


Hm. Yes, thanks. It really takes only a moment or two of thought to 
dismiss the sophomoric notion that "bias" is bad and "objectivity" 
always the correct moral stance or correct attitude for a scholar.

Has any one of your anthroposophical interlocutors ever replied to 
this argument? (to my recollection, no).


)As promised, here is an excerpt from Yehuda Bauer's book RETHINKING 
THE HOLOCAUST (Yale University Press, 2001); the passage below is 
the opening section of the first chapter of the book:
(snip) it is important to start by denying the possibility of an
) "objective" stance.1
) Let me state my biases. I think that the planned total murder of a
) people was an unprecedented catastrophe in human civilization. 
(snip) 
) My second bias is that I am not neutral as between Nazism and
) anti-Nazism. I detest Nazism. I am against antisemitism and racism 
of
) any sort. I am not neutral there, either. I believe, on the 
strength of
) the historical evidence, that the Nazi regime was just about the 
worst
) regime that ever disfigured the face of this earth. Worst from what
) point of view? From a basically liberal point of view that, in 
line with
) Jewish and other traditions, sees human life as a supreme value. 
In all
) this I am not being "objective"; 



Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

5a. Re: Who Speaks Truth?
    Posted by: "Roger Rawlings" downfromfog yahoo.com downfromfog
    Date: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:04 pm ((PDT))

OK. How in the wide-eyed world do I do it? Me, with my minimal grasp of German 
vocubulary, grammer, genders, etc.÷How do I produce such wonderful (imperfect) 
translations from the German? It's easy. (John Lennon: Noway you can know how to be, but 
you can learn how to play the game: It's easy....)

I simply go to Web sites such as 
http://ets.freetranslation.com/

I then input the German text (i.e., Steiner's words) and I get this result. (Try it yourself ÷
you'll like it.)

Steiner: "Všlker und Rassen sind nur die verschiedenen Entwickelungsstufen zur reinen
Menschheit hin. Es steht eine Rasse, ein Volk um so hšher, je vollkommener ihre
Angehšrigen den reinen, idealen Menschheitstypus zum Ausdrucke bringen, je mehr
sie sich von dem physisch VergŠnglichen zu dem Ÿbersinnlich UnvergŠnglichen
durchgearbeitet haben. Die Entwickelung des Menschen durch die
Wiederverkšrperungen in immer hšher stehenden Volks- und Rassenformen ist daher
ein Befreiungsproze§. Zuletzt mu§ der Mensch in seiner harmonischen
Vollkommenheit erscheinen."

freetranslation: ""Peoples and races are only the different Entwickelungsstufen to the pure 
humanity there.  A race, a people stands around so more highly the more perfectly its 
members bring the pure, ideal humanity type to the print out, the more worked through 
themselves it of the physically transitory to the Ÿbersinnlich of imperishable.  The 
Entwickelung of the person through the again embodiment in always more highly standing 
people form and races forms is therefore a release process.  Finally the person in its 
harmonious perfection must appear."  

So at that point my I'm thrown back on what little German I know, and in a mere hour or 
two, presto, I come up with an imperfect (but sligfhtly more sensible) translation.

--Roger the Spear-Chucking German
(A Ceca Reemerging Grunt Shh Pork)




Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

(*) To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/

(*) Your email settings:
    Digest Email  | Traditional

(*) To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

(*) To change settings via email:
    mailto:waldorf-critics-normal yahoogroups.com 
    mailto:waldorf-critics-fullfeatured yahoogroups.com

(*) To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    waldorf-critics-unsubscribe yahoogroups.com

(*) Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 25 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1.1. Re: Homework    
    From: Roger Rawlings
1.2. AW: [wc] Homework    
    From: Bruce Jackson
1.3. Re: Homework    
    From: Roger Rawlings
1.4. Re: Homework    
    From: Walden
1.5. Re: Homework    
    From: Roger Rawlings
1.6. Re: Homework    
    From: winters_diana
1.7. Re: Homework    
    From: Walden

2. Evolution/Race/Nationalism    
    From: Roger Rawlings

3. Fishy    
    From: Roger Rawlings

4.1. Re: sadistic child-hater    
    From: tigerlilymittens
4.2. Re: sadistic child-hater    
    From: winters_diana

5a. Re: Paltering Peter    
    From: Peter Staudenmaier
5b. Re: Paltering Peter    
    From: winters_diana

6a. Re: bias in history    
    From: Peter Staudenmaier
6b. AW: [wc] Re: bias in history    
    From: Bruce Jackson
6c. Re: AW: [wc] Re: bias in history    
    From: Peter Staudenmaier
6d. Re: bias in history    
    From: Mike helsher
6e. Re: bias in history    
    From: winters_diana
6f. Re: bias in history    
    From: Mike helsher
6g. Re: bias in history    
    From: Walden
6h. Re: bias in history    
    From: Mike helsher
6i. Re: bias in history    
    From: Mike helsher

7a. Hi there    
    From: jcverdonk
7b. Re: Hi there    
    From: emanuel
7c. Re: Hi there    
    From: Jan


Messages
________________________________________________________________________

1.1. Re: Homework
    Posted by: "Roger Rawlings" downfromfog yahoo.com downfromfog
    Date: Mon Oct 1, 2007 7:50 am ((PDT))

--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, Walden (awaldenpond ...) wrote:

) [W]hen kids are having problems elsewhere, they arrive 
) at our democratic school. Sometimes the problems are not that the young person 
cannot read or write. It can be a school of last resort for some families. Not unlike Waldorf 
where parents do not always send their kids for the Anthroposophy, some democratic 
schools have kids whose families are not really interested in this particular educational 
philosophy ( but at least our schools are honest with what happens inside).  

I think this is an important insight. I don't have statistics, but I'd guess that most parents 
who decide to send kids to private or other special schools do so because the kids have 
run into some sorts of problems in regular public schools. In other words, the decision to 
switch schools is often a negative choice÷fleeing a "problem" school, not really an 
affirmative selection of a "better" school (although of course most parents will try to base 
the new selection on some sort of positive criterion÷lack of gangs, beautiful buildings, 
apparently friendly and devoted faculty, etc.). From all I've read, seen, or heard, I think that 
very few American parents choose Waldorfs for the Anthroposophy (the situation may be 
different in Germany, etc.) It seems that most new parents and students at Waldorfs in the 
US think they have found an attractive alternative to the "problem" school, but they often 
have no inkling of the actual nature of the school they are entering, and recognition often 
takes a long, painful time (if it ever comes at all).

--Roger




Messages in this topic (84)
________________________________________________________________________

1.2. AW: [wc] Homework
    Posted by: "Bruce Jackson" bruceylists freenet.de bruceyj
    Date: Mon Oct 1, 2007 8:11 am ((PDT))

Hi Roger - long time no see!

 

I reckon that the situation in Germany is comparable to that in the US for
kids transferring into the school. Kids there from the beginning are (with
probably the odd exception) from parents wanting their child to go to a
waldorf school.

 

Bruce (now creeping back to lurk)

 

  _____  

Von: waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com
[mailto:waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von Roger Rawlings
Gesendet: Montag, 1. Oktober 2007 16:49
An: waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [wc] Homework

 

--- In waldorf-critics  (mailto:waldorf-critics%40yahoogroups.com)
yahoogroups.com, Walden (awaldenpond ...) wrote:

) [W]hen kids are having problems elsewhere, they arrive 
) at our democratic school. Sometimes the problems are not that the young
person 
cannot read or write. It can be a school of last resort for some families.
Not unlike Waldorf 
where parents do not always send their kids for the Anthroposophy, some
democratic 
schools have kids whose families are not really interested in this
particular educational 
philosophy ( but at least our schools are honest with what happens inside). 

I think this is an important insight. I don't have statistics, but I'd guess
that most parents 
who decide to send kids to private or other special schools do so because
the kids have 
run into some sorts of problems in regular public schools. In other words,
the decision to 
switch schools is often a negative choice-fleeing a "problem" school, not
really an 
affirmative selection of a "better" school (although of course most parents
will try to base 
the new selection on some sort of positive criterion-lack of gangs,
beautiful buildings, 
apparently friendly and devoted faculty, etc.). From all I've read, seen, or
heard, I think that 
very few American parents choose Waldorfs for the Anthroposophy (the
situation may be 
different in Germany, etc.) It seems that most new parents and students at
Waldorfs in the 
US think they have found an attractive alternative to the "problem" school,
but they often 
have no inkling of the actual nature of the school they are entering, and
recognition often 
takes a long, painful time (if it ever comes at all).

--Roger

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Messages in this topic (84)
________________________________________________________________________

1.3. Re: Homework
    Posted by: "Roger Rawlings" downfromfog yahoo.com downfromfog
    Date: Mon Oct 1, 2007 9:20 am ((PDT))

--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Jackson" (bruceylists ...) wrote:
)
) Hi Roger - long time no see!
) 
)  
) 
) I reckon that the situation in Germany is comparable to that in the US for
) kids transferring into the school. Kids there from the beginning are (with
) probably the odd exception) from parents wanting their child to go to a
) waldorf school.
) 
)  
) 
) Bruce (now creeping back to lurk)
) 

Hi, Bruce.

Good point. I need to modify, somewhat, my reply to Walden.

I think it is quite likely that, in Germany, a good number of parents who send their kids to 
a Waldorf preschool or kindergarten do so with their eyes open. They know at least a little 
about Anthroposophy and are drawn to it.

This is far less likely in the USA, I think. It is safe to say, I think, that the vast majority of 
Americans have never heard of Anthroposophy or Rudolf Steiner. Some US parents 
undoubtedly do find Anthroposophy attractive, but I'd suggest that even for the parents of 
preschoolers and kindergarteners in the US, very few understand what sort of schools 
Waldorfs are. So, returning to Walden's point and my reply, I think that most of these 
parents turn to Waldorfs because of their negative attitudes toward regular public schools: 
They may remember how much they disliked their own schooling, or perhaps they sent 
their first children to public schools, with unhappy results, so they send their next children 
to Waldorfs or other special schools, etc. There is simply too much secrecy in and around 
American Waldorfs for any other explanation to be plausible, I submit.

--Roger




Messages in this topic (84)
________________________________________________________________________

1.4. Re: Homework
    Posted by: "Walden" awaldenpond shaw.ca awaldenpond
    Date: Mon Oct 1, 2007 9:55 am ((PDT))

Roger wrote:
)I think it is quite likely that, in Germany, a good number of parents who send their kids to 
)a Waldorf preschool or kindergarten do so with their eyes open. They know at least a little 
)about Anthroposophy and are drawn to it.

)This is far less likely in the USA, I think. It is safe to say, I think, that the vast majority of 
)Americans have never heard of Anthroposophy or Rudolf Steiner. Some US parents 
)undoubtedly do find Anthroposophy attractive, but I'd suggest that even for the parents of 
)preschoolers and kindergarteners in the US, very few understand what sort of schools 
)Waldorfs are. So, returning to Walden's point and my reply, I think that most of these 
)parents turn to Waldorfs because of their negative attitudes toward regular public schools: 
)They may remember how much they disliked their own schooling, or perhaps they sent 
)their first children to public schools, with unhappy results, so they send their next children 
)to Waldorfs or other special schools, etc. There is simply too much secrecy in and around 
)American Waldorfs for any other explanation to be plausible, I submit.

Agreed. The perception of Waldorf as being for the "whole child" etc. is very strong - especially when weighed against *those other schools.* And I think you're right, Roger, in that parents often have their own education baggage/memories to deal with when their kids hit school age.
Experience tells me the vast majority of Waldorf parents choose Waldorf not for what it IS; they choose Waldorf for what it is NOT.

Now, one could argue that parents choose Waldorf for the knitting and other handwork or for the lack of academic pressure, outside playtime, etc. 
But the Anthro foundation is there - under the silks and bees wax. That foundation was the *impulse* for the movement in Steiner's day and remains (often hidden) to this day. Children are immersed in Anthroposophy in Waldorf schools and when their parents discover this fact, feelings of betrayal, confusion and anger often result.
The Internet helps to shed light on the real Waldorf  to some extent but the other side of that coin is the handful of obsessed Anthros who baby-sit sites like Wikipedia, Defending Steiner, etc. What I find particularly shameful are disingenuous Waldorf websites that continue to disseminate misinformation about Waldorf, Anthroposophy and Steiner.

Good news is that there are reports of changes to this practise. Waldorf supporters like Eileen Smyth on this very list tell of more open, honest Waldorf schools. But we're still waiting for Eileen to provide some examples. Here's hoping this is not yet another example of Anthro/Waldorf wishful thinking while avoiding discussion.

-Walden





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Messages in this topic (84)
________________________________________________________________________

1.5. Re: Homework
    Posted by: "Roger Rawlings" downfromfog yahoo.com downfromfog
    Date: Mon Oct 1, 2007 12:14 pm ((PDT))

--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, Walden (awaldenpond ...) wrote:

Children are immersed in Anthroposophy in Waldorf schools and when their parents 
discover this fact, feelings of betrayal, confusion and anger often result.
) The Internet helps to shed light on the real Waldorf  to some extent but the other side of 
that coin is the handful of obsessed Anthros who baby-sit sites like Wikipedia, Defending 
Steiner, etc. What I find particularly shameful are disingenuous Waldorf websites that 
continue to disseminate misinformation about Waldorf, Anthroposophy and Steiner.


Hi, Walden.

I absolutely agree. Indeed, I think the dilemma Waldorfs face today in America is that the 
truth is gradually coming out, and this threatens Waldorfs' bottom lines: Parents get 
freaked and pull their kids, and as the info spreads, fewer parents are likely to supply 
substitute students to fill Waldorf classes. I'm not predicting quick victory. And even 
though I hate was Anthroposophy professes, I defend Anthropops' right to believe 
whatever they want. I just think they need to be honest about it and then let the chips fall 
where they may. Some Waldorfs may survive, some probably won't. But survival is not the 
highest imperative.

--Roger




Messages in this topic (84)
________________________________________________________________________

1.6. Re: Homework
    Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
    Date: Wed Oct 3, 2007 7:04 pm ((PDT))

I found this eye popping, Walden :)

)Nope - that's not what I think. Just ask the kids on my football 
)team! As head coach of a large group of teenage boys, I make it 
)LOUD and clear that the hierarchical buck stops with yours truly. 
)You want to play QB and be the star player? Prove it. Study your 
)playbook inside out and work your butt off before, during and after 
)practise. Prove to *yourself* and to your team-mates and to me that 
)you want to play a certain position on the team and you might get a 
)shot. You gotta want it. We have many, many rules - kids don't 
)listen and they run laps. Kids go offside during practise and they 
)do push-ups. Kids miss an assignment during a game and they explain 
)their mistake to their team-mates (and coaches) at the start of the 
)next practise. Game film does not lie. Here's the point: The kids 
)buy into this system - they love it and they have lots of FUN, too. 
)Being undefeated helps but *that* comes from their passion and 
)excellent work ethic. So, when the football player or the student 
)in school *chooses* to play football or learn physics or read a 
)book, the learning *will* happen at a remarkable rate. 
 
I'm just shaking my head over this because I think the only real 
difference is that I don't really care for organized sports, and you 
don't really care for academics. See, what you're describing sounds 
like hell to me, and was exactly the reason I feared and hated gym 
class and shunned team sports - petty rules and regimentation, 
punishments and whistles blowing and coaches yelling and "doing 
laps" or 10 pushups for stepping out of line, etc. *This* I hoped to 
spare my own child as I found it so miserable. (Turns out he loves 
it, of course.) 

Okay so everyone on the team "wants" to be there, and no one "has" 
to play football etc. Waaaaaaaay too simple, Walden. There is HUGE, 
massive, immense social pressure on boys to succeed at sports. 

Conversely, I don't think what you're describing re: the team is 
different from what I'm suggesting a good teacher would do to 
motivate, inspire, etc., and you can easily have first 
graders "wanting" to do just what the teacher says they should do, 
thrilled to line up and wait turns and speak only when spoken to and 
finish the worksheet if you want to go out for recess, etc. I was 
such a first grader so I'm sure of it, and I LOVED it the way your 
boys love the team. But in your theory, I was horribly oppressed in 
first grade, and in mine, the kids on your team are really being 
pushed around and ought to have their consciousness raised (G) just 
kidding - sort of.

Diana



Messages in this topic (84)
________________________________________________________________________

1.7. Re: Homework
    Posted by: "Walden" awaldenpond shaw.ca awaldenpond
    Date: Wed Oct 3, 2007 9:49 pm ((PDT))

Diana wrote:
)I found this eye popping, Walden :)

Ouch - put them back quick.

Walden wrote:
) So, when the football player or the student 
)in school *chooses* to play football or learn physics or read a 
)book, the learning *will* happen at a remarkable rate. 

Diana responded:
)I'm just shaking my head over this because I think the only real 
)difference is that I don't really care for organized sports, and you 
)don't really care for academics. 

Eeegads. How can you possibly come to that conclusion based on what I have written on this subject to date?!
Must be residual scraps of Selena posts in the back alleys of an otherwise good mind (g)  If that's an ad hom I take it back. Seriously, I have clearly (or so I thought) explained that I completely and totally support academics and those who choose to immerse themselves in academics of any flavour.

)See, what you're describing sounds like hell to me, and was exactly the reason I feared and hated gym 
)class and shunned team sports - petty rules and regimentation, 
)punishments and whistles blowing and coaches yelling and "doing 
)laps" or 10 pushups for stepping out of line, etc. *This* I hoped to 
)spare my own child as I found it so miserable. (Turns out he loves 
)it, of course.) 

*And* he happens to enjoy academics. Great. Follow those passions. Btw, I also despise those types of gym class.  Did then and do now. I was forced to be there - parents, school rules. At the time I felt I had no choice (note that word: "choice").

)Okay so everyone on the team "wants" to be there, and no one "has" 
)to play football etc. Waaaaaaaay too simple, Walden. There is HUGE, 
)massive, immense social pressure on boys to succeed at sports. 

Oh, so I can't trust the kids on my football team to know what they like? "Society makes me play, coach." But what about your own child who loves it? Is he faking it, too?  If my own kids had a passion for ballet or piano, I'd be there in the front row supporting them in their chosen sport/art. Fwiw, coaches in youth sports today are expected to speak with parents of kids who do not seem to enjoy the sport. It's pretty easy to know when a kid is there only to have the parent "be proud" of him or live vicariously through him, etc. I had one this year on my team - he was there for football loving grandpa but we worked it out real quick. Grandpa understood and more importantly - Gramps learned to listen to the youngster and it turns out the kid hates football and likes basketball. 

)Conversely, I don't think what you're describing re: the team is 
)different from what I'm suggesting a good teacher would do to 
)motivate, inspire, etc., and you can easily have first 
)graders "wanting" to do just what the teacher says they should do, 
)thrilled to line up and wait turns and speak only when spoken to and 
)finish the worksheet if you want to go out for recess, etc. 

I think you're pulling my leg here. Coercing and tricking and rewarding people is not the same as supporting *their* interest/passion. It is not motivating and inspiring.
It is controlling behaviour. From time to time on my football team I actually sit down with kids and ask about their interests - "Do you really want to be here? What position is your favourite position? Can I do something to help you attain *your* goals, etc?" 

If your first graders (above) willingly signed up for grade one because they *wanted* to be thrilled to line up and complete those worksheets and do just what the teacher says they should do, etc. your analogy works. Methinks not.


)I was such a first grader so I'm sure of it, and I LOVED it the way your boys love the team. 

I did not know you willingly signed up for such a thing. I stand corrected. What a wonderful, understanding school that must have been. Great parents too - allowing a young child a choice in her education at a young age.  I wonder, however, what the response would be if you asked the majority of first, second, third, fourth . . . graders if they have chosen and enjoy sitting there in a classroom, lining up and completing those worksheets? 

If a kid on my football team tells his parents, friends or myself that he does not want to play football (or be with me), we'll talk about his feelings but that child is free to explore another sport/whatever. I'm interested in trying to respect human beings (in this case young ones) and naturally offering the freedom to explore.

Waldorf angle: Like many other parents, I thought Waldorf was such a place of exploration. I was wrong.

-Walden



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Messages in this topic (84)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

2. Evolution/Race/Nationalism
    Posted by: "Roger Rawlings" downfromfog yahoo.com downfromfog
    Date: Mon Oct 1, 2007 12:18 pm ((PDT))

We have sometimes discussed Steiner's nationalism (or lack thereof) and how this bore on 
his teachings and activities.

Here are some contributions to this discussion, coming from remarks delivered at the first 
Waldorf School, as recorded in RUDOLF STEINER IN THE WALDORF SCHOOL: Lectures and 
Addresses to Children, Parents, and Teachers (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1996). 
Of course, the remarks have special bearing on our basic, ongoing discussion: the nature 
and purposes of Waldorf pedagogy.

Emil Molt (founder of the school, at the opening day ceremonies): "...I wish from the 
bottom of my heart that the spirit that brought us Goethe, a Schiller, a Herder...all those 
great cultural heroes of the past, that this spirit may reign here again, so that through the 
school of the future [i.e., Waldorf] this spirit can once again enter our German fatherland. 
If this is the case, then all of us who carry the responsibility for it will be aware that we are 
the servants of these spiritual forces. Then a day will dawn when our poor fatherland can 
begin to ascend from the depths of its great need...." Sept 7, 1919, pp. 13-14.

Rudolf Steiner (at the opening day ceremonies): "From Herr Molt's words, you will have 
inferred out of what spirit he took the initiative to found this Waldorf School. You will also 
have gathered from his words that its founding springs, not from any mundane intention, 
but from a call that resounds very clearly from the evolution of humanity in our times in 
particular...We can rest assured that the only people who hear this call for social 
restructuring correctly amid the chaos of what our present times demand of us will be 
those who pursue its consequences all the way to the issue of education."  Sept 7, 1919, 
pp. 14-15. [It is not quite clear, from these two quotations, that Molt thought of "spiritual 
forces" in the same way Steiner did. But it is clear that Steiner agrees with Molt that "social 
restructuring," which Steiner associated with evolution, is needed. As we have seen 
elsewhere, and will see again below, the German nation holds a special, central position in 
Steiner's conception of the family of man, and that position bears heavily on mankind's 
evolutionary hopes. And Steiner is clear that education is crucial to this entire 
evolutionary/racial/national issue.]

Rudolf Steiner: "What deviates from the old [educational] practices [found in other schools] 
in the Waldorf School [by contrast] is done out of educational practices that do not flow 
out of clever, rationally thought-through ways of looking at things. Rather, it flows out of 
forces that are related to the developmental forces of young people and of our nation as a 
whole." June 11, 1920, pp. 50-51. [I apologize for interpolating so many words into 
Steiner's sentences. I do so only to attempt to unscramble some very confused syntax. 
Despite this problem, Steiner's meanings are clear: He once again sets himself up in 
opposition to rational thought, and he traces Waldorf's pedagogy not only to the 
"developmental forces" inherent in children, but to the mysterious "developmental forces" 
of the German people as a whole.]

Rudolf Steiner: "We can look at this issue [i.e., the reasons for the opening of the first 
Waldorf, and the difficulties that may stand in the way of opening a second] from the much 
broader perspective of the need to do something to restore the essential German character 
in the world. You can be sure, however, that the significance of this German essence will 
be recognized only when its spiritual content, above all else, is given its due in the world." 
May 9, 1922, p.128.

Rudolf Steiner: "Today, however, we will only mention his [i.e., Johann Gottleib Fichte's] 
appearance in the field of education. During one of the most difficult times in German 
history, he gave his penetrating "Speeches to the German Nation" in which he pointed out 
that healing and re-enlivening German life after the humiliation of 1806 [i.e., the 
Napoleonic occupation] would have to happen through education." June 1, 1923, p. 211.

Notice that in all of these statements by Molt, Steiner, and Fichte, education is conceived 
of, at least in part, as a German national reconstruction project. In Steiner's case, the 
project aims toward human evolution, which he associates with the developmental forces 
of the German nation.

--Roger







Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

3. Fishy
    Posted by: "Roger Rawlings" downfromfog yahoo.com downfromfog
    Date: Mon Oct 1, 2007 6:53 pm ((PDT))

Wait, wait, don't tell me!

This will clear everything up.

"In discussing the zodiac, you should begin with the mammals, represented by Leo; then 
birds, Virgo; reptiles, Libra; amphibians, Scorpio; fish [sic], Sagittarius; articulates, 
Capricorn; worms, Aquarius. Then continue on the other side, where you have the protists, 
Cancer; corals, Gemini; echinoderms, Taurus; ascidians, Aries; mollusks, Pisces. You 
should realize that the zodiac arose at a time when the names and classifications were 
very different. In the Hebrew language, there is [sic] no word for fish [sic], so it is quite 
reasonable that you would not find fish [sic] mentioned in the story of creation." Rudolf 
Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 659-660.

"The Hebrew word for fish is 'dag.'" 
http://www.liberty.edu/wwwadmin/

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have 
dominion over the fish [sic] of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, 
and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." 
Genesis 1:26 
http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/gen1.html

Got it?

--R

P.S. At least he had a big vocabulary (in German).







Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

4.1. Re: sadistic child-hater
    Posted by: "tigerlilymittens" tigerlilymittens yahoo.com tigerlilymittens
    Date: Tue Oct 2, 2007 7:35 pm ((PDT))

I've just returned to the website after more than a week and haven't 
finished reading all the postings but need to respond to this lashing 
out.  I have read some steiner texts, lived in an anthroposophically 
based community for developmentally disabled adults in germany and 
left because it became too one-sided to me. I crave learning and 
anthroposophy is so extreme that I at first used the total immersion 
technique which for me meant; learning what was being said, neither 
agreeing nor disagreeing but sitting with the ideas and slowly 
looking for contradiction or confirmation in daily living. I am 
seeking esoteric knowledge through steiner, I am not schooled in nor 
am I naturally able to "see".  The problem becomes how do you judge 
something which you can't subject to scientific analysis. It then 
becomes a matter of faith and that is always a tricky road. On the 
other hand if I immediately reject what sounds strange to me I 
wouldn't get very far, with steiner or anything that is new to me. So 
I try to have an open mind and balance my opinions. I must admit that 
the paths we choose, or what I've experienced,is that there are ideas 
which we immediately respond to and say to ourselves , yes,that is 
what I beleive, that makes sense to me and helps me make sense of the 
world. So I, and I don't know if it's the same for other people, 
react instinctively.
So back to that I'm an evil child-beating sadist how do you get that 
from what I wrote. I'll try to explain my response, it was visual. 
The child had stolen and was told to hold its feet. So I put myself 
in the child's shoes and felt myself reaching for something which is 
outside myself and I know doesn't belong to me. There is a need being 
expressed by the act, no? I don't know what  psychological analyses 
give as possible explanations.  But the child has a desire ie. 
something is missing. In holding the feet I am given something to 
hold which is already mine. My hands did the reaching when I stole. 
And my hands now contain something. As I've said before with the sit 
down now these are my instinctual reactions when I try to explain to 
myself what the purpose of an action or statement is. I do not know 
if they are in line with anthroposophy. But I do beleive that peoples 
intentions are good so I seek the spirit in which it is meant.
My last line then is; makes sense to me. While it does make an 
instinctual sense as explained above I did not mean to say that I 
approved. The difference is that I start thinking the best of the 
teacher and you start out thinking the worst;so I'm sure my statement 
seemed grotesque to you.
Was it not clear that this was meant sarcastically? Go back to it, 
you can't really make it sound like I was serious except that you 
want to for some reason.



Messages in this topic (46)
________________________________________________________________________

4.2. Re: sadistic child-hater
    Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
    Date: Wed Oct 3, 2007 7:22 pm ((PDT))

Tigerlilymitten:

)So back to that I'm an evil child-beating sadist how do you get 
)that from what I wrote. I'll try to explain my response, it was 
)visual. 
)The child had stolen and was told to hold its feet. So I put myself 
)in the child's shoes and felt myself reaching for something which 
)is outside myself and I know doesn't belong to me. There is a need 
)being expressed by the act, no? I don't know what  psychological 
)analyses give as possible explanations.  But the child has a desire 
)ie. something is missing. 

Therefore the remedy is to find out what it is the child feels 
he/she is missing. It is probably not his or her own feet. 

Being made to sit holding your feet is a humiliation. Especially if 
it is public. It is meant to set an example to others that if you do 
this, you'll be the laughing stock.

)In holding the feet I am given something to hold which is already 
)mine.

Yeah, gee thanks (how it has to feel to the kid). My own feet! That 
must have been what I felt was missing!

I think your response may be nice "visually" but you clearly fail to 
put yourself into the child's situation, into what the child 
experiences in this punishment.

I repeat there is a simple, I daresay foolproof way to determine if 
the punishment is appropriate or kind: Would you want to do it?

If someone asked you, as a punishment or for any reason, against 
your will to sit holding your feet - especially where friends or 
coworkers could see you, how would you feel?

Unless you believe that humiliating and shaming children is actually 
helpful in improving their behavior, it's clear the punishment is 
cruel.

)My hands did the reaching when I stole. And my hands now contain 
)something.

Now I've lost patience. A complete failure of empathy.

)As I've said before with the sit down now these are my instinctual 
)reactions when I try to explain to myself what the purpose of an 
)action or statement is. I do not know if they are in line with 
)anthroposophy.

They are.  

You express anthroposophical child development principles quite well 
with the "My hands did the reaching" stuff. Hands aren't actually 
disattached from the rest of the body or from the *person*. Our 
hands can't do things we don't direct them to do. Anthroposophists 
believe, however, that children aren't literally *in* their bodies 
when they are first born, nor for several years 
afterward. "Incarnation" is a slow process. The notion that the 
hands are somehow operating on their own reflects this. The 
punishment - if it's as you say - puts something in their hands as 
if *anything* put in their hands would solve the problem - as if the 
child's hands aren't actually under his or her control, are separate 
from real wants and needs a real *person* might have.


)But I do beleive that peoples intentions are good 

So do I. That's got nothing to do with it. 

)so I seek the spirit in which it is meant.

That's groovy. Just keep it away from the children.

)My last line then is; makes sense to me. While it does make an 
)instinctual sense as explained above I did not mean to say that I 
)approved. 

Well good then. I can only hope someone pointing out how this 
exercise *feels* to the child makes you reconsider. It may be 
visually interesting, but it's detached from feeling, from empathy, 
and that's how you tell - not interesting visual images.

)The difference is that I start thinking the best of the 
)teacher and you start out thinking the worst;so I'm sure my 
)statement seemed grotesque to you.

I started out in Waldorf thinking the very best of the teachers, and 
still believe they are almost universally well intentioned people.

)Was it not clear that this was meant sarcastically? Go back to it, 
)you can't really make it sound like I was serious except that you 
)want to for some reason.

You've spent the whole post explaining why you were serious about 
it, and now say you weren't. No, I don't think you were being 
sarcastic.

Diana




Messages in this topic (46)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

5a. Re: Paltering Peter
    Posted by: "Peter Staudenmaier" pstaud hotmail.com pstauden
    Date: Tue Oct 2, 2007 9:39 pm ((PDT))


Hi Diana,


thanks very much for this background:


) I know that Sune posted some of your quotes on a talk page there at
) one point - I'll try to find the time to dig it up, it's buried in
) the rubble of "mediation" and "arbitration" squabbling. I definitely
) recall that he quoted your saying that you were critical of the
) stultifying academic realm. It clearly did not compute to him that
) although you were "critical" of academia, you were, in fact, an
) academic. He felt that these quotes showed that you could not
) possibly be a good academic - here you were admitting it yourself. I
) tried to explain to him that, unlike in esoteric movements, there
) are realms of human endeavor where it is possible to be critical and
) actually still participate without disgrace or forcible ejection.


I finally got around to taking a look at some of the behind-the-scenes discussions at several anthroposophical Wikipedia entries, and I am impressed by your fortitude. For what it's worth, Harlan Gilbert has not been telling the truth in several instances. For example, I sent him my article on "Rudolf Steiner and the Jewish Question" last year, and he read it and wrote me back about it (all the while refusing to discuss it in public). He now feigns ignorance of any scholarship on the topic. That article, for better or worse, is not at all polemical, and it appeared in the leading scholarly journal on the history of German Jewry. And it's even in English. But it  may be better to leave my work out of those entries in any case, since it simply provokes anthroposophists, while the non-anthroposophical wikipedia 'arbitrators' seem completely over their heads (did I understand correctly that one of them thinks I am an opponent, rather than a member, of the ecology movement, for example?). If you do think it would help improve the discussion of the entries, however, you are welcome to use any of my published work, particularly the academic articles, and I can provide whatever information you need to that end. There is excellent historical literature available in German as well, not polemical and not written by me.

In other cases, Harlan is apparently telling what he thinks is the truth, but his claims are very much mistaken. One example is his 'discovery' that Rudolf Hess "was actually the person who signed the document forbidding anthroposophy in the Third Reich!!!" Aside from the fact that there is no document forbidding anthroposophy in the Third Reich, the document that Harlan is referring to (the November 1935 order dissolving the Anthroposophical Society in Germany) was signed by Reinhard Heydrich, not by Rudolf Hess. This is anything but hair-splitting; Heydrich was the most tenacious opponent of anthroposophy within the Nazi hierarchy, and Hess was the most steadfast supporter of anthroposophy within the Nazi hierarchy. Getting them mixed up is a sign of very serious confusion. Harlan then compounds the confusion by claiming that "Hess did lift a ban on anthroposophy in the Third Reich." That isn't true either; Hess did not lift any ban, what he did was help anthroposophists work around Heydrich's suppression of a particular anthroposophical organization. Harlan is also completely mistaken that Nazi official Alfred Baeumler did not say "anything good about anthroposophy." Harlan's claim that "The Waldorf schools were formally closed by Nazi decree in the mid-1930s" is similarly mistaken. Harlan further believes that Steiner opposed WWI; he was in fact a very vocal supporter of the Central Powers. All of this information, I might note, is readily available in the sources Harlan himself cites.

In addition, in case it makes any difference to future exchanges, a number of the claims that Harlan, Sune, and other anthroposophist participants make about me personally are inaccurate. To choose one remarkably insignificant point that sparked substantial discussion: I did not post my own articles to the Institute for Social Ecology website, nor did I spell my name "peter" with a lower-case "p". All of the articles at the site were posted by the ISE's webmaster, who then attached names to each of them, in my case "peter". (I am a computer moron myself, and don't even know how to post articles at websites.) And just a couple weeks ago, Harlan asked for "peer-reviewed studies" of Steiner's racial doctrines. There are several excellent studies in German; the only peer-reviewed one in English is my "Race and Redemption" article, which will be published this coming February. I sent that one to Harlan last year, too. As for my first article on anthroposophy (the one Sune thinks is filled with lies and so forth), it was indeed published in multiple versions in a variety of Scandinavian publications, including several journals and at least one book. But those are not academic publications, as that particular article is, rather obviously, not an academic article. It was not self-published; I have never self-published anything at all.

Speaking of my first article on anthroposophy... Sune is evidently still confused about which Steiner lecture I cite in the article's opening paragraph (the unrevised and the revised versions of the article refer to the very same text on that score). Sune quotes me saying on this list: "The published version of the lecture doesn't contradict my description of it. The sole discrepancy is the word 'sub-race'." Sune has somehow mixed up the lectures in question. For reasons he has never managed to explain, Sune thinks my sentence above refers to the first lecture in Steiner's book The Mission of the Folk Souls. It does not refer to the first lecture in the book. It refers to the sixth lecture in the book. In the very same exchange that Sune quotes, I said quite clearly that this lecture is "chapter six in the book version [The Mission of the Folk Souls], based on Steiner's lecture of June 12, 1910. In the English edition, that's roughly pages 90-110 or so." (My post to WC list, October 2, 2001) By the way, I then immediately added: "If you disagree that Steiner here designates the "Aryans" as superior to the other "root races" he describes, then by all means present an argument to that effect. It's childish to pretend that the lecture doesn't exist if all you mean is that you read its content differently." Six years later, Sune is still pretending. Even the unrevised first version of my essay refers very clearly to the entire lecture cycle, not merely to the first lecture. I think I have explained this to Sune roughly twenty times by now, to no avail.

It is also definitely not the case that I have "worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy"; when I have been asked to do so, I have declined. That was true well before my current academic status.

Last, as you know, I think it is wrongheaded to pay attention to academic credentials rather than the content of work produced, but for what it's worth, I do have a graduate degree in history (my undergraduate degree is in German literature). Many PhD programs, Cornell's included, grant the master's degree upon passing the preliminary exams and 'advancing to candidacy', as it's called. I did that a year and half ago, and thus have an MA in modern European history. This was true, by the way, well before Harlan claimed that "Peter Staudenmaier has no degree in history, nor any academic position." In fact it was true before the private exchange between me and Harlan last year. I am not sure what counts as an academic position In Harlan's view, but I really am a PhD candidate, I teach my own course here at Cornell, and was a fellow at Humboldt University in Berlin for the past academic year, where among other things I co-taught a course with Helmut Zander. It will be several years before I get my PhD.

The state of discussion on those wikipedia 'talk' pages, not to mention on the English wikipedia entries about anthroposophical topics themselves, is far less informed and far less informative than the analogous entries in the German version of wikipedia. That is a shame, for anthroposophists as well as for non-anthroposophists, and the back-and-forth between folks like Harlan, Sune, et al, on the one hand, and Diana and a handful of others, on the other hand, is a striking example of critics of anthroposophy trying very very hard to balance out astonishingly confused claims advanced by anthroposophists in purportedly educational public forums.

Here's hoping that situation will someday improve,


Peter Staudenmaier


_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger CafŽ. Stop by today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline

Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________

5b. Re: Paltering Peter
    Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
    Date: Wed Oct 3, 2007 7:31 pm ((PDT))

Thanks, Peter. I'll have to come back in a couple of days to discuss 
this further I'm afraid. I'm not taking part at wikipedia anymore 
except sporadically, not since last January. I don't believe in the 
long run it will be worth the trouble - wikipedia's  credibility is 
shot anyway.

Did you notice the way the "antisemitism" discussion on the Steiner 
page reads at the moment. Steiner is depicted as a fearless opponent 
of antisemitism. No opposing viewpoint is given, because we can't 
actually cite Steiner in the article!

Peter:
) Hi Diana,
) 
) 
) thanks very much for this background:
) 
) 
) ) I know that Sune posted some of your quotes on a talk page there 
at
) ) one point - I'll try to find the time to dig it up, it's buried 
in
) ) the rubble of "mediation" and "arbitration" squabbling. 



Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

6a. Re: bias in history
    Posted by: "Peter Staudenmaier" pstaud hotmail.com pstauden
    Date: Tue Oct 2, 2007 9:41 pm ((PDT))



Hi again Diana,


) Hm. Yes, thanks. It really takes only a moment or two of thought to
) dismiss the sophomoric notion that "bias" is bad and "objectivity"
) always the correct moral stance or correct attitude for a scholar.
)
) Has any one of your anthroposophical interlocutors ever replied to
) this argument? (to my recollection, no).



I'm afraid not. I think there is a very large general problem when historians try to engage esotericists (a problem that works in both directions, by the way; several of the more prominent and influential scholars of esotericism are themselves esotericists), and that is what often gets in the way of reasonable discussion with anthroposophists. I've been trying to not to harp on it lately, because there is no reason that either anthroposophists or critics of anthroposophy ought to adopt the coventions of historians when talking about such topics in open public discussion, but it does make for a sizeable stumbling block whenever anthroposophists get hot and bothered about my work. It's worth noting that my German colleague Helmut Zander frequently faces this problem as well, even though he has the respect of a number of important anthroposophists, something that can't be said of me. Many anthroposophists find the basic procedures of any kind of scholarship, historical or otherwise, thoroughly baffling, even when these procedures are explained in plain language. Interestingly enough, these are sometimes the very anthroposophists who are most drawn to historical topics -- recall that Mike Helsher was once studying to become a Waldorf history teacher, for example. Or consider Harlan Gilbert, or Bruce Jackson, or of course Daniel Hindes.

As always, I would be delighted to discover counter-examples, and I urge anybody interested in anthroposophical history not to be shy and to speak up. Greetings to all,


Peter S.



_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger CafŽ. Stop by today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline

Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________

6b. AW: [wc] Re: bias in history
    Posted by: "Bruce Jackson" bruceylists freenet.de bruceyj
    Date: Tue Oct 2, 2007 11:01 pm ((PDT))

Mornin' Peter!

 

I'm a maths teacher and have little personal interest in themes historical.
Today is a national holiday here in Germany (to commemorate the
reunification). Along with hundreds of other waldis I'll be travelling to
Greifswald for our autumn conference!

 

Greetings

Bruce

 

  _____  

Von: waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com
[mailto:waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von Peter Staudenmaier
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Oktober 2007 06:34
...

Many anthroposophists find the basic procedures of any kind of scholarship,
historical or otherwise, thoroughly baffling, even when these procedures are
explained in plain language. Interestingly enough, these are sometimes the
very anthroposophists who are most drawn to historical topics -- recall that
Mike Helsher was once studying to become a Waldorf history teacher, for
example. Or consider Harlan Gilbert, or Bruce Jackson, or of course Daniel
Hindes.

As always, I would be delighted to discover counter-examples, and I urge
anybody interested in anthroposophical history not to be shy and to speak
up. Greetings to all,

Peter S.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________

6c. Re: AW: [wc] Re: bias in history
    Posted by: "Peter Staudenmaier" pstaud hotmail.com pstauden
    Date: Wed Oct 3, 2007 12:24 pm ((PDT))


Hi Bruce,


) I'm a maths teacher


Yes, we know your field is mathematics. So is Detlef Hardorp's. Thankfully, this does not stop him, or you, from addressing historical questions, any more than the fact that my field is history prevents me from addressing mathematical questions. In any case, you have in fact addressed historical questions very frequently on this list. You seem to have somehow suddenly forgotten this, however:


) and have little personal interest in themes historical.


In that case, you may want to track down the impostor who has been posting under your name for some time now. Or perhaps it's yet another case of schizophrenia? You have expressed considerable interest in historical questions, indeed those are the questions to which very many of your previous posts were devoted. You addressed, among many other historical topics, whether the holocaust happened (the thread to which you chose to reply in your initial post this spring); public health concerns in early twentieth century Germany; published statements by anthroposophists in the early 1900s which you believe are ãoutdated by today's knowledgeä; the audiences that attended Rudolf Steinerâs lectures; the content of these lectures themselves; whether black people ought to have been in Europe in the 1920s; and, in your words, ãwhat Steiner meant and why he said it way back in 1923.ä All of those are historical topics, and you have demonstrated intense personal interest in them. 

On a number of those historical themes, you have had rather remarkable things to say. For instance, you claim that the ãNegro raceä has a specific task (though you seem reticent about saying what that task is), and that ãthe Europeansä have a different task. You have also said you believe that the white race is the race of the future and the spiritually creative race. You have further endorsed these statements by Rudolf Steiner:

"When we ask which race belongs to which part of the earth, we must say: the 
yellow race, the Mongols, the Mongolian race belongs to Asia, the white race 
or the Caucasian race belongs to Europe, and the black race or the Negro 
race belongs to Africa. The Negro race does not belong to Europe, and the 
fact that this race is now playing such a large role in Europe is of course 
nothing but a nuisance." (Rudolf Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde, 52-53)
 
"The use of the French language quite certainly corrupts the soul. The soul 
acquires nothing more than the possibility of cliches. Those who 
enthusiastically speak French transfer that to other languages. The French 
are also ruining what maintains their dead language, namely, their blood. 
The French are committing the terrible brutality of moving black people to 
Europe, but it works, in an even worse way, back on France. It has an 
enormous effect on the blood and the race and contributes considerably 
toward French decadence. The French as a race are reverting." (Rudolf Steiner, Faculty Meetings With Rudolf Steiner, 558-559)

It sounds like it might be a good idea for you to go back to your own posts from, say, four months ago -- I hope that isnât too historical for your tastes -- and re-acquaint yourself with what you wrote. Greetings from sunny Ithaca,

Peter S.




_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us

Messages in this topic (11)
__________