-- Topica Digest --
	
	RE: that lecture
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	Re: that lecture
	By mainquestion1 yahoo.com
	
	Re: that lecture
	By mainquestion1 yahoo.com
	
	RE: that lecture
	By pkcompany netzero.net
	
	Re: that lecture
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:58:34 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: that lecture




Hi MQ, this is the rest of what I started last night, in reply to your post
- 

 

The desks moving thing -

 

)Ants in the pants for sure, but when I taught K-8 (as opposed to the g5-8
at )Waldorf) it was 1st, 2d, and 3d grade children practically tackling me
with hugs, )telling me they loved me, asking me if they could come over to
my house and meet )my dog, etc. 

 

Oh yeah, I know and of course that's true; perhaps I was too hard on the
guy. I just got sick of the big ego trip "The children must reverence me" so
many Waldorf teachers are on. I think this feeds into the difficulty dealing
with middle schoolers, this CREATES the preteen monsters you describe IMO. 

 

)It's not that I ever encouraged that sort of thing, either - this is just
how some )of them behave when they're happy, with a teacher they like and
who makes class )fun for them. At the beginning of the year before I
assigned seats, there were )kids pushing each other in order to get to the
seat next to mine. It had nothing )to do with me and I'm sure it wouldn't be
hard to find other teachers with the )same experience. Hard to believe, I
know.  

 

 

No, I do know what you're saying and from working in the preschools, of
course I know it's an ego boost when they fight over who gets to sit in your
lap etc.

 

Maybe he was just trying to say that it's natural that they love you
unquestioningly in the early years, and start to question you later. In
which case I agree. I am just cynical on Waldorf because I heard a lot of
such TALK and what I saw happening were two different things. 

 

I'd be willing to bet the class that "turned on" its teacher, in Lemuria's
school, experienced or witnesses students abused by teachers in their early
years - when they were too "self-conscious" to either talk to or be listened
to, in the Waldorf view. If you don't talk to 'em and won't listen to 'em,
and insist on only fairy tales all day long? by the time they are 12 or 13
they are damn angry.

 

Lemuria told us originally that the class believed their teacher had
"slighted" them. That kind of obvious understatement, obvious minimizing, is
a pretty good clue. They are often not so much "slighted" as completely
disrespected.

 

)I think the "social being" of a Waldorf class has to do with the
group-think state )of mind that a classroom teacher tries to foster. The
children do everything as a )group - their options for personal expression
almost always are artificially )limited, and individual talents are not
showcased.

 

I think it's that - those are good points - but I also think they're talking
about an actual spiritual entity. When they talk about "beings" they really
mean it - they mean the class group per se has a corresponding spiritual
"being" out there somewhere who guides it or shadows it so to speak. 

 

Good points about discouraging differences or recognition of talents.

 

)many kids were absolutely mortified to be singled out for any reason, even
a )compliment. 

 

Someone just said this this morning on SJU - that it is a "harsh experience"
for a child to be singled out, even for praise. IMO this situation also is
created by the teachers and parents who believe it is so. I do not know any
seventh graders who cannot smile and say "Thank you" if an adult says "Nice
job" or "I liked your poem" or some such. Sure, it may be embarrassing for a
moment, and some will shrug and duck away, but it is not slicing up their
soul as Waldorf will have you believe. I wonder if it follows from the "No
introductions" thing? They haven't been taught to reply simply and
courteously. All these things are a BFD because the adults have made it so. 

 

Lemuria's story about the mother who thought seventh graders shouldn't speak
in front of a group blew me away. This is a totally foreign mindset compared
to other schools. My son (a seventh grader) has been speaking in front of
groups for many years.

 

)Try, just try, to motivate an older student who bristles and turns away
when you )give them a sincere compliment. This is one of those
middleschooler charms in any )school, but I thnk it's worse with Waldorf
kids.

 

Honestly I am not familiar with this. Maybe we aren't defining "middle
school" the same? What ages do you mean? My son is 12 and in seventh grade.
The faces of his recent classmates flash before me and they are some of the
most gracious and well-spoken young people you could hope to meet. I can't
imagine one of them ""bristling" at a compliment.

 

I wonder if some of them are bristling at *false* compliments. The kid whom
you refer to, for instance, who's been forced to continue violin when he
hates it and is no good at it? I would imagine compliments rankle and he's
probably very angry.

 

)she's a fantastic teacher, as good as they come. She also happens to have a
)steady supply of stories that make my hair stand on end because some of

)the students are, um, challenging. It just goes with the territory.

 

I know. And to be fair my son is in private school, not public, and the
private schools have the luxury of turning away people who they think may
cause any problems. At Quaker schools any history of trouble making
disqualifies you, instantly and permanently. Back to public school you go. I
mean, they're not perfect kids, there are kids on Ritalin, kids with issues,
kids with crises at home that spill over to school, but largely, if you
frighten, threaten, hurt people, or continually disrupt classes, you're
going to end up leaving. And most of these families are *deeply* concerned
with where their kids will go for high school (the school only goes K-8) -
bad behavior reports are the death knell, in terms of acceptance to the
Quaker upper schools. So it's self-selected to a certain extent, unlike
public school. I realize, this is partly why there are fewer hair-raising
stories. 

 

I asked:

 

)Do you recall if he really used the word "creator"?

)This is megalomania.

 

)He probably did; I don't think of myself as a megalomaniac but I think I've
used )the phrase "classroom culture" myself before

 

I'm sorry - I'm sure you are not a megalomaniac. I meant the word "creator"
not "classroom culture." I don't think the teacher is creating the class, or
the social "being" of the class, in any sense. 

 

I agree the teacher is largely responsible for the class "culture," but in
my experience when they say "creator" in Waldorf they REALLY mean creator.

 

 

)I imagine it can be a shock to show up to school one day and find that your
)formerly eager, open minded and fresh-faced group of children has turned
into )sour, angry children questioning your every move and mouthing lyrics
to Snoop )Doggy Dogg. Have you heard the words to  "Drop It Like It's Hot"? 

 

Maybe I just don't have the familiarity with these settings. I guess my
child is very protected. No - I'm not familiar with that song (and I think
I'll keep it that way). His friends aren't either, to my knowledge.

 

 

)What a letdown, to say the least, to discover that 6-7 years of the Waldorf
)coccoon didn't innoculate them from rapper-worship, or at the very least,
protect )them from exposure. 

 

I can understand that it's a let-down, though I can't help shaking my head
at these parents (and teachers). Why in the world would a "Waldorf coccoon"
protect them from rapper-worship? Silk cloths don't *really* have magical
powers. All of this is up to the parents. There is no enchanted fairyland at
a Waldorf school - all there is is hypocrisy. There's a lot going on in
those kids' houses that isn't "Waldorf," and there's a lot of lying going on
- at least there was at our Waldorf school. I probably have a much more
"Waldorf" home than a lot of Waldorfers. (Ramen noodles and all (G)) I don't
have anything against rap music per se, but I do think that my child is not
largely susceptible to all this media influence because WE'RE NOT - his
parents. Or probably we are - we paid a lot for those Rolling Stones tickets
:-(, but we're aware and *talk* of it. *Even* in front of the kid, and from
an early age. That's what it comes from - it comes from home. All the
watercolor painting and eurythmy in the world don't have anything to do with
this, in the end. Does that make sense? Not sure I said it right.

 

 

 

)Remember these folks have been making signifcant adjustments in their
personal )lives (sometimes ranging toward compromise, or sacrifice) in order
to take on the )job of class teacher. Then they find one day that it is,
beyond a shadow of a )doubt, Not Working? I feel sorry for them. Who
*wouldn't* have antipathy. 

 

I totally agree. It's a fine line to say the sorts of things I say about
Waldorf, my comments are very harsh sometimes, and it's hard not appear to
be blaming these individual teachers - and sometimes I *am* blaming
individuals. And obviously they hear mostly everything I say as an attack on
them anyway. I actually do in a sense view the teachers as often nearly as
victimized as the children. I know of some waldorf teachers who were treated
in a way that can only be described as abusive. Deby Snell has been saying
this for years, and taking unhappy Waldorf teachers under her wing. (It's
sort of ironic, the president of PLANS has a lot more sympathy for Waldorf
teachers than a lot of people in Waldorf schools do!)

 

)("Put that damn ipod away... you saw *what* last night?... How could you
speak to )me like that?")

 

Why in the world do they have the ipods at school? Surely a Waldorf school
doesn't allow this? The Quaker school sure doesn't. I asked my son about
this last night. He doesn't have an iPod, but lots of kids do, of course.
They can have them in their backpacks or lockers, to use on the bus going
home, but nobody takes them out in class. Same as cell phones. That's just
the school rules, and nobody takes them out in class. I see them come out
the door and take out their phones right away (of course this is a city
school, and these kids are just now being allowed to use the public
transportation and are usually required to check in with a parent by phone
along the route home. Even the kids I drive home often phone a parent from
the car, whom they're about to see 10 minutes later, which I think is sort
of sweet, even tho I know some people think it's terrible, terrible that
they have all these gadgets at all. I think it's nice they are so connected
to their parents.

 

 

)I guess it was a breath of fresh air in that chilly place. 

 

)Oh, you have no idea. He actually used *humor*. Check it out: What is the
first )change a Dad notices at home after signing the kids up for Waldorf
school? )BASKETS. Everywhere baskets, multiplying like rabbits.

 

That's funny, that was a joke in my family too. My son and I still joke
about my basket-buying days. Also candles - I used to buy candles
compulsively, in all sizes and flavors.

 

 

)What I was saying was that the Waldorf kids have no choices. There is no
misery )quite like the misery of an eighth grade boy who didn't like and
never had much )success at the violin in the 4th grade and 5th grade to
begin with, still being )forced to hack away at it, and maybe sitting next
to a kid who sincerely likes the )violin, plays well, and twice a week for
40 minutes resents the off-key-hacking )covering up the results of his own
hard work.  In their perception, both boys have )lost. Multiply this
scenario times all the required subjects - Spanish, German, )Chorus,
Orchestra, Eurhythmy, Handwork, Woodwork (with the hands, as opposed to
)wood "shop") 

 

Got it. Thanks again, MQ.

Diana

 


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



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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:11:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Pseudonym (mainquestion1 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: that lecture



I feel uncomfortable reading (now both) Diana's and
Walden's reactions to my report because honestly,
there was nothing about the guy that I would
characterize quite that negatively. If anything
bothered me about his talk, it was the fact that (imo)
he had to dance around his opinions so gingerly. But
given the confrontational nature of his suggestions
and the rigid Waldorf environment, I would rather see
someone come in who speaks the College's language and
who has their stamp of approval before even walking in
the door. I thought: This is the person who will bring
about some change. He was asked to speak by the
parents' association and the event was very well
attended. 

Diana, I hope I can someday return to thinking the way
you do about teens. Your son sounds like a sweetheart,
too. Before I was doing most of my teaching at
schools, I had only positive experiences with this age
group, but unfortunately after that my classroom
experiences ruined that for me. When my students had
all sought out my class as a result of personal
interest, they were all wonderful. (I should also say
to you that writing is my therapy, so there's no need
to thank me for posting. I could be paying top dollar
for this elsewhere (g))

I taught at a Catholic school in a really tough (read:
poor) city where (I was told) most of my students had
struggling single parents and at least one of my
students had a parent in jail. These kids were
*angry*. Life had let them down a long time ago. They
resented having to come to my class because they
thought they shouldn't "have to" - and in fact, during
the prior two years when the school didn't *have* a
(mysubject) teacher, they *didn't* have to. It was
playtime before I showed up. Combine this with the
fact that I had recently started some heavy-duty
teacher training, 
and I arrived with all kinds of lofty goals for us
all... No wonder the kids were not pleased. Then I
taught at the 10k/yr. Waldorf school in the wealthy
suburb (I was recruited by a friend of a friend to
"help out") and I naively hoped things would be better
there. In some ways, especially with grades 5 and 6,
it was a relief. But the 7ths and 8ths were just as
angry,  and tired of having the entire smorgasbord of
what are normally public-school elective subjects
crammed down their throats by force. And the students
assigned to me were the ones who hadn't shown enough
interest or ability in the subject to be skimmed off
the top of the class list onto the class roster of my
subject's department head, who perpetuated the idea
that kids had to be "good enough for" her class.
(First the school forces them to study this material
whether they're interested or not, then the school
segregates the students into two groups - those who
succeeded and those who failed. Good thing Waldorf
doesn't use letter grades! - groan.) 

Ok, with that background, does it surprise you that
the concept of 7th and 8th graders "turning on"
teachers wasn't new to me? I have experienced 7th and
8th grade students: using foul language in class,
insulting each other and me, making threats verbally
and physically, telling outrageous lies (I have a
really fun story about this for later!), repeatedly
refusing to follow direction, damaging/stealing school
property,  
yelling, and every DAY totally hijacking the class's
attention. At that Catholic school I mentioned, a boy
once cussed and threw a chair at me because I asked
him to leave the room.. At least at the Catholic
school, I had *that* option available to me. At the
Waldorf school, one day a fight broke out between two
of my 8th grade boys - with a fraction of a second
between the emotional spark and the wrestling match on
the floor. *That's* what I mean when I say
"impulsive". If I felt comfortable giving a lot of
detail about some of the positive things we
accomplished, I think you'd probably be amazed.  They
*did* eventually learn. It's just a shame that almost
all of the obstacles that I needed to overcome in
order to see that happen were put into my path by the
school, not by the students. The students were
products of their environment. These kids were angry
and defensive walking into my room on the very first
day of class, and no amount of attempts to "work with"
them had any effect. Teacher: "How can we make this
less of a chore for you, and still meet the school's
requirement?" Students: "How about you *just tell
them* you're teaching us (the subject) and then let us
have time off instead." T: "That doesn't work for me.
How about we try (xyz new idea)." S: "No way, that
sucks." ...Worse than that, many of these kids went by
the motto, "You can't make me." Which of course was
completely true. At one point I spoke with a parent
about assigning her son an alternative curriculum that
wouldn't leave him exposed to several temptations that
he had proven himself unable to handle. The parent
dismissed the idea as "punitive". She had no concern
for whether he would succeed or fail in my room - in
her mind, he had to be doing the same assignments the
other kids were doing. (In fact he usually acted to
*prevent* the other kids from doing them.) 

It was a nightmare... My Waldorf colleagues told me
that the experience of being forced to take my class
was supposed help students "develop their will." OH,
it developed their will, alright. At (mainstream)
teacher conferences or professional development
workshops, elementary teachers would grab my arm and
say, "OH honey, that's just how these kids *are*. It's
a tough, tough age."  (I will never forget the woman
who saw "Waldorf" on my nametag and went out of her
way to vent to me about her former Waldorf students'
behavior.) On a (mysubject) teachers' listserve, the
advice given to public middle school teachers with
unruly 7ths and 8ths usually involves DVDs/videos,
personal incentive plans (and candy), computers, fun
little competitions like races, or pennies-in-the-jar
point-systems where the pennies buy popcorn for a
class popcorn party at the end of the year. We all
know how well the electronics idea would go over... I
had already been publicly busted for giving out candy
(remember that?) and I had already been scolded by my
department-head for something I said in passing to
some kids the previous year, that gave her the (false)
idea that I was fostering competition and hard
feelings among some of the younger students, who
weren't even *my* students then.  They were already so
competitive (she said) that there had been incidents
of tears. So -- no friendly competitions. Eventually I
stopped being so concerned. If I hadn't quit, I'm sure
I would have been let go soon enough. 

I hope that now it's a little more understandable why
I was so thrilled to hear what this guy had to say,
particularly the words "individualized instruction".
"What, you mean we should let them *choose*?? From
your mouth to the class teachers' ears!" It's the fact
that he wasn't heard that's the problem.

MQ






		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:02:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Pseudonym (mainquestion1 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: that lecture



I wrote that last one before reading Diana's last one
so to answer a couple of questions -

Middle school over here is Gr 6-8.

)If you don't talk to 'em and won't listen to 'em,
)and insist on only fairy tales all day long? by the
time )they are 12 or 13 they are damn angry. 

OH yes. Many even before. These ones usually leave. 

)I also think they're talking about an actual
spiritual )entity. When they talk about "beings" they
really
)mean it - they mean the class group per se has a
)corresponding spiritual "being" out there somewhere
)who guides it or shadows it so to speak.

I wouldn't know about this, because, you know the way
Gabriel totally ignores my posts when I ask him to
tell me who Ahriman is? That's what I got at school. I
was expected to be totally in the dark because there's
no Anthroposophist varsity "A" on my sweater.

)My son (a seventh grader) has been speaking in front
)of groups for many years.

I heard recently that this was on the list of criteria
followed by Harvard Admissions. A student should be
comfortable speaking to a group. That's great about
your son. 

) I wonder if some of them are bristling at *false*
)compliments. The kid whom you refer to, for instance,
)who's been forced to continue violin when he
)hates it and is no good at it? I would imagine
)compliments rankle and he's probably very angry.

Yes, that's part of it. I think the Waldorf kids to
some extent are also expecting me to try to manipulate
them, and in their eyes (justifiably) I'm just another
Great Opressor.  The 12 yr olds I know in normal
situations are a lot less likely to bristle but still
I see it... I definitely it has nothing to do with
what the Waldorf folks are talking about though. It's
because parents and teachers are the anti-cool (thanks
to Nickelodeon), and cool is extremely important to
some of them (see Gordon Neufeld, below.) 

)I'm sorry - I'm sure you are not a megalomaniac. I
)meant the word "creator"

Oh whoops - sorry, that word-switch was sloppy of me.
To answer your original question, I'm pretty sure he
used the word "creator" or at least some version of it
("works to create the.." "careful creation of...").

)Why in the world do they have the ipods at school?
)Surely a Waldorf school doesn't allow this? 

Of course not, but that doesn't mean the kids respect
the rules. Many of the teachers just look the other
way because taking away the ipod (or the shirt with
printed slogan) just isn't worth the short-term
hassle. I used to think that they had so many strict
rules just for the purpose of easing up on them when
it was politically convenient.

)I do think that my child is not largely susceptible
to )all this media influence because WE'RE NOT 

Right on. This is exactly what you will find in Gordon
Neufeld's "Hold On To Your Kids" (which is not a
Waldorf book). It's about the phenomenon of "peer
attachment". Kids who don't trust their parents can
feel with a life-or-death urgency that if they don't
live up to (or down to) peer expectations, they're
literally not going to survive in the world. A close
relationship with parents (that is so sweet about the
carpool kids on their cellphones) is the single most
protective factor when it comes to keeping kids off
drugs, etc. 

It's scary to think of what can happen to that close
parent-child relationship after 8 years of
triangulation with a classroom teacher who wants to be
just as close, if not closer, to the student. 
Shudder.

MQ 

Time for me to take a break from posting and catch up
on real life for a while - Happy Halloween!



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com


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

Date: Tue,  1 Nov 2005 02:01:42 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: that lecture



FWIW, I have the opportunity to hear Petrash lecture over the weekend.  
I wasn't going to go, but maybe now I will.  If I do, I'll add my 2c.

Pete


Pseudonym wrote:
) 
) I wrote that last one before reading Diana's last one
) so to answer a couple of questions -
) 
) Middle school over here is Gr 6-8.
) 
) )If you don't talk to 'em and won't listen to 'em,
) )and insist on only fairy tales all day long? by the
) time )they are 12 or 13 they are damn angry. 
) 
) OH yes. Many even before. These ones usually leave. 
) 
) )I also think they're talking about an actual
) spiritual )entity. When they talk about "beings" they
) really
) )mean it - they mean the class group per se has a
) )corresponding spiritual "being" out there somewhere
) )who guides it or shadows it so to speak.
) 
) I wouldn't know about this, because, you know the way
) Gabriel totally ignores my posts when I ask him to
) tell me who Ahriman is? That's what I got at school. I
) was expected to be totally in the dark because there's
) no Anthroposophist varsity "A" on my sweater.
) 
) )My son (a seventh grader) has been speaking in front
) )of groups for many years.
) 
) I heard recently that this was on the list of criteria
) followed by Harvard Admissions. A student should be
) comfortable speaking to a group. That's great about
) your son. 
) 
) ) I wonder if some of them are bristling at *false*
) )compliments. The kid whom you refer to, for instance,
) )who's been forced to continue violin when he
) )hates it and is no good at it? I would imagine
) )compliments rankle and he's probably very angry.
) 
) Yes, that's part of it. I think the Waldorf kids to
) some extent are also expecting me to try to manipulate
) them, and in their eyes (justifiably) I'm just another
) Great Opressor.  The 12 yr olds I know in normal
) situations are a lot less likely to bristle but still
) I see it... I definitely it has nothing to do with
) what the Waldorf folks are talking about though. It's
) because parents and teachers are the anti-cool (thanks
) to Nickelodeon), and cool is extremely important to
) some of them (see Gordon Neufeld, below.) 
) 
) )I'm sorry - I'm sure you are not a megalomaniac. I
) )meant the word "creator"
) 
) Oh whoops - sorry, that word-switch was sloppy of me.
) To answer your original question, I'm pretty sure he
) used the word "creator" or at least some version of it
) ("works to create the.." "careful creation of...").
) 
) )Why in the world do they have the ipods at school?
) )Surely a Waldorf school doesn't allow this? 
) 
) Of course not, but that doesn't mean the kids respect
) the rules. Many of the teachers just look the other
) way because taking away the ipod (or the shirt with
) printed slogan) just isn't worth the short-term
) hassle. I used to think that they had so many strict
) rules just for the purpose of easing up on them when
) it was politically convenient.
) 
) )I do think that my child is not largely susceptible
) to )all this media influence because WE'RE NOT 
) 
) Right on. This is exactly what you will find in Gordon
) Neufeld's "Hold On To Your Kids" (which is not a
) Waldorf book). It's about the phenomenon of "peer
) attachment". Kids who don't trust their parents can
) feel with a life-or-death urgency that if they don't
) live up to (or down to) peer expectations, they're
) literally not going to survive in the world. A close
) relationship with parents (that is so sweet about the
) carpool kids on their cellphones) is the single most
) protective factor when it comes to keeping kids off
) drugs, etc. 
) 
) It's scary to think of what can happen to that close
) parent-child relationship after 8 years of
) triangulation with a classroom teacher who wants to be
) just as close, if not closer, to the student. 
) Shudder.
) 
) MQ 
) 
) Time for me to take a break from posting and catch up
) on real life for a while - Happy Halloween!
) 
) 
) 
) 	
) 		
) __________________________________ 
) Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
) http://mail.yahoo.com


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

Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:00:44 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: that lecture



Interesting - thanks for your posts, MQ.

MQ wrote:

) I feel uncomfortable reading (now both) Diana's and
) Walden's reactions to my report because honestly,
) there was nothing about the guy that I would
) characterize quite that negatively.

It's not so much as "negative" as it is contrary to what I believe to be a
healthy
way for a teacher to view students - or for that matter for one human being
to view and interact with another human being.

MQ previously wrote:
)Remember, these kids don't exactly volunteer to sit in the classroom.

Now some listmembers might know that I have a problem with mandatory
institutionalized "education" of any flavour - Waldorf, Whatever . . . .
What made me feel queasy, however, was not simply the idea of compulsory
"education" (I am used to that feeling!) but the concept of a Waldorf
"educator" thinking he can *form a class* (think about that expression for a
minute) to fit a particular mold developed by a turn of the century
occultist from Europe.
While I accept that many kids have no trouble (and even thrive) in a more
structured educational setting - when they choose to take that path - the
*creator of the social being* bit is creepy, though very Waldorf.

Problem. First, many parents have no idea what happens in Waldorf teacher
training. Second, many Waldorf schools are scrambling over each other
searching for teachers - a recognized teaching certificate is not always
required while a "relationship to Anthroposophy" will land you the job. What
does that mean? Well, if you need to ask the question, you are not ready for
the answer. Etc.

And the spiritually striving teacher might end up spending EIGHT years with
a group of young people - forming *the group* into the teacher's version of
an Anthroposophically correct social being.

)He said we need to allow teenage students to express their individuality
and their differentness from us.

And he would be parroting Steiner in that respect. Better not try that trick
with a grade two class, though. Who does he think he is to "allow" a teenage
student to express his or her individuality? Megalomania pure and simple,
imo. How about the concept that EVERY human being is different individual
and deserves the SAME respect - regardless of labels like "teenage student?"
Blind leading the blind? Maybe not - kids can see well at a early age.
Ignorant leading the innocent is perhaps more apt.  So why would students
revolt?
Because maybe they realize the foundation of their institution is
revolt-ing.

-Walden


If anything
) bothered me about his talk, it was the fact that (imo)
) he had to dance around his opinions so gingerly. But
) given the confrontational nature of his suggestions
) and the rigid Waldorf environment, I would rather see
) someone come in who speaks the College's language and
) who has their stamp of approval before even walking in
) the door. I thought: This is the person who will bring
) about some change. He was asked to speak by the
) parents' association and the event was very well
) attended.
)
) Diana, I hope I can someday return to thinking the way
) you do about teens. Your son sounds like a sweetheart,
) too. Before I was doing most of my teaching at
) schools, I had only positive experiences with this age
) group, but unfortunately after that my classroom
) experiences ruined that for me. When my students had
) all sought out my class as a result of personal
) interest, they were all wonderful. (I should also say
) to you that writing is my therapy, so there's no need
) to thank me for posting. I could be paying top dollar
) for this elsewhere (g))
)
) I taught at a Catholic school in a really tough (read:
) poor) city where (I was told) most of my students had
) struggling single parents and at least one of my
) students had a parent in jail. These kids were
) *angry*. Life had let them down a long time ago. They
) resented having to come to my class because they
) thought they shouldn't "have to" - and in fact, during
) the prior two years when the school didn't *have* a
) (mysubject) teacher, they *didn't* have to. It was
) playtime before I showed up. Combine this with the
) fact that I had recently started some heavy-duty
) teacher training,
) and I arrived with all kinds of lofty goals for us
) all... No wonder the kids were not pleased. Then I
) taught at the 10k/yr. Waldorf school in the wealthy
) suburb (I was recruited by a friend of a friend to
) "help out") and I naively hoped things would be better
) there. In some ways, especially with grades 5 and 6,
) it was a relief. But the 7ths and 8ths were just as
) angry,  and tired of having the entire smorgasbord of
) what are normally public-school elective subjects
) crammed down their throats by force. And the students
) assigned to me were the ones who hadn't shown enough
) interest or ability in the subject to be skimmed off
) the top of the class list onto the class roster of my
) subject's department head, who perpetuated the idea
) that kids had to be "good enough for" her class.
) (First the school forces them to study this material
) whether they're interested or not, then the school
) segregates the students into two groups - those who
) succeeded and those who failed. Good thing Waldorf
) doesn't use letter grades! - groan.)
)
) Ok, with that background, does it surprise you that
) the concept of 7th and 8th graders "turning on"
) teachers wasn't new to me? I have experienced 7th and
) 8th grade students: using foul language in class,
) insulting each other and me, making threats verbally
) and physically, telling outrageous lies (I have a
) really fun story about this for later!), repeatedly
) refusing to follow direction, damaging/stealing school
) property,
) yelling, and every DAY totally hijacking the class's
) attention. At that Catholic school I mentioned, a boy
) once cussed and threw a chair at me because I asked
) him to leave the room.. At least at the Catholic
) school, I had *that* option available to me. At the
) Waldorf school, one day a fight broke out between two
) of my 8th grade boys - with a fraction of a second
) between the emotional spark and the wrestling match on
) the floor. *That's* what I mean when I say
) "impulsive". If I felt comfortable giving a lot of
) detail about some of the positive things we
) accomplished, I think you'd probably be amazed.  They
) *did* eventually learn. It's just a shame that almost
) all of the obstacles that I needed to overcome in
) order to see that happen were put into my path by the
) school, not by the students. The students were
) products of their environment. These kids were angry
) and defensive walking into my room on the very first
) day of class, and no amount of attempts to "work with"
) them had any effect. Teacher: "How can we make this
) less of a chore for you, and still meet the school's
) requirement?" Students: "How about you *just tell
) them* you're teaching us (the subject) and then let us
) have time off instead." T: "That doesn't work for me.
) How about we try (xyz new idea)." S: "No way, that
) sucks." ...Worse than that, many of these kids went by
) the motto, "You can't make me." Which of course was
) completely true. At one point I spoke with a parent
) about assigning her son an alternative curriculum that
) wouldn't leave him exposed to several temptations that
) he had proven himself unable to handle. The parent
) dismissed the idea as "punitive". She had no concern
) for whether he would succeed or fail in my room - in
) her mind, he had to be doing the same assignments the
) other kids were doing. (In fact he usually acted to
) *prevent* the other kids from doing them.)
)
) It was a nightmare... My Waldorf colleagues told me
) that the experience of being forced to take my class
) was supposed help students "develop their will." OH,
) it developed their will, alright. At (mainstream)
) teacher conferences or professional development
) workshops, elementary teachers would grab my arm and
) say, "OH honey, that's just how these kids *are*. It's
) a tough, tough age."  (I will never forget the woman
) who saw "Waldorf" on my nametag and went out of her
) way to vent to me about her former Waldorf students'
) behavior.) On a (mysubject) teachers' listserve, the
) advice given to public middle school teachers with
) unruly 7ths and 8ths usually involves DVDs/videos,
) personal incentive plans (and candy), computers, fun
) little competitions like races, or pennies-in-the-jar
) point-systems where the pennies buy popcorn for a
) class popcorn party at the end of the year. We all
) know how well the electronics idea would go over... I
) had already been publicly busted for giving out candy
) (remember that?) and I had already been scolded by my
) department-head for something I said in passing to
) some kids the previous year, that gave her the (false)
) idea that I was fostering competition and hard
) feelings among some of the younger students, who
) weren't even *my* students then.  They were already so
) competitive (she said) that there had been incidents
) of tears. So -- no friendly competitions. Eventually I
) stopped being so concerned. If I hadn't quit, I'm sure
) I would have been let go soon enough.
)
) I hope that now it's a little more understandable why
) I was so thrilled to hear what this guy had to say,
) particularly the words "individualized instruction".
) "What, you mean we should let them *choose*?? From
) your mouth to the class teachers' ears!" It's the fact
) that he wasn't heard that's the problem.
)
) MQ
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) __________________________________
) Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
) http://farechase.yahoo.com
)



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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1963



-- Topica Digest --
	
	RE: that lecture
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: that lecture
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: that lecture
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	rewards etc
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: incentives/was "that lecture"
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	Re: rewards etc
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca
	
	Re: incentives/was "that lecture"
	By ldenike aol.com

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

Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:51:25 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: that lecture





I wrote:

)we were informed he'd be penalized if we DIDN'T take Pizza Hut up on their
)kind offer!!! We HAD to visit Pizza Hut to claim his prizes, or he'd be
)marked as having failed to complete the "assignment"!!!

Walden:

)Please tell me this is incorrect. This is incredible and not really off
)topic as that sort of "incentive" would make me consider something like
)Waldorf as an option - despite the obvious shortcomings.

LOL - yeah, that was my point - this sort of thing is exactly why people run
screaming from the public schools. And yet, my point was also that we are a
small minority. Most families did not have a problem with the Pizza Hut
thing, I assure you! Most thought it was great. (I personally am
particularly set on edge by "incentives" to read. That sort of thing just so
totally misses the point, in terms of getting kids to WANT to read and LIKE
to read, that it makes me want to cry.) 

Now in terms of our child's school history, remember that this was
POST-Waldorf for us. It's been a long road, and I admit - there have been
occasions I wondered if it was a mistake to leave Waldorf, after all. 


TV Turnoff -

)Wow. I understand the intention but the assumption that many families *do
)not* talk to each other for 51 weeks of each year (because of TV) is  . . .
)probably more damaging to kids than watching Monday Night Football or
)cartoons from time to time. Perhaps your son could write a school report
)explaining how he feels about the questions in the first place? "My family
)talks to each other every day and I resent the implication that we can only
)talk during a predetermined, artificial "TV Turn-off Week. My grades should
)not be affected by such silliness." Something like that (g)

Yeah . . . but it was one of those "pick your battles" things. I know for
some people here it may be hard to believe, but I try not to fight the
school. In the case of National TV Turn-off Week, the *school* didn't write
those materials - it is a big national organized thing and all of that stuff
is prepackaged - the group gets funding partly according to high
participation rates - you get the picture. We weren't the only ones annoyed,
and they ended up telling us just to fill in the form quickly with
"activities" like "Went bowling" and that would "count" - they just needed
him to "officially" participate in TV Turnoff . . .

 
Diana 




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

Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:59:09 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: that lecture



MQ wrote:


)Diana, re your Pizza Hut experience, I heard that the Girl Scouts clubs are
)now offering a merit badge in "fashion". To get the badge, girls have to go
)to the mall 

Heaven knows, without an "incentive," teenage girls would never want to go
to the mall (sarcasm)


)(I think to a specific store, maybe The Limited?)

that's probably because the clothes at The Limited don't fit any female over
age 14.


)and fill out a questionairre or something... then they're given a packet of
)coupons specifically targeted toward tween girls.  (As if that weren't bad
)enough, to marketing researchers the "tween" age begins at 8.) 

Well, at least the Scouts are clear on their values: Stand tall and proud
against atheism and homosexuality, and always encourage shopping.


Diana




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

Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:02:28 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: that lecture




I wrote:

)Well, at least the Scouts are clear on their values: Stand tall and proud
)against atheism and homosexuality, and always encourage shopping.


And thinking of Lisa's piece yesterday about the Spiral Scouts, who seem to
have been formed partly as a reaction to the Scouts' condemnation of
atheism, it's sort of ironic that atheists seem to often pave the way for
*other* people's religious liberties.




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

Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:19:03 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: rewards etc




I meant to reply to Lisa yesterday but seem to have lost that post
completely. I agree with you in general, Lisa. I'm not of the (Walden)
school of thought (G) that intrinsic motivation is going to work for
everything, or that any time a kid doesn't want to deal with a particular
subject, it's fine to drop it. I agree with you and I think we all
appreciate a gold star now and then, recognition, rewards, applause . . . I
know I do. I know I feel a special warmth toward clients who've praised my
services highly, as opposed to those who merely write me a check when they
get my invoice. And, I think more to the point in terms of where this
discussion started, MQ has mentioned a few times that she (and many
teachers) have had to rely on reward systems to deal with otherwise totally
unmanageable classes. In my personal opinion it's better to resort to
rewards than to give up on these kids, and the teacher doesn't have the
option to reform the entire system she's working in  - and practically,
speaking, whether we like it or not, most of the kids don't have the option
not to be there - at least not till they're 16. They don't have parents like
Walden who will work something else out, somehow, if school sucks. With kids
who are simply not going to respond any other way, I think there is no harm
done rewarding them. What's the option? *Not* rewarding them? In a sense
they're saying, g*ddamn it I deserve a few rewards simply for putting up
with this whole school thing - and maybe they're right. And that buys them
off, so the few who *do* want to learn in the class have the peace and quiet
to do so.

 

Diana


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



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

Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:36:31 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: incentives/was "that lecture"





Lisa wrote:
 
)I would posit that most good teachers in most good schools (from expensive
)private Quaker academies such as the one Diana's son attends to the urban,
)public, arts magnet high school my older daughter attends to everything in
)between) know this and use the notion judiciously.

Just for a contrast, I wonder if there is even more of this outside the
United States. Our Mexican exchange student last year, who attended a very
elite private school near Mexico City, I remember thinking he was incredibly
disciplined and organized, much more so than my child. He kept careful track
of his money and his clothes (he would inform me he'd put four undershirts
into the wash and had only gotten back three; could I please check for the
missing undershirt - he even MATCHED HIS SOCKS, a concept my child seemingly
cannot understand) and one day he explained to me that the teachers were
checking all these things and using a complicated demerit system for any
infractions. He was going to be assigned pages of extra math if he made even
small arithemetical errors in logging his money etc. They had an
unbelievable system of rewards and punishments regulating small details of
behavior. 
Diana






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

Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 09:39:27 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: rewards etc



Not really wanting to seek and destroy an argument but . . . (g)
I'd like to make sure my own thoughts have not been misconstrued here.

Diana wrote:

)I meant to reply to Lisa yesterday but seem to have lost that post
)completely. I agree with you in general, Lisa. I'm not of the (Walden)
)school of thought (G) that intrinsic motivation is going to work for
)everything, or that any time a kid doesn't want to deal with a particular
)subject, it's fine to drop it. I agree with you and I think we all
)appreciate a gold star now and then, recognition, rewards, applause . . . I
)know I do. I know I feel a special warmth toward clients who've praised my
)services highly, as opposed to those who merely write me a check when they
)get my invoice.

I am not saying that a gold star, etc. is bad, per se. BUT, if any human
being receives a "reward" for acting *against*
his/her beliefs or for "accomplishing" some irrelevant task, what is the
real lesson being learned? Imo, the child (in this case) is learning how
to yield to authority - to cave in and "feel good" about the gold star as
opposed to feeling connected to their own ideals and values. Diana feels
good
about a client who praises her services highly and that is a worthy feeling.
Would you, Diana, feel as good if the praise was for "work" you did not
value and had no interest in AT ALL? What would be the point of such praise
other than to point directly to the very real dynamic of power and class?
Think from a young child's perspective for a moment. Extrapolate:

The gold star (as a child) might become the gold bar (as an adult) or the
extra $10 k per year or the stocks-as-reward for "good work." What is the
work all about? Is it something the person feels "good" about or is it a
means to an end (gold star/$$)?

Friendly Missile from Walden Pond: I wonder if this dynamic is at least
partially responsible for the decay in "modern" society? The widening gap
between rich and poor? The exploitation of women and children in factories
to feed human greed? Destruction of environment? Make a buck for the sake of
making a buck  . . . at the expense of natural and human resources around
the globe (example: rainforest and sweat shops)? I wonder if people - from
an early age -  were afforded the freedom to learn without external
pressure/curricula/gold stars . . . people would feel more connected to
their passions and we could all just simply get along with each other and
other species?

I wonder.

-Walden

Diana wrote:
And, I think more to the point in terms of where this
discussion started, MQ has mentioned a few times that she (and many
teachers) have had to rely on reward systems to deal with otherwise totally
unmanageable classes. In my personal opinion it's better to resort to
rewards than to give up on these kids, and the teacher doesn't have the
option to reform the entire system she's working in  - and practically,
speaking, whether we like it or not, most of the kids don't have the option
not to be there - at least not till they're 16. They don't have parents like
Walden who will work something else out, somehow, if school sucks. With kids
who are simply not going to respond any other way, I think there is no harm
done rewarding them. What's the option? *Not* rewarding them? In a sense
they're saying, g*ddamn it I deserve a few rewards simply for putting up
with this whole school thing - and maybe they're right. And that buys them
off, so the few who *do* want to learn in the class have the peace and quiet
to do so.



Diana


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

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oprah vs Dr. Phil- who is your favorite? Vote now.
http://click.topica.com/caaeatsb1dkiGbPRG0Jf/Your opinion
-------------------------------------------------------------------

==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.





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

Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:56:50 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: incentives/was "that lecture"




Diana, this sounds so familiar. Our family hosted a Mexican exchange student (middle school aged) some 30+ years ago, and Pepe had similar habits. He was very meticulous about everything, from the way he made his bed to how his clothing was kept, etc. It was how he learned to care for things.
Lisa 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:36:31 -0500
Subject: RE: incentives/was "that lecture"


Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Apple® iPod® nano. As Thin as a No. 2 Pencil. Stores up to 3 
Days of Songs! Get it Here FREE*!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatBb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/Superb Rewards 
-------------------------------------------------------------------



Lisa wrote:
 
)I would posit that most good teachers in most good schools (from expensive
)private Quaker academies such as the one Diana's son attends to the urban,
)public, arts magnet high school my older daughter attends to everything in
)between) know this and use the notion judiciously.

Just for a contrast, I wonder if there is even more of this outside the
United States. Our Mexican exchange student last year, who attended a very
elite private school near Mexico City, I remember thinking he was incredibly
disciplined and organized, much more so than my child. He kept careful track
of his money and his clothes (he would inform me he'd put four undershirts
into the wash and had only gotten back three; could I please check for the
missing undershirt - he even MATCHED HIS SOCKS, a concept my child seemingly
cannot understand) and one day he explained to me that the teachers were
checking all these things and using a complicated demerit system for any
infractions. He was going to be assigned pages of extra math if he made even
small arithemetical errors in logging his money etc. They had an
unbelievable system of rewards and punishments regulating small details of
behavior. 
Diana

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So Much Television, Such Little Time!  In Love with Lost(TM) or 
Devoted to Desperate Housewives(TM)? Take our premier week 
survey, complete our offers, and get a FREE* DVD set of either 
show!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatAb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Viewer Survey
-------------------------------------------------------------------

==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New 
threads are always welcome.

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



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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1965



-- Topica Digest --
	
	Re: that lecture
	By ldenike aol.com
	
	RE: rewards etc
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: that lecture
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: incentives/was "that lecture"
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: rewards etc
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	Re: incentives/was "that lecture"
	By ldenike aol.com
	
	Re: that lecture
	By ldenike aol.com
	
	Re: incentives/was "that lecture"
	By exnyers comcast.net
	
	RE: incentives/was "that lecture"
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	Re: incentives/was "that lecture"
	By ldenike aol.com
	
	Re: incentives/was "that lecture"
	By ldenike aol.com
	
	RE: that lecture
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: incentives/was "that lecture"
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: incentives/was "that lecture"
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	Re: rewards etc
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca
	
	Re: that lecture
	By mainquestion1 yahoo.com

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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:08:49 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: that lecture




Diana, you are mixing up the Boy Scouts of America, which have come out publicly against homosexuality and do have a religious point of view, and the Girl Scouts of America, which, to my knowledge, have *never* made any statements about homosexuality, etc.  
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:59:09 -0500
Subject: RE: that lecture


Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So Much Television, Such Little Time!  In Love with Lost(TM) or 
Devoted to Desperate Housewives(TM)? Take our premier week 
survey, complete our offers, and get a FREE* DVD set of either 
show!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatAb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/Viewer Survey
-------------------------------------------------------------------

MQ wrote:


)Diana, re your Pizza Hut experience, I heard that the Girl Scouts clubs are
)now offering a merit badge in "fashion". To get the badge, girls have to go
)to the mall 

Heaven knows, without an "incentive," teenage girls would never want to go
to the mall (sarcasm)


)(I think to a specific store, maybe The Limited?)

that's probably because the clothes at The Limited don't fit any female over
age 14.


)and fill out a questionairre or something... then they're given a packet of
)coupons specifically targeted toward tween girls.  (As if that weren't bad
)enough, to marketing researchers the "tween" age begins at 8.) 

Well, at least the Scouts are clear on their values: Stand tall and proud
against atheism and homosexuality, and always encourage shopping.


Diana

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatrb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/PC PowerScan
-------------------------------------------------------------------

==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New 
threads are always welcome.

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



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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:38:15 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: rewards etc




Hi Walden,
Rather than reply at great length as you know I was just about to do (G)
maybe I'll ask you a couple of questions first. I do fear we may roam off
topic for this list, though . . . and remember I was basically agreeing that
these practices are not ideal - I'd consider them a bandaid on a serious
wound, essentially - My question is, What advice do you have for the teacher
in the situations MQ has described? What can she do? Do you just think she
should quit because the system it is hopeless? Or how could she this class?
What kind of teacher would reach these kids? Is the only answer, they
shouldn't have to go if they don't want to?

And answer this, if you will - not meaning that to sound like a challenge :)
assuming that these kids do not have YOU at home to bounce their experiences
off of and process things with, and they cannot quit if it sucks . . .

Diana

)I am not saying that a gold star, etc. is bad, per se. BUT, if any human
)being receives a "reward" for acting *against* his/her beliefs or for
)"accomplishing" some irrelevant task, what is the real lesson being
)learned? Imo, the child (in this case) is learning how to yield to
)authority - to cave in and "feel good" about the gold star as opposed to
)feeling connected to their own ideals and values. Diana feels good about a
)client who praises her services highly and that is a worthy feeling. Would
)you, Diana, feel as good if the praise was for "work" you did not value and
)had no interest in AT ALL? What would be the point of such praise other
)than to point directly to the very real dynamic of power and class? Think
)from a young child's perspective for a moment. 





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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:41:36 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: that lecture



Lisa:

)Diana, you are mixing up the Boy Scouts of America, which have come out
)publicly against homosexuality and do have a religious point of view, and
)the Girl Scouts of America, which, to my knowledge, have *never* made any
)statements about homosexuality, etc.  


Oh. Could be. However, note that the Boy Scouts don't just "have a religious
point of view"; if I'm not mistaken they kicked out a kid who was openly
atheist, and he sued them, didn't he? Or am I mixing this up with something?
I don't know as much about the Girl Scouts, and I don't know what their
connection to the Boy Scouts is, if any, but I'm guessing they operate in
much the same way? Maybe you know if your girls have done Scouts.
Diana






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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:50:18 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: incentives/was "that lecture"






)Diana, this sounds so familiar. Our family hosted a Mexican exchange
)student (middle school aged) some 30+ years ago, and Pepe had similar
)habits. He was very meticulous about everything, from the way he made his
)bed to how his clothing was kept, etc. It was how he learned to care for
)things.

Yes - meticulous, and achieved through rewards and punishments. And I can't
help thinking about what a very warm and loving family they were, too. And
there was certainly no evidence being raised this way had dampened his
spirits - he is a *very* lively and seemingly very happy boy.

Perhaps it is the greater influence of the mother. Another thing that really
struck me with him was that he was buying endless gifts for his sister. He
had bought her about 10 things, from clothes to jewelry and souvenirs
everywhere we went, and we were in another store and he said "I still need
something for my sister." Not wanting to interfere but curious, I said,
"Haven't you already gotten your sister [this, this and this]?" and he said,
"Yes, but my mother said I must bring MANY gifts for my sister. She said not
to come home if I don't bring many gifts for my sister." 

This shocked me, in a way - don't come home if you don't bring enough
gifts?! as it sounded extremely harsh from our point of view. That's quite a
threat. I still don't know quite what to make of it, but according to all
reports (my son stayed with the family), his mother was a *very* warm and
nurturing person. It is just a different culture. Pleasing his mother and
sister was extremely important to him. (He had even more gifts for his
mother.) I guess we are off topic, somewhat, but on the general topic of use
of rewards or punishments in child rearing.

Diana





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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:53:54 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: rewards etc



I wrote:

)What advice do you have for the teacher in the situations MQ has described?
What can she do? Do you just think she should quit because the system it is
hopeless? Or how could she this class? 

That was supposed to say "How could she teach this class?" (The sentence
preceding it is screwy too, but hopefully you know what it meant.)
Diana 





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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:43:38 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: incentives/was "that lecture"




The exchange sounds like it was fascinating for both you and Jake, Diana. I am guessing that your exchange student's mother did not mean to really imply that her son could not come home if he did not bring many gifts for his sister. I think she probably just meant that the boy should realize that he had been on a great adventure (the exchange) and that he could share that adventure (and, frankly, "Make up" for the sister not having an equal adventure) by bringing her things from America.
 
I agree completely that there are cultural differences at play here, particularly, the increased role on pleasing the mom. Sounds good to me!
 
Lisa
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:50:18 -0500
Subject: RE: incentives/was "that lecture"


Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Apple® iPod® nano. As Thin as a No. 2 Pencil. Stores up to 3 
Days of Songs! Get it Here FREE*!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatBb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/Superb Rewards 
-------------------------------------------------------------------




)Diana, this sounds so familiar. Our family hosted a Mexican exchange
)student (middle school aged) some 30+ years ago, and Pepe had similar
)habits. He was very meticulous about everything, from the way he made his
)bed to how his clothing was kept, etc. It was how he learned to care for
)things.

Yes - meticulous, and achieved through rewards and punishments. And I can't
help thinking about what a very warm and loving family they were, too. And
there was certainly no evidence being raised this way had dampened his
spirits - he is a *very* lively and seemingly very happy boy.

Perhaps it is the greater influence of the mother. Another thing that really
struck me with him was that he was buying endless gifts for his sister. He
had bought her about 10 things, from clothes to jewelry and souvenirs
everywhere we went, and we were in another store and he said "I still need
something for my sister." Not wanting to interfere but curious, I said,
"Haven't you already gotten your sister [this, this and this]?" and he said,
"Yes, but my mother said I must bring MANY gifts for my sister. She said not
to come home if I don't bring many gifts for my sister." 

This shocked me, in a way - don't come home if you don't bring enough
gifts?! as it sounded extremely harsh from our point of view. That's quite a
threat. I still don't know quite what to make of it, but according to all
reports (my son stayed with the family), his mother was a *very* warm and
nurturing person. It is just a different culture. Pleasing his mother and
sister was extremely important to him. (He had even more gifts for his
mother.) I guess we are off topic, somewhat, but on the general topic of use
of rewards or punishments in child rearing.

Diana

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Need a new Cell Phone? A BlackBerry 7250 could be yours free! Find 
out how!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatub1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Amazing phone
-------------------------------------------------------------------

==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New 
threads are always welcome.

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



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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:39:34 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: that lecture




You are right: I did a bad job choosing my words. The Boy Scouts of America *are* a religious organization. Boy Scouts have to take a pledge that they will be clean, kind, reverent, etc. I know something about them because a longtime friend of mine was an Eagle Scout himself, and another friend from high school is a Scouting professional. My nephew is a Boy Scout and his mother is a den leader. I have to admit that all of my (admittedly peripheral) encounters with Scouts have been positive: the people I know who are involved are just very nice people and none of them is what I would call a muscular Christian. I personally would not choose to have my son involved (if I had a son) because I would not want my child involved in a group that excluded atheists or gay people. On the other hand, I do believe that if a private organization (one that does not receive public funds) chooses to limit its membership to those with a certain ideological bent, that's their perogative. (I feel the same way about other clubs that want to limit their membership to women only or to men only, etc. I don't agree with that point of view personally, and wouldn't join one of them, even if I was eligible and part of the "accepted" group. But I also think they have a right to choose who they want to associate with.)
 
No, my girls are not Girl Scouts. I was a Girl Scout back in the day when all we did was to make Sit-Upons and greeting cards for people in old age homes. We camped once a year. I did not encourage my girls to sign up because I loathe camping. I cannot be separated from my hot shower and blow dryer even for one night.
 
But I do understand, from friends who have kids in Girl Scouts, that the GSA is very much more tolerant of homosexuality than are the Boy Scouts.
 
Lisa
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:41:36 -0500
Subject: RE: that lecture


Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MAKE NEW FRIENDS, MEET POTENTIAL BUSINESS PARTNERS, FIND THAT SPECIAL SOMEONE!
IT'S EASY, IT'S FUN! AND BEST OF ALL, IT'S TOTALLY FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatFb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/Friendsand.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Lisa:

)Diana, you are mixing up the Boy Scouts of America, which have come out
)publicly against homosexuality and do have a religious point of view, and
)the Girl Scouts of America, which, to my knowledge, have *never* made any
)statements about homosexuality, etc.  


Oh. Could be. However, note that the Boy Scouts don't just "have a religious
point of view"; if I'm not mistaken they kicked out a kid who was openly
atheist, and he sued them, didn't he? Or am I mixing this up with something?
I don't know as much about the Girl Scouts, and I don't know what their
connection to the Boy Scouts is, if any, but I'm guessing they operate in
much the same way? Maybe you know if your girls have done Scouts.
Diana

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatrb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/PC PowerScan
-------------------------------------------------------------------

==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New 
threads are always welcome.

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



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

Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:47:17 -0500
From: "Erick & Kim" (exnyers comcast.net)
Subject: Re: incentives/was "that lecture"




  Lisa:
  )Diana, this sounds so familiar. Our family hosted a Mexican exchange
  )student (middle school aged) some 30+ years ago, and Pepe had similar
  )habits. He was very meticulous about everything, from the way he made his
  )bed to how his clothing was kept, etc. It was how he learned to care for
  )things.
  Diana:
  Yes - meticulous, and achieved through rewards and punishments. And I can't
  help thinking about what a very warm and loving family they were, too. And
  there was certainly no evidence being raised this way had dampened his
  spirits - he is a *very* lively and seemingly very happy boy.
  ------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't had time to reply to ANYTHING lately, but I don't really think this is a strong example of rewards and punishments or incentives.  My husband was born and raised in Guatemala (similar culture to Mexico) and came to live in the US when he was 17.  I believe from what I know of him that it's really more about not having the excess that we have in the US and cherishing those things that one has.  He didn't grow up poor, nor were they wealthy, but they appreciated (still do) what they have.  Things just don't come as easy to kids in Central America as they do for American kids.  

Kim


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



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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:27:25 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: incentives/was "that lecture"



Lisa:

)I am guessing that your exchange student's mother did not mean to really
)imply that her son could not come home if he did not bring many gifts for
)his sister. 

Yes, and it could have been a language barrier. He said she said "not to
come home" but maybe he didn't quite know how to phrase what he was trying
to say. His English was much better than our Spanish, but we had occasional
difficulties.

)I agree completely that there are cultural differences at play here,
)particularly, the increased role on pleasing the mom. Sounds good to me!
 
I agree - LOL! My son certainly could not relate to this attitude of
"Wherever I go, I will bring my mother many gifts." I hoped some of it would
rub off on him (G)
Diana





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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:30:01 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: incentives/was "that lecture"




That's interesting Kim. I can't speak for Diana's exchange student, but ours was from a very, very wealthy family in Mexico City. He had had the best of everything and was very pampered, though also very polite. The photos of his family home were incredible. Servants everywhere, beautiful large rooms, lovely clothing, etc. I am sure that coming into our home (though it was an upper middle class home with five bedrooms, four baths and sitting on three acres of land) was a cultural shock in more ways than one. For one thing, we were not (and are not) Catholic. (We had to arrange for one of our neighbors to take him to Mass.) For another, our family is very informal and casual and his was not. 
 
Lisa 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim (exnyers comcast.net)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:47:17 -0500
Subject: Re: incentives/was "that lecture"


Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Need a new Cell Phone? A BlackBerry 7250 could be yours free! Find 
out how!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatub1dkiGbOrq7Ba/Amazing phone
-------------------------------------------------------------------


  Lisa:
  )Diana, this sounds so familiar. Our family hosted a Mexican exchange
  )student (middle school aged) some 30+ years ago, and Pepe had similar
  )habits. He was very meticulous about everything, from the way he made his
  )bed to how his clothing was kept, etc. It was how he learned to care for
  )things.
  Diana:
  Yes - meticulous, and achieved through rewards and punishments. And I can't
  help thinking about what a very warm and loving family they were, too. And
  there was certainly no evidence being raised this way had dampened his
  spirits - he is a *very* lively and seemingly very happy boy.
  ------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't had time to reply to ANYTHING lately, but I don't really think this is 
a strong example of rewards and punishments or incentives.  My husband was born 
and raised in Guatemala (similar culture to Mexico) and came to live in the US 
when he was 17.  I believe from what I know of him that it's really more about 
not having the excess that we have in the US and cherishing those things that 
one has.  He didn't grow up poor, nor were they wealthy, but they appreciated 
(still do) what they have.  Things just don't come as easy to kids in Central 
America as they do for American kids.  

Kim


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

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FREE DVR
And up to 3 additional standard receivers!
Call 1-800- 901 - 5080 Today
http://click.topica.com/caaeas1b1dkiGbOrq7Bf/DirectSatTV
-------------------------------------------------------------------

==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New 
threads are always welcome.

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



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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:31:27 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: incentives/was "that lecture"




Oh, Jake sounds like quite a lovely boy just as he is. He was a sweetie pie back when I met him a few years ago now, and I imagine he hasn't changed much. You guys have done a great job with him. Send me a photo when you get a chance, OK? 
Lisa 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:27:25 -0500
Subject: RE: incentives/was "that lecture"


Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So Much Television, Such Little Time!  In Love with Lost(TM) or 
Devoted to Desperate Housewives(TM)? Take our premier week 
survey, complete our offers, and get a FREE* DVD set of either 
show!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatAb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/Viewer Survey
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Lisa:

)I am guessing that your exchange student's mother did not mean to really
)imply that her son could not come home if he did not bring many gifts for
)his sister. 

Yes, and it could have been a language barrier. He said she said "not to
come home" but maybe he didn't quite know how to phrase what he was trying
to say. His English was much better than our Spanish, but we had occasional
difficulties.

)I agree completely that there are cultural differences at play here,
)particularly, the increased role on pleasing the mom. Sounds good to me!
 
I agree - LOL! My son certainly could not relate to this attitude of
"Wherever I go, I will bring my mother many gifts." I hoped some of it would
rub off on him (G)
Diana

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oprah vs Dr. Phil- who is your favorite? Vote now.
http://click.topica.com/caaeatsb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Your opinion
-------------------------------------------------------------------

==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New 
threads are always welcome.

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



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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:32:00 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: that lecture



Lisa-

)all of my (admittedly peripheral) encounters with Scouts have been
)positive: the people I know who are involved are just very nice people and
)none of them is what I would call a muscular Christian. I personally would
)not choose to have my son involved (if I had a son) because I would not
)want my child involved in a group that excluded atheists or gay people.

That's my view too. My son has a lot of friends who do Scouts and I've been
relieved he wasn't interested in joining. 

)On the other hand, I do believe that if a private organization (one that
)does not receive public funds) chooses to limit its membership to those
)with a certain ideological bent, that's their perogative. 

I suppose so. I don't know exactly what I think there - I just think it's a
shame it isn't open to all. It seems to me like the question of whether the
mall is a public place - it isn't, technically, it's all privately owned
property, but courts have ruled that for all intents and purposes a mall
*is* a public place. The Boy Scouts seem to me like they ought to be open to
boys of all faith or no faith. I suppose they have a right to be a
particular religion if they want to be, though.

)No, my girls are not Girl Scouts. I was a Girl Scout back in the day when
)all we did was to make Sit-Upons 

Sit-Upons! Hadn't thought of that in years.
Diana




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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:36:22 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: incentives/was "that lecture"





Kim:
)I haven't had time to reply to ANYTHING lately, but I don't really think
)this is a strong example of rewards and punishments or incentives.  

I don't know. I didn't mean the way he kept track of his socks as a strong
example so much as the "Don't come home without many gifts" thing, but that
may have been a misunderstanding, for all I know.
 


)My husband was born and raised in Guatemala (similar culture to Mexico) and
)came to live in the US when he was 17.  I believe from what I know of him
)that it's really more about not having the excess that we have in the US
)and cherishing those things that one has.  He didn't grow up poor, nor were
)they wealthy, but they appreciated (still do) what they have.  Things just
)don't come as easy to kids in Central America as they do for American kids.


Could be - good point. Maybe the need to take care simply rubs off on them,
by example, without rewards or punishments, I don't know. *Nothing* will
convince my son to take care of his clothes - he could care less. It's
possible the teachers were being much more strict with them than the parents
would be at home, out of a fear of anything going wrong, etc. A kid away
from home perhaps even feels safer with strict rules, the teacher
threatening to count his socks???? (I'm waiting for Walden to jump on that
one now (G))
Diana




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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:42:33 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: incentives/was "that lecture"



Lisa:

)That's interesting Kim. I can't speak for Diana's exchange student, but
)ours was from a very, very wealthy family in Mexico City. 

Ditto. There were a lot of fascinating cultural differences. They also take
much more extreme care with their children's safety than we do - and a lot
of people think Americans are extreme. These kids were never let out of an
adult's sight. They don't play outside after school, and their house looks
like a barricaded compound. Before they came to the US, the parents were
very concerned that we promise the kids are never left home alone. They have
heard that Americans leave their kids home alone. They are very afraid of
kidnappings in and around Mexico City. (It didn't help that there was a
school shooting in our city the week before they came.) They also believed
that all Americans have guns. . .
Diana 






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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:49:44 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: rewards etc



Diana wrote:

)Hi Walden,
)Rather than reply at great length as you know I was just about to do (G)
)maybe I'll ask you a couple of questions first. I do fear we may roam off
)topic for this list, though . . . and remember I was basically agreeing
that
)these practices are not ideal - I'd consider them a bandaid on a serious
)wound, essentially - My question is, What advice do you have for the
teacher
)in the situations MQ has described?

Thanks for the questions.

With respect - when a teacher agrees to join a team/ideology/educational
model - in this case Waldorf - the teacher
should come in with an understanding of that model and support the
foundation. It seems Waldorf has a problem not only with parents not
understanding the Waldorf Way, but with new teachers having little
understanding of what the institution expects of them. If those who consider
themselves the leaders of the movement would share with the outside world
(and potential clients/teachers) the reality of what *moves* the movement,
much of MQ's problem might never have happened. My advice: Have every right
to feel upset at being duped just like many other before you.  Then, find an
educational model where your own values and teaching techniques will be
accepted and appreciated and . . . just do it.

)What can she do? Do you just think she should quit because the system it is
hopeless?

See above.

Or how could she this class?

??

)What kind of teacher would reach these kids?

I do not know the kids or what Anthro stuff they might have gone through in
their school. Good and/or bad. Perhaps these kids feel patronized by too
many sing-song voices or maybe they just need more time outside or . . . ? I
don't know the dynamics involved. The most honest, caring, sincere teacher
on the planet would have hard time reaching kids in the wrong educational
institution. For example, if I were asked to conduct Sunday School classes
at the local church I doubt I would "reach" the kids at the level expected
by the church. Ask me to coach football and I will absolutely reach many of
the kids.

)Is the only answer, they shouldn't have to go if they don't want to?

Not the only answer but part of the question, for sure. "Do you want to be
there - why do you feel like acting out or misbehaving in class?" That would
be the first question worth asking, imo.

)And answer this, if you will - not meaning that to sound like a challenge
:)

Hey - I love a challenge!

)assuming that these kids do not have YOU at home to bounce their
experiences
)off of and process things with, and they cannot quit if it sucks . . .

Run away and join the circus. OK - while that actually is an option, a more
pragmatic approach is for the kids to find someone they can connect with -
at home, at school, at the gym, etc. If no adult/caregiver is willing to
listen - the problem is very serious and perhaps a social agency might help.
Feeling frustrated and lonely is a horrible thing for anyone - especially a
child. With even a *little* more democracy in education, those feelings
might not need to bubble in kids. When the kids are involved their
education - being included in decision making - those yucky feelings might
never happen and real learning can happen.

-Walden






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

Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:10:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Pseudonym (mainquestion1 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: that lecture



I tried to send the following post about 12 hrs ago
but apparently was having computer problems - with any
luck, this one will work.
--
About the Girl Scouts fashion merit badge, I was just
illustrating how corporations are going to previously
unknown lengths in order to advertise to our children.
They've already started in on church youth groups
too... next it will be 4H. Good grief, they're
everywhere. But you know that.

On the topic of incentives and motivation... The
removal or failure to acquire an incentive can be
interpreted as a punishment... I've been turning the
gears on this one for years and the only thing I can
be sure of is that there's no one-size-fits-all
approach.  I hope it is not breaking any rules if I
share an excerpt from a Montessori list that I read.
It refers to a preschool-aged child having trouble
sitting still at circle time, and the child not
wanting to go to circle. There is trouble when a
child's frustration (or boredom) freezes them into a
pattern of not wanting to try, so we teachers need to
make every  effort to make it possible for the child
to develop the skills they need - and thus the
*success*, and thus the *desire* that's built on the
foundation of success - as early as possible.

(It was suggested before today that if the class were
to institute a daily "button sewing" time, and the
child was not yet physically or mentally capable of
sewing buttons, the obvious thing would be to isolate
and teach that specific skill to the child in an
engaging, or at least face-saving, way.)

Quote:
)Theoretically, we support the idea of not forcing a
)child to attend lessons against their will. (And I
)agree with this whole-heartedly.) But it is also our
)job to prepare the child to be  successful in their 
own
)culture (which sometimes means learning how to sit
)through a church meeting or story at the library,
even )if it is a little uncomfortable and not
completely )what they want to do). Ultimately, we are
not serving )them if we only allow our children to
operate in their )comfort zone. We have to entice them
to stretch )themselves beyond what they think they are
capable of. )If you know the girl is not going to be
successful at )sitting through circle (you can see the
writing on the )wall), give her an out.  If you can
spare
)your assistant, maybe the child accompany her to a
)supply room that day to carry something  (preferably
)heavy to use some excess energy) while you have
)circle time. Once she has had ONE successful circle
)time (do an activity that you know she will LOVE)
then )build on that success. Anytime you see she's not
going )to make it, give her an out. but don't always
make it )fun. Use your judgment, what kind of activity
would )best serve her.  If she is
)tired, let her lay down, away from everyone else.

Here is the kernel - "use your judgement". And imo
this other part bears repeating - "Ultimately, we are
not serving them if we only allow our children to
operate in their comfort zone. We have to entice them
to stretch themselves beyond what they think they are
capable of."

There is a very difficult area, one that requires a
lot of judgement, in between "enticing" a child TO
someting and "not allowing" them OUT of something.

Example: I've been in the unfortunate position of
having a class follow-up group activity ruined because
14-yr-old Rudolph's mom said he "didn't have to" go on
the morning field trip with the other kids simply
because he wasn't interested. (And it wasn't related
to Pizza Hut or TV Turnoff. Let's assume there was
nothing inherently wrong with the trip or the follow
up lesson, and the child was not sick, and he would
have otherwise had to show up for school that day, but
he didn't.) Maybe "ruined" is too overdramatic a word.
The activity was very compromised, and the absence
detracted substantially from the spirit of our trip
and the *group* lesson on the next day. Oh, was I
ticked off. But that parent taught me a lesson
(however unkind).

There is a lot of temptation for all of us adults to
say "I know what's best" for each child. More and
more, I'm coming to the conviction that each child
will show us what is the best for them, but it can
take a great deal of wisdom to decipher their message.
Teachers will ideally defer to parents, and parents
will ideally be open to a teacher's point of view, and
one way or the other the child's needs will be met.

What do we do when stubborn, discouraged little Suzie
doesn't want to go to circle time? There's no
immediate consequence assigned to her not going - not
one that the little girl can appreciate, anyway. This
is one of those teaching situations that separates the
wheat from the chaff.

My former W school was so knee-jerk-opposed to
anything bearing the faintest whiff of "punishment"
that my figurative hands were tied behind my back.
Immediate detention? Too punitive. Would the class
teacher please keep someone in for recess? "Sorry MQ,
I forgot and I let him out." Written homework? The
students leaves it "at home." Send him out of class?
There is nowhere to send him. Kids at my former W
school could do (or not do) whatever their little
hearts compelled them to do (or not do). When all
that's left to do is "entice", the students know it.
Witness the incredible shrinking comfort zones and the
rising price of effective enticements.

I'm more than aware that teachers and parents really
CAN'T force a child to do (or think or feel) anything.
We can get the illusion of control by threatening
rewards, "consequences", and (last but not least) all
flavors of emotional manipulation. In some states,
corporal punishment / paddling is still a reality
(sick, I know).  But I can tell you for a fact that
those schools still have children who make mistakes,
or don't have the skills necessary to do what's
expected of them, or who just refuse to comply.  One
of the most dreaded experiences for any child is to be
ostracized from his/her peer group - being sent out of
the room is a minor example - but there are more and
more kids who just don't care because they're
*already* effectively disconnected from their group.
They have nothing to lose.

Kids suffer when there is no flexibility. Why does
there need to be an arbitrarily set way of teaching or
parenting? We're too hard on them, or too soft. 
We do our teachers a disservice when we remove their
freedom to exercise their judgement. Also, we do the
children a huge disservice when we put them in any
school environment that doesn't let them exercise
responsibility for their own education.

My little sermon du jour, in case anyone wants to make
me /reverb/ the almighty ruler of the universe.

MQ






		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1966



-- Topica Digest --
	
	RE: What a joke.............old business 
	By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
	
	RE: What a joke.............old business
	By dan dandugan.com
	
	RE: What a joke.............old business
	By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
	
	Re: What a joke.............old business
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca

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

Date: Fri,  4 Nov 2005 17:39:28 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What a joke.............old business 



Dan Dugan wrote:
) 
) Linda Clemens, you wrote (in part),
) )There's no other word for it.  Unbelievable...........seven years 
) )PLANS has
) )done nothing but waste the courts time and wastefully drain resources
) )away from the public schools.   Throughout the entire case, you did
) )nothing but obstruct.  Filings were always late.  Disclosures weren't
) )forthcoming.  You waste the schools' time filling your exhibit list 
) )with irrelevant nonsense like Melville's Moby Dick and d'Aulaire's Greek
) )Myths.  Issued Court Orders were ignored.  Fines went unpaid.
) )And then when you finally get your day in court, you show up with No
) )Case to present.
) )By all means, Debra, it was *very* important that you be there in the
) )courtroom to watch what sounds like the biggest Non Event since Geraldo
) )Rivera cracked open Al Capone's liquor cabinet.  Despite having already
) )contributed lord-knows how much of my tax dollars to this ridiculous
) )debacle, I hate to see you have to put out your own money for gas to get
) )there. 
) )
) )I'm reimbursing you the $25.  I just contributed thru amazon--just fill
) )out an expense claim.
) 
) All donations are gratefully accepted, thank you.
) 
) -Dan Dugan

As I indicated shortly after this post was made, amazon's Honor System 
rejected my submission because I had already gone over the limit 
donating to Hurricane Katrina, but I promised Debra would be reimbursed.

Before I do so, I want to make sure there is no confusion and that you 
understand this money May Not Be used for any purpose other than Debra's 
expenses for gasoline.  You do not have my permission to put this toward 
any other purpose whatsoever, including your lawyer's fees and expenses, 
legal costs including filing fees, copies, depositions, and witnesses, 
nor may you apply it towards the defendants' costs assessed against 
PLANS as the losing party in this suit.  It may not be applied towards 
the costs of operating any of your websites.  This money is given for 
the purpose of repaying Debra Sell for the gasoline she used to travel 
to the courtroom Sept 12, 2005--ONLY. 

If PLANS agrees to these terms, I will send the funds.

Linda 


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

Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:41:16 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: What a joke.............old business



LINDA CLEMENS:
)  ) )I'm reimbursing you the $25.  I just contributed thru amazon--just fill
)  ) )out an expense claim.

DAN DUGAN:
)All donations are gratefully accepted, thank you.

)As I indicated shortly after this post was made, amazon's Honor System
)rejected my submission because I had already gone over the limit
)donating to Hurricane Katrina, but I promised Debra would be reimbursed.
)
)Before I do so, I want to make sure there is no confusion and that you
)understand this money May Not Be used for any purpose other than Debra's
)expenses for gasoline.  You do not have my permission to put this toward
)any other purpose whatsoever, including your lawyer's fees and expenses,
)legal costs including filing fees, copies, depositions, and witnesses,
)nor may you apply it towards the defendants' costs assessed against
)PLANS as the losing party in this suit.  It may not be applied towards
)the costs of operating any of your websites.  This money is given for
)the purpose of repaying Debra Sell for the gasoline she used to travel
)to the courtroom Sept 12, 2005--ONLY.
)
)If PLANS agrees to these terms, I will send the funds.

Your earmarked donation will be gratefully accepted. Now how about 
the $100 you owe us for the challenge you and Deborah made on 
defendingsteiner.com?

-Dan Dugan


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

Date: Sat,  5 Nov 2005 01:54:35 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: What a joke.............old business




Dan Dugan wrote:
) 
) LINDA CLEMENS:
) )  ) )I'm reimbursing you the $25.  I just contributed thru amazon--just fill
) )  ) )out an expense claim.
) 
) DAN DUGAN:
) )All donations are gratefully accepted, thank you.
) 
) )As I indicated shortly after this post was made, amazon's Honor System
) )rejected my submission because I had already gone over the limit
) )donating to Hurricane Katrina, but I promised Debra would be reimbursed.
) )
) )Before I do so, I want to make sure there is no confusion and that you
) )understand this money May Not Be used for any purpose other than Debra's
) )expenses for gasoline.  You do not have my permission to put this toward
) )any other purpose whatsoever, including your lawyer's fees and expenses,
) )legal costs including filing fees, copies, depositions, and witnesses,
) )nor may you apply it towards the defendants' costs assessed against
) )PLANS as the losing party in this suit.  It may not be applied towards
) )the costs of operating any of your websites.  This money is given for
) )the purpose of repaying Debra Sell for the gasoline she used to travel
) )to the courtroom Sept 12, 2005--ONLY.
) )
) )If PLANS agrees to these terms, I will send the funds.
) 
) Your earmarked donation will be gratefully accepted.

Done.


) Now how about 
) the $100 you owe us for the challenge you and Deborah made on 
) defendingsteiner.com?
) 
) -Dan Dugan

I assume you mean this one?

http://www.defendingsteiner.com/wc/archives/2005/08/the_big_lie_fro.html

[Rubbing me eyes] I don't see your answer to this challenge there, Dan.  
Am I having deja vu?  Because this is feeling very much like a repeat of 
your lawsuit, where the evidence you're supposed to present is 
.................................. missing.  Are you "opting out" of our 
challenge the same way you "opted out" of presenting any exceptible 
evidence *At All!* in court?  

I'm about as undazzled by the empty bluster now as I was reading PLANS' 
empty bluster in the court transcripts.  
Do you think all that is required is to give your own personal say-so 
and tah-dah!  

Deborah apparently foretold there'd be PLANS funny-business here, and 
the rules she layed out were very sensible and very thorough.  If you 
think you're due $100, then tarry no more.  Just go over there and 
produce what she asked.

Linda


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

Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:54:35 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: What a joke.............old business



Linda wrote:
)Deborah apparently foretold there'd be PLANS funny-business here, and
)the rules she layed out were very sensible and very thorough.  If you
)think you're due $100, then tarry no more.  Just go over there and
)produce what she asked.

Linda,

If you really do not know, this matter has already been dealt with - the
latest explanation was a post from Dan on Sept 22 - forwarded from Peter
Staudenmaier.
There is another post from Peter (via Dan) on the same day. Check the
archives. It is NOT very difficult and I am sure you can understand the
whole thing if you put a little effort into reading the explanation. The
$100.00 offer was silly, imo and Peter's helpful posts should tell you why.
Perhaps one day you and your peers will be able to discuss these issues
without obfuscation and silly bets tossed in from the sidelines.

Here's hoping.

-Walden




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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1967



-- Topica Digest --
	
	RE: What a joke.............old business
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
	
	Re: What a joke.............old business
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca
	
	RE: What a joke.............old business
	By dan dandugan.com

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

Date: Sat,  5 Nov 2005 12:58:22 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: What a joke.............old business




walden wrote:
) 
) Linda wrote:
) )Deborah apparently foretold there'd be PLANS funny-business here, and
) )the rules she layed out were very sensible and very thorough.  If you
) )think you're due $100, then tarry no more.  Just go over there and
) )produce what she asked.
) 
) Linda,
) 
) If you really do not know, this matter has already been dealt with - the
) latest explanation was a post from Dan on Sept 22 - forwarded from Peter
) Staudenmaier.

This one:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1719463952&sort=d&start=28926



) There is another post from Peter (via Dan) on the same day. Check the
) archives. It is NOT very difficult and I am sure you can understand the
) whole thing if you put a little effort into reading the explanation.

The explanation:

"Between June 7 and June 17, 1910, Rudolf Steiner
gave a series of lectures on the mission of
various “Volksseelen” or “national souls” in
Oslo, Norway. The transcripts of eleven of these
lectures were gathered into book form and
published during Steiner’s lifetime, and were
then re-published after Steiner’s death by the
executors of his literary estate, with several
significant editorial modifications (mostly
involving terminological changes from
“theosophical” to “anthroposophical” etc.). This
later edition is now volume 121 in the
Gesamtausgabe, the official version of Steiner’s
complete works, appearing under the title Die
Mission einzelner Volksseelen im Zusammenhang mit
der germanisch-nordischen Mythologie (most
recently in paperback, Dornach 1994).

There are two authorized English translations:
one from the Anthroposophic Press (New York) in
1929 under the title The Mission of Folk-Souls in
Connection with Germanic Scandinavian Mythology,
and one from the Rudolf Steiner Press (London) in
1970 under the title The Mission of the
Individual Folk Souls in Relation to Teutonic
Mythology. I will quote from the latter edition.

The title of the book indicates its basic
content: an account of various “national souls”
or “folk souls” and their putative role in
spiritual evolution and human affairs. According
to the table of contents, chapter three discusses
the “Formation of the Races”, chapter four “The
Evolution of Races and Civilization”, and chapter
six “The Five Root Races of Mankind”. To give
readers a substantial look at the full spectrum
of racial doctrines outlined in the “folk souls”
book, what follows are some very long excerpts
from the text."

(From: 
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1719463952&sort=d&start=28926)



Um, so I guess the publishing details are the following:

Title: "The Mission of Folk-Souls in
Connection with Germanic Scandinavian Mythology"

Date: 1929

GA Number: 121


Another Waldorf Critics posts on same topic, with specific explanation:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1719463953&sort=d&start=28926



Quote (from Peter S.):

"I’ve read the three posts about the opening
paragraph of my first article on anthroposophy
posted to the defending steiner site by Deborah,
the grandmotherly librarian, with whom I tried to
have several exchanges on the Anthroposophy
Tomorrow email list in the spring of 2004
(Deborah declined to discuss anything with me
directly, though her responses are nevertheless
quite illuminating).

In these new posts, Deborah decries various
“lies” that she thinks are contained in the
aforementioned paragraph from my article, which
discusses Steiner’s 1910 Oslo lectures on “folk
souls”. This is familiar territory, as Deborah
and I both wrote about this very topic on
Anthroposophy Tomorrow in April 2004 (see e.g.
the posts titled “lies” from April 8 2004 and
“reading and falsehoods” from April 17 2004).
Anthroposophy Tomorrow can be viewed here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/messages

I explained to Deborah at that time what “lying”
means, and why her real complaint is not that I
have “lied”, but rather that I have made claims
about Steiner that she considers erroneous. (This
basic distinction remains absent from her new
messages.) I also pointed out that Steiner’s book
on “folk souls” says, among other things, that
the Negro race is substantially determined by
childhood characteristics, and that the American
Indians died out because they were destined to do
so, not because of European persecutions. Deborah
replied that the text of the “folk souls”
lectures “doesn’t support, in any way, Peter’s
description.” I then provided the relevant
quotations from the book where Steiner says
exactly this, along with full citations. There
was no response from Deborah after that."

and

"The latest messages from Deborah appear to repeat
this odd approach, indicating (if I understand
the context correctly) that the words quoted from
Steiner’s “folk souls” book in the opening
paragraph of my article do not, in fact, appear
in the book. They do of course appear in the
book, as we’ll see in a moment. But Deborah’s new
messages are puzzling in other ways as well. For
example, she refers repeatedly to my paragraph as
if it contained a single quotation from Steiner
(in fact it contains five brief quotes from
Steiner, all from the “folk souls” book); she
asks to see “the full quote”, and wonders “if
anyone can verify this quote.” She does not
indicate which of the five quotes she means, or
if she means all of them collectively. She also
refers to “ellipses” (there are no ellipses in my
paragraph, much less in the Steiner quotes it
contains, all of which are either one or two
words long, and hence not even potentially
candidates for ellipsis), and asks for “the date
and title of the lecture in question”. But the
book contains eleven lectures, spread across ten
dates, each with its own title.

Deborah further inquires about “the GA number of
the volume wherein it was published”; the
paragraph refers quite explicitly to the whole
lecture series, and the accompanying footnote
provides citations for both the most recent
English version and the most recent German
version of the book (which is, by the way, GA
121). She then claims that this text “has never
been identified,” evidently forgetting not only
my article itself (which she quotes), but our
exchange on Anthroposophy Tomorrow as well, where
we both discussed the book. Deborah also writes:
“I'll even stretch the point and allow you to
pick and choose passages from several different
lectures, as though Staudenmaier's summary covers
the entire lecture series.” My paragraph itself
says this very clearly, referring unambiguously
to “the lecture series” and “the Oslo lectures”.
Two sentences later, however, Deborah wonders
whether I “made a teensy little mistake and just
happened to footnote the wrong lecture series,”
indicating that she has, in fact, grasped the
notion that a lecture series is being discussed,
not a single lecture. She nevertheless goes on to
speak of one “quote” rather than five distinct
quotes.

In other words, it is difficult to ascertain just
what Deborah is asking for, but I will do my best
to provide here the information that she has
apparently been unable to find in Steiner’s text
itself. The quotes I offered from Steiner’s book
do appear in the book, and my footnote does
indeed cite the correct lecture series. Here are
the details."

And the passage in question:

"The opening paragraph of my article reads as follows:

"In June, 1910, Rudolf Steiner, the founder of
anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway
with a lecture to a large and attentive audience
in Oslo. The lecture series was titled “The
Mission of National Souls in Relation to
Nordic-Germanic Mythology.” In the Oslo lectures
Steiner presented his theory of “national souls”
(Volksseelen in German, Steiner’s native tongue)
and paid particular attention to the mysterious
wonders of the “Nordic spirit.” The “national
souls” of Northern and Central Europe belonged,
Steiner explained, to the “germanic-nordic”
peoples, the world’s most spiritually advanced
ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of
the highest of five historical “root races.”
This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his
Oslo audience, was naturally the “Aryan” race."

The footnote to this paragraph reads:

"See Rudolf Steiner, Die Mission einzelner
Volksseelen im Zusammenhang mit der
germanisch-nordischen Mythologie, Dornach,
Switzerland 1994. These lectures are available in
English under the title The Mission of the
Individual Folk Souls in Relation to Teutonic
Mythology, London 1970. The “Nordic spirit” of
Scandinavia continues to fascinate European
anthroposophists; see, for example, Hans Mändl,
Vom Geist des Nordens, Stuttgart 1966.""

[From: 
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1719463953&sort=d&start=28926]



Peter S. looks at the terminology he uses in the above passage (eg. 
Nordic Spirit,etc.):

"Deborah appears to be saying that she can discern
no relationship between my paragraph and the book
it refers to. I think this is very likely due to
differing interpretations of the book; to
accommodate Deborah’s stated concerns, however, I
will stick to the words I quoted from it. The
“folk souls” book as a whole is a narrative of
racial formation and racial migration, of racial
character and racial spirits, of racial advance
and racial decline, all presented as a reflection
of and an embodiment of spiritual evolution, as a
matter of cosmic destiny and of great occult
significance. In the latter half of the book,
Steiner’s focus shifts from races to peoples, in
line with his teaching about the progression from
racial character to national character. It is a
lengthy work, and to do justice to it I will
follow up this message with a selection of long
excerpts from the text that give a fuller sense
of its message about race and ethnicity. But for
now let us concentrate solely on the words that
Deborah thinks are not to be found in this book.

The first quote in my paragraph is the title
term, “Volksseelen”, which I quote in German and
then render as “national souls”, while noting the
standard anthroposophist translation of “folk
souls” in the footnote. This term is of course a
constant throughout the text, and Deborah
apparently thinks that “national souls” is a
faulty translation. She would do well to
reconsider. “Volksgeist” and “Volksseele” are
common terms from German Idealism and
Romanticism, and their most straightforward
correlate in English is “national spirits” and
“national souls”, though “spirit of a people” and
“soul of a people” are acceptable if somewhat
clumsy alternatives. A recent anthroposophist
re-translation of the first lecture in the “folk
souls” book uses “Spirits of Nations” (rather
than “folk spirits”); see the fifth chapter in
Angels: Selected Lectures by Rudolf Steiner,
translated by Anna Meuss, Rudolf Steiner Press
2001. (Also worth noting is the passage on the
“Semitic Nation Spirit” on p. 114 of the “folk
souls” book itself.)"


Some points:

1. The term "national souls" does not appear in rsarchive.org version of 
the lecture series.

2.Babel Fish translation ( http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr ):

a. Volksseelen - People souls

b. Volksgeist - People spirit

c. Volksseele - People soul

d. Volks - People


3. dict.cc ( http://www.dict.cc/?s=National&btngo=Go%21 ): 

a. Volks - national (used When referring to a specific country).

b. Notice the many alternative terms referring to "national".


4. Article and other information on Franz Boas, important 
anthropologist: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas ):

a. "Writings on Boas and Boasian Anthropology:"

"Stocking, George W., Jr., ed. 1996. Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: 
Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropological Tradition. 
ISBN 0-299-14554-9"

[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas ]

b. Read up to and including page 6 of the book excerpt to more clearly 
understand the significance of Volksgeist, criticism of it, and the 
development of anthropology in Boas' thought:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0299145506/ref=sib_dp_bod_ex/103-9675485-2258216?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S004#reader-page


)From Page 6 of book excerpt:

"In contrast to Bunzl's emphasis on the cosmographical cultural 
tradition, Benoit Massin's "From Virchow to Fischer" focuses on the 
physicalistic and biologistic tendency in German anthropological 
thought, and on the growing power of the racial determinism which, like 
the anthropolgical idea of culture, can be seen as linked to the 
Herderian Volksgeist tradition."

"...Massin offers a new and more complex perspective on the development 
of racism within the German anthropological tradition. Rather than 
following a straight line from Gobineau's Aryanism to Hitler's Nazism, 
physical anthropology in Germany was long dominated by what were at the 
time relatively anti-racist Lamarckian tendencies, and only succumbed to 
a harsher racial determinism after Virchow's death in 1902. Before then, 
it could (and did) help to form the anti-racist anthropology of Franz 
Boas."

[Source: 
ef=sib_dp_bod_ex/103-9675485-2258216?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S004#reader-page 
]


c. The influence and some elements of Boas' approach:

"Most of Boas's students shared his concern for careful, historical 
reconstruction, and his antipathy towards speculative, evolutionary 
models. Moreover, Boas encouraged his students, by example, to criticize 
themselves as much as others. For example, Boas originally defended the 
cephalic index (systematic variations in head form) as a method for 
describing hereditary traits, but came to reject his earlier research 
after further study; he similarly came to criticize his own early work 
in Kwakiutl (Pacific Northwest) language and mythology.

Encouraged by this drive to self-criticism, as well as the Boasian 
commitment to learn from one's informants and to let the findings of 
one's research shape one's agenda, Boas's students quickly diverged from 
his own research agenda. Several of his students soon attempted to 
develop theories of the grand sort that Boas typically rejected. Kroeber 
called his colleagues' attention to Sigmund Freud and the potential of a 
union between cultural anthropology and psychoanalysis. Ruth Benedict 
developed theories of "culture and personality" and "national cultures", 
and Kroeber's student, Julian Steward developed theories of "cultural 
ecology" and "multilineal evolution."

Nevertheless, Boas has had an enduring influence on anthropology. 
Virtually all anthropologists today accept Boas's commitment to 
empiricism and his methodological cultural relativism. Moreover, 
virtually all cultural anthropologists today share Boas's commitment to 
field research involving extended residence, learning the local 
language, and developing social relationships with informants. Finally, 
anthropologists continue to honor his critique of racial ideologies. In 
his 1963 book, Race: The History of an Idea in America, Thomas Gossett 
wrote that "It is possible that Boas did more to combat race prejudice 
than any other person in history.""

[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas ]


d. On the "Herderian "Volksgeist" tradition":

(i) "Johann Gottfried von Herder (August 25, 1744 – December 18, 1803), 
German poet, critic, theologian, and philosopher, is best known for his 
influence on authors such as Goethe and the role he played in the 
development of the larger cultural movement known as romanticism."

[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Gottfried_Herder ]


(ii) "Volk and Nation

Herder replaced the traditional concept of a juridico-political state 
with that of the folk-nation as organic in its historical growth. Every 
nation was in this manner organic and whole, nationality a plant of 
nurture. He talked of the "national animal" and of the "physiology of 
the whole national group" , which organism was topped by the "national 
spirit", the "soul of the volk".

Herder gave Germans a new pride in their origins, modifying that 
dominance of regard allotted to Greek art (Greek revival) extolled among 
others by Johann Joachim Winkelmann and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, 
remarking that he would have wished to be born in the Middle Ages and 
musing whether "the times of the Swabian emperors" did not "deserve to 
be set forth in their true light in accordance with the German mode of 
thought?" Herder equated the German with the Gothic and favoured Dürer 
and everything Gothic. As with the sphere of art, equally he proclaimed 
a national message within the sphere of language. He topped the line of 
German authors emanating from Martin Opitz, who had written his 
Aristarchus, sive de contemptu linguae Teutonicae in Latin in 1617. This 
urged Germans to glory in their hitherto despised language, and Herder's 
extensive collections of folk-poetry began a great craze in Germany for 
that neglected literature.

Along with Wilhelm von Humboldt, he proposed what is now called the 
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis — that language determines thought. Herder's 
focus upon language and cultural traditions as the ties that create a 
"nation" extended to include folklore, dance, music and art, and 
inspired Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm in their collection of Germanic folk 
tales.

Herder attached exceptional importance to the concept of nationality and 
of patriotism — "he that has lost his patriotic spirit has lost himself 
and the whole worlds about himself ", whilst teaching that " in a 
certain sense every human perfection is national". Herder carried folk 
theory to an extreme by maintaining that "there is only one class in the 
state, the Volk, (not the rabble), and the king belongs to this class as 
well as the peasant". Explanation that the Volk was not the rabble was a 
novel conception in this era, and with Herder can be seen the emergence 
of "the people" as the basis for the emergence of a classless but 
hierarchical national body.

The nation, however was individual and separate, distinguished, to 
Herder, by climate, education, foreign intercourse, tradition and 
heredity. Providence he praised for having "wonderfully separated 
nationalities not only by woods and mountins, seas and deserts, rivers 
and climates, but more particularly by languages, inclinations and 
characters". Herder praised the tribal outlook writing that "the savage 
who loves himself, his wife and child with quiet joy and glows with 
limited activity of his tribe as for his own life is in my opinion a 
more real being than that cultivated shadow who is enraptured with the 
shadow of the whole species", isolated since "each nationality contains 
its centre of happiness within itself, as a bullet the centre of 
gravity". With no need for comparison since" every nation bears in 
itself the standard of its perfection, totally independent of all 
comparison with that of others" for "do not nationalities differ in 
everything, in poetry, in appearance, in tastes, in usages, customs and 
languages? Must not religion which partakes of these also differ among 
the nationalities?""

[Source: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Gottfried_Herder#Volk_and_Nation ]


So are we talking about *nation-state* or *ethnic group*? It is very 
evident that nations and kingdoms come and go comparatively frequently, 
but communities, traditions and cultures seem to have longer life - the 
ethos or ethnic. We see a lot of historical evidence where rulers 
attempt to corral people into being followers and members of a united 
larger group as defined by the State - and a lot of resistance and 
changing of allegiences and identity. So, how easy is it to either 
assert or critique a nationalist agenda, and the extent to which it is 
followed in the community? No historian can be 100 percent certain of 
what every single individual of the day was thinking or feeling on a 
given issue, depending instead on external evidence looking for the 
patterns of behaviour in communities, such as that regarding political 
activities.


[Peter S.:]
"The second quote in my paragraph is “Nordic
Spirit”, which also refers to the Hans Mandl book
mentioned in the footnote, which takes Steiner’s
“folk souls” lectures as its starting point. This
term, too, recurs throughout Steiner’s book, most
often in the form of the “Nordic Folk Spirit”
(e.g. p. 162 or 168), but also as the “Folk
Spirit of the North” (p. 172) and “the Folk
Spirit who rules over the Northern lands” (p.
183); Steiner is also fond of phrases like
“Nordic consciousness” (p. 146). In the German
edition the most common formulation is “der
germanisch-nordische Volksgeist” (e.g. p. 184)."

But the term "nordic spirit" does NOT **APPEAR** in the text of the 
lecture series in question on rsarchive.org. Why did Peter S. use the 
term "nordic spirit" and *imply* by using inverted commas that it was an 
actual term used in the lecture text?

Look:

"The lecture series was titled "The Mission of National Souls in 
Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology." In the Oslo lectures Steiner 
presented his theory of "national souls" (Volksseelen in German, 
Steiner's native tongue) and paid particular attention to the mysterious 
wonders of the "Nordic spirit.""

It isn't clear here that Peter is making a mere characterisation of 
Steiner's use of the terms "Nordic" and "spirit" in the lecture material 
by substituting the term "Nordic Spirit", as distinct from the more 
immediate interpretation by the reader as to "nordic spirit" being a 
literal quotation from the text of an instance of author terminology. 
There is no clear distinction between direct citation and indirect 
interpretation - it's not clear who is saying what: Peter S. or Steiner. 
The words nordic and spirit do not appear together in the lecture text 
the way a quotation "Nordic Spirit" implies. 

As to the use of "Nordic Folk Spirit", I found it appeared only ONCE in 
the lecture series, namely:

"Thus the various missions are distributed between Western, Central, 
Northern and Eastern Europe. I wished to give you an indication of these 
various missions. On the basis of these indications I propose to add 
further observations and show what the Europe of the future will be 
like, a future that will ensure that we must form our ideals on the 
basis of such knowledge. I propose to show how, through this influence, 
the Germanic and Nordic Folk Spirit is gradually transformed into a Time 
Spirit."

[Source: "The Mission of the Individual Folk-Souls - LECTURE TEN: The 
Mission of individual Peoples and Cultures in the Past, Present and 
Future. Solovieff." 
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA/GA0121/19100616p02.html ]

The term "folk souls" does appear quite frequently in the lecture 
series: 
tp://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA/GA0121/search=context?query=folk+souls 
. The phrase "folk Spirit who rules over the Northern lands" is nowhere 
to be found.

The term "Nordic Consciousness" appears in the following way:

"Where man is related to the external world Lucifer confronts Ahriman, 
so that the infiltration of error into his knowledge — even into his 
clairvoyant knowledge — all illusion and maya, is the consequence of the 
tendency to falsehood which is active there. The Fenris Wolf represents 
the configuration surrounding man because he does not see things in 
their true form. Whenever the ancient Teutons experienced the darkening 
of the light of truth, they spoke of a wolf. This permeates the whole of 
Nordic consciousness and you will find that this image is used in this 
sense even in relation to external facts."

[Source: "The Mission of the Individual Folk-Souls - LECTURE NINE:
Loki — Hodur and Baldur — Twilight of the Gods." 
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA/GA0121/19100615p02.html ]


[Peter S.:]
"The third quote in my paragraph is
“germanic-nordic”, a term which once again
appears in a number of contexts in the book, for
example the phrase “Germanic-Nordic man” repeated
on pp.134, 135, and 136, or the figure of “the
Archangel of the Germanic North” (p. 172); this
is a favorite theme for Steiner particularly in
the latter half of the book, where he has much to
say about the special role of the germanic-nordic
peoples in further developing the spiritual
capacities of the current epoch and of the
future. According to Steiner, these “new
capacities will appear in the isolated few who
are specially fitted to receive them.” (p. 173)
“We hope that those forces which the Archangel of
the Teutonic world can contribute to the
evolution of modern times will be able to provide
the core and living essence of Spiritual
Science.” (p. 179; “Teutonic” is here as
elsewhere in the book a translation of
“germanisch-nordisch”, see p. 196 in the German
edition.) This theme continues in other parts of
the text: “Although not apparent from the
external point of view today, the Archangel of
the Germanic North had within him this tendency,
and thanks to this tendency he is particularly
fitted to understand modern Spiritual Science and
to transform it in the appropriate manner to
satisfy the inherent potentialities of the
people. You will therefore appreciate why I have
said that the soul of the Germanic peoples in
particular is best fitted to understand what I
could only indicate briefly in the public lecture
which I gave here on the Second Coming of
Christ.” (p. 172)"

-) In the lecture series:

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA/GA0121/search=context?query=germanic-nordic



[Peter S.:]
"The fourth quote in my paragraph is “root races”,
the standard theosophical terminology in which
Steiner at this time presented his racial and
ethnic doctrines. A remarkable number of
anthroposophists have publicly insisted that this
term does not appear in the “folk souls” book.
They are mistaken. The title of chapter six is
“The five Root Races of Mankind” (this title is
used both in the table of contents, on p. 7, and
at the head of chapter six itself, on p. 97), and
this lecture (from June 12, 1910) does indeed
discuss in considerable detail “the five Root
Races of the Earth.” (p. 101) There are further
instances of “root race” elsewhere in the chapter
as well, for example on p. 107, and the phrase
“root races” also appears in the synopsis of the
chapter, on p. 15. The German terms Steiner uses
are “Grundrassen” and “Hauptrassen” (see the
German edition e.g. pp. 108, 115, and 119); the
latter term in particular was one of several
translations of the term “root races” in German
theosophical literature of the era, one which
Steiner used in his other works as well (for
example Cosmic Memory, whose title in German is
Aus der Akasha-Chronik). In the “root races”
chapter of the “folk souls” book Steiner offers
an extended description of the role of racial
spirits in directing racial evolution and racial
distribution, along with detailed discussions of
various racial groups and their ostensible
characteristics, spiritual as well as physical.
My next message will include lengthy excerpts
from this central chapter."

-) In the lecture series:

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA/GA0121/search=context?query=germanic-nordic



[Peter S.:]
"The last quote in my paragraph is “Aryan”,
another term which several anthroposophists
insist does not appear in the book. It appears in
the middle of the chapter on “root races”, where
Steiner discusses the role of special spiritual
forces associated with Mercury, Venus, Mars,
Jupiter, and Saturn in each of the five “root
races”. The passage reads thus: “Now the Jupiter
forces work indirectly through the
sense-impressions and from there radiate to those
parts of the central nervous system which are
situated in the brain and spinal cord. Here is
the seat of those forces which determine the
particular racial character of those races
belonging to the Jupiter humanity. This applies
more or less to the Aryans, to the peoples of
Asia Minor and Europe whom we regard as members
of the Caucasian race.” (106) The German term for
“Aryan” is “arisch”, and can be found on p. 114
of the German edition of the book."




The lecture series as presented on rsarchive.org:

http://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA/index.php?ga=GA0121


 The
) $100.00 offer was silly, imo and Peter's helpful posts should tell you 
) why.
) Perhaps one day you and your peers will be able to discuss these issues
) without obfuscation and silly bets tossed in from the sidelines.
) 
) Here's hoping.
) 
) -Walden
) 
)

Makes sense to me, and Peter S. explains it clearly. However, I still 
don't agree with some of the assumptions he seems to be making here.


Thanks,

Keith


Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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

Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 10:31:39 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: What a joke.............old business



Keith wrote:

)Makes sense to me, and Peter S. explains it clearly. However, I still
)don't agree with some of the assumptions he seems to be making here.

I agree - the issue is clear. The initial wager was goofy. Is there room for
disagreement with regards to interpretation? Apparently there is and it is
worth discussing even if you and Peter might end up agreeing to disagree.
This nonsense about inventing "lies" grows tiresome. While I do not really
expect Linda and her peers to fork over $100.00 to PLANS, they might
consider a public apology to Dan and Peter Staudenmaier.

-Walden



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

Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 15:52:34 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: What a joke.............old business



DAN DUGAN:
)  ) Now how about
))  the $100 you owe us for the challenge you and Deborah made on
))  defendingsteiner.com?
))
))  -Dan Dugan
)
)I assume you mean this one?
)
)http://www.defendingsteiner.com/wc/archives/2005/08/the_big_lie_fro.html
)
)[Rubbing me eyes] I don't see your answer to this challenge there, Dan. 
)Am I having deja vu?  Because this is feeling very much like a repeat of
)your lawsuit, where the evidence you're supposed to present is
).................................. missing.  Are you "opting out" of our
)challenge the same way you "opted out" of presenting any exceptible
)evidence *At All!* in court? 
)
)I'm about as undazzled by the empty bluster now as I was reading PLANS'
)empty bluster in the court transcripts. 
)Do you think all that is required is to give your own personal say-so
)and tah-dah! 
)
)Deborah apparently foretold there'd be PLANS funny-business here, and
)the rules she layed out were very sensible and very thorough.  If you
)think you're due $100, then tarry no more.  Just go over there and
)produce what she asked.

Done weeks ago (September 22), Linda. Here it is again:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1719463953&sort=d&start=28926

Now pay up or explain, in detail, what in Peter's reply doesn't 
satisfy your conditions. And please apologize, both here and on that 
blog, for calling PLANS' publication "lies."

-Dan Dugan


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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1968



-- Topica Digest --
	
	RE: What a joke.............old business
	By pkcompany netzero.net

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

Date: Tue,  8 Nov 2005 03:11:54 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: What a joke.............old business




Dan Dugan wrote:

) Now pay up or explain, in detail, what in Peter's reply doesn't 
) satisfy your conditions. And please apologize, both here and on that 
) blog, for calling PLANS' publication "lies."
) 
) -Dan Dugan

(crickets) (crickets) 

 


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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1969



-- Topica Digest --
	
	RE: What a joke.............old business
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
	
	Theoretical question
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	Re: Theoretical question
	By ldenike aol.com
	
	incendiary complaint
	By mainquestion1 yahoo.com
	
	Re: incendiary complaint
	By ldenike aol.com
	
	Re: incendiary complaint
	By ldenike aol.com
	
	Re: Theoretical question
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca

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

Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:31:02 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: What a joke.............old business




Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) 
) 
) Dan Dugan wrote:
) 
) ) Now pay up or explain, in detail, what in Peter's reply doesn't 
) ) satisfy your conditions. And please apologize, both here and on that 
) ) blog, for calling PLANS' publication "lies."
) ) 
) ) -Dan Dugan
) 
) (crickets) (crickets)


:)))  



Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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

Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:23:04 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: Theoretical question



Just because things seem a little slow...
 If there was a Waldorf school that could address your main problem with 
Waldorf, would you send your child/children?
 Of course, I don't mean things that are necessary to Waldorf like 
spirituality, but I mean the issues like openness, disclosure of 
spiritual foundations, willingness to address bullying/behavior problem, 
etc.
It just seems to me that many of you were initially attracted to 
Waldorf, but got burned by things that shouldn't happen in a Waldorf 
school.


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

Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:56:12 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Theoretical question




Lemuria,
 
Excellent question. The answer I would have to give is "No. If Waldorf changed only in the aspect that parents were fully informed that their children would get an Anthro. education (as well as the more practical concerns about bullying, catching reading issues early on, etc.), I still would not send my children there, despite the fact that many of the good things (such as handicrafts, emphasis on outside play, music, foreign language, etc.) would still be there."
 
The reason: Because while I respect that Anthro. is a religion/belief system that is valid for many people and which enriches their lives, I believe Waldorf's insistence on making Anthro tenets the spine and muscle of the school's curriculum means that the children learn some things that are just flat our wrong (science stuff, mostly) and that children do not learn some important skills during a window of time when they should. (I am talking here about critical thinking skills, reading, etc.)
 
The fact that my children would get organic, healthy food, plenty of fresh air and exercise and get to learn to knit and sew could not counterbalance what seem to me to be far more important things. 
 
I also would still worry that the people teaching my children were there more for their own spiritual evolution than they are there to teach the children. I would still worry and be concerned about the educational background and experience the teachers bring to Waldorf. To me, a few years at Steiner College studying Steiner and Anthro. mostly does not provide a would-be educator with the tools (intellectual and practical) that she or he needs to effectively approach working with children. (I get the college's brochures, catalogs and schedule each year in the mail, so I know what I am talking about. It's pretty much Steiner, or Steiner acolytes, 24/7.) 
 
Lisa
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:23:04 +0000
Subject: Theoretical question


Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Apple® iPod® nano. As Thin as a No. 2 Pencil. Stores up to 3 
Days of Songs! Get it Here FREE*!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatBb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/Superb Rewards 
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because things seem a little slow...
 If there was a Waldorf school that could address your main problem with 
Waldorf, would you send your child/children?
 Of course, I don't mean things that are necessary to Waldorf like 
spirituality, but I mean the issues like openness, disclosure of 
spiritual foundations, willingness to address bullying/behavior problem, 
etc.
It just seems to me that many of you were initially attracted to 
Waldorf, but got burned by things that shouldn't happen in a Waldorf 
school.

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MAKE NEW FRIENDS, MEET POTENTIAL BUSINESS PARTNERS, FIND THAT SPECIAL SOMEONE!
IT'S EASY, IT'S FUN! AND BEST OF ALL, IT'S TOTALLY FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatFb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Friendsand.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------

==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New 
threads are always welcome.

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



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

Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:59:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Pseudonym (mainquestion1 yahoo.com)
Subject: incendiary complaint



Memo

To: Waldorf School children's craft organizers
From: Mainquestion
Regarding: Newsletter Item

Dear Craft Ladies, 

Are you perhaps not aware that birch bark, one of the
most flammable substances in nature, might not be an
appropriate choice of material for constructing or
decorating children's candle holders? 

WTF? 

Your friend, 

MQ 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


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

Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:03:59 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: incendiary complaint




Memo
 
TO: Mainquestion
FROM: the Waldorf School children's crafts organizers
Re: newsletter item
 
Dear Mainquestion,
 
If the birch bark candle holders ignite and burn a child, well, then, it was the child's destiny to be burned. It would be wrong for our teachers to try to alter karma.
 
We take the same view about allowing small children to use sharp knives to chop vegetables for snack soup. Any resulting lacerations are merely the outward expression of karma.
 
Waldorf craft organizers
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Pseudonym (mainquestion1 yahoo.com)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:59:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: incendiary complaint


Memo

To: Waldorf School children's craft organizers
From: Mainquestion
Regarding: Newsletter Item

Dear Craft Ladies, 

Are you perhaps not aware that birch bark, one of the
most flammable substances in nature, might not be an
appropriate choice of material for constructing or
decorating children's candle holders? 

WTF? 

Your friend, 

MQ 



        
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

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



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

Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:56:57 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: incendiary complaint




Please know I am only being sarcastic, in the style (but without the skill) of Jonathan Swift and his Modest Proposal.  
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ldenike aol.com
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:03:59 -0500
Subject: Re: incendiary complaint


Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Need a new Cell Phone? A BlackBerry 7250 could be yours free! Find 
out how!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatub1dkiGbOrq7Ba/Amazing phone
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Memo
 
TO: Mainquestion
FROM: the Waldorf School children's crafts organizers
Re: newsletter item
 
Dear Mainquestion,
 
If the birch bark candle holders ignite and burn a child, well, then, it was the 
child's destiny to be burned. It would be wrong for our teachers to try to alter 
karma.
 
We take the same view about allowing small children to use sharp knives to chop 
vegetables for snack soup. Any resulting lacerations are merely the outward 
expression of karma.
 
Waldorf craft organizers
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Pseudonym (mainquestion1 yahoo.com)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:59:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: incendiary complaint


Memo

To: Waldorf School children's craft organizers
From: Mainquestion
Regarding: Newsletter Item

Dear Craft Ladies, 

Are you perhaps not aware that birch bark, one of the
most flammable substances in nature, might not be an
appropriate choice of material for constructing or
decorating children's candle holders? 

WTF? 

Your friend, 

MQ 



        
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

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

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oprah vs Dr. Phil- who is your favorite? Vote now.
http://click.topica.com/caaeatsb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Your opinion
-------------------------------------------------------------------

==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New 
threads are always welcome.

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



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

Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:21:41 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Theoretical question



Hi Lemuria,

You wrote:

)Just because things seem a little slow...
) If there was a Waldorf school that could address your main problem with
)Waldorf, would you send your child/children?
) Of course, I don't mean things that are necessary to Waldorf like
)spirituality, but I mean the issues like openness, disclosure of
)spiritual foundations, willingness to address bullying/behavior problem,
)etc.
)It just seems to me that many of you were initially attracted to
)Waldorf, but got burned by things that shouldn't happen in a Waldorf
)school.

Good question. My main problem is the Biggie involving disingenuous
information/outreach - Anthroposophy and Waldorf.
Had I known the reality of Anthroposophy and Waldorf, I would not have
enrolled my kids in the school. And I doubt this
list would exist. I agree with Lisa in that the non-religious-yet-wonderful
Waldorf stuff (healthy food, crafts, non-stress academics, etc.) would not
have outweighed my concerns about the Anthroposophical foundation of my
children's education. Just as we respectfully passed by the Catholic School,
we would have said "no thanks" to Waldorf.

-Walden



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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1971



-- Topica Digest --
	
	Re: Theoretical question
	By mainquestion1 yahoo.com
	
	RE: incendiary complaint
	By cffrey mindspring.com

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

Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:42:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Pseudonym (mainquestion1 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Theoretical question



     Having seen what I've seen, it is very unlikely I
would ever send a child of mine to a Waldorf school,
even if the school made an effort to address the
problems you mentioned. 

     All the layers of disfunction at my former school
can't possibly be peeled off without revealing more of
the same. If you ask me what the core problem is, at
the moment I would explain it as a lack of what I
consider good, decent human values. Our values become
visible through the choices we make.  What am I to
think when school leaders place a higher premium on
preserving the purity of the school's "culture" than
keeping good teachers on the faculty? Something that
is completely clear to me now is that once I had been
at my former school long enough to be seen as an
outsider (as opposed to someone too new to know any
better), not only was I *expected* to quit, but I was
treated progressively badly until quitting was the
only way to preserve my dignity.  In a nutshell it's
analogous to dating a crackhead with an inferiority
complex.  I really believe that the school doesn't
*want* outsiders on the payroll.  We're an unwelcome
reality check -- life is prettier when they keep the
Waldorf goggles *on*.      

     In forcing me out, what is the value being
expressed by my former school? I consider myself a
damn good teacher, but my failure to believe made me
ineligible for legitimacy there. I was more of an
outsider at the Waldorf school than I ever was at any
of the overtly religious institutions I've worked in
the past. 

     What is the purpose of imposing one man's
vocabulary of spiritual symbols onto children and
their families?  Given the diverse nature of most
modern communities, it seems to me that the purpose of
the various annual festivals isn't exactly to
strengthen the community or to honor the children's
natural awe and wonder. If they wanted to strengthen
the community, they would celebrate something that
every person associated with the school, I would hope,
believes in - the children's achievements and the
children themselves. Instead, they say meaningless
verses, light candles, sing cradle songs in December,
walk around holding kite paper lanterns... Is it not
possible to "be spiritual" without spending school
money and time on this stuff? Without devoting
instructional minutes to songs about Mik-ah-ell?
Looking around at all the handknit mittens and flowing
silk scarves, to me Waldorf culture is just good ole
mainstream materialism except the bling is made from
sheep fluff, and the rock star idol has been dead for
a long, long time. 

     One of the most important lessons I learned while
in the Waldorf community ("in" is maybe too strong a
word for me) was to recognise the feeling of confusion
that I would get when reading certain promo material
and ask myself, "What does this even *mean*?" 

     Did you happen to see the recent requests on the
SJU and WE-HS lists from the person who wrote about a
child who she considered particularly "astral"?
Paraphrased: we have an "astral" child here, whatever
can we do about this. -- What does that even *mean*?
     
     As part of my job, I was asked to read the
lecture "The Human Heart". In it, Steiner says, 

     ))Then when man passes through the gate of death,
this ethereal-astral structure -- wherein the heart is
floating, so to speak -- contains all that man takes
with him into his further life of soul and spirit,
when he has laid aside the physical and the etheric
forms.((

     (sound of crickets...) 

     Say it with me now: What does that even *mean*?

     What it means, I finally figured out, is that I
just wasted an hour slogging through Steiners
undistinguished and unremarkable personal guesses
about the nature of the unknowable instead of hitting
the library and checking out some enrichment material
for my kids. 

     In every school, decisions are made which express
a unique set of priorities. The most visible ones are
financial. Here is the school budget, here is the list
of expenses - some things can stay and others have to
go. The mandatory orchestra? Stays. The school nurse?
Not necessary. Thick watercolor paper and Stockmar
paints every year? Sure. Working bathrooms adjacent to
the preschool classrooms? That will never happen. 
     
     Similar decisions have to do with instructional
time. How many minutes per week are devoted to
eurhythmy? How many precious minutes go toward
creative writing (throughout the grades)? What do the
children get from Eurhythmy that they couldn't get
from a good phys ed or music curriculum? 

     My problems with my former school and other
Waldorf schools as I understand them are that
everything they do is driven by Anthroposophy, and as
far as I can tell, Anthroposophy has no relationship
whatsoever to actual children's educational needs.
Problem 1 = non-disclosure of the Anthroposophical
basis for the school. Problem 2 = Anthroposophy
itself. 

MQ

---------------------------------------
Just because things seem a little slow...
If there was a Waldorf school that could address your
main problem with
Waldorf, would you send your child/children?
Of course, I don't mean things that are necessary to
Waldorf like
spirituality, but I mean the issues like openness,
disclosure of
spiritual foundations, willingness to address
bullying/behavior problem,
etc.
It just seems to me that many of you were initially
attracted to
Waldorf, but got burned by things that shouldn't
happen in a Waldorf
school.


	


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


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

Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:05:12 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: incendiary complaint



Are you suggesting cooking babies over a birch-bark fire?
;-}
cl


ldenike aol.com wrote:
) 
) 
) Please know I am only being sarcastic, in the style (but without the 
) skill) of Jonathan Swift and his Modest Proposal.  
)  
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Ldenike aol.com
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Sent: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:03:59 -0500
) Subject: Re: incendiary complaint
) 
) 
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) Need a new Cell Phone? A BlackBerry 7250 could be yours free! Find 
) out how!
) http://click.topica.com/caaeatub1dkiGbOrq7Ba/Amazing phone
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) 
) 
) Memo
)  
) TO: Mainquestion
) FROM: the Waldorf School children's crafts organizers
) Re: newsletter item
)  
) Dear Mainquestion,
)  
) If the birch bark candle holders ignite and burn a child, well, then, it 
) was the 
) child's destiny to be burned. It would be wrong for our teachers to try 
) to alter 
) karma.
)  
) We take the same view about allowing small children to use sharp knives 
) to chop 
) vegetables for snack soup. Any resulting lacerations are merely the 
) outward 
) expression of karma.
)  
) Waldorf craft organizers
)  
)  
)  
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Pseudonym (mainquestion1 yahoo.com)
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Sent: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:59:42 -0800 (PST)
) Subject: incendiary complaint
) 
) 
) Memo
) 
) To: Waldorf School children's craft organizers
) From: Mainquestion
) Regarding: Newsletter Item
) 
) Dear Craft Ladies, 
) 
) Are you perhaps not aware that birch bark, one of the
) most flammable substances in nature, might not be an
) appropriate choice of material for constructing or
) decorating children's candle holders? 
) 
) WTF? 
) 
) Your friend, 
) 
) MQ 
) 
) 
) 
)         
) __________________________________ 
) Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
) http://farechase.yahoo.com
) 
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
) 
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) Oprah vs Dr. Phil- who is your favorite? Vote now.
) http://click.topica.com/caaeatsb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Your opinion
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) 
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how 
) basic. New 
) threads are always welcome.
) 
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
) 


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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1972




-- Topica Digest --
	
	The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
	
	RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
	
	Re: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca
	
	RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au

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

Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:43:15 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach



1. The nature of historical interperation:

"At its most simple, the role of the historian is to read records like 
this, report on what he or she finds there, and thus inform the wider 
world about the past. The most basic forms of history might cease at 
this point: simply arranging a report of events into a chronological 
order, and providing no further comment or discussion. We usually call 
such histories 'chronicles', and although they were quite common in the 
middle ages, they are not (with certain exceptions) the kind of history 
we are used to today.

So what else does the historian do? What roles does he or she play? 
There are a variety of things, some overlapping and common to most 
historians, some more divided and particular to individual historians. 
There are some shared skills and methods that historians deploy: for 
example, historians treat their sources with fidelity (that is, do not 
pretend that the records say things that they do not; and do not 
deliberately ignore records that contradict the historian's argument). 
However, the task of the historian is more complicated than simply 
reporting what the records say. At the very least, the records that 
survive for most periods of history are both incomplete and often 
contradictory; the historian therefore has to try, in some fashion, to 
address those gaps and contradictions. That is, the historian has to act 
as an interpreter."

(source: 
y/lj/how_to_do_historylj/roles_02.shtml?site=history_howtodolj_unpicking 
)


"John Hogsflesh can therefore be made to fit into a number of different 
contexts. The 'history' produced around him will vary according to the 
historian and his or her interpretation. There is, therefore, a 
difference between 'the past' (all the things that happened in previous 
times) and 'history' (the bits of those things presented, in various 
ways, by historians to a wider public). How these different 'histories' 
vary depends on the roles that the historian adopts.

The initial role is that of detective: finding out something, by 
locating historical documents. As we have seen, the next role is that of 
interpreter: saying something about what these things mean. In fact, 
however, the boundaries of these roles are blurred. To make sense of 
Hogsflesh (or any other bit of the past), we need to find other material 
to provide context (as we have just seen). The direction of the 
particular detective work an historian undertakes therefore depends, in 
part, on the kind of interpretation he or she wants or is able to 
pursue. This is affected by a number of things, including the 
availability of different kinds of sources, the interests of the 
historian, the knowledge already made available by other scholars."

(source: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/how_to_do_historylj/roles_04.shtml?site=history_howtodolj_unpicking)




"If the historian must interpret the historical record, this necessarily 
involves making choices not only about the context but also the meaning 
of historical events. There are a number of ways of describing this 
role. At the most neutral, we might call it the role of analyst: looking 
dispassionately at the evidence and presenting one's findings. Indeed, 
the 'scientific' image of this role was particularly popular amongst 
historians early in the twentieth century (and still, to some extent, 
today). However, many historians have questioned whether such a neutral 
and objective position is ever actually possible, not least because of 
the choices that every historian must make in how he or she sets about 
analysing something."

(source: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/how_to_do_historylj/roles_05.shtml?site=history_howtodolj_unpicking)



"If the historian is seen as a more subjective interpreter - not a 
fiction maker or liar, but nonetheless an interpreter influenced by 
their particular, personal position - his or her role might be described 
in different ways depending on the kind of interpretation he or she 
wants to put forward.
		
For example, the historian might be seen as a judge, offering an 
assessment of the rights or wrongs (according to his or her own 
viewpoint) of what happened in the past. One can certainly find 
historians who discuss the Reformation in this way, arguing for example 
that the Reformation was imposed from above, was not popular with most 
people at the time, and that it would have been better if it had not 
happened. It doesn't mean that this kind of historian is writing 'bad' 
history, only that they have taken a particular line of argument. 
Equally, the historian might take the role of political campaigner: 
another part of the impetus to looking at people like John Hogsflesh 
(rather than just studying Henry VIII) was the left-wing political 
commitments of various historians such as Edward Thompson and 
Christopher Hill in the second half of the twentieth century. They felt 
(and other historians still feel) that through showing the place of 
ordinary people in history, the historian could contribute to political 
discussion about the place of ordinary people today.

Yet again, the historian might take the role of philosopher, 
concentrating on the questions of knowledge and ideas that looking at 
history throws up. For example, the role of philosopher might prompt an 
historian to ask difficult questions about our 'knowledge' of John 
Hogsflesh, whether we can really know about what he said, did and felt, 
or only what the surviving records (created by powerful authorities) 
represented as his actions. (The gaps between what the sources tell us, 
and the past reality that is now lost, is another reason why various 
people have doubted that the historian can really be an objective, 
'scientific' analyst)."

(source: 
y/lj/how_to_do_historylj/roles_06.shtml?site=history_howtodolj_unpicking 
)



"The roles of analyst, judge, political campaigner and philosopher are 
not mutually exclusive. Nor does an historian pick only one of these 
'hats' to wear; rather, they overlap and shift. However, all of these 
things involve two other roles that every historian, in one way or 
another, must play. The first is that of synthesizer: someone who brings 
together a variety of things (pieces of evidence, ideas, other 
historians' works) and forges them into a new pattern. Again, this 
involves making choices (what to include, what to leave out, what to 
emphasize, what to diminish); and, again, these choices are unavoidable. 
But the role of synthesizer is essential. Without it, there would be no 
'history' as we understand it - only piles and piles of records, lacking 
shape or coherence. Finally, every historian is, in some fashion, a 
story teller. In producing a synthesis, the historian has to make it 
available to a wider audience - whether through writing, the radio or 
television.

The 'history' that we see as a public is the final production (after the 
historian has completed all his or her other roles), and it is 
necessarily a kind of narrative. Sometimes the story-elements are very 
clear: for example, the short account of John Hogsflesh with which we 
began is presented as a little tale. Sometimes, the 'story' is less 
obviously that: for example, if we had started with a table displaying 
some statistics for people convicted of religious deviance in England, 
that would look less like a tale and more like a piece of maths. But it 
would still be a story, or part of a story: as soon as the historian 
starts to analyse and explain, we are led, as readers, from a beginning 
to a middle to an end. If the table has a point to make ('this shows 
that …'), it is telling us a story. This is not to suggest that 
'history' (the thing produced from the roles of the historian) is not 
true. Unless the historian has cheated or been lazy or sloppy, the story 
is 'true' in that it has fidelity to the sources. But it is to note that 
it is a story, and that had the historian adopted a different role, the 
tale would have appeared a little differently."

(source: 
y/lj/how_to_do_historylj/roles_07.shtml?site=history_howtodolj_unpicking 
)


"...there is another question here about roles: the role adopted by the 
reader or audience of history. Is the audience best served by passively 
accepting everything that historians say or write? Or might the reader 
also want to ask questions, think of arguments - and wonder about what 
roles the historian adopted in producing 'history'?"

(source: 
y/lj/how_to_do_historylj/roles_08.shtml?site=history_howtodolj_unpicking 
)


2. History informed by Marxism, and other left-wing concepts and 
principles:

"The radical historians of the 1960s and 1970s constructed new 
historical narratives that enlarged the range of historical actors. They 
also uncovered many sources of relevance to the new agenda, and for 
recent history they made systematic use of interviewed informants, a 
practice that quickly came to be known as “oral history”.

One major beneficiary of the radical climate was Marxism. Karl Marx had 
elaborated his theory of history between the 1840s and the 1860s, but 
for a long time it was much better known among revolutionary socialists 
than among historians. After 1917 it became the official view of history 
in the Soviet Union, and it was taken up between the wars by a small 
group of Western historians, mainly as an intellectual resource against 
Fascism. Only in the new atmosphere of the 1960s did Marxism become a 
major influence on historians, which is why it makes sense to consider 
it as a contribution to 20th-century historiography. Marxism was an 
effective means of advertising an identification with the workers or the 
underdog more generally, and it immediately suggested that history was 
politically relevant. But Marxism was more than a radical talisman. Its 
influence on the writing of history proved to be enduring because of the 
purchase it offered on some of the most intractable problems of 
historical explanation.

Perhaps the most difficult of these problems is how to conceive of 
historical societies as wholes, particularly in view of the fissiparous 
tendencies of specialist research. Marxist historians start from the 
materialist premise that the character of all societies is determined by 
the way in which people fulfil their material needs (hence the term 
“historical materialism”): a society based on the factory will be very 
different from one based on the plough. The outcome in each case will be 
a distinctive pattern of economic relationships or “mode of production”. 
This is the economic base, upon which is constructed the institutions of 
law and the state, with their supporting ideology. Hence the labelling 
of particular societies as “feudal” or “industrial capitalist”. Without 
assuming a total coherence in every particular, Marx nevertheless 
provided a powerful organising model. The extent of its influence can be 
measured by the fact that today it is habitual to begin a historical 
survey work with an account of the economy, on the assumption that this 
sets significant limits to what we can expect to find in the sphere of 
politics or culture. 

But Marx himself was centrally preoccupied with historical change—with 
understanding it in the past, and with predicting its trajectory in the 
future. His theory of social structure was, in a sense, merely the 
preliminary to uncovering the dynamics of human development. This Marx 
did by identifying the contradictions that make any social structure to 
a greater or lesser degree unstable. Given human creativity, 
technological advance and its appropriate relations of production have a 
tendency to run ahead of the political system, which is likely to 
reinforce the existing outmoded economic structure rather than 
facilitate the emergence of the new one. These are the preconditions for 
acute class conflict between the protagonists of the old order and the 
new—between the feudal class and the bourgeoisie in the transition to 
mercantile capitalism, and between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat 
in the transition to socialism. Ultimately therefore, social change 
comes about as a result of the growth of human productive power: Marx’s 
theory of social change is no less materialist than his view of social 
structure. 

During the 1960s and 1970s Marxism was taken up enthusiastically by many 
historians. Part of its appeal lay in its promise of “total history”."

(source: "History and Historiography", Encarta Encyclopedia 2004 
Standard Edition.)


"Marxism also appealed as an effective means of writing emancipatory 
history, or history from the perspective of marginalized groups. It 
emphasized trajectories of progressive change in history, it located the 
forward march of history with subordinate classes instead of the 
controlling elites, and it articulated the structural significance of 
these classes."

(source: ditto)


3. Peter Straudenmaier's background:

Staudenmaier's bio:

"Peter Staudenmaier is a social ecologist and left green activist who 
has been involved with the Institute for Social Ecology since 1989. 
Currently a faculty member at ISE, Peter lives in Madison, Wisconsin, 
where he works at a collectively run bookstore co-op. He is also part of 
a network of housing cooperatives providing democratically controlled 
resident-owned affordable housing to 200 low income members. In addition 
to his work with cooperatives, Peter works with grassroots development 
organizations in Nicaragua as well as with the German radical green 
group Ecological Left. He devotes much of his time to independent 
scholarship and antifascist research, and is committed to bridging 
activism and theoretical work. He is co-author, with Janet Biehl, of the 
book Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience, and has published 
many articles on anarchism, ecological politics, and the history of 
right-wing thought. He is an experienced public speaker who conducts 
frequent lectures and workshops on a wide variety of topics."

(source: 
http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031021112928906 )


4. The role of Marxist and left ideology in modern historical practice:

"The range and readership of Western history is now global, with 
professional historians at work in almost every country. But the 
development of so many different kinds of history during the 20th 
century raises the question of whether there is still a unified, 
coherent field. It is no longer possible to speak of a hierarchy of 
histories, with political narrative at the pinnacle, because the counter 
claims of other branches (particularly social history) are too strong. 
But until recently there did exist a broad consensus about the methods 
of historical enquiry and the status of historical explanation. 
Historians generally took the view that they employed an empirical 
method, in which the ultimate test of their findings was whether they 
were supported by validated evidence. It was accepted that historians 
quite often differed sharply over large-scale questions of 
interpretation, sometimes for reasons that were extraneous to the issue 
in hand, but the evidence placed a limit on how widely interpretations 
could diverge. Epistemological debate among historians was muted, with 
only an occasional flurry caused by books like E. H. Carr’s What Is 
History? (1961) and Howard Zinn’s The Politics of History (1970). 

The position is very different today. Postmodernism has undermined the 
truth claims of all humanities and social sciences. History has come in 
for particularly strong attack. This is partly because it is a textual 
subject, and Postmodernism rejects the notion of an authoritative or 
authentic reading. But Postmodernists also attack history because they 
maintain that the great trajectories that historiography has built 
around nation, class, and religion are fictions—“grand narratives” 
conferring an illusory sense of direction on people who think they 
“know” about the past. Both as a mode of enquiry and as a map of 
knowledge, history is in a more exposed position than at any time since 
the 17th century. A small minority of historians have embraced at least 
some Postmodernist arguments in the hope of writing history that is 
proof against attack. The majority regard Postmodernism as a 
misconceived critique and hope that intellectual fashions will change. 
At the turn of the 21st century there are signs that this is the case. 
The extreme relativism implicit in Postmodernism is now less often 
heard, while the popular appeal of well-crafted historical 
interpretations of topics of current concern shows no sign of 
diminishing. Most important of all, historians can point with confidence 
to the extraordinary variety of knowledge about the human condition that 
their disciplined enquiries have uncovered over the past 150 years."

(source: "History and Historiography", Encarta Encyclopedia 2004 
Standard Edition.)


5. Part of a Peter Straudenmaier critique on a commentor on Rudolf 
Steiner:

"Astonishingly, Fant also repeats as fact the discredited racist 
propaganda about "outrages of black soldiers against German women in the 
Ruhr." Aside from mixing up the Rhine and Ruhr occupations (there were 
no French colonial troops stationed in the Ruhr), Fant has been 
hoodwinked by an eighty-year-old misinformation campaign. These rumors 
of "outrages" were not merely "exaggeratedly described," as Fant would 
have it, they were an invention of German nationalist demagogues and 
were just as racist as the stories of similar "outrages" in the American 
South during the same period.[35] The patently spurious reports were 
already exposed in 1921 by anti-racist journalists who also opposed the 
occupation.[36] If it is true, as Fant suggests, that this primitive 
propaganda was the source for Steiner’s unconscionable statements about 
French colonial troops, it would scarcely mitigate Steiner’s racism. The 
most infamous of these propaganda pamphlets begins by decrying "the 
defilement of the white woman as such" and claims that "young girls have 
been dragged from the street in order to satisfy the bestial lust of 
African savages." The pamphlet appeals to "women and men of the white 
race" to protest this "deepest disgrace that can befall a white woman." 
It describes the colonial troops as "colored barbarians" with 
"animalistic instincts," "blacks from the Ivory Coast of Africa whose 
language no-one can understand, who have barely learned a few scraps of 
French, savages from darkest Africa . . ."[37] This is the sort of thing 
that Rudolf Steiner evidently took at face value. It is doubly 
disconcerting that his followers continue to do so today.

This last misstep on Fant’s part encapsulates our entire exchange. 
Innocent of any historical perspective on the events he describes, Fant 
is susceptible to the comforting myths propagated by his fellow 
anthroposophists. From his gullible point of view, a skeptical approach 
like mine appears as a frontal assault on anthroposophy as a whole. Yet 
my article was not an attack on anthroposophy in general, but an inquiry 
into the sinister side of its political consequences. The very same 
historical arguments that I have put forward about the relationship 
between anthroposophy and ecofascism could just as well be advanced from 
a standpoint sympathetic to Steiner. Anthroposophy can, after all, be 
viewed as an attempt to bridge occultism and rationalism, the esoteric 
and the practical, mysticism and humanism. But this attempt failed in 
interwar Germany because it ignored its own political context, and was 
consequently drawn into the orbit of mass barbarism. Anthroposophy’s 
failure, from this perspective, is an object lesson in the perils of 
spiritualized politics. Its latter-day practitioners would do well to 
heed this lesson.

For now, however, the lesson remains unlearned. Göran Fant is so taken 
with "the great, inspiring wholeness" of Steiner’s teachings that he has 
allowed his critical faculties to be incapacitated. His unwillingness to 
come to terms with anthroposophy’s racist, nationalist, and pro-fascist 
legacy is typical of far too many contemporary anthroposophists. Indeed 
this defensive and evasive attitude seems to be most common among 
relatively liberal anthroposophists. There are many readily available 
sources that describe and analyze anthroposophy’s reactionary heritage; 
progressive anthroposophists have no excuse for continuing to ignore 
them. Fant’s reply exemplifies not so much the denial of history as the 
avoidance of history, the refusal to engage with a compromised past in a 
dignified and honest way. Until anthroposophists overcome this 
self-exculpatory abdication of moral responsibility, their claims to 
represent an enlightened and tolerant doctrine will remain insincere."

(source: Staudenmaier, Peter. "The Art of Avoiding History". 
( 
tp://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Art_of_Avoiding_History.html 
))


)From the above excerpt, I can't help but notice the following language:

"Steiner’s unconscionable statements"; "comforting myths"; "defensive 
and evasive attitude"; "have no excuse"; "self-exculpatory abdication of 
moral responsibility".


6. "Historical Revisionism":

"Historical revisionism

All writings of history are in some way revisionist. If there was a 
universally accepted view of history, there would be no need to research 
it. Many historians who write revisionist exposés are motivated by a 
genuine desire to educate and to correct history. Many great discoveries 
have come as a result of the research of men and women who have been 
curious enough to revisit certain historical events and explore them 
again in depth from a new perspective.

Those historians who work within the existing establishment, who have a 
body of existing work from which they claim authority, often have the 
most to gain by maintaining the status quo. This can be called an 
accepted paradigm, which in some circles or societies takes the form of 
a denunciatory stance towards revisionism of any kind.

Revisionist historians often contest the mainstream or traditional view 
of historical events, they raise views at odds with traditionalists, 
which must be freshly judged. Oftentimes historians who are in the 
minority, such as feminist historians, or ethnic minority historians, or 
those who work outside of mainstream academia in smaller and less known 
universities, or the youngest scholars, who have the most to gain and 
the least to lose, by shaking up the establishment. In the friction 
between the mainstream of accepted beliefs and the new perspectives of 
historical revisionism, received historical ideas are either changed, or 
solidified and clarified. If over a period of time the revisionist ideas 
become the new establishment status quo a paradigm shift is said to have 
occurred.

        "History is the version of past events that people have decided 
to agree upon." –Napoleon Bonaparte.

Historians, like all people, are inexorably influenced by the zeitgeist 
(the spirit of the times). Developments in other academic areas, and 
cultural and political fashions, all help to shape the currently 
accepted model and outlines of history (the accepted historiographical 
paradigm). As time passes and these influences change so do most 
historians views on the explanation of historical events. The old 
consensus may no longer be considered by most historians to explain how 
and why certain events in the past occurred, the accepted model is 
revised to fit in with the current agreed-upon version of events. Some 
of the influences on historians, which may change over time are:
[edit]

Categories

    * Language: For example as more sources in other languages become 
available historians may review their theories in light of the new 
sources. The revision of the meaning of the Dark Ages are an example of 
this.
    * Nationalism: For example when reading schoolbook history in 
Europe, it is possible to read about an event from completely different 
perspectives. In the Battle of Waterloo most British, French, Dutch and 
German schoolbooks slant the battle to emphasise the importance of the 
contribution of their nations. Sometimes the name of an event is used to 
convey political or a national perspective. For example the same 
conflict between two English speaking countries is known by two 
different names, the "American War of Independence" and the "American 
Revolutionary War", or the Irish War of Independence and the Anglo-Irish 
War. As perceptions of nationalism change so do those areas of history 
which are driven by such ideas.
    * Culture: For example as regionalism has become more prominent in 
the UK some historians have been suggesting that the English Civil War 
is too Anglo-centric and that to understand the war, events which had 
previously been dismissed as on the periphery should be given greater 
prominence, to emphasise this, revisionist historians have suggested 
that the English Civil War becomes just one of a number of interlocking 
conflicts known as Wars of the Three Kingdoms.
    * Ideology: For example during the 1940s it became fashionable to 
see the English Civil War from a Marxist school of thought. In the words 
of Christopher Hill, "the Civil War was a class war." In the post World 
War II years the influence of Marxist waned in British academia and by 
the 1970s this view came under attack by a new school of revisionists 
and it has been largely overturned as a major mainstream explanation of 
the middle 17th century conflict in the British Isles(IONA).

[edit]

A second common usage of the phrase "historical revisionism"

    Main article: Historical revisionism (political)

Another usage of the term "historical revisionism" is to refer to 
attempts to revise history so as to present a more positive image of a 
previous event or person that is not supported by the true facts; or, 
more generally, "twisting" or "rewriting" history, without legitimate 
historical evidence, to promote some agenda. This is more accurately 
described as a form of propaganda. For example, people and groups that 
dispute widely accepted facts about The Holocaust, such as claiming a 
much lower number of Jewish deaths or that none were gassed or that the 
idea of the holocaust was a "Zionist conspiracy", have claimed to be 
"historical revisionists". See also "Holocaust revisionism".

The popular news media and many politicans have picked up on this use of 
term "historical revisionist," and as a result this newer meaning is now 
the more common meaning in popular usage. In a number of circles, 
because it has come to be associated only with this second meaning as a 
derogatory label, the term can have a purely negative connotation even 
when describing legitimate historical revisionism."



Regards,

Keith


Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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

Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:41:49 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach



Correction/addition:

The "Historical Revisionism" section was quoted from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism


Thanks,

Keith


Keith McLean wrote:
) 
) 1. The nature of historical interperation:
) 
) "At its most simple, the role of the historian is to read records like 
) this, report on what he or she finds there, and thus inform the wider 
) world about the past. The most basic forms of history might cease at 
) this point: simply arranging a report of events into a chronological 
) order, and providing no further comment or discussion. We usually call 
) such histories 'chronicles', and although they were quite common in the 
) middle ages, they are not (with certain exceptions) the kind of history 
) we are used to today.
) 
) So what else does the historian do? What roles does he or she play? 
) There are a variety of things, some overlapping and common to most 
) historians, some more divided and particular to individual historians. 
) There are some shared skills and methods that historians deploy: for 
) example, historians treat their sources with fidelity (that is, do not 
) pretend that the records say things that they do not; and do not 
) deliberately ignore records that contradict the historian's argument). 
) However, the task of the historian is more complicated than simply 
) reporting what the records say. At the very least, the records that 
) survive for most periods of history are both incomplete and often 
) contradictory; the historian therefore has to try, in some fashion, to 
) address those gaps and contradictions. That is, the historian has to act 
) 
) as an interpreter."
) 
) (source: 
) y/lj/how_to_do_historylj/roles_02.shtml?site=history_howtodolj_unpicking 
) 
) )
) 
) 
) "John Hogsflesh can therefore be made to fit into a number of different 
) contexts. The 'history' produced around him will vary according to the 
) historian and his or her interpretation. There is, therefore, a 
) difference between 'the past' (all the things that happened in previous 
) times) and 'history' (the bits of those things presented, in various 
) ways, by historians to a wider public). How these different 'histories' 
) vary depends on the roles that the historian adopts.
) 
) The initial role is that of detective: finding out something, by 
) locating historical documents. As we have seen, the next role is that of 
) 
) interpreter: saying something about what these things mean. In fact, 
) however, the boundaries of these roles are blurred. To make sense of 
) Hogsflesh (or any other bit of the past), we need to find other material 
) 
) to provide context (as we have just seen). The direction of the 
) particular detective work an historian undertakes therefore depends, in 
) part, on the kind of interpretation he or she wants or is able to 
) pursue. This is affected by a number of things, including the 
) availability of different kinds of sources, the interests of the 
) historian, the knowledge already made available by other scholars."
) 
) (source: 
) http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/how_to_do_historylj/roles_04.shtml?site=history_howtodolj_unpicking)
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) "If the historian must interpret the historical record, this necessarily 
) 
) involves making choices not only about the context but also the meaning 
) of historical events. There are a number of ways of describing this 
) role. At the most neutral, we might call it the role of analyst: looking 
) 
) dispassionately at the evidence and presenting one's findings. Indeed, 
) the 'scientific' image of this role was particularly popular amongst 
) historians early in the twentieth century (and still, to some extent, 
) today). However, many historians have questioned whether such a neutral 
) and objective position is ever actually possible, not least because of 
) the choices that every historian must make in how he or she sets about 
) analysing something."
) 
) (source: 
) http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/how_to_do_historylj/roles_05.shtml?site=history_howtodolj_unpicking)
) 
) 
) 
) 
) "If the historian is seen as a more subjective interpreter - not a 
) fiction maker or liar, but nonetheless an interpreter influenced by 
) their particular, personal position - his or her role might be described 
) 
) in different ways depending on the kind of interpretation he or she 
) wants to put forward.
) 		
) For example, the historian might be seen as a judge, offering an 
) assessment of the rights or wrongs (according to his or her own 
) viewpoint) of what happened in the past. One can certainly find 
) historians who discuss the Reformation in this way, arguing for example 
) that the Reformation was imposed from above, was not popular with most 
) people at the time, and that it would have been better if it had not 
) happened. It doesn't mean that this kind of historian is writing 'bad' 
) history, only that they have taken a particular line of argument. 
) Equally, the historian might take the role of political campaigner: 
) another part of the impetus to looking at people like John Hogsflesh 
) (rather than just studying Henry VIII) was the left-wing political 
) commitments of various historians such as Edward Thompson and 
) Christopher Hill in the second half of the twentieth century. They felt 
) (and other historians still feel) that through showing the place of 
) ordinary people in history, the historian could contribute to political 
) discussion about the place of ordinary people today.
) 
) Yet again, the historian might take the role of philosopher, 
) concentrating on the questions of knowledge and ideas that looking at 
) history throws up. For example, the role of philosopher might prompt an 
) historian to ask difficult questions about our 'knowledge' of John 
) Hogsflesh, whether we can really know about what he said, did and felt, 
) or only what the surviving records (created by powerful authorities) 
) represented as his actions. (The gaps between what the sources tell us, 
) and the past reality that is now lost, is another reason why various 
) people have doubted that the historian can really be an objective, 
) 'scientific' analyst)."
) 
) (source: 
) y/lj/how_to_do_historylj/roles_06.shtml?site=history_howtodolj_unpicking 
) 
) )
) 
) 
) 
) "The roles of analyst, judge, political campaigner and philosopher are 
) not mutually exclusive. Nor does an historian pick only one of these 
) 'hats' to wear; rather, they overlap and shift. However, all of these 
) things involve two other roles that every historian, in one way or 
) another, must play. The first is that of synthesizer: someone who brings 
) 
) together a variety of things (pieces of evidence, ideas, other 
) historians' works) and forges them into a new pattern. Again, this 
) involves making choices (what to include, what to leave out, what to 
) emphasize, what to diminish); and, again, these choices are unavoidable. 
) 
) But the role of synthesizer is essential. Without it, there would be no 
) 'history' as we understand it - only piles and piles of records, lacking 
) 
) shape or coherence. Finally, every historian is, in some fashion, a 
) story teller. In producing a synthesis, the historian has to make it 
) available to a wider audience - whether through writing, the radio or 
) television.
) 
) The 'history' that we see as a public is the final production (after the 
) 
) historian has completed all his or her other roles), and it is 
) necessarily a kind of narrative. Sometimes the story-elements are very 
) clear: for example, the short account of John Hogsflesh with which we 
) began is presented as a little tale. Sometimes, the 'story' is less 
) obviously that: for example, if we had started with a table displaying 
) some statistics for people convicted of religious deviance in England, 
) that would look less like a tale and more like a piece of maths. But it 
) would still be a story, or part of a story: as soon as the historian 
) starts to analyse and explain, we are led, as readers, from a beginning 
) to a middle to an end. If the table has a point to make ('this shows 
) that …'), it is telling us a story. This is not to suggest that 
) 'history' (the thing produced from the roles of the historian) is not 
) true. Unless the historian has cheated or been lazy or sloppy, the story 
) 
) is 'true' in that it has fidelity to the sources. But it is to note that 
) 
) it is a story, and that had the historian adopted a different role, the 
) tale would have appeared a little differently."
) 
) (source: 
) y/lj/how_to_do_historylj/roles_07.shtml?site=history_howtodolj_unpicking 
) 
) )
) 
) 
) "...there is another question here about roles: the role adopted by the 
) reader or audience of history. Is the audience best served by passively 
) accepting everything that historians say or write? Or might the reader 
) also want to ask questions, think of arguments - and wonder about what 
) roles the historian adopted in producing 'history'?"
) 
) (source: 
) y/lj/how_to_do_historylj/roles_08.shtml?site=history_howtodolj_unpicking 
) 
) )
) 
) 
) 2. History informed by Marxism, and other left-wing concepts and 
) principles:
) 
) "The radical historians of the 1960s and 1970s constructed new 
) historical narratives that enlarged the range of historical actors. They 
) 
) also uncovered many sources of relevance to the new agenda, and for 
) recent history they made systematic use of interviewed informants, a 
) practice that quickly came to be known as “oral history”.
) 
) One major beneficiary of the radical climate was Marxism. Karl Marx had 
) elaborated his theory of history between the 1840s and the 1860s, but 
) for a long time it was much better known among revolutionary socialists 
) than among historians. After 1917 it became the official view of history 
) 
) in the Soviet Union, and it was taken up between the wars by a small 
) group of Western historians, mainly as an intellectual resource against 
) Fascism. Only in the new atmosphere of the 1960s did Marxism become a 
) major influence on historians, which is why it makes sense to consider 
) it as a contribution to 20th-century historiography. Marxism was an 
) effective means of advertising an identification with the workers or the 
) 
) underdog more generally, and it immediately suggested that history was 
) politically relevant. But Marxism was more than a radical talisman. Its 
) influence on the writing of history proved to be enduring because of the 
) 
) purchase it offered on some of the most intractable problems of 
) historical explanation.
) 
) Perhaps the most difficult of these problems is how to conceive of 
) historical societies as wholes, particularly in view of the fissiparous 
) tendencies of specialist research. Marxist historians start from the 
) materialist premise that the character of all societies is determined by 
) 
) the way in which people fulfil their material needs (hence the term 
) “historical materialism”): a society based on the factory will be very 
) different from one based on the plough. The outcome in each case will be 
) 
) a distinctive pattern of economic relationships or “mode of production”. 
) 
) This is the economic base, upon which is constructed the institutions of 
) 
) law and the state, with their supporting ideology. Hence the labelling 
) of particular societies as “feudal” or “industrial capitalist”. Without 
) assuming a total coherence in every particular, Marx nevertheless 
) provided a powerful organising model. The extent of its influence can be 
) 
) measured by the fact that today it is habitual to begin a historical 
) survey work with an account of the economy, on the assumption that this 
) sets significant limits to what we can expect to find in the sphere of 
) politics or culture. 
) 
) But Marx himself was centrally preoccupied with historical change—with 
) understanding it in the past, and with predicting its trajectory in the 
) future. His theory of social structure was, in a sense, merely the 
) preliminary to uncovering the dynamics of human development. This Marx 
) did by identifying the contradictions that make any social structure to 
) a greater or lesser degree unstable. Given human creativity, 
) technological advance and its appropriate relations of production have a 
) 
) tendency to run ahead of the political system, which is likely to 
) reinforce the existing outmoded economic structure rather than 
) facilitate the emergence of the new one. These are the preconditions for 
) 
) acute class conflict between the protagonists of the old order and the 
) new—between the feudal class and the bourgeoisie in the transition to 
) mercantile capitalism, and between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat 
) in the transition to socialism. Ultimately therefore, social change 
) comes about as a result of the growth of human productive power: Marx’s 
) theory of social change is no less materialist than his view of social 
) structure. 
) 
) During the 1960s and 1970s Marxism was taken up enthusiastically by many 
) 
) historians. Part of its appeal lay in its promise of “total history”."
) 
) (source: "History and Historiography", Encarta Encyclopedia 2004 
) Standard Edition.)
) 
) 
) "Marxism also appealed as an effective means of writing emancipatory 
) history, or history from the perspective of marginalized groups. It 
) emphasized trajectories of progressive change in history, it located the 
) 
) forward march of history with subordinate classes instead of the 
) controlling elites, and it articulated the structural significance of 
) these classes."
) 
) (source: ditto)
) 
) 
) 3. Peter Straudenmaier's background:
) 
) Staudenmaier's bio:
) 
) "Peter Staudenmaier is a social ecologist and left green activist who 
) has been involved with the Institute for Social Ecology since 1989. 
) Currently a faculty member at ISE, Peter lives in Madison, Wisconsin, 
) where he works at a collectively run bookstore co-op. He is also part of 
) 
) a network of housing cooperatives providing democratically controlled 
) resident-owned affordable housing to 200 low income members. In addition 
) 
) to his work with cooperatives, Peter works with grassroots development 
) organizations in Nicaragua as well as with the German radical green 
) group Ecological Left. He devotes much of his time to independent 
) scholarship and antifascist research, and is committed to bridging 
) activism and theoretical work. He is co-author, with Janet Biehl, of the 
) 
) book Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience, and has published 
) many articles on anarchism, ecological politics, and the history of 
) right-wing thought. He is an experienced public speaker who conducts 
) frequent lectures and workshops on a wide variety of topics."
) 
) (source: 
) http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031021112928906 )
) 
) 
) 4. The role of Marxist and left ideology in modern historical practice:
) 
) "The range and readership of Western history is now global, with 
) professional historians at work in almost every country. But the 
) development of so many different kinds of history during the 20th 
) century raises the question of whether there is still a unified, 
) coherent field. It is no longer possible to speak of a hierarchy of 
) histories, with political narrative at the pinnacle, because the counter 
) 
) claims of other branches (particularly social history) are too strong. 
) But until recently there did exist a broad consensus about the methods 
) of historical enquiry and the status of historical explanation. 
) Historians generally took the view that they employed an empirical 
) method, in which the ultimate test of their findings was whether they 
) were supported by validated evidence. It was accepted that historians 
) quite often differed sharply over large-scale questions of 
) interpretation, sometimes for reasons that were extraneous to the issue 
) in hand, but the evidence placed a limit on how widely interpretations 
) could diverge. Epistemological debate among historians was muted, with 
) only an occasional flurry caused by books like E. H. Carr’s What Is 
) History? (1961) and Howard Zinn’s The Politics of History (1970). 
) 
) The position is very different today. Postmodernism has undermined the 
) truth claims of all humanities and social sciences. History has come in 
) for particularly strong attack. This is partly because it is a textual 
) subject, and Postmodernism rejects the notion of an authoritative or 
) authentic reading. But Postmodernists also attack history because they 
) maintain that the great trajectories that historiography has built 
) around nation, class, and religion are fictions—“grand narratives” 
) conferring an illusory sense of direction on people who think they 
) “know” about the past. Both as a mode of enquiry and as a map of 
) knowledge, history is in a more exposed position than at any time since 
) the 17th century. A small minority of historians have embraced at least 
) some Postmodernist arguments in the hope of writing history that is 
) proof against attack. The majority regard Postmodernism as a 
) misconceived critique and hope that intellectual fashions will change. 
) At the turn of the 21st century there are signs that this is the case. 
) The extreme relativism implicit in Postmodernism is now less often 
) heard, while the popular appeal of well-crafted historical 
) interpretations of topics of current concern shows no sign of 
) diminishing. Most important of all, historians can point with confidence 
) 
) to the extraordinary variety of knowledge about the human condition that 
) 
) their disciplined enquiries have uncovered over the past 150 years."
) 
) (source: "History and Historiography", Encarta Encyclopedia 2004 
) Standard Edition.)
) 
) 
) 5. Part of a Peter Straudenmaier critique on a commentor on Rudolf 
) Steiner:
) 
) "Astonishingly, Fant also repeats as fact the discredited racist 
) propaganda about "outrages of black soldiers against German women in the 
) 
) Ruhr." Aside from mixing up the Rhine and Ruhr occupations (there were 
) no French colonial troops stationed in the Ruhr), Fant has been 
) hoodwinked by an eighty-year-old misinformation campaign. These rumors 
) of "outrages" were not merely "exaggeratedly described," as Fant would 
) have it, they were an invention of German nationalist demagogues and 
) were just as racist as the stories of similar "outrages" in the American 
) 
) South during the same period.[35] The patently spurious reports were 
) already exposed in 1921 by anti-racist journalists who also opposed the 
) occupation.[36] If it is true, as Fant suggests, that this primitive 
) propaganda was the source for Steiner’s unconscionable statements about 
) French colonial troops, it would scarcely mitigate Steiner’s racism. The 
) 
) most infamous of these propaganda pamphlets begins by decrying "the 
) defilement of the white woman as such" and claims that "young girls have 
) 
) been dragged from the street in order to satisfy the bestial lust of 
) African savages." The pamphlet appeals to "women and men of the white 
) race" to protest this "deepest disgrace that can befall a white woman." 
) It describes the colonial troops as "colored barbarians" with 
) "animalistic instincts," "blacks from the Ivory Coast of Africa whose 
) language no-one can understand, who have barely learned a few scraps of 
) French, savages from darkest Africa . . ."[37] This is the sort of thing 
) 
) that Rudolf Steiner evidently took at face value. It is doubly 
) disconcerting that his followers continue to do so today.
) 
) This last misstep on Fant’s part encapsulates our entire exchange. 
) Innocent of any historical perspective on the events he describes, Fant 
) is susceptible to the comforting myths propagated by his fellow 
) anthroposophists. From his gullible point of view, a skeptical approach 
) like mine appears as a frontal assault on anthroposophy as a whole. Yet 
) my article was not an attack on anthroposophy in general, but an inquiry 
) 
) into the sinister side of its political consequences. The very same 
) historical arguments that I have put forward about the relationship 
) between anthroposophy and ecofascism could just as well be advanced from 
) 
) a standpoint sympathetic to Steiner. Anthroposophy can, after all, be 
) viewed as an attempt to bridge occultism and rationalism, the esoteric 
) and the practical, mysticism and humanism. But this attempt failed in 
) interwar Germany because it ignored its own political context, and was 
) consequently drawn into the orbit of mass barbarism. Anthroposophy’s 
) failure, from this perspective, is an object lesson in the perils of 
) spiritualized politics. Its latter-day practitioners would do well to 
) heed this lesson.
) 
) For now, however, the lesson remains unlearned. Göran Fant is so taken 
) with "the great, inspiring wholeness" of Steiner’s teachings that he has 
) 
) allowed his critical faculties to be incapacitated. His unwillingness to 
) 
) come to terms with anthroposophy’s racist, nationalist, and pro-fascist 
) legacy is typical of far too many contemporary anthroposophists. Indeed 
) this defensive and evasive attitude seems to be most common among 
) relatively liberal anthroposophists. There are many readily available 
) sources that describe and analyze anthroposophy’s reactionary heritage; 
) progressive anthroposophists have no excuse for continuing to ignore 
) them. Fant’s reply exemplifies not so much the denial of history as the 
) avoidance of history, the refusal to engage with a compromised past in a 
) 
) dignified and honest way. Until anthroposophists overcome this 
) self-exculpatory abdication of moral responsibility, their claims to 
) represent an enlightened and tolerant doctrine will remain insincere."
) 
) (source: Staudenmaier, Peter. "The Art of Avoiding History". 
) ( 
) tp://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Art_of_Avoiding_History.html 
) 
) ))
) 
) 
) From the above excerpt, I can't help but notice the following language:
) 
) "Steiner’s unconscionable statements"; "comforting myths"; "defensive 
) and evasive attitude"; "have no excuse"; "self-exculpatory abdication of 
) 
) moral responsibility".
) 
) 
) 6. "Historical Revisionism":
) 
) "Historical revisionism
) 
) All writings of history are in some way revisionist. If there was a 
) universally accepted view of history, there would be no need to research 
) 
) it. Many historians who write revisionist exposés are motivated by a 
) genuine desire to educate and to correct history. Many great discoveries 
) 
) have come as a result of the research of men and women who have been 
) curious enough to revisit certain historical events and explore them 
) again in depth from a new perspective.
) 
) Those historians who work within the existing establishment, who have a 
) body of existing work from which they claim authority, often have the 
) most to gain by maintaining the status quo. This can be called an 
) accepted paradigm, which in some circles or societies takes the form of 
) a denunciatory stance towards revisionism of any kind.
) 
) Revisionist historians often contest the mainstream or traditional view 
) of historical events, they raise views at odds with traditionalists, 
) which must be freshly judged. Oftentimes historians who are in the 
) minority, such as feminist historians, or ethnic minority historians, or 
) 
) those who work outside of mainstream academia in smaller and less known 
) universities, or the youngest scholars, who have the most to gain and 
) the least to lose, by shaking up the establishment. In the friction 
) between the mainstream of accepted beliefs and the new perspectives of 
) historical revisionism, received historical ideas are either changed, or 
) 
) solidified and clarified. If over a period of time the revisionist ideas 
) 
) become the new establishment status quo a paradigm shift is said to have 
) 
) occurred.
) 
)         "History is the version of past events that people have decided 
) to agree upon." –Napoleon Bonaparte.
) 
) Historians, like all people, are inexorably influenced by the zeitgeist 
) (the spirit of the times). Developments in other academic areas, and 
) cultural and political fashions, all help to shape the currently 
) accepted model and outlines of history (the accepted historiographical 
) paradigm). As time passes and these influences change so do most 
) historians views on the explanation of historical events. The old 
) consensus may no longer be considered by most historians to explain how 
) and why certain events in the past occurred, the accepted model is 
) revised to fit in with the current agreed-upon version of events. Some 
) of the influences on historians, which may change over time are:
) [edit]
) 
) Categories
) 
)     * Language: For example as more sources in other languages become 
) available historians may review their theories in light of the new 
) sources. The revision of the meaning of the Dark Ages are an example of 
) this.
)     * Nationalism: For example when reading schoolbook history in 
) Europe, it is possible to read about an event from completely different 
) perspectives. In the Battle of Waterloo most British, French, Dutch and 
) German schoolbooks slant the battle to emphasise the importance of the 
) contribution of their nations. Sometimes the name of an event is used to 
) 
) convey political or a national perspective. For example the same 
) conflict between two English speaking countries is known by two 
) different names, the "American War of Independence" and the "American 
) Revolutionary War", or the Irish War of Independence and the Anglo-Irish 
) 
) War. As perceptions of nationalism change so do those areas of history 
) which are driven by such ideas.
)     * Culture: For example as regionalism has become more prominent in 
) the UK some historians have been suggesting that the English Civil War 
) is too Anglo-centric and that to understand the war, events which had 
) previously been dismissed as on the periphery should be given greater 
) prominence, to emphasise this, revisionist historians have suggested 
) that the English Civil War becomes just one of a number of interlocking 
) conflicts known as Wars of the Three Kingdoms.
)     * Ideology: For example during the 1940s it became fashionable to 
) see the English Civil War from a Marxist school of thought. In the words 
) 
) of Christopher Hill, "the Civil War was a class war." In the post World 
) War II years the influence of Marxist waned in British academia and by 
) the 1970s this view came under attack by a new school of revisionists 
) and it has been largely overturned as a major mainstream explanation of 
) the middle 17th century conflict in the British Isles(IONA).
) 
) [edit]
) 
) A second common usage of the phrase "historical revisionism"
) 
)     Main article: Historical revisionism (political)
) 
) Another usage of the term "historical revisionism" is to refer to 
) attempts to revise history so as to present a more positive image of a 
) previous event or person that is not supported by the true facts; or, 
) more generally, "twisting" or "rewriting" history, without legitimate 
) historical evidence, to promote some agenda. This is more accurately 
) described as a form of propaganda. For example, people and groups that 
) dispute widely accepted facts about The Holocaust, such as claiming a 
) much lower number of Jewish deaths or that none were gassed or that the 
) idea of the holocaust was a "Zionist conspiracy", have claimed to be 
) "historical revisionists". See also "Holocaust revisionism".
) 
) The popular news media and many politicans have picked up on this use of 
) 
) term "historical revisionist," and as a result this newer meaning is now 
) 
) the more common meaning in popular usage. In a number of circles, 
) because it has come to be associated only with this second meaning as a 
) derogatory label, the term can have a purely negative connotation even 
) when describing legitimate historical revisionism."
) 
) 
) 
) Regards,
) 
) Keith
) 
) 
) Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
) and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
) understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
) people.
) 
) - Molleen Matsumura



Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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

Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:51:51 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach



Interesting snippets, Keith. I'm not sure if I catch your drift with regards
to intent, so I will only comment on the following:

Keith quoted Peter Staudenmaier and then wrote:

)From the above excerpt, I can't help but notice the following language:

)"Steiner's unconscionable statements"; "comforting myths"; "defensive
)and evasive attitude"; "have no excuse"; "self-exculpatory abdication of
)moral responsibility".

You say you can't help but notice such language but what is it you notice?
Do you find this language problematic?

-Walden





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

Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:50:26 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach




walden wrote:
) 
) Interesting snippets, Keith. I'm not sure if I catch your drift with 
) regards
) to intent, so I will only comment on the following:
) 
) Keith quoted Peter Staudenmaier and then wrote:
) 
) )From the above excerpt, I can't help but notice the following language:
) 
) )"Steiner's unconscionable statements"; "comforting myths"; "defensive
) )and evasive attitude"; "have no excuse"; "self-exculpatory abdication of
) )moral responsibility".
) 
) You say you can't help but notice such language but what is it you 
) notice?
) Do you find this language problematic?


Yes. I think it's deliberately loaded language in those examples. Loaded 
and indeed provocative because it implies judgement, condemnation, and 
moral superiority over the person criticised. It is not so much the 
individual words, but how they are used together.

As can seen from some of the other passages in my last post, it might be 
possible for those writing history and historical critiques to pursue 
and express their political views (and shape the evidence to that 
effect) in their writing, but I find it difficult to accept that it is 
necessary to use combative and discriminatory language (such as 
"unconscionable" - Lacking a conscience; and the pairing or collection 
of words in phrases to imply weakness or lack of character, eg. 
comforting myths, self-exculpatory abdication of moral responsibility, 
etc.) - I'm sensing a negative tone is being employed as a rhetorical 
tactic. Not surprising, given that Peter S. is not only a commentator on 
social issues, but is *also* a **player**. There is just a large 
concentration of pejorative terminology in that section of the document, 
it irks me.

It may be that Peter S. has employed this rhetorical flourish for effect 
rather than ideological considerations (regarding leftism and rightism) 
in order to attempt to make an impact, but it's not my style. To me, 
anyone who engages in academic discourse should be as dispassionate as 
possible, and or present points without any type of distortion. Many of 
the classic thinkers have made passionate cases for their ideas and 
reasoning - such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, and Martin Luther - 
of which some of these pronouncments may contain distortion and 
rhetorical hubris, but this seemed/s to enhance and focus their ideas 
(fresh ideas...?) and entirely appropriate in their function. I don't 
tend to feel inspired reading Peter S. or totally convinced, and the use 
of hubris in that quoted extract is probably an indicator of why that is 
the case.
  

) 
) -Walden
) 
) 
) 

Regards,

Keith


Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1973




-- Topica Digest --
	
	RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By feetapparel hotmail.com
	
	Re: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca

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

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:55:43 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach



Keith  responded to Walden:
)
)Yes. I think it's deliberately loaded language in those examples. Loaded
)and indeed provocative because it implies judgement, condemnation, and
)moral superiority over the person criticised. It is not so much the
)individual words, but how they are used together.
)
)As can seen from some of the other passages in my last post, it might be
)possible for those writing history and historical critiques to pursue
)and express their political views (and shape the evidence to that
)effect) in their writing, but I find it difficult to accept that it is
)necessary to use combative and discriminatory language (such as
)"unconscionable" - Lacking a conscience; and the pairing or collection
)of words in phrases to imply weakness or lack of character, eg.
)comforting myths, self-exculpatory abdication of moral responsibility,
)etc.) - I'm sensing a negative tone is being employed as a rhetorical
)tactic. Not surprising, given that Peter S. is not only a commentator on
)social issues, but is *also* a **player**. There is just a large
)concentration of pejorative terminology in that section of the document,
)it irks me.


So far you have told us that you don't like Staudenmaier's style.

)
)It may be that Peter S. has employed this rhetorical flourish for effect
)rather than ideological considerations (regarding leftism and rightism)
)in order to attempt to make an impact, but it's not my style. To me,
)anyone who engages in academic discourse should be as dispassionate as
)possible, and or present points without any type of distortion. Many of
)the classic thinkers have made passionate cases for their ideas and
)reasoning - such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, and Martin Luther -
)of which some of these pronouncments may contain distortion and
)rhetorical hubris, but this seemed/s to enhance and focus their ideas
)(fresh ideas...?) and entirely appropriate in their function. I don't
)tend to feel inspired reading Peter S. or totally convinced, and the use
)of hubris in that quoted extract is probably an indicator of why that is
)the case.


Why should they be dispassionate? Why cannot historians speak out against 
what they see as evil?

Oh, and you don't like Staudenmaier's style.

I think there is a more important question you should consider. Putting 
aside questions of style for the moment, there is actually some substance in 
Staudenmaier's writing. I'm very happy for you to be unhappy with the style. 
How about addressing the substance.

You might also like to read 
http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/history/undergrad/need_to_know/assessment.shtml
from which I have extracted

"While recognising that the political and ethical values of students vary 
widely, the Department does not reward or condone unreasoned polemic or 
racism or sexism."

Please note the use of word "unreasoned" in this advice to students of 
history. I grant you that there is an element of the polemic in 
Staudenmaier's writing, but it is "reasoned polemic".

See you, Peter




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

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:02:04 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach



Peter Farrell wrote to Keith:

)Oh, and you don't like Staudenmaier's style.
)I think there is a more important question you should consider. Putting
)aside questions of style for the moment, there is actually some substance
in
)Staudenmaier's writing. I'm very happy for you to be unhappy with the
style.
)How about addressing the substance.

Well there might just be something to this clairvoyant business after all as
I was about to write the same thing in response to Keith's concerns about
Staudenmaierian style! For example, I don't really need to know about Peter
S's interest in housing cooperatives in order to find substance in his
Anthroposophical research/writing. And heaven forbid that one who researches
forms of racist thought might actually have a certain feeling about such
concepts!

Keith, when you finished reading the Staudenmaier article(s) were you left
to ponder his style and use of what you call "loaded words" used to describe
Steiner's beliefs or were at all interested in what he actually *wrote?*
Were you at all interested in following some of the footnotes or were you
convinced that because Staudenmaier seems to be morally at odds with
Steiner, Staudenmaier's apparent lack of objectivity proves him unreliable
as an historian?

For the record, I also find Steiner's beliefs about Negroes, Jews and
Indians . . . "unconscionable." And here is a dictionary definition
(Mirriam-Webster On-line) of that particular word:

Main Entry: un·con·scio·na·ble
Pronunciation: -'kän(t)-sh(&-)n&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : not guided or controlled by conscience : UNSCRUPULOUS (an unconscionable
villain)
2 a : EXCESSIVE, UNREASONABLE (found an unconscionable number of defects in
the car) b : shockingly unfair or unjust

Yes, I find Steiner's thoughts on race to be shockingly unfair and unjust.
How about you, Keith?

-Walden







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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1974




-- Topica Digest --
	
	RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
	
	RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
	
	Re: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca
	
	RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By dan dandugan.com
	
	RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By feetapparel hotmail.com

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

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:53:17 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach



Walden:
"Keith, when you finished reading the Staudenmaier article(s) were you 
left
to ponder his style and use of what you call "loaded words" used to 
describe
Steiner's beliefs or were at all interested in what he actually *wrote?*
Were you at all interested in following some of the footnotes or were 
you
convinced that because Staudenmaier seems to be morally at odds with
Steiner, Staudenmaier's apparent lack of objectivity proves him 
unreliable
as an historian?"

Yes, I have no problem with the information and points made as far as 
actual points of history go - his historical points and research in that 
excerpt appear to be objectively framed. It seems a reasonable sounding 
account of things, a believable account (that said, I haven't verified 
any of the information), and the footnotes appear to support the text 
well, I think. But my subject and *focus* of criticism was the political 
layer to the writing - a totally valid subject, in my opinion. Not only 
the content of a given piece of writing or other communication, but the 
nature of language itself is a vast academic and philosophical topic, 
eg. semiotics.

Drawing a distinction between someone's political acitivities as a 
political *agent* and his role as an *observer*, thus identifying two 
roles fulfilled by one person, seems to also then entail that these two 
roles might influence each other; and Peter S. writings seem to 
demonstrate this about his approach.


Walden:
"For the record, I also find Steiner's beliefs about Negroes, Jews and
Indians . . . "unconscionable." And here is a dictionary definition
(Mirriam-Webster On-line) of that particular word:

Main Entry: un·con·scio·na·ble
Pronunciation: -'kän(t)-sh(&-)n&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : not guided or controlled by conscience : UNSCRUPULOUS (an 
unconscionable
villain)
2 a : EXCESSIVE, UNREASONABLE (found an unconscionable number of defects 
in
the car) b : shockingly unfair or unjust"

Yes, that definition seems totally appropriate, and was exactly in the 
mode of how I interpreted "unconscionable" when I first read it.


Walden:
"Yes, I find Steiner's thoughts on race to be shockingly unfair and 
unjust.
How about you, Keith?"

I ask you, Walden:

- Being originally Irish, do I not have a right to feel offended and 
mistreated at the way may ethnic group has been treated by other's down 
the centuries?

-) What about Irish jokes: aren't they discriminatory, offensive, cruel, 
and inaccurate? Are all Irish people lazy, stupid, drunk and maniacal as 
implied by such jokes?

-) Irish people used to be second class citizens in some countries, 
because they were viewed as troublemakers and nothing much else. They 
faced oppression. In America in the 19th century they were second class 
citizens for a period, as I understand it. Should I not be blamimg and 
actively holding to account the present generation for the actions and 
wrongdoing of the past against my ethnic group?

-) In Northern Ireland, civil strife and organised armed attacks have 
made life miserable. Catholics claim  discrimination and prejudice 
against them, and in at least some cases there is evidence to support 
these claims. A cycle of violence where each ideological group seeks 
revenge against the other for violence perpertrated or other injustice 
(or perceived injustice) has been the norm for most of the history of 
parts of Ireland. It's served to cause a climate of fear or underlying 
dread among the general population, and has affected the economic and 
other social possibilities for growth in the Northern Ireland region. 
Should I not feel slighted and angry about this - you know, blame the 
British as colonisers and oppressors of the Irish, or accuse the 
Catholics as being wholly responsible for terrorism in Northern Ireland, 
or blame the police as collaborators of British oppression?

- In popular culture, Australians have also been characterised or 
interpretated as being country hicks from a backward country, or at 
least this is the implication. Isn't this wrong, like racism 
mischaracterising people accourding to race?

-) Australian aborigines have long been mistreated by the actions of 
whites or Europeans. Clearly, in the past racism has been a part of 
government policy also. How many people outside Australia really 
understand this history, and appreciate the struggles and attempts to 
achieve better results for aborigines? How many people realise the 
hypocrisy of the ideologically driven politics and self-interest of both 
aborigines and white dominated government regarding the issues of land 
rights and administration of aboriginal policy?

- Should problems of racism be resolved with mutual understanding, 
mutual censorship, selective censorship limited to one group seen as a 
trouble-maker? Or are we to dole out condemnatory statements and vilify 
those we either perceive or know are offenders of the principles of just 
treatment (ie. anti-disicrimination laws, political correctness, 
cultural policies, etc.)?

- If a person is a racist, how should we ultimately deal with them? If 
we want to effectively prevent the arrival of racist thinking in the 
first place, we can use education; but if we're dealing with persons 
with long-term racist thinking, what then?

- Is racial tolerance both being actually tolerant and being *seen to 
be* tolerant? Does it matter that racial tolerance may only be an 
attitude held on the surface, but not truly and honestly believed? How 
far can you compel people to adopt tolerant attitudes?

- What are the consequences of mere tolerance versus real appreciation 
of diversity and ethnic character?

-) Do we use brainwashing to fix the problem (yes, there is such a thing 
as brainwashing and mind control - it's an exact science, and a 
diabolical tool)? Or regular police harassment of known racists to help 
"keep them in line"? Or maybe apartheid for racists - all racists behind 
barbwire, and all "normal people" living without encumbrance? Seriously, 
what do you do with adults who have abhorrent attitudes like racism?

-) Is it possible to tolerate Europeans when at the same time being 
aware of their truly woeful record regarding other human populations? We 
know European imperialism has helped to create instability in other 
continents or exacerbate existing cultural and political conflicts.

- And as we're speaking about racism, while in South Africa in recent 
time a white dominated racist regime has been overturned and a seemingly 
brillant process of reconciliation has occurred, in Zimbabwe the Mugabe 
government is in disarray. In recent years he has ordered the white farm 
owners off their properties to make way for ownership by black tenants - 
a decision clearly made along racial lines, considering there was 
apparently no real economic benefit or other reason for confiscating 
land from the farm owners, as well as the input of Mugabe's own 
political views. As i understand it, this was a tactic to somehow 
alleviate the difficult economic situation in Zimbabwe and/or a 
political distraction tactic to hide his failure to manage the country - 
especially to feed the bad feeling of black farm workers towards the 
owners. At this time the issue is poverty and disadvantage of most of 
the population - the same population that Mugabe seeked to bribe earlier 
with land. This state of affairs unfair and unjust? - I would say so.


So what thoughts, verbalised or kept private, are shockingly unfair and 
unjust? It seems odd that Steiner would support racist claims about the 
African soldiers mentioned in the Peter S. excerpt, and I would explain 
it in one or two ways: 1. Deliberate racism, or 2. European 
ethnocentricism, where Europe is seen as the leader of world 
civilization. It was deeply presumptuous of Steiner to support the 
racist characterisations if he did so, and therefore deeply unfair to 
the soldiers in question. Racism is shockingly unfair, as is all ethnic 
discrimination.


Regards,

Keith


Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:58:34 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach




Peter Farrell wrote:
) 
) Keith  responded to Walden:
) )
) )Yes. I think it's deliberately loaded language in those examples. Loaded
) )and indeed provocative because it implies judgement, condemnation, and
) )moral superiority over the person criticised. It is not so much the
) )individual words, but how they are used together.
) )
) )As can seen from some of the other passages in my last post, it might be
) )possible for those writing history and historical critiques to pursue
) )and express their political views (and shape the evidence to that
) )effect) in their writing, but I find it difficult to accept that it is
) )necessary to use combative and discriminatory language (such as
) )"unconscionable" - Lacking a conscience; and the pairing or collection
) )of words in phrases to imply weakness or lack of character, eg.
) )comforting myths, self-exculpatory abdication of moral responsibility,
) )etc.) - I'm sensing a negative tone is being employed as a rhetorical
) )tactic. Not surprising, given that Peter S. is not only a commentator on
) )social issues, but is *also* a **player**. There is just a large
) )concentration of pejorative terminology in that section of the document,
) )it irks me.
) 
) [Peter F.:]
) So far you have told us that you don't like Staudenmaier's style.

Which is my answer and reason in response to the question that was posed 
to me:

"You say you can't help but notice such language but what is it you
notice? Do you find this language problematic?"

I responded that I didn't like Staudenmaier's style and I detailed *why* 
by indicating how I was interpreting the words I identified as notable. 
The "loaded words" were:


(i)

"Loaded:

3. (of statements or questions) charged with associative significance 
and often meant to mislead or influence"

(Source: WordWeb 3.03, Princeton University 2003 ( wordweb.info ))


(ii)

"Loaded:
...biased, distorted, weighted...artful, insidious, manipulative, 
prejudicial, tricky."

[Source: Collins Desktop Wordfinder - English Thesaurus (1999). 
HarperCollinsPublishers.)

(iii)

"Loaded:

7. To charge with additional meanings, implications, or emotional 
import: loaded the question to trick the witness."

(source: http://dictionary.reference.com/ )


) 
) )
) )It may be that Peter S. has employed this rhetorical flourish for effect
) )rather than ideological considerations (regarding leftism and rightism)
) )in order to attempt to make an impact, but it's not my style. To me,
) )anyone who engages in academic discourse should be as dispassionate as
) )possible, and or present points without any type of distortion. Many of
) )the classic thinkers have made passionate cases for their ideas and
) )reasoning - such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, and Martin Luther -
) )of which some of these pronouncments may contain distortion and
) )rhetorical hubris, but this seemed/s to enhance and focus their ideas
) )(fresh ideas...?) and entirely appropriate in their function. I don't
) )tend to feel inspired reading Peter S. or totally convinced, and the use
) )of hubris in that quoted extract is probably an indicator of why that is
) )the case.
) 
) [Peter F.:]
) Why should they be dispassionate? Why cannot historians speak out 
) against 
) what they see as evil?


It's my view that historians should be observers not players, and that 
should focus more on recording and analysing/assessing/conceptualising 
information that is clearly understandable and informative, so that a 
reader gets all points of view and understands the issues and 
implications. One can do this without value judgements and moralising, 
or imposing one's ego on the material. What about Geoffery Blainey as an 
example of generally dispassionate yet relevant commentary on history?

-)

http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/stories/s963456.htm

http://troppoarmadillo.ubersportingpundit.com/archives/002685.html

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/apr03/blainey.htm


[Peter F.:]
) 
) Oh, and you don't like Staudenmaier's style.
) 
) I think there is a more important question you should consider. Putting 
) aside questions of style for the moment, there is actually some 
) substance in 
) Staudenmaier's writing. I'm very happy for you to be unhappy with the 
) style. 
) How about addressing the substance.


The substance seems fine.


) 
) You might also like to read 
) http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/history/undergrad/need_to_know/assessment.shtml
) 
) from which I have extracted
) 
) "While recognising that the political and ethical values of students 
) vary 
) widely, the Department does not reward or condone unreasoned polemic or 
) racism or sexism."
) 
) Please note the use of word "unreasoned" in this advice to students of 
) history. I grant you that there is an element of the polemic in 
) Staudenmaier's writing, but it is "reasoned polemic".


Yes, that seems fair.


) 
) See you, Peter
) 
) 


Regards,

Keith


Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:40:38 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach



Walden previously wrote:
"Yes, I find Steiner's thoughts on race to be shockingly unfair and
unjust. How about you, Keith?"

Keith replied:

)I ask you, Walden:
)- Being originally Irish, do I not have a right to feel offended and
)mistreated at the way may ethnic group has been treated by other's down
)the centuries?

Sure you have that right and it looks like you also have the right to answer
my question with a question . . . even if it takes us away from my question.
While your subsequent points are interesting (and important, imo) they do
not deal with the issue at hand until:

)- Should problems of racism be resolved with mutual understanding,
)mutual censorship, selective censorship limited to one group seen as a
)trouble-maker? Or are we to dole out condemnatory statements and vilify
)those we either perceive or know are offenders of the principles of just
)treatment (ie. anti-disicrimination laws, political correctness,
)cultural policies, etc.)?

)- If a person is a racist, how should we ultimately deal with them? If
)we want to effectively prevent the arrival of racist thinking in the
)first place, we can use education; but if we're dealing with persons
)with long-term racist thinking, what then?

While I am certainly not an expert on racism, language or sociology, it
seems the best way to deal with issues of racism is to discuss them. Are the
"offenders"
really racist? Have they simply been misquoted?  If the perceived racist is
dead, what of his/her followers? If there is a movement involving racist
thought, should such a thing be banned? Etc. Again, the only way to deal
with these questions, imo, is to discuss them - look at the history behind
the movement, for example, and shine light from different angles at that
history. And who shall shine the light? Human Beings with thoughts and
feelings. It seems absurd, imo, to think that an historian would NOT feel
something whilst shedding light on racist thought. Steiner, for example,
wrote about Indians "dieing out." He wrote about races on their way UP and
races on their way DOWN. And lots of stuff about skin colour. Historians are
not computer programs. They are human beings.

)- Is racial tolerance both being actually tolerant and being *seen to
)be* tolerant? Does it matter that racial tolerance may only be an
)attitude held on the surface, but not truly and honestly believed? How
)far can you compel people to adopt tolerant attitudes?

I cannot compel another person to do, say, think or feel anything. One
cannot legislate goodness and often one person's "good" is another person's
"bad."
Again, it comes down to clear communication and as we are speaking about
Peter S, I find his written communications skills to be very good.

)So what thoughts, verbalised or kept private, are shockingly unfair and
)unjust?

Anything/everything Steiner wrote and spoke about race, skin colour,
genocide. I don't know about his private thoughts.

)It seems odd that Steiner would support racist claims about the
)African soldiers mentioned in the Peter S. excerpt, and I would explain
)it in one or two ways: 1. Deliberate racism, or 2. European
)ethnocentricism, where Europe is seen as the leader of world
)civilization.

Many of Steiner's racist claims are "odd." Many of his non-racist claims are
also odd but to each his/her own when it comes to spirituality and religion.
Human beings are fascinating with all sorts of fascinating needs and
desires. While ALL those needs are worthy of research, it seems the ones
founded on
racist thought need special attention. Regarding your numbers 1 and 2 above:
Yes to both. Steiner was clear on both counts.

)It was deeply presumptuous of Steiner to support the
)racist characterisations if he did so,

Is there some doubt in your mind?

)and therefore deeply unfair to
)the soldiers in question. Racism is shockingly unfair, as is all ethnic
)discrimination.

And I would support an historian pointing out racism and ethnic
discrimination. If that historian finds such things shockingly unfair
I would agree with her/his right to express that sentiment. Again, the
substance would need to support the opinion. In this case, imo, there is no
doubt.

-Walden





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

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:51:55 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach



Keith MacLean, you wrote,

)It's my view that historians should be observers not players, and that
)should focus more on recording and analysing/assessing/conceptualising
)information that is clearly understandable and informative, so that a
)reader gets all points of view and understands the issues and
)implications. One can do this without value judgements and moralising,
)or imposing one's ego on the material. What about Geoffery Blainey as an
)example of generally dispassionate yet relevant commentary on history?
)
)-)
)
)http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/stories/s963456.htm
)
)http://troppoarmadillo.ubersportingpundit.com/archives/002685.html
)
)http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/apr03/blainey.htm

An interesting affair.

(re Staudenmaier's article)
)The substance seems fine.

I agree that Staudenmaier's writing is polemical. It's indeed very 
difficult to handle a topic like racism in any other way. I'm sure 
you'll agree that being judgemental is a long way from "lies" and 
"forgery."

-Dan Dugan


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

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:19:20 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach



Keith McLean ) )
) ) [Peter F.:]
) ) Why should they be dispassionate? Why cannot historians speak out
) ) against
) ) what they see as evil?
)
)
)It's my view that historians should be observers not players, and that
)should focus more on recording and analysing/assessing/conceptualising
)information that is clearly understandable and informative, so that a
)reader gets all points of view and understands the issues and
)implications. One can do this without value judgements and moralising,
)or imposing one's ego on the material. What about Geoffery Blainey as an
)example of generally dispassionate yet relevant commentary on history?
)

Geoffrey Blainey is one of Australia's most outstanding historians. Few 
historians compare favourably with Geoffrey Blainey. I grant you Geoffrey 
Blainey is a model, but not the only model.
Since you have accepted the substance I have no issue with you criticising 
the style. I only have an issue if the style is criticised as a means to 
avoid the substance.
See you, Peter




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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1975




-- Topica Digest --
	
	MotheringDotCommune
	By pkcompany netzero.net
	
	RE: MotheringDotCommune
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	RE: MotheringDotCommune
	By pkcompany netzero.net
	
	re: Waldorf Critics organization
	By dan dandugan.com
	
	Re: MotheringDotCommune
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca

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

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:06:41 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: MotheringDotCommune



For the last few months, I've been spending some time at Mothering Dot 
Commune.  It has been an interesting experience - and my encounters with 
Waldorf supporters and Waldorf supportive administrators on the site 
are, in part, detailed in the piece below.  

http://lists.topica.com/lists/WaldorfQuestions/read/message.html?mid=811663304&sort=d&start=115



Pete


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

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:32:04 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: MotheringDotCommune




Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) 
) For the last few months, I've been spending some time at Mothering Dot 
) Commune.  It has been an interesting experience - and my encounters with 
) 
) Waldorf supporters and Waldorf supportive administrators on the site 
) are, in part, detailed in the piece below.  
) 
) http://lists.topica.com/lists/WaldorfQuestions/read/message.html?mid=811663304&sort=d&start=115
) 
) 
) 
) 
) Pete

I was banned for only contributing in one forum and for not becoming a 
viable member of their "online community" by contributing to a variety 
of forums.
I guess it's their ball, so they get to make the rules.
Fine with me.
I was one of the "Waldorf support SWAT team" trying to "take you out".
That's funny.
You seem to have no problem taking yourself out.
It's why you're my favorite Waldorf-hater.
With enemies like you...who needs friends?
cl


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

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:10:03 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: MotheringDotCommune




Lemuria wrote:
) 
) 
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) 
) ) For the last few months, I've been spending some time at Mothering Dot 
) ) Commune.  It has been an interesting experience - and my encounters with 
) ) 
) ) 
) ) Waldorf supporters and Waldorf supportive administrators on the site 
) ) are, in part, detailed in the piece below.  
) ) 
) ) http://lists.topica.com/lists/WaldorfQuestions/read/message.html?mid=811663304&sort=d&start=115
) ) 
) ) 
) ) 
) ) 
) ) 
) ) Pete
) 
) I was banned for only contributing in one forum and for not becoming a 
) viable member of their "online community" by contributing to a variety 
) of forums.

So basically, you're saying you were there specifically to cause trouble 
in the Waldorf forum - unlike me who was a contributor to many forums. 
(G)

) I guess it's their ball, so they get to make the rules.
) Fine with me.

Not so fine with me.  People think they are getting objective and honest 
opinions and dialog but instead they are getting a censored forum where 
unwelcomed ideas are deleted from the record.  It's dishonest - um... 
kinda like Waldorf.

) I was one of the "Waldorf support SWAT team" trying to "take you out".
) That's funny.
) You seem to have no problem taking yourself out.

What's the point of staying there if every word is monitored and 
censored and edits are forced or else comments are deleted?  And when 
entire threads are deleted, most with 7 or 8 pages of posts each - it 
wasn't really me taking myself out - it was a matter of me wasting my 
time.  

) It's why you're my favorite Waldorf-hater.
) With enemies like you...who needs friends?

Thanks (I think).  It isn't about hating Waldorf.  Describing what is 
wrong with Waldorf isn't hateful, it's helpful.  If you sat in paint, I 
would tell you so you wouldn't walk around all day without a clue.  I'm 
one of Waldorf's best friends... They're just too immature to listen to 
me.

Pete


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

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:11:10 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: "Ariel T. Sutter" (divine.cowgirl gmail.com),
 johnwmorehead netzero.net
Subject: re: Waldorf Critics organization



Ariel T. Sutter, you wrote to me and several other board members of 
PLANS. I'm publishing my reply on the waldorf-critics discussion 
list. I encourage you to subscribe to the list if you want to carry 
on a public discussion. Subscribe at:

http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/critics.html

You wrote,

)Hi,
)
)Have you seen (http://www.waldorfanswers.org)www.waldorfanswers.org?
)
)It is a great website that may help you to discover and understand 
)the truth about Waldorf education and put some of your misgivings to 
)rest.
)
)In peace,
)
)Ariel Sutter.

Thanks for your interest. First, you have the link wrong. It's:

http://www.waldorfanswers.com

I'm familiar with that site by Robert Mays and Sune Nordwall. It 
starts out sort of on the right foot, but deteriorates rapidly, 
especially as you get off the front page. On the front page:

)Waldorf or Rudolf Steiner education is a unique form of education 
)from preschool through high school, which is based on the view that 
)the human being is a being of body, soul and spirit.

That's good, putting "soul and spirit" right up front.

)The specific methods used in Waldorf schools come from the view that 
)the child develops through a number of basic stages from childhood 
)to adulthood. The Waldorf curriculum is specifically designed to 
)work with the child through these stages of development.

Here the traditional deceptiveness of Waldorf promotion has kicked in 
already. There's no clue that the "stages of development" have no 
relation to the science of child development, that they are, instead, 
stages of reincarnation as defined by the supposedly clairvoyant 
visions of just one person, Rudolf Steiner.

)Waldorf education was developed by Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) at the 
)beginning of the 20th century. It is based on Steiner's broader 
)philosophy and teachings, called anthroposophy (literally, wisdom or 
)knowledge of man).

The linguistic roots of "anthroposophy" are irrelevant. It's 
essential for parents to know that Waldorf schools are one of many 
activities of a religious sect, Anthroposophy. Not mentioning that 
extremely important fact is cult-like behavior.

)Anthroposophy holds that the human being is fundamentally a spiritual being

I admire putting that on the front page. Would that other Waldorf 
publicity would follow this example.

)and that all human beings deserve respect as the embodiment of their 
)spiritual nature. This view is carried into Waldorf education as 
)striving to develop in each child their innate talents and abilities.

Generic fluff, any school would say that.

)Waldorf schools operate in a non-discriminatory way, without regard 
)to race, gender, ethnicity, religion or national origin.

That statement covers up the fact that the foundational philosophy 
has strong and specific opinions about race, gender, ethnicity, 
religion, and national origin! A parent can't know to what degree 
those opinions affect the teacher in the classroom; what can be known 
is that teachers are expected to study that philosophy uncritically.

)Some of the ideas in Waldorf education and anthroposophy are complex 
)and require a degree of good will on the part of the reader to grasp.

That is a very strange statement; if something is good, it should 
maintain its quality when examined critically. The author of this 
statement is advising the reader to not think!

)However, they form a coherent whole and Waldorf education, as 
)documented by numerous studies and personal experiences, works well 
)when done properly.

Whether the whole is coherent is a matter of opinion. There are very 
few studies of Waldorf outside of the movement. Personal experiences 
vary; many families have bad experiences with Waldorf and some 
schools have very high turnover rates. Whether it "works well" is 
also a matter of opinion, and opinions vary.

I'll stop with the word-by-word critique, I'm sure you get my drift. 
There's a big problem with Waldorf presenting itself untruthfully. If 
the San Francisco Waldorf School had explained itself honestly up 
front, I wouldn't have enrolled my son there, and there would never 
have been a conflict.

The things that Mays and Nordwall call "Myths" about Waldorf and 
Anthroposophy are problems that the movement so far refuses to even 
acknowledge. Calling their problems myths is denial.

As you get deeper into the site, it gets crazier, with personal 
attacks on people who criticize Waldorf publicly. For example, this 
page, mostly about me:

http://www.americans4waldorf.org/MrDugan.html

So no, Ariel, that web site doesn't help people understand the truth 
about Waldorf education, and it certainly doesn't put my misgivings 
to rest!

Sincerely, Dan Dugan


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

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:37:50 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: MotheringDotCommune



Hi Lemuria,

You wrote to Pete:
)You seem to have no problem taking yourself out.
)It's why you're my favorite Waldorf-hater.
)With enemies like you...who needs friends?

This seems unfair to me. What leads you to believe that Pete "hates"
Waldorf? While I might not always agree with what he writes I have
 not seen anything resembling "hate" from Pete. If your statement is allowed
to stand, it only adds fuel to the odd, misguided fire about PLANS as a
"hate group," a sentiment spread around the Internet by a strange handful of
Anthroposophists. Do you really believe Pete hates Waldorf? If so, why?

-Walden



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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1976




-- Topica Digest --
	
	RE: MotheringDotCommune
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	RE: MotheringDotCommune
	By pkcompany netzero.net
	
	RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	Re: Theoretical question
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	Re: Theoretical question
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca

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

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:05:26 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: MotheringDotCommune




Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) I'm 
) one of Waldorf's best friends... They're just too immature to listen to 
) me.
) 
) Pete

You've made my day!!!!!!
cl


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

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:28:45 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: MotheringDotCommune




Lemuria wrote:
) 
) 
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) I'm 
) ) one of Waldorf's best friends... They're just too immature to listen to 
) ) me.
) ) 
) ) Pete
) 
) You've made my day!!!!!!
) cl

Glad to be of service.  Reforming Waldorf requires some understanding on 
the part of Waldorf that reform is necessary.  That may come with 
maturity or the participants who are currently behaving like children - 
as witnessed at MDC and elsewhere on the internet.  When people like 
Sune continue to spread lies - like "Steiner was just joking" when he 
made racist comments - it is a childish response to a serious problem.  
When the Waldorf movement realizes that their problems are serious and 
affect people's lives in very negative ways, they will gain the maturity 
to seek true reform.

Pete


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

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:49:14 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach



Peter wrote to Keith:

)Since you have accepted the substance I have no issue with you criticising 
)the style. I only have an issue if the style is criticised as a means to 
)avoid the substance.


But of course that's exactly what's going on . . .

Diana




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

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:19:09 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question





Lemuria asked:

)Just because things seem a little slow...
)If there was a Waldorf school that could address your main problem with 
)Waldorf, would you send your child/children?
)Of course, I don't mean things that are necessary to Waldorf like
)spirituality, but I mean the issues like openness, disclosure of spiritual
)foundations, willingness to address bullying/behavior problem, etc.

Good questions, Lemuria.

For me the answer is no - I still wouldn't send my child to Waldorf even if
they cleaned up their act in all the ways that critics pressure them to do.
As you say, the spirituality is central and while I don't object to
religious education per se - my own child is in a different type of
religious school - the particular flavor of spirituality in Waldorf schools,
I found to be rigid and unhealthy. Certain types of unkindness to children
result directly from anthroposophic doctrines, IMO. 

Taking the long-term view, any change in the openness of the school as an
institution would probably also, gradually, lead to some changes in the
flexibility with which Steiner is interpreted, a willingness to try other
approaches, ultimately less reliance on Steiner. This could only be for the
good (though it's probably also the main reason it doesn't happen; sorry to
be cynical). It could happen, though I doubt it would happen fast enough to
please me. 

Hey - you asked.

But the immediate goal, I think, of critics' efforts is not to change
Waldorf - I'm sure we have some small effect,but it is a very slow process -
but to encourage them to attract the clientele who are appropriate
candidates for the spiritual path that is offered, and who want the related
education for their children. And, of course, dissuade those who, like our
family, tend to leave embittered or worse, with their children's education
in tatters. We're trying to help you head us off at the pass. The situations
that embittered us should not have occurred because we should never have
been at these schools in the first place.

There is a huge market for what you are selling - huge - you just have to
identify it better than you're doing. There will be *no* downturn in
enrollment when Waldorf gets honest, IMO. The things I think are unhealthy
(not treating young children as people, because in anthroposophy they're not
yet fully "incarnated"), or educationally inappropriate (delaying reading) -
there is a clientele out there who wants this, who will love you just as you
are. Religious education of all types is going stronger than ever. You just
gotta recruit *those* people, Lemuria, and make sure the rest of us are
scared off. 

You can do this by spelling out what anthroposophy is about. It's that
simple. The more explicit you are about anthroposophy, the more the people
involved in the schools will be strong supporters of anthroposophy. The
parents have got to know *exactly* what anthroposophy is, though - not the
watered-down, generic New Age version. This is the only reason critics
babble here about archangels and Akashic chronicles and Old Saturn and Old
Moon and racial "missions" etc etc.

In other words, what Eugene Schwartz said in his famous talk . . . . 

Diana








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

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:38:46 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Theoretical question



Diana wrote:

)There is a huge market for what you are selling - huge - you just have to
)identify it better than you're doing.

And that "identifying" means looking at (for lack of a better term (g)) the
impulse and the relationship between Anthroposophy and
Waldorf education. As this exercise will include Steiner's theories on
reincarnation and various races, skin colour, etc. there might not be a huge
market for Waldorf.

)There will be *no* downturn in enrollment when Waldorf gets honest, IMO.

But that same honesty will need to come from within Anthro circles and will
NEED to include a *real* discussion of the above. When that discussion
happens and when those important issues are actually dealt with - as opposed
to obfuscation/denial - the market might be there; a *real* market, driven
by demand FOR an Anthroposophic education and not because Waldorf is simply
an alternative to conventional education. When Waldorf/Anthro leadership
starts talking about Steiner-the-man who held racist beliefs "we simply do
not agree with . . . " and goes on to explain openly and honestly the occult
nature of the movement, the market *might* be there. After all, Steiner
spoke and wrote about his occult-beliefs-as-fact with no qualms whatsoever.
Why is this so very difficult in these times?

)In other words, what Eugene Schwartz said in his famous talk . . . .

Yes. With the addition of an open discussion about "race."

-Walden



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

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:51:33 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




Diana Winters wrote:
) 
) 
) 
) Lemuria asked:
) 
) )Just because things seem a little slow...
) )If there was a Waldorf school that could address your main problem with 
) )Waldorf, would you send your child/children?
) )Of course, I don't mean things that are necessary to Waldorf like
) )spirituality, but I mean the issues like openness, disclosure of 
) )spiritual
) )foundations, willingness to address bullying/behavior problem, etc.
) 
) Good questions, Lemuria.
) 
) For me the answer is no - I still wouldn't send my child to Waldorf even 
) if
) they cleaned up their act in all the ways that critics pressure them to 
) do.
) As you say, the spirituality is central and while I don't object to
) religious education per se - my own child is in a different type of
) religious school - the particular flavor of spirituality in Waldorf 
) schools,
) I found to be rigid and unhealthy. Certain types of unkindness to 
) children
) result directly from anthroposophic doctrines, IMO. 

Good point. But I would call unkindness to children a misinterpretation 
of Anthroposophical "doctrine".
Not that it doesn't happen.... Anthroposophists can be cruel.
) 
) Taking the long-term view, any change in the openness of the school as 
) an
) institution would probably also, gradually, lead to some changes in the
) flexibility with which Steiner is interpreted, a willingness to try 
) other
) approaches, ultimately less reliance on Steiner. This could only be for 
) the
) good (though it's probably also the main reason it doesn't happen; sorry 
) to
) be cynical). It could happen, though I doubt it would happen fast enough 
) to
) please me. 
) 
) Hey - you asked.
) 
) But the immediate goal, I think, of critics' efforts is not to change
) Waldorf - I'm sure we have some small effect,but it is a very slow 
) process -
) but to encourage them to attract the clientele who are appropriate
) candidates for the spiritual path that is offered, and who want the 
) related
) education for their children. And, of course, dissuade those who, like 
) our
) family, tend to leave embittered or worse, with their children's 
) education
) in tatters. We're trying to help you head us off at the pass. The 
) situations
) that embittered us should not have occurred because we should never have
) been at these schools in the first place.

I think so, too.
People need to know stuff up front.
If you ever have occasion, though, to visit a healthy Waldorf school 
that's really rolling along, there's an attitude of, "Anthroposophy may 
not be for me or my family, but whatever it is they're doing, my kids 
are thriving, and that's enough for me."
 When a Waldorf school is a healthy tree, it bears very nice fruit.

) 
) There is a huge market for what you are selling - huge - you just have 
) to
) identify it better than you're doing. There will be *no* downturn in
) enrollment when Waldorf gets honest, IMO. The things I think are 
) unhealthy
) (not treating young children as people, because in anthroposophy they're 
) not
) yet fully "incarnated"), or educationally inappropriate (delaying 
) reading) -
) there is a clientele out there who wants this, who will love you just as 
) you
) are. Religious education of all types is going stronger than ever. You 
) just
) gotta recruit *those* people, Lemuria, and make sure the rest of us are
) scared off. 

I agree.
I think Waldorf should be doing more outreach to other spiritual streams 
(churches, synagogues, mosques, etc)where folks might be more receptive 
to us.
) 
) You can do this by spelling out what anthroposophy is about. It's that
) simple. The more explicit you are about anthroposophy, the more the 
) people
) involved in the schools will be strong supporters of anthroposophy. The
) parents have got to know *exactly* what anthroposophy is, though - not 
) the
) watered-down, generic New Age version. This is the only reason critics
) babble here about archangels and Akashic chronicles and Old Saturn and 
) Old
) Moon and racial "missions" etc etc.
) 
) In other words, what Eugene Schwartz said in his famous talk . . . . 
) 
) Diana
) 
Some interesting answers, here.
Keep 'em coming.
cl


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

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:39:36 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Theoretical question



Lemuria wrote:
)Some interesting answers, here.
)Keep 'em coming.

See, if parents were given important information up front, all this odd
Waldorf miscommunication would simply not happen. PLANS would probably not
exist and most critics and survivors would never have been created. Peter
Staudenmaier and his kind would still be doing his/their thing but that's
another story. Here, for example, is some excellent information from a
pro-Waldorf site:

http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/GW3603.pdf

While some of what this Waldorf expert says seems harmless, other bits are
offensive *to me* and would have made me shake my head while striking
Waldorf off the list of potential schools for my children. It's not only the
patronizing tone of the lecture that bothers me - or the stuff about trading
vaccinations for love and religion, or mentioning Steiner's ominous
prediction of the "war of all against all." What *really* bothers me is that
this sort valuable information is not handed to ALL potential Waldorf
families on their FIRST VISIT to the local Waldorf school.

-Walden




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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1977




-- Topica Digest --
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
	
	Transparency on Steiner/Waldorf's ideas about Waldorf (RE: Theoretical q
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By feetapparel hotmail.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By pkcompany netzero.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By feetapparel hotmail.com
	
	Re: Theoretical question
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	Re: Theoretical question
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca

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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:02:16 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




walden wrote:
) 
) Lemuria wrote:
) )Some interesting answers, here.
) )Keep 'em coming.
) 
) See, if parents were given important information up front, all this odd
) Waldorf miscommunication would simply not happen. PLANS would probably 
) not
) exist and most critics and survivors would never have been created. 
) Peter
) Staudenmaier and his kind would still be doing his/their thing but 
) that's
) another story. Here, for example, is some excellent information from a
) pro-Waldorf site:
) 
) http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/GW3603.pdf
) 
) While some of what this Waldorf expert says seems harmless, other bits 
) are
) offensive *to me* and would have made me shake my head while striking
) Waldorf off the list of potential schools for my children. It's not only 
) the
) patronizing tone of the lecture that bothers me - or the stuff about 
) trading
) vaccinations for love and religion, or mentioning Steiner's ominous
) prediction of the "war of all against all." What *really* bothers me is 
) that
) this sort valuable information is not handed to ALL potential Waldorf
) families on their FIRST VISIT to the local Waldorf school.
) 
) -Walden
) 
) 

I think that article is a pretty clear reference source too.

I discovered these Steiner articles and/or lectures which seem to offer 
similar information, plus some of Steiners 
psychological/psycho-spiritual ideas:

"The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy":
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html

"An Introduction to Waldorf Education":
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/IntWal_index.html


These bits stood out as interesting, for example:

(i)

"A spiritual understanding of the world, as represented by 
Anthroposophy, sees in this process the birth of the physical body, but 
not as yet of the etheric or life-body. Even as man is surrounded, until 
the moment of birth, by the physical envelope of the mother-body, so 
until the time of the change of teeth — until about the seventh year — 
he is surrounded by an etheric envelope and by an astral envelope. It is 
only during the change of teeth that the etheric envelope liberates the 
etheric body. And an astral envelope remains until the time of puberty, 
when the astral or sentient body also becomes free on all sides, even as 
the physical body became free at physical birth and the etheric body at 
the change of teeth. (See Footnote 5)

Thus, Anthroposophical Science has to speak of three births of the human 
being. Until the change of teeth, certain impressions intended for the 
etheric body can as little reach it as the light and air of the physical 
world can reach the physical body so long as this latter is resting in 
the mother's womb.

Before the change of teeth takes place, the free life-body is not yet at 
work in man. As in the body of the mother the physical body receives 
forces which are not its own, while at the same time it gradually 
develops its own forces within the protecting sheath of the mother's 
womb, so it is with the forces of growth until the change of teeth. 
During this first period the etheric body is only developing and 
moulding its own forces, con jointly with those — not its own — which it 
has inherited. Now while the etheric body is thus working its way into 
liberation, the physical body is already independent. The etheric body, 
as it liberates itself, develops and works out what it has to give to 
the physical body. The ‘second teeth,’ i.e. the human being's own teeth, 
taking the place of those which he inherited, represent the culmination 
of this work. They are the densest things embedded in the physical body, 
and hence they appear last, at the end of this period.

)From this point onward, the growth of man's physical body is brought 
about by his own etheric body alone. But this etheric body is still 
under the influence of an astral body which has not yet escaped from its 
protecting sheath. At the moment when the astral body too becomes free, 
the etheric body concludes another period of its development; and this 
conclusion finds expression in puberty. The organs of reproduction 
become independent because from this time onward the astral body is 
free, no longer working inwards, but openly and without integument 
meeting the external world.

Now just as the physical influences of the external world cannot be 
brought to bear on the yet unborn child — so until the change of teeth 
one should not bring to bear on the etheric body those forces which are, 
for it, what the impressions of the physical environment are for the 
physical body. And in the astral body the corresponding influences 
should not be given play until after puberty.

Vague and general phrases — ‘the harmonious development of all the 
powers and talents in the child,’ and so forth — cannot provide the 
basis for a genuine art of education. Such an art of education can only 
be built up on a real knowledge of the human being. Not that these 
phrases are incorrect, but that at bottom they are as useless as it 
would be to say of a machine that all its parts must be brought 
harmoniously into action. To work a machine you must approach it, not 
with phrases and truisms, but with real and detailed knowledge. So for 
the art of education it is a knowledge of the members of man's being and 
of their several development which is important. We must know on what 
part of the human being we have especially to work at a certain age, and 
how we can work upon it in the proper way. There is of course no doubt 
that a truly realistic art of education, such as is here indicated, will 
only slowly make its way. This lies, indeed, in the whole mentality of 
our age, which will long continue to regard the facts of the spiritual 
world as the vapourings of an imagination run wild, while it takes vague 
and altogether unreal phrases for the result of a realistic way of 
thinking. Here, however, we shall unreservedly describe what will in 
time to come be a matter of common knowledge, though many to-day may 
still regard it as a figment of the mind.

With physical birth the physical human body is exposed to the physical 
environment of the external world. Before birth it was surrounded by the 
protecting envelope of the mother's body. What the forces and fluids of 
the enveloping mother-body have done for it hitherto, must from now 
onward be done for it by the forces and elements of the external 
physical world. Now before the change of teeth in the seventh year, the 
human body has a task to perform upon itself which is essentially 
different from the tasks of all the other periods of life. In this 
period the physical organs must mould themselves into definite shapes. 
Their whole structural nature must receive certain tendencies and 
directions. In the later periods also, growth takes place; but 
throughout the whole succeeding life, growth is based on the forms which 
were developed in this first life-period. If true forms were developed, 
true forms will grow; if misshapen forms were developed, misshapen forms 
will grow. We can never repair what we have neglected as educators in 
the first seven years. Just as Nature brings about the right environment 
for the physical human body before birth, so after birth the educator 
must provide for the right physical environment. It is the right 
physical environment alone, which works upon the child in such a way 
that the physical organs shape themselves aright.

There are two magic words which indicate how the child enters into 
relation with his environment. They are: Imitation, and Example. The 
Greek philosopher Aristotle called man the most imitative of creatures. 
For no age in life is this more true than for the first stage of 
childhood, before the change of teeth. What goes on in his physical 
environment, this the child imitates, and in the process of imitation 
his physical organs are cast into the forms which then become permanent. 
‘Physical environment’ must, however, be taken in the widest imaginable 
sense. It includes not only what goes on around the child in the 
material sense, but everything that takes place in the child's 
environment — everything that can be perceived by his senses, that can 
work from the surrounding physical space upon the inner powers of the 
child. This includes all the moral or immoral actions, all the wise or 
foolish actions, that the child sees.

It is not moral talk or prudent admonitions that influence the child in 
this sense. Rather is it what the grown-up people do visibly before his 
eyes. The effect of admonition is to mould the forms, not of the 
physical, but of the etheric body; and the latter, as we saw, is 
surrounded until the seventh year by a protecting etheric envelope, even 
as the physical body is surrounded before physical birth by the physical 
envelope of the mother-body. All that has to evolve in the etheric body 
before the seventh year — ideas, habits, memory, and so forth — all this 
must develop ‘of its own accord,’ just as the eyes and ears develop 
within the mother-body without the influence of external light ... What 
we read in that excellent educational work — Jean Paul's ‘Levana’ or 
‘Science of Education’ — is undoubtedly true. He says that a traveler 
will have learned more from his nurse in the first years of his life, 
than in all his journeys round the world. The child, however, does not 
learn by instruction or admonition, but by imitation. The physical 
organs shape their forms through the influence of the physical 
environment. Good sight will be developed in the child if his 
environment has the right conditions of light and colour, while in the 
brain and blood-circulation the physical foundations will be laid for a 
healthy moral sense if the child sees moral actions in his environment. 
If before his seventh year the child sees only foolish actions in his 
surroundings, the brain will assume such forms as adapt it also to 
foolishness in later life.

As the muscles of the hand grow firm and strong in performing the work 
for which they are fitted, so the brain and other organs of the physical 
body of man are guided into the right lines of development if they 
receive the right impression from their environment. An example will 
best illustrate this point. You can make a doll for a child by folding 
up an old napkin, making two comers into legs, the other two corners 
into arms, a knot for the head, and painting eyes, nose and mouth with 
blots of ink. Or else you can buy the child what they call a ‘pretty’ 
doll, with real hair and painted cheeks. We need not dwell on the fact 
that the ‘pretty’ doll is of course hideous, and apt to spoil the 
healthy aesthetic sense for a lifetime. The main educational question is 
a different one. If the child has before him the folded napkin, he has 
to fill in from his own imagination all that is needed to make it real 
and human. This work of the imagination moulds and builds the forms of 
the brain. The brain unfolds as the muscles of the hand unfold when they 
do the work for which they are fitted. Give the child the so-called 
‘pretty’ doll, and the brain has nothing more to do. Instead of 
unfolding, it becomes stunted and dried up. If people could look into 
the brain as the spiritual investigator can, and see how it builds its 
forms, they would assuredly give their children only such toys as are 
fitted to stimulate and vivify its formative activity. Toys with dead 
mathematical forms alone, have a desolating and killing effect upon the 
formative forces of the child. On the other hand everything that kindles 
the imagination of living things works in the right way. Our 
materialistic age produces few good toys. What a healthy toy it is, for 
example, which represents by movable wooden figures two smiths facing 
each other and hammering an anvil. The like can still be bought in 
country districts. Excellent also are the picture-books where the 
figures can be set in motion by pulling threads from below, so that the 
child itself can transform the dead picture into a representation of 
living action. All this brings about a living mobility of the organs, 
and by such mobility the right forms of the organs are built up.

These things can of course only be touched on here, but in future 
Anthroposophy will be called upon to give the necessary indications in 
detail, and this it is in a position to do. For it is no empty 
abstraction, but a body of living facts which can give guiding lines for 
the conduct of life's realities.

A few more examples may be given. A ‘nervous,’ that is to say excitable 
child, should be treated differently as regards environment from one who 
is quiet and lethargic. Everything comes into consideration, from the 
colour of the room and the various objects that are generally around the 
child, to the colour of the clothes in which he is dressed. One will 
often do the wrong thing if one does not take guidance from spiritual 
knowledge. For in many cases the materialistic idea will hit on the 
exact reverse of what is right. An excitable child should be surrounded 
by and dressed in the red or reddish-yellow colours, whereas for a 
lethargic child one should have recourse to the blue or bluish-green 
shades of colour. For the important thing is the complementary colour, 
which is created within the child. In the case of red it is green, and 
in the case of blue orange-yellow, as may easily be seen by looking for 
a time at a red or blue surface and then quickly directing one's gaze to 
a white surface. The physical organs of the child create this contrary 
or complementary colour, and it is this which brings about the 
corresponding organic structures that the child needs. If the excitable 
child has a red colour around him, he will inwardly create the opposite, 
the green; and this activity of creating green has a calming effect. The 
organs assume a tendency to calmness."

[Source: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html ]


and

(ii)

"There is one thing that must be thoroughly and fully recognized for 
this age of the child's life. It is that the physical body creates its 
own scale of measurement for what is beneficial to it. This it does by 
the proper development of craving and desire. Generally speaking, we may 
say that the healthy physical body desires what is good for it. In the 
growing human being, so long as it is the physical body that is 
important, we should pay the closest attention to what the healthy 
craving, desire and delight require. Pleasure and delight are the forces 
which most rightly quicken and call forth the physical forms of the 
organs.

In this matter it is all too easy to do harm by failing to bring the 
child into a right relationship, physically, with his environment. 
Especially may this happen in regard to his instincts for food. The 
child may be overfed with things that completely make him lose his 
healthy instinct for food, whereas by giving him the right nourishment 
the instinct can be so preserved that he always wants what is wholesome 
for him under the circumstances, even to a glass of water, and turns 
just as surely from what would do him harm. Anthroposophical Science, 
when called upon to build up an art of education, will be able to 
indicate all these things in detail, even specifying particular forms of 
food and nourishment. For Anthroposophy is realism, it is no grey 
theory; it is a thing for life itself.

Thus the joy of the child, in and with his environment, must be reckoned 
among the forces that build and mould the physical organs. Teachers he 
needs with happy look and manner, and above all with an honest 
unaffected love. A love which as it were streams through the physical 
environment of the child with warmth may literally be said to ‘hatch 
out’ the forms of the physical organs.

The child who lives in such an atmosphere of love and warmth and who has 
around him really good examples for his imitation, is living in his 
right element. One should therefore strictly guard against anything 
being done in the child's presence that he must not imitate. One should 
do nothing of which one would then have to say to the child, ‘You must 
not do that.’ The strength of the child's tendency to imitate can be 
recognized by observing how he will paint and scribble written signs and 
letters long before he understands them. Indeed, it is good for him to 
paint the letters by imitation first, and only later learn to understand 
their meaning. For imitation belongs to this period when the physical 
body is developing; while the meaning speaks to the etheric, and the 
etheric body should not be worked on till after the change of teeth, 
when the outer etheric envelope has fallen away. Especially should all 
learning of speech in these years be through imitation. It is by hearing 
that the child will best learn to speak. No rules or artificial 
instruction of any kind can be of good effect."

[Source: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html ]


(iii)

"Here we have an excellent opportunity to observe with what effect the 
spiritual knowledge of Anthroposophy must work in life and practice. 
When the teacher comes before a class of children, armed with parables 
he has ‘made up’ out of an intellectual materialistic mode of thought, 
he will as a rule make little impression upon them. For he has first to 
puzzle out the parables for himself with all his intellectual 
cleverness. Parables to which one has first had to condescend have no 
convincing effect on those who listen to them. For when one speaks in 
parable and picture, it is not only what is spoken and shown that works 
upon the hearer, but a fine spiritual stream passes from the one to the 
other, from him who gives to him who receives. If he who tells has not 
himself the warm feeling of belief in his parable, he will make no 
impression on the other. For real effectiveness, it is essential to 
believe in one's parables as in absolute realities. And this can only be 
when one's thought is alive with spiritual knowledge. Take for instance 
the parable of which we have been speaking. The true student of 
Anthroposophy need not torment himself to think it out. For him it is 
reality. In the coming forth of the butterfly from the chrysalis he sees 
at work on a lower level of being the very same process that is 
repeated, on a higher level and at a higher stage of development, in the 
coming forth of the soul from the body. He believes in it with his whole 
might; and this belief streams as it were unseen from speaker to hearer, 
carrying conviction. Life flows freely, unhindered, back and forth from 
teacher to pupil. But for this it is necessary that the teacher draw 
from the full fountain of spiritual knowledge. His words and all that 
comes from him must receive feeling, warmth and colour from a truly 
anthroposophic way of thought.

A wonderful prospect is thus opened out over the whole field of 
education. If it will but let itself be enriched from the well of life 
that Anthroposophy contains, education will itself be filled with life 
and understanding. There will no longer be that groping which is now so 
prevalent. All art and practice of education that is not continually 
receiving fresh nourishment from such roots as these is dry and dead. 
The spiritual knowledge of Anthroposophy has for all the secrets of the 
world appropriate parables — pictures taken from the very being of the 
things, pictures not first made by man, but laid by the forces of the 
world within the things themselves in the very act of their creation. 
Therefore this spiritual knowledge must form the living basis for the 
whole art of education."

[Source: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html ]


(iv)

"A force of the soul on which particular value must be set during this 
period of man's development, is memory. The development of the memory is 
bound up with the moulding of the etheric body. Since the latter takes 
place in such a way that the etheric body becomes liberated between the 
change of teeth and puberty, so too this is the tune for a conscious 
attention from without to the growth and cultivation of the memory. If 
what is due to the human being at this time has been neglected, his 
memory will ever after have less value than it might otherwise have had. 
It is not possible later to make up for what has been left undone.

In this connection many mistakes may be made by an intellectual 
materialistic way of thought. An art of education based on such a way of 
thought easily arrives at a condemnation of what is mastered merely by 
memory. It will often set itself untiringly and emphatically against the 
mere training of the memory, and will employ the subtlest methods to 
ensure that the boy or girl commits nothing to memory that he does not 
intellectually understand. Yes, and after all, how much has really been 
gained by such intellectual understanding? A materialistic way of 
thought is so easily led to believe that any further penetration into 
things, beyond the intellectual concepts that are as it were extracted 
from them, simply does not exist; and only with great difficulty will it 
fight its way through to the perception that the other forces of the 
soul are at least as necessary as the intellect, if we are to gain a 
comprehension of things. It is no mere figure of speech to say that man 
can understand with his feeling, his sentiment, his inner disposition, 
as well as with his intellect. Intellectual concepts are only one of the 
means we have to understand the things of this world, and it is only to 
the materialistic thinker that they appear as the sole means. Of course 
there are many who do not consider themselves materialists, who yet 
regard an intellectual conception of things as the only kind of 
understanding. Such people profess perhaps an idealistic or even a 
spiritual outlook. But in their soul they relate themselves to it in a 
materialistic way. For the intellect is in effect the instrument of the 
soul for understanding what is material.

We have already alluded to Jean Paul's excellent book on education; and 
a passage from it, bearing on this subject of the deeper foundations of 
the understanding, may well be quoted here. Jean Paul's book contains, 
indeed, many a golden word on education, and deserves far more attention 
than it receives. It is of greater value for the teacher than many of 
the educational works that are held in highest regard to-day. The 
passage runs as follows: —

‘Have no fear of going beyond the childish understanding, even in whole 
sentences. Your expression and the tone of your voice, aided by the 
child's intuitive eagerness to understand, will light up half the 
meaning, and with it in course of time the other half. It is with 
children as with the Chinese and people of refinement; the tone is half 
the language. Remember, the child learns to understand his own language 
before ever he learns to speak it, just as we do with Greek or any other 
foreign language. Trust to time and the connections of things to unravel 
the meaning. A child of five understands the words “yet,” “even,” “of 
course,” “just”; but now try to give an explanation of them — not to the 
child, but to his father! In the one word “of course” there lurks a 
little philosopher! If the eight-year-old child, with his developed 
speech, is understood by the child of three, why do you want to narrow 
down your language to the little one's childish prattle? Always speak to 
the child some years ahead — do not the men of genius speak to us 
centuries ahead in books? Talk to the one-year-old as if he were two, to 
the two-year-old as if he were six, for the difference in development 
diminishes in inverse ratio with the age. We are far too prone to credit 
the teachers with everything the children learn. We should remember that 
the child we have to educate bears half his world within him all there 
and ready taught, namely the spiritual half, including, for example, the 
moral and metaphysical ideas. For this very reason language, equipped as 
it is with material images alone, cannot give the spiritual archetypes; 
all it can do is to illumine them. The very brightness and decision of 
children should give us brightness and decision when we speak to them. 
We can learn from their speech as well as teach them through our own. 
Their word-building is bold, yet remarkably accurate! For instance, I 
have heard the following expressions used by three- or four-year-old 
children: — “the barreler” (for the maker of barrels) — “the sky-mouse” 
(for the bat) — “I am the seeing-through man” (standing behind the 
telescope) — “I'd like to be a ginger-bread-eater” — “he joked me down 
from the chair” — “See how one o'clock it is!” ...’

Our quotation refers, it is true, to a different subject from that with 
which we are immediately concerned; but what Jean Paul says about speech 
has its value in the present connection also. Here too there is an 
understanding which precedes the intellectual comprehension. The little 
child receives the structure of language into the living organism of his 
soul, and does not require the laws of language-formation in 
intellectual concepts for the process. Similarly the older boy and girl 
must learn for the cultivation of the memory much that they are not to 
master with their intellectual understanding until later years. Those 
things are afterwards best grasped in concepts, which have first been 
learned simply from memory in this period of life, even as the rules of 
language are best learned in a language one is already able to speak. So 
much talk against ‘unintelligent learning by heart’ is simply 
materialistic prejudice. The child need only, for instance, learn the 
essential rules of multiplication in a few given examples — and for 
these no apparatus is necessary; the fingers are much better for the 
purpose than any apparatus, — then he is ready to set to and memorize 
the whole multiplication table. Proceeding in this way, we shall be 
acting with due regard to the nature of the growing child. We shall, 
however, be offending against his nature, if at the time when the 
development of the memory is the important thing we are making too great 
a call upon the intellect.

The intellect is a soul-force that is only born with puberty, and we 
ought not to bring any influence to bear on it from outside before this 
period. Up to the time of puberty the child should be laying up in his 
memory the treasures of thought on which mankind has pondered; 
afterwards is the time to penetrate with intellectual understanding what 
has already been well impressed upon the memory in earlier years. It is 
necessary for man, not only to remember what he already understands, but 
to come to understand what he already knows — that is to say, what he 
has acquired by memory in the way the child acquires language. This 
truth has a wide application. First there must be the assimilation of 
historical events through the memory, then the grasping of them in 
intellectual concepts;

first the faithful committing to memory of the facts of geography, then 
the intellectual grasp of the connections between them. In a certain 
respect, the grasping of things in concepts should proceed from the 
stored-up treasures of the memory. The more the child knows in memory 
before he begins to grasp in intellectual concepts, the better."

[Source: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html ]


(v)

"There is no need to enlarge upon the fact that what has been said 
applies only for that period of childhood with which we are dealing, and 
not later. If at some later age in life one has occasion to take up a 
subject for any reason, then of course the opposite may easily be the 
right and most helpful way of learning it, though even here much will 
depend on the mentality of the person. In the time d life, however, with 
which we are now concerned, we must not dry up the child's mind and 
spirit by cramming it with intellectual conceptions.

Another result of a materialistic way of thought is to be seen in the 
lessons that rest too exclusively on sense-perception. At this period of 
childhood, all perception must be spiritualized. We ought not to be 
satisfied, for instance, with presenting a plant, a seed, a flower to 
the child merely as it can be perceived with the senses. Everything 
should become a parable of the spiritual. In a grain of corn there is 
far more than meets the eye. There is a whole new plant invisible within 
it. That such a thing as a seed has more within it than can be perceived 
with the senses, this the child must grasp in a living way with his 
feeling and imagination. He must, in feeling, divine the secrets of 
existence. The objection cannot be made that the pure perception of the 
senses is obscured by this means; on the contrary, by going no further 
than what the senses see, we are stopping short of the whole truth. For 
the full reality consists of the spirit as well as the substance; and 
there is no less need for faithful and careful observation when one is 
bringing all the faculties of the soul into play, than when only the 
physical senses are employed. Could men but see, as the spiritual 
investigator sees, what desolation is wrought in soul and body by an 
instruction that rests on external sense-perception alone, they would 
never insist upon it so strongly as they do. Of what good is it in the 
highest sense, that children should have shown to them all possible 
varieties of minerals, plants and animals, and all kinds of physical 
experiments, if something further is not bound up with the teaching of 
these things; namely, to make use of the parables which the sense-world 
gives, in order to awaken a feeling for the secrets of the spirit?"

[Source: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html ]


(vi)

"Anthroposophy, by its inherent character and tendency, must have the 
task of providing a practical conception of the world — one that 
comprehends the nature and essence of human life. Whether what is often 
called so is justified in making such a claim, is not the point; it is 
the real essence of Anthroposophy — and what, by virtue of its real 
essence, Anthroposophy can be — that here concerns us. For Anthroposophy 
is not intended as a theory remote from life, one that merely caters for 
man's curiosity or thirst for knowledge. Nor is it intended as an 
instrument for a few people, who for selfish reasons would like to 
attain a higher level of development for themselves. No, it can join and 
work at the most important tasks of present-day humanity, and further 
their development for the welfare of mankind. (See Footnote 1)"

[Source: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html ]


"It is now planned that the Waldorf School will be a primary school in 
which the educational goals and curriculum are founded upon each 
teacher's living insight into the nature of the whole human being, so 
far as this is possible under present conditions. Children will, of 
course, have to be advanced far enough in the different school grades to 
satisfy the standards imposed by the current views. Within this 
framework, however, the pedagogical ideals and curriculum will assume a 
form that arises out of this knowledge of the human being and of actual 
life.

The primary school is entrusted with the child at a period of its life 
when the soul is undergoing a very important transformation. From birth 
to about the sixth or seventh year, the human being naturally gives 
himself up to everything immediately surrounding him in the human 
environment, and thus, through the imitative instinct, gives form to his 
own nascent powers. From this period on, the child's soul becomes open 
to take in consciously what the educator and teacher gives, which 
affects the child as a result of the teacher's natural authority. The 
authority is taken for granted by the child from a dim feeling that in 
the teacher there is something that should exist in himself, too. One 
cannot be an educator or teacher unless one adopts out of full insight a 
stance toward the child that takes account in the most comprehensive 
sense of this metamorphosis of the urge to imitate into an ability to 
assimilate upon the basis of a natural relationship of authority. The 
modern world view, based as it is upon natural law, does not approach 
these fact of human development in full consciousness. To observe them 
with the necessary attention, one must have a sense of life's subtlest 
manifestations in the human being. This kind of sense must ran through 
the whole an of education; it must shape the curriculum; it must live in 
the spirit uniting teacher and pupil. In educating, what the teacher 
does can depend only slightly on anything he gets from a general, 
abstract pedagogy: it must rather be newly born every moment from a live 
understanding of the young human being he or she is teaching. One may, 
of course, object that this Lively kind of education and instruction 
breaks down in large classes. This objection is no doubt justified in a 
limited sense. Taken beyond those limits, however, the objection merely 
shows that the person who makes it proceeds from abstract educational 
norms, for a really living an of education based on a genuine knowledge 
of the human being carries with it a power that rouses the interest of 
every single pupil so that there is no need for direct “individual” work 
in order to keep his attention on the subject. One can put forth the 
essence of one's teaching in such a form that each pupil assimilates it 
in his own individual way. This requires simply that whatever the 
teacher does should be sufficiently alive. If anyone has a genuine sense 
for human nature, the developing human being becomes for him such an 
intense, Living riddle that the very attempt to solve it awakens the 
pupil's living interest empathetically. Such empathy is more valuable 
than individual work, which may all too easily cripple the child's own 
initiative. It might indeed be asserted — again, within limitations — 
that large classes led by teachers who are imbued with the life that 
comes from genuine knowledge of the human being, will achieve better 
results than small classes led by teachers who proceed from standard 
educational theories and have no chance to put this life into their 
work."

[Source: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/IntWal_index.html ]


Clear explanation of Steiner's thinking and what it entails is a good 
idea.


Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:08:44 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Transparency on Steiner/Waldorf's ideas about Waldorf (RE: Theoretical q




Keith McLean wrote:
) 
) 
) walden wrote:
) ) 
) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) )Some interesting answers, here.
) ) )Keep 'em coming.
) ) 
) ) See, if parents were given important information up front, all this odd
) ) Waldorf miscommunication would simply not happen. PLANS would probably 
) ) not
) ) exist and most critics and survivors would never have been created. 
) ) Peter
) ) Staudenmaier and his kind would still be doing his/their thing but 
) ) that's
) ) another story. Here, for example, is some excellent information from a
) ) pro-Waldorf site:
) ) 
) ) http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/GW3603.pdf
) ) 
) ) While some of what this Waldorf expert says seems harmless, other bits 
) ) are
) ) offensive *to me* and would have made me shake my head while striking
) ) Waldorf off the list of potential schools for my children. It's not only 
) ) 
) ) the
) ) patronizing tone of the lecture that bothers me - or the stuff about 
) ) trading
) ) vaccinations for love and religion, or mentioning Steiner's ominous
) ) prediction of the "war of all against all." What *really* bothers me is 
) ) that
) ) this sort valuable information is not handed to ALL potential Waldorf
) ) families on their FIRST VISIT to the local Waldorf school.
) ) 
) ) -Walden
) ) 
) ) 
) 
) I think that article is a pretty clear reference source too.
) 
) I discovered these Steiner articles and/or lectures which seem to offer 
) similar information, plus some of Steiners 
) psychological/psycho-spiritual ideas:
) 
) "The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy":
) http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html
) 
) "An Introduction to Waldorf Education":
) http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/IntWal_index.html
) 
) 
) These bits stood out as interesting, for example:
) 
) (i)
) 
) "A spiritual understanding of the world, as represented by 
) Anthroposophy, sees in this process the birth of the physical body, but 
) not as yet of the etheric or life-body. Even as man is surrounded, until 
) 
) the moment of birth, by the physical envelope of the mother-body, so 
) until the time of the change of teeth — until about the seventh year — 
) he is surrounded by an etheric envelope and by an astral envelope. It is 
) 
) only during the change of teeth that the etheric envelope liberates the 
) etheric body. And an astral envelope remains until the time of puberty, 
) when the astral or sentient body also becomes free on all sides, even as 
) 
) the physical body became free at physical birth and the etheric body at 
) the change of teeth. (See Footnote 5)
) 
) Thus, Anthroposophical Science has to speak of three births of the human 
) 
) being. Until the change of teeth, certain impressions intended for the 
) etheric body can as little reach it as the light and air of the physical 
) 
) world can reach the physical body so long as this latter is resting in 
) the mother's womb.
) 
) Before the change of teeth takes place, the free life-body is not yet at 
) 
) work in man. As in the body of the mother the physical body receives 
) forces which are not its own, while at the same time it gradually 
) develops its own forces within the protecting sheath of the mother's 
) womb, so it is with the forces of growth until the change of teeth. 
) During this first period the etheric body is only developing and 
) moulding its own forces, con jointly with those — not its own — which it 
) 
) has inherited. Now while the etheric body is thus working its way into 
) liberation, the physical body is already independent. The etheric body, 
) as it liberates itself, develops and works out what it has to give to 
) the physical body. The ‘second teeth,’ i.e. the human being's own teeth, 
) 
) taking the place of those which he inherited, represent the culmination 
) of this work. They are the densest things embedded in the physical body, 
) 
) and hence they appear last, at the end of this period.
) 
) From this point onward, the growth of man's physical body is brought 
) about by his own etheric body alone. But this etheric body is still 
) under the influence of an astral body which has not yet escaped from its 
) 
) protecting sheath. At the moment when the astral body too becomes free, 
) the etheric body concludes another period of its development; and this 
) conclusion finds expression in puberty. The organs of reproduction 
) become independent because from this time onward the astral body is 
) free, no longer working inwards, but openly and without integument 
) meeting the external world.
) 
) Now just as the physical influences of the external world cannot be 
) brought to bear on the yet unborn child — so until the change of teeth 
) one should not bring to bear on the etheric body those forces which are, 
) 
) for it, what the impressions of the physical environment are for the 
) physical body. And in the astral body the corresponding influences 
) should not be given play until after puberty.
) 
) Vague and general phrases — ‘the harmonious development of all the 
) powers and talents in the child,’ and so forth — cannot provide the 
) basis for a genuine art of education. Such an art of education can only 
) be built up on a real knowledge of the human being. Not that these 
) phrases are incorrect, but that at bottom they are as useless as it 
) would be to say of a machine that all its parts must be brought 
) harmoniously into action. To work a machine you must approach it, not 
) with phrases and truisms, but with real and detailed knowledge. So for 
) the art of education it is a knowledge of the members of man's being and 
) 
) of their several development which is important. We must know on what 
) part of the human being we have especially to work at a certain age, and 
) 
) how we can work upon it in the proper way. There is of course no doubt 
) that a truly realistic art of education, such as is here indicated, will 
) 
) only slowly make its way. This lies, indeed, in the whole mentality of 
) our age, which will long continue to regard the facts of the spiritual 
) world as the vapourings of an imagination run wild, while it takes vague 
) 
) and altogether unreal phrases for the result of a realistic way of 
) thinking. Here, however, we shall unreservedly describe what will in 
) time to come be a matter of common knowledge, though many to-day may 
) still regard it as a figment of the mind.
) 
) With physical birth the physical human body is exposed to the physical 
) environment of the external world. Before birth it was surrounded by the 
) 
) protecting envelope of the mother's body. What the forces and fluids of 
) the enveloping mother-body have done for it hitherto, must from now 
) onward be done for it by the forces and elements of the external 
) physical world. Now before the change of teeth in the seventh year, the 
) human body has a task to perform upon itself which is essentially 
) different from the tasks of all the other periods of life. In this 
) period the physical organs must mould themselves into definite shapes. 
) Their whole structural nature must receive certain tendencies and 
) directions. In the later periods also, growth takes place; but 
) throughout the whole succeeding life, growth is based on the forms which 
) 
) were developed in this first life-period. If true forms were developed, 
) true forms will grow; if misshapen forms were developed, misshapen forms 
) 
) will grow. We can never repair what we have neglected as educators in 
) the first seven years. Just as Nature brings about the right environment 
) 
) for the physical human body before birth, so after birth the educator 
) must provide for the right physical environment. It is the right 
) physical environment alone, which works upon the child in such a way 
) that the physical organs shape themselves aright.
) 
) There are two magic words which indicate how the child enters into 
) relation with his environment. They are: Imitation, and Example. The 
) Greek philosopher Aristotle called man the most imitative of creatures. 
) For no age in life is this more true than for the first stage of 
) childhood, before the change of teeth. What goes on in his physical 
) environment, this the child imitates, and in the process of imitation 
) his physical organs are cast into the forms which then become permanent. 
) 
) ‘Physical environment’ must, however, be taken in the widest imaginable 
) sense. It includes not only what goes on around the child in the 
) material sense, but everything that takes place in the child's 
) environment — everything that can be perceived by his senses, that can 
) work from the surrounding physical space upon the inner powers of the 
) child. This includes all the moral or immoral actions, all the wise or 
) foolish actions, that the child sees.
) 
) It is not moral talk or prudent admonitions that influence the child in 
) this sense. Rather is it what the grown-up people do visibly before his 
) eyes. The effect of admonition is to mould the forms, not of the 
) physical, but of the etheric body; and the latter, as we saw, is 
) surrounded until the seventh year by a protecting etheric envelope, even 
) 
) as the physical body is surrounded before physical birth by the physical 
) 
) envelope of the mother-body. All that has to evolve in the etheric body 
) before the seventh year — ideas, habits, memory, and so forth — all this 
) 
) must develop ‘of its own accord,’ just as the eyes and ears develop 
) within the mother-body without the influence of external light ... What 
) we read in that excellent educational work — Jean Paul's ‘Levana’ or 
) ‘Science of Education’ — is undoubtedly true. He says that a traveler 
) will have learned more from his nurse in the first years of his life, 
) than in all his journeys round the world. The child, however, does not 
) learn by instruction or admonition, but by imitation. The physical 
) organs shape their forms through the influence of the physical 
) environment. Good sight will be developed in the child if his 
) environment has the right conditions of light and colour, while in the 
) brain and blood-circulation the physical foundations will be laid for a 
) healthy moral sense if the child sees moral actions in his environment. 
) If before his seventh year the child sees only foolish actions in his 
) surroundings, the brain will assume such forms as adapt it also to 
) foolishness in later life.
) 
) As the muscles of the hand grow firm and strong in performing the work 
) for which they are fitted, so the brain and other organs of the physical 
) 
) body of man are guided into the right lines of development if they 
) receive the right impression from their environment. An example will 
) best illustrate this point. You can make a doll for a child by folding 
) up an old napkin, making two comers into legs, the other two corners 
) into arms, a knot for the head, and painting eyes, nose and mouth with 
) blots of ink. Or else you can buy the child what they call a ‘pretty’ 
) doll, with real hair and painted cheeks. We need not dwell on the fact 
) that the ‘pretty’ doll is of course hideous, and apt to spoil the 
) healthy aesthetic sense for a lifetime. The main educational question is 
) 
) a different one. If the child has before him the folded napkin, he has 
) to fill in from his own imagination all that is needed to make it real 
) and human. This work of the imagination moulds and builds the forms of 
) the brain. The brain unfolds as the muscles of the hand unfold when they 
) 
) do the work for which they are fitted. Give the child the so-called 
) ‘pretty’ doll, and the brain has nothing more to do. Instead of 
) unfolding, it becomes stunted and dried up. If people could look into 
) the brain as the spiritual investigator can, and see how it builds its 
) forms, they would assuredly give their children only such toys as are 
) fitted to stimulate and vivify its formative activity. Toys with dead 
) mathematical forms alone, have a desolating and killing effect upon the 
) formative forces of the child. On the other hand everything that kindles 
) 
) the imagination of living things works in the right way. Our 
) materialistic age produces few good toys. What a healthy toy it is, for 
) example, which represents by movable wooden figures two smiths facing 
) each other and hammering an anvil. The like can still be bought in 
) country districts. Excellent also are the picture-books where the 
) figures can be set in motion by pulling threads from below, so that the 
) child itself can transform the dead picture into a representation of 
) living action. All this brings about a living mobility of the organs, 
) and by such mobility the right forms of the organs are built up.
) 
) These things can of course only be touched on here, but in future 
) Anthroposophy will be called upon to give the necessary indications in 
) detail, and this it is in a position to do. For it is no empty 
) abstraction, but a body of living facts which can give guiding lines for 
) 
) the conduct of life's realities.
) 
) A few more examples may be given. A ‘nervous,’ that is to say excitable 
) child, should be treated differently as regards environment from one who 
) 
) is quiet and lethargic. Everything comes into consideration, from the 
) colour of the room and the various objects that are generally around the 
) 
) child, to the colour of the clothes in which he is dressed. One will 
) often do the wrong thing if one does not take guidance from spiritual 
) knowledge. For in many cases the materialistic idea will hit on the 
) exact reverse of what is right. An excitable child should be surrounded 
) by and dressed in the red or reddish-yellow colours, whereas for a 
) lethargic child one should have recourse to the blue or bluish-green 
) shades of colour. For the important thing is the complementary colour, 
) which is created within the child. In the case of red it is green, and 
) in the case of blue orange-yellow, as may easily be seen by looking for 
) a time at a red or blue surface and then quickly directing one's gaze to 
) 
) a white surface. The physical organs of the child create this contrary 
) or complementary colour, and it is this which brings about the 
) corresponding organic structures that the child needs. If the excitable 
) child has a red colour around him, he will inwardly create the opposite, 
) 
) the green; and this activity of creating green has a calming effect. The 
) 
) organs assume a tendency to calmness."
) 
) [Source: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html ]
) 
) 
) and
) 
) (ii)
) 
) "There is one thing that must be thoroughly and fully recognized for 
) this age of the child's life. It is that the physical body creates its 
) own scale of measurement for what is beneficial to it. This it does by 
) the proper development of craving and desire. Generally speaking, we may 
) 
) say that the healthy physical body desires what is good for it. In the 
) growing human being, so long as it is the physical body that is 
) important, we should pay the closest attention to what the healthy 
) craving, desire and delight require. Pleasure and delight are the forces 
) 
) which most rightly quicken and call forth the physical forms of the 
) organs.
) 
) In this matter it is all too easy to do harm by failing to bring the 
) child into a right relationship, physically, with his environment. 
) Especially may this happen in regard to his instincts for food. The 
) child may be overfed with things that completely make him lose his 
) healthy instinct for food, whereas by giving him the right nourishment 
) the instinct can be so preserved that he always wants what is wholesome 
) for him under the circumstances, even to a glass of water, and turns 
) just as surely from what would do him harm. Anthroposophical Science, 
) when called upon to build up an art of education, will be able to 
) indicate all these things in detail, even specifying particular forms of 
) 
) food and nourishment. For Anthroposophy is realism, it is no grey 
) theory; it is a thing for life itself.
) 
) Thus the joy of the child, in and with his environment, must be reckoned 
) 
) among the forces that build and mould the physical organs. Teachers he 
) needs with happy look and manner, and above all with an honest 
) unaffected love. A love which as it were streams through the physical 
) environment of the child with warmth may literally be said to ‘hatch 
) out’ the forms of the physical organs.
) 
) The child who lives in such an atmosphere of love and warmth and who has 
) 
) around him really good examples for his imitation, is living in his 
) right element. One should therefore strictly guard against anything 
) being done in the child's presence that he must not imitate. One should 
) do nothing of which one would then have to say to the child, ‘You must 
) not do that.’ The strength of the child's tendency to imitate can be 
) recognized by observing how he will paint and scribble written signs and 
) 
) letters long before he understands them. Indeed, it is good for him to 
) paint the letters by imitation first, and only later learn to understand 
) 
) their meaning. For imitation belongs to this period when the physical 
) body is developing; while the meaning speaks to the etheric, and the 
) etheric body should not be worked on till after the change of teeth, 
) when the outer etheric envelope has fallen away. Especially should all 
) learning of speech in these years be through imitation. It is by hearing 
) 
) that the child will best learn to speak. No rules or artificial 
) instruction of any kind can be of good effect."
) 
) [Source: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html ]
) 
) 
) (iii)
) 
) "Here we have an excellent opportunity to observe with what effect the 
) spiritual knowledge of Anthroposophy must work in life and practice. 
) When the teacher comes before a class of children, armed with parables 
) he has ‘made up’ out of an intellectual materialistic mode of thought, 
) he will as a rule make little impression upon them. For he has first to 
) puzzle out the parables for himself with all his intellectual 
) cleverness. Parables to which one has first had to condescend have no 
) convincing effect on those who listen to them. For when one speaks in 
) parable and picture, it is not only what is spoken and shown that works 
) upon the hearer, but a fine spiritual stream passes from the one to the 
) other, from him who gives to him who receives. If he who tells has not 
) himself the warm feeling of belief in his parable, he will make no 
) impression on the other. For real effectiveness, it is essential to 
) believe in one's parables as in absolute realities. And this can only be 
) 
) when one's thought is alive with spiritual knowledge. Take for instance 
) the parable of which we have been speaking. The true student of 
) Anthroposophy need not torment himself to think it out. For him it is 
) reality. In the coming forth of the butterfly from the chrysalis he sees 
) 
) at work on a lower level of being the very same process that is 
) repeated, on a higher level and at a higher stage of development, in the 
) 
) coming forth of the soul from the body. He believes in it with his whole 
) 
) might; and this belief streams as it were unseen from speaker to hearer, 
) 
) carrying conviction. Life flows freely, unhindered, back and forth from 
) teacher to pupil. But for this it is necessary that the teacher draw 
) from the full fountain of spiritual knowledge. His words and all that 
) comes from him must receive feeling, warmth and colour from a truly 
) anthroposophic way of thought.
) 
) A wonderful prospect is thus opened out over the whole field of 
) education. If it will but let itself be enriched from the well of life 
) that Anthroposophy contains, education will itself be filled with life 
) and understanding. There will no longer be that groping which is now so 
) prevalent. All art and practice of education that is not continually 
) receiving fresh nourishment from such roots as these is dry and dead. 
) The spiritual knowledge of Anthroposophy has for all the secrets of the 
) world appropriate parables — pictures taken from the very being of the 
) things, pictures not first made by man, but laid by the forces of the 
) world within the things themselves in the very act of their creation. 
) Therefore this spiritual knowledge must form the living basis for the 
) whole art of education."
) 
) [Source: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html ]
) 
) 
) (iv)
) 
) "A force of the soul on which particular value must be set during this 
) period of man's development, is memory. The development of the memory is 
) 
) bound up with the moulding of the etheric body. Since the latter takes 
) place in such a way that the etheric body becomes liberated between the 
) change of teeth and puberty, so too this is the tune for a conscious 
) attention from without to the growth and cultivation of the memory. If 
) what is due to the human being at this time has been neglected, his 
) memory will ever after have less value than it might otherwise have had. 
) 
) It is not possible later to make up for what has been left undone.
) 
) In this connection many mistakes may be made by an intellectual 
) materialistic way of thought. An art of education based on such a way of 
) 
) thought easily arrives at a condemnation of what is mastered merely by 
) memory. It will often set itself untiringly and emphatically against the 
) 
) mere training of the memory, and will employ the subtlest methods to 
) ensure that the boy or girl commits nothing to memory that he does not 
) intellectually understand. Yes, and after all, how much has really been 
) gained by such intellectual understanding? A materialistic way of 
) thought is so easily led to believe that any further penetration into 
) things, beyond the intellectual concepts that are as it were extracted 
) from them, simply does not exist; and only with great difficulty will it 
) 
) fight its way through to the perception that the other forces of the 
) soul are at least as necessary as the intellect, if we are to gain a 
) comprehension of things. It is no mere figure of speech to say that man 
) can understand with his feeling, his sentiment, his inner disposition, 
) as well as with his intellect. Intellectual concepts are only one of the 
) 
) means we have to understand the things of this world, and it is only to 
) the materialistic thinker that they appear as the sole means. Of course 
) there are many who do not consider themselves materialists, who yet 
) regard an intellectual conception of things as the only kind of 
) understanding. Such people profess perhaps an idealistic or even a 
) spiritual outlook. But in their soul they relate themselves to it in a 
) materialistic way. For the intellect is in effect the instrument of the 
) soul for understanding what is material.
) 
) We have already alluded to Jean Paul's excellent book on education; and 
) a passage from it, bearing on this subject of the deeper foundations of 
) the understanding, may well be quoted here. Jean Paul's book contains, 
) indeed, many a golden word on education, and deserves far more attention 
) 
) than it receives. It is of greater value for the teacher than many of 
) the educational works that are held in highest regard to-day. The 
) passage runs as follows: —
) 
) ‘Have no fear of going beyond the childish understanding, even in whole 
) sentences. Your expression and the tone of your voice, aided by the 
) child's intuitive eagerness to understand, will light up half the 
) meaning, and with it in course of time the other half. It is with 
) children as with the Chinese and people of refinement; the tone is half 
) the language. Remember, the child learns to understand his own language 
) before ever he learns to speak it, just as we do with Greek or any other 
) 
) foreign language. Trust to time and the connections of things to unravel 
) 
) the meaning. A child of five understands the words “yet,” “even,” “of 
) course,” “just”; but now try to give an explanation of them — not to the 
) 
) child, but to his father! In the one word “of course” there lurks a 
) little philosopher! If the eight-year-old child, with his developed 
) speech, is understood by the child of three, why do you want to narrow 
) down your language to the little one's childish prattle? Always speak to 
) 
) the child some years ahead — do not the men of genius speak to us 
) centuries ahead in books? Talk to the one-year-old as if he were two, to 
) 
) the two-year-old as if he were six, for the difference in development 
) diminishes in inverse ratio with the age. We are far too prone to credit 
) 
) the teachers with everything the children learn. We should remember that 
) 
) the child we have to educate bears half his world within him all there 
) and ready taught, namely the spiritual half, including, for example, the 
) 
) moral and metaphysical ideas. For this very reason language, equipped as 
) 
) it is with material images alone, cannot give the spiritual archetypes; 
) all it can do is to illumine them. The very brightness and decision of 
) children should give us brightness and decision when we speak to them. 
) We can learn from their speech as well as teach them through our own. 
) Their word-building is bold, yet remarkably accurate! For instance, I 
) have heard the following expressions used by three- or four-year-old 
) children: — “the barreler” (for the maker of barrels) — “the sky-mouse” 
) (for the bat) — “I am the seeing-through man” (standing behind the 
) telescope) — “I'd like to be a ginger-bread-eater” — “he joked me down 
) from the chair” — “See how one o'clock it is!” ...’
) 
) Our quotation refers, it is true, to a different subject from that with 
) which we are immediately concerned; but what Jean Paul says about speech 
) 
) has its value in the present connection also. Here too there is an 
) understanding which precedes the intellectual comprehension. The little 
) child receives the structure of language into the living organism of his 
) 
) soul, and does not require the laws of language-formation in 
) intellectual concepts for the process. Similarly the older boy and girl 
) must learn for the cultivation of the memory much that they are not to 
) master with their intellectual understanding until later years. Those 
) things are afterwards best grasped in concepts, which have first been 
) learned simply from memory in this period of life, even as the rules of 
) language are best learned in a language one is already able to speak. So 
) 
) much talk against ‘unintelligent learning by heart’ is simply 
) materialistic prejudice. The child need only, for instance, learn the 
) essential rules of multiplication in a few given examples — and for 
) these no apparatus is necessary; the fingers are much better for the 
) purpose than any apparatus, — then he is ready to set to and memorize 
) the whole multiplication table. Proceeding in this way, we shall be 
) acting with due regard to the nature of the growing child. We shall, 
) however, be offending against his nature, if at the time when the 
) development of the memory is the important thing we are making too great 
) 
) a call upon the intellect.
) 
) The intellect is a soul-force that is only born with puberty, and we 
) ought not to bring any influence to bear on it from outside before this 
) period. Up to the time of puberty the child should be laying up in his 
) memory the treasures of thought on which mankind has pondered; 
) afterwards is the time to penetrate with intellectual understanding what 
) 
) has already been well impressed upon the memory in earlier years. It is 
) necessary for man, not only to remember what he already understands, but 
) 
) to come to understand what he already knows — that is to say, what he 
) has acquired by memory in the way the child acquires language. This 
) truth has a wide application. First there must be the assimilation of 
) historical events through the memory, then the grasping of them in 
) intellectual concepts;
) 
) first the faithful committing to memory of the facts of geography, then 
) the intellectual grasp of the connections between them. In a certain 
) respect, the grasping of things in concepts should proceed from the 
) stored-up treasures of the memory. The more the child knows in memory 
) before he begins to grasp in intellectual concepts, the better."
) 
) [Source: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html ]
) 
) 
) (v)
) 
) "There is no need to enlarge upon the fact that what has been said 
) applies only for that period of childhood with which we are dealing, and 
) 
) not later. If at some later age in life one has occasion to take up a 
) subject for any reason, then of course the opposite may easily be the 
) right and most helpful way of learning it, though even here much will 
) depend on the mentality of the person. In the time d life, however, with 
) 
) which we are now concerned, we must not dry up the child's mind and 
) spirit by cramming it with intellectual conceptions.
) 
) Another result of a materialistic way of thought is to be seen in the 
) lessons that rest too exclusively on sense-perception. At this period of 
) 
) childhood, all perception must be spiritualized. We ought not to be 
) satisfied, for instance, with presenting a plant, a seed, a flower to 
) the child merely as it can be perceived with the senses. Everything 
) should become a parable of the spiritual. In a grain of corn there is 
) far more than meets the eye. There is a whole new plant invisible within 
) 
) it. That such a thing as a seed has more within it than can be perceived 
) 
) with the senses, this the child must grasp in a living way with his 
) feeling and imagination. He must, in feeling, divine the secrets of 
) existence. The objection cannot be made that the pure perception of the 
) senses is obscured by this means; on the contrary, by going no further 
) than what the senses see, we are stopping short of the whole truth. For 
) the full reality consists of the spirit as well as the substance; and 
) there is no less need for faithful and careful observation when one is 
) bringing all the faculties of the soul into play, than when only the 
) physical senses are employed. Could men but see, as the spiritual 
) investigator sees, what desolation is wrought in soul and body by an 
) instruction that rests on external sense-perception alone, they would 
) never insist upon it so strongly as they do. Of what good is it in the 
) highest sense, that children should have shown to them all possible 
) varieties of minerals, plants and animals, and all kinds of physical 
) experiments, if something further is not bound up with the teaching of 
) these things; namely, to make use of the parables which the sense-world 
) gives, in order to awaken a feeling for the secrets of the spirit?"
) 
) [Source: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html ]
) 
) 
) (vi)
) 
) "Anthroposophy, by its inherent character and tendency, must have the 
) task of providing a practical conception of the world — one that 
) comprehends the nature and essence of human life. Whether what is often 
) called so is justified in making such a claim, is not the point; it is 
) the real essence of Anthroposophy — and what, by virtue of its real 
) essence, Anthroposophy can be — that here concerns us. For Anthroposophy 
) 
) is not intended as a theory remote from life, one that merely caters for 
) 
) man's curiosity or thirst for knowledge. Nor is it intended as an 
) instrument for a few people, who for selfish reasons would like to 
) attain a higher level of development for themselves. No, it can join and 
) 
) work at the most important tasks of present-day humanity, and further 
) their development for the welfare of mankind. (See Footnote 1)"
) 
) [Source: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html ]
) 
) 
) "It is now planned that the Waldorf School will be a primary school in 
) which the educational goals and curriculum are founded upon each 
) teacher's living insight into the nature of the whole human being, so 
) far as this is possible under present conditions. Children will, of 
) course, have to be advanced far enough in the different school grades to 
) 
) satisfy the standards imposed by the current views. Within this 
) framework, however, the pedagogical ideals and curriculum will assume a 
) form that arises out of this knowledge of the human being and of actual 
) life.
) 
) The primary school is entrusted with the child at a period of its life 
) when the soul is undergoing a very important transformation. From birth 
) to about the sixth or seventh year, the human being naturally gives 
) himself up to everything immediately surrounding him in the human 
) environment, and thus, through the imitative instinct, gives form to his 
) 
) own nascent powers. From this period on, the child's soul becomes open 
) to take in consciously what the educator and teacher gives, which 
) affects the child as a result of the teacher's natural authority. The 
) authority is taken for granted by the child from a dim feeling that in 
) the teacher there is something that should exist in himself, too. One 
) cannot be an educator or teacher unless one adopts out of full insight a 
) 
) stance toward the child that takes account in the most comprehensive 
) sense of this metamorphosis of the urge to imitate into an ability to 
) assimilate upon the basis of a natural relationship of authority. The 
) modern world view, based as it is upon natural law, does not approach 
) these fact of human development in full consciousness. To observe them 
) with the necessary attention, one must have a sense of life's subtlest 
) manifestations in the human being. This kind of sense must ran through 
) the whole an of education; it must shape the curriculum; it must live in 
) 
) the spirit uniting teacher and pupil. In educating, what the teacher 
) does can depend only slightly on anything he gets from a general, 
) abstract pedagogy: it must rather be newly born every moment from a live 
) 
) understanding of the young human being he or she is teaching. One may, 
) of course, object that this Lively kind of education and instruction 
) breaks down in large classes. This objection is no doubt justified in a 
) limited sense. Taken beyond those limits, however, the objection merely 
) shows that the person who makes it proceeds from abstract educational 
) norms, for a really living an of education based on a genuine knowledge 
) of the human being carries with it a power that rouses the interest of 
) every single pupil so that there is no need for direct “individual” work 
) 
) in order to keep his attention on the subject. One can put forth the 
) essence of one's teaching in such a form that each pupil assimilates it 
) in his own individual way. This requires simply that whatever the 
) teacher does should be sufficiently alive. If anyone has a genuine sense 
) 
) for human nature, the developing human being becomes for him such an 
) intense, Living riddle that the very attempt to solve it awakens the 
) pupil's living interest empathetically. Such empathy is more valuable 
) than individual work, which may all too easily cripple the child's own 
) initiative. It might indeed be asserted — again, within limitations — 
) that large classes led by teachers who are imbued with the life that 
) comes from genuine knowledge of the human being, will achieve better 
) results than small classes led by teachers who proceed from standard 
) educational theories and have no chance to put this life into their 
) work."
) 
) [Source: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/IntWal_index.html ]
) 
) 
) Clear explanation of Steiner's thinking and what it entails is a good 
) idea.
) 
) 
) Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
) and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
) understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
) people.
) 
) - Molleen Matsumura


Regards,

Keith


Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:19:31 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question






I wrote;

)There is a huge market for what you are selling - huge - you just have to
)identify it better than you're doing.

Walden:

)And that "identifying" means looking at (for lack of a better term (g)) the
)impulse and the relationship between Anthroposophy and Waldorf education.
)As this exercise will include Steiner's theories on reincarnation and
)various races, skin colour, etc. there might not be a huge market for
)Waldorf.

I'm not sure they'd lose customers in the long run. In the short run, yes,
because most people presently in Waldorf are vague on just what
anthroposophy is, and many would leave if they figured it all out. The only
way to keep a lot of people presently in the schools, in the schools, is to
hope they remain vague on anthroposophy, because, as we all know here,
people are EVEN MADDER when they find out much later.

However, after a period of adjustment, and refining their marketing
correctly, I do believe they'd find a comfortable niche, and might even
grow. You and I might not like it, but there is a nice little audience for
anthroposophy, just as it exists today. Plenty of people believe in
reincarnation and karma and are willing to accept new meditative practices
even when they come attached to complex and improbable doctrines. Many, many
people have no problem with bogus history and embarrassing scientific
ignorance. If you look at the controversies over evolution vs. "intelligent
design" in schools in the US, you can see that at least here, plenty of
people are very happy with scientific ignorance, and many are fighting hard
to ensure that scientific bunk is taught to their children. Never
underestimate how many people are willing to accept total nonsense lock,
stock and barrel. 

And we see here, and on anthro lists, that an amazing variety of
well-intentioned people, even people who think of themselves as liberally
minded (not just right-wing nuts) are even willing to defend notions like
"racial missions." Perhaps they haven't thought through the implications,
but they're cool with that. 

)There will be *no* downturn in enrollment when Waldorf gets honest, IMO.


)In other words, what Eugene Schwartz said in his famous talk . . . .

Walden:

)Yes. With the addition of an open discussion about "race."

I guess you're less cynical than I regarding how many people are put off by
the racial doctrines when they're fully known. Much as I'd love to see
Waldorf renounce them officially, a lot of people just don't have a problem
with racism, either don't understand what it is, don't want to think about
it, or actually harbor racist inclinations themselves. 

So while Waldorf might have a temporary PR crisis if they publicized the
things Steiner said "Don't let's publicize," such as racial doctrines -
those who remained would be even more enthusiastic and committed
*explicitly* to anthroposophy as it presently exists. The movement might
well expand.

Their problem at the moment is that they are embarrassed and hiding things
like Steiner's racial doctrines. (And various other embarrassing oddments -
superstitions about left-handedness - icky punitive discipline measures -
belief in medieval four "temperaments" and various other things they're
"discreet" about in public, like Atlantis.) They should stop being
embarrassed and secretive and come right out with all this stuff. 

The movement might grow even more fanatical, I guess - that's one risk. Or
it might become less fanatical, and there would be schisms - there would
actually be people leaving to do "Waldorf without anthroposophy," for
instance - and who knows? the things people like us were looking for in a
school might become more widely available!

It's just too darn bad they don't listen to me! I've spelled out a solid
long-term marketing plan for them . . . but at most it will probably serve
to entertain Lemuria for a few minutes.

Diana

 




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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:27:47 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach




Dan Dugan wrote:
) 
) Keith MacLean, you wrote,
) 
) )It's my view that historians should be observers not players, and that
) )should focus more on recording and analysing/assessing/conceptualising
) )information that is clearly understandable and informative, so that a
) )reader gets all points of view and understands the issues and
) )implications. One can do this without value judgements and moralising,
) )or imposing one's ego on the material. What about Geoffery Blainey as an
) )example of generally dispassionate yet relevant commentary on history?
) )
) )-)
) )
) )http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/stories/s963456.htm
) )
) )http://troppoarmadillo.ubersportingpundit.com/archives/002685.html
) )
) )http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/apr03/blainey.htm
) 
) An interesting affair.


Yes. It's amazing what can be uncovered in different ways.

) 
) (re Staudenmaier's article)
) )The substance seems fine.
) 
) I agree that Staudenmaier's writing is polemical. It's indeed very 
) difficult to handle a topic like racism in any other way. I'm sure 
) you'll agree that being judgemental is a long way from "lies" and 
) "forgery."

Yes, indeed.


) 
) -Dan Dugan



Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:38:49 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question





Walden:
)See, if parents were given important information up front, all this odd
)Waldorf miscommunication would simply not happen. PLANS would probably not
)exist etc

It's really exactly that simple, Waldorfers, take note. Yes - given very
explicit information about anthroposophy within (literally) the first 5
minutes of contact with the school, a significant portion of those making
inquiries would do that "backing slowly toward the door" thing. Your
religious shtick is kinda cuckoo from the POV of not only most "mainstream"
people (the ones whom you consider spiritually clueless), but also to a wide
variety of people who simply have *other* religious beliefs that they are
quite comfortable with, and most parents shopping a school for their little
ones aren't also looking for a new spiritual path and/or a new religious
community in which to immerse their family, or a new lifestyle dictated by a
particular guru.

Those people, in other words, leave right away, tipping their hats and
saying, "Thanks anyway."

The beauty of this is that these people DON'T CAUSE YOU PROBLEMS years
later.

Who is left? Do the schools fold because everyone backed out the door
slowly, at the latest open house?

I don't think so. You were casting too wide a net. You have to appeal to the
customers who are actually receptive to anthroposophy. *Specifically* to
anthroposophy. Find them, and market to them. 

Perhaps the problem with this is that you'd have to give up the delusion
that by insinuating yourselves "discreetly," i.e., by stealth, into the
wider society, you can fulfill some long-term cosmic mission to save
humanity. Bag this - focus on running some decent schools, and find the
right *anthroposophic* customers for your *anthroposophic* schools! If
people can see that you run decent schools, do good works in the community,
etc., and if you can lose the aura of something not-quite-upfront and
slightly sticky-icky going on, you may well see the movement expand.


Diana







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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:59:48 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




Diana Winters wrote:
) 
)find the
) right *anthroposophic* customers for your *anthroposophic* schools! If
) people can see that you run decent schools, do good works in the 
) community,
) etc., and if you can lose the aura of something not-quite-upfront and
) slightly sticky-icky going on, you may well see the movement expand.
) 
) 
) Diana
) 
)

I have never seen a community with enough Anthroposophists to rely on 
them to fill a school.
There is no inherent reason that the general public cannot be part of an 
Anthroposophical endeavor.


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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:24:56 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question



Lemuria wrote:

)I think Waldorf should be doing more outreach to other spiritual streams 
)(churches, synagogues, mosques, etc)where folks might be more receptive 
)to us.

Potentially, though there is a danger there - Waldorf prides itself on not
"proselytizing" anthroposophy (though they go too far the other direction
and don't even *mention* anthroposophy in contexts where it would be totally
appropriate, even ethically required, like informing potential customers of
their services!). The danger is of course offending people who already have
clear belief systems and established spiritual communities and aren't
interested in either running off to join a new one or having the present one
infiltrated by people who want to tell them they're doing everything wrong.
(And you know what I'm talking about, where anthroposophists are concerned .
. . once they think you're a convert, suddenly your clothes aren't right,
your diet isn't right etc. . . .)

You may have slightly misunderstood my Waldorf marketing advice, or maybe I
need to refine it or didn't explain it quite right. It is not so much about
targeting specific groups, now that I think about it. It is much simpler. It
is about honesty. Once you are clear about who *you* are, what *you*
represent, what you believe, and what your goals are - and are fully willing
to explain all this openly and with no details held back because people
"might not understand" - the rest will fall into place. The people who are
drawn to it naturally will come. 

It is not really a question of just where to stick up the flyers around
town, like "Let's try more synagogues," or packaging it differently for
different audiences. (This is just what has gotten the movement in so much
trouble in the first place.)

Diana





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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:09:28 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question



Meant to come back to this, Lemuria:

I wrote:

)Certain types of unkindness to children result directly from anthroposophic
)doctrines, IMO. 

And you said:

)Good point. But I would call unkindness to children a misinterpretation 
)of Anthroposophical "doctrine".
)Not that it doesn't happen.... Anthroposophists can be cruel.

Let me try to give some clear examples. I do believe the unkindnesses I am
thinking of *come from* the doctrines. I do not think they come from
anthroposophists as people, but from *anthroposophy*. I have certainly known
Waldorf teachers who were very kind and very good with children - but they
had to ignore actual anthroposophic tenets to do so.

Minimizing eye contact with young children is a simple example, and
minimizing direct conversations with them, hesitating or hedging before
answering direct questions, trying to distract them from their interests and
curiosities. This isn't nice. Anthroposophists actually think it *is* nice
because the young child, not being fully "in their body" yet, is forced into
some kind of "premature awakening" if looked at or spoken to directly as an
individual, and certainly if direct factual questions are answered
straightforwardly. You're supposed to sort of treat them like they're a
small spirit floating around but not a full person as you would a . . .
person.

Now, of course small children aren't adults and there's plenty of ways we
treat them differently, speak differently to them etc. But the
anthroposophic version of this is a notch further removed, in an ethereal,
unnatural way, almost unbodily way. If nothing else, children who are not
accustomed to being spoken to the way a Waldorf kindy teacher will often
speak (not quite looking at them, chirping or trilling rather than
conversing normally, trying not to use their name very often - I remember
one of our teachers telling me that if you had to use their name, it was
good to try *not* to look at them at the same time; sort of a double whammy)
- when it is something they are totally un-used to - because the parents
treat them so differently, in a so much more "real" way - it is very
confusing to the kids. And yes, unkind. When you are used to being spoken
to, a person who won't quite speak to you normally, always looks into the
distance, seems to be insulting you. To a child, this simply means the
person doesn't like them. (Any of us would wonder.)

Children really *are* people and really do have the same emotions the rest
of us have. In anthroposophy, this is considered literally not true - the
children are literally not actually quite "here," fully inhabiting their
bodies, with all the attendant thoughts, feelings, emotions a full human
has. They're considered half here and half still in the spirit world and
thus oblivious to things that affect the rest of us, and are mainly thought
to be responding to sensory stimuli. I've heard an anthroposophist (an
important member of the board of our former school, dealing with the crisis
of a kindy teacher leaving in the middle of the year) say that it did not
really matter if the teacher was replaced, as long as the new teacher went
on singing the same songs and wearing the same type of dresses the old one
wore.

Honestly - they aren't quite thought to be *people*. They weren't supposed
to *miss* the teacher who was leaving *as a person* because *they* aren't
quite people. This is directly from anthroposophy. He said that the grade
school children could be devastated by their teacher leaving, because they
are supposed to be in that second 7-year stage thing where "reverencing" the
teacher - the actual person of the teacher - is what counts. To the
under-seven crowd, they have no real personal bond with their teacher. It is
all about the color of her dress, and can she pick the right color scarves
to put on the table and does she know enough verses to sing that will be
anthroposophically correct for these young, arriving souls. If the new
teacher can sing the same songs, all will be well. 

Now see, to me, this is heartless. And absolutely clueless about small
children - who can be utterly devastated to lose an important caregiver.

My point is, this stuff comes *from anthroposophy*. This guy learned how to
relate to young children from anthroposophy. In anthroposophy it is all
actually considered a kindness to give them a gentler landing on earth, so
to speak. It isn't just that anthroposophists, being people, can sometimes
be unkind. I really meant it when I said the unkindnesses that I object to
come from anthroposophy, and aren't going away when the school gets "open"
about anthroposophy.
Diana




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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:11:26 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




Dear Lemuria, you wrote:


)I have never seen a community with enough Anthroposophists to rely on 
)them to fill a school.
)There is no inherent reason that the general public cannot be part of an 
)Anthroposophical endeavor.

Is the question then not whether the general public WANTS to be part of an
anthroposophical endeavor?

Diana




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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:16:57 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




Diana Winters wrote:
) 
) 
) Dear Lemuria, you wrote:
) 
) 
) )I have never seen a community with enough Anthroposophists to rely on 
) )them to fill a school.
) )There is no inherent reason that the general public cannot be part of an 
) )
) )Anthroposophical endeavor.
) 
) Is the question then not whether the general public WANTS to be part of 
) an
) anthroposophical endeavor?
) 
) Diana
) 
) 
I'll treat that as a rhetorical question.
One of the things that I think I need to point out though, is that 
Waldorf is being accused of having an evil agenda, but, believe me, 
EVERY school has an agenda, and  public schools have, in general the 
most dangerous, insidious agenda. Are they obligated to talk about it? 
Waldorf is a vastly more open book.
Are psychoanalyists or  surgeons obligated to discuss their methods?
Is every yoga program for housewives obligated to discuss the spiritual 
underpinnings of their seemingly-benign exercises?
 You know that I agree that Waldorf needs to be more up-front with our 
spiritual foundations...to, in fact, wear our spirituality on our 
sleeves; but I often sense that all of the onus is on us.
It's not fair to be taking yoga classes and, in two years, get pissed 
off because you just realized what the chakras are, and that this is 
counter to your beliefs.
 I am glad to teach somebody the rules of the game; I'll even hand over 
the ball and show which way to run with it, but I won't pick him up and 
carry him down the field.
cl


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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:05:11 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question



Lemuria wrote in response to Diana:
) )
) ) Is the question then not whether the general public WANTS to be part of
) ) an
) ) anthroposophical endeavor?
) )
) ) Diana
) )
) )
)I'll treat that as a rhetorical question.
)One of the things that I think I need to point out though, is that
)Waldorf is being accused of having an evil agenda, but, believe me,
)EVERY school has an agenda, and  public schools have, in general the
)most dangerous, insidious agenda. Are they obligated to talk about it?
)Waldorf is a vastly more open book.

What do you think the agenda of public schools. Please remember that you are 
talking to an international audience, many of whom, such as me, are ignorant 
of public schools in the US.


)Are psychoanalyists or  surgeons obligated to discuss their methods?

Yes they are. That's what the medical literature is for.

)Is every yoga program for housewives obligated to discuss the spiritual
)underpinnings of their seemingly-benign exercises?

I think they should be obligated to do so, unless the exercises are 
completely removed from the religious  origin. I suspect this is true for a 
lot of yoga.

)  You know that I agree that Waldorf needs to be more up-front with our
)spiritual foundations...to, in fact, wear our spirituality on our
)sleeves; but I often sense that all of the onus is on us.

Absolutely the onus is on you. The real problem is that Steiner built the 
dishonesty in from the start.

)It's not fair to be taking yoga classes and, in two years, get pissed
)off because you just realized what the chakras are, and that this is
)counter to your beliefs.

It is fair if you have been told that the exercises are about physical and 
mental health and then later you find that they have a spiritual motivation.

)  I am glad to teach somebody the rules of the game; I'll even hand over
)the ball and show which way to run with it, but I won't pick him up and
)carry him down the field.

Who's asking you to do this?

See you, Peter




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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:27:21 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




Lemuria wrote:
) 
) 
) Diana Winters wrote:
) ) 
) ) 
) ) Dear Lemuria, you wrote:
) ) 
) ) 
) ) )I have never seen a community with enough Anthroposophists to rely on 
) ) )them to fill a school.
) ) )There is no inherent reason that the general public cannot be part of an 
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )Anthroposophical endeavor.
) ) 
) ) Is the question then not whether the general public WANTS to be part of 
) ) an
) ) anthroposophical endeavor?
) ) 
) ) Diana
) ) 
) ) 
) I'll treat that as a rhetorical question.
) One of the things that I think I need to point out though, is that 
) Waldorf is being accused of having an evil agenda, but, believe me, 
) EVERY school has an agenda, and  public schools have, in general the 
) most dangerous, insidious agenda. Are they obligated to talk about it? 

You mean, if someone were to ask public schools what they are about, are 
they required to answer?  Yes, I think they are.  What "agenda" are you 
talking about for public schools?  Nationalistic?  Is there some example 
you can give of a public school that has an agenda and intentionally 
keeps that information away from parents?  I don't seem to be able to 
make the connection you are suggesting here.

) Waldorf is a vastly more open book.

Not in my experience.  How is Waldorf more open?  Even when they 
describe, say, curriculum, the descriptions are often misleading and 
don't reflect what is actually being taught.

) Are psychoanalyists or  surgeons obligated to discuss their methods?

Yeah, they are - at least surgeons.  If one asks about surgery, the 
procedure is explained to them.  And Waldorf is educating children - 
absolutely they should be required to explain themselves thoroughly.  
Because they don't, there is a significant and growing public awareness 
of their methods and tactics - and that will continue.

) Is every yoga program for housewives obligated to discuss the spiritual 
) underpinnings of their seemingly-benign exercises?

Are you suggesting that if a "housewife" asked about the spiritual 
underpinnings, she would be rebuffed, talked down to, told the spiritual 
underpinnings of yoga are "difficult"? 

)  You know that I agree that Waldorf needs to be more up-front with our 
) spiritual foundations...to, in fact, wear our spirituality on our 
) sleeves; but I often sense that all of the onus is on us.

IT IS.  It's up to Waldorf to do this.  Reformists inside and outside 
the Waldorf movement have been begging Waldorf schools to be more up 
front with their spiritual foundations.  Instead, Waldorf schools go out 
of their way to HIDE their spiritual (Esoteric Christian/spiritual) 
foundations.  

) I am glad to teach somebody the rules of the game; I'll even hand over
)the ball and show which way to run with it, but I won't pick him up and
)carry him down the field.

The problem is, you invite him to play without telling him what the game 
is about - in fact you tell him he's going to play a completely 
different game altogether.

Pete

Pete


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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 01:28:51 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question



Lemuria wrote
)Are psychoanalyists or  surgeons obligated to discuss their methods?

Medical practitioners in many countries are bound to obtain informed consent 
before most procedures. Have a look at 
http://eduserv.hscer.washington.edu/bioethics/topics/consent.html
as an example description. No doubt the law and practice differ from place 
to place.

Please not this is an ethical issue as well as a legal one. The king of 
proposition you are puuting forward is often referrd to as let the buyer 
beware (caveat emptor). The assumption here is that the seller is immoral. I 
guess you are happy that this is the correct assumption to be applied to 
Waldorf Schools.
See you, Peter




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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:56:06 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Theoretical question



Lemuria wrote:
)I'll treat that as a rhetorical question.
)One of the things that I think I need to point out though, is that
)Waldorf is being accused of having an evil agenda,

What? I have not yet seen that accusation. Have you? Where?

)but, believe me,
)EVERY school has an agenda, and  public schools have, in general the
)most dangerous, insidious agenda. Are they obligated to talk about it?

Again - what? YES, they are obligated to talk about their dangerous,
insidious agenda . . . but as I suspect such a thing might not exist,
that would leave *you* to explain your accusation of said agenda. Please do.
FWIW, I am not a fan of conventional education per se but "dangerous,
insidious???"

)Waldorf is a vastly more open book.

Please Lemuria - head, heart and hands and eurythmy-as-visible-speech, etc?
What about the *real* goods in teacher training or the Anthro message about
the Christ, etc.? Open book - what about the soul work and reincarnation?
Where's that important stuff in the "open book?"

)Are psychoanalyists or  surgeons obligated to discuss their methods?

Psychoanalysts, surgeons and Waldorf teachers . . . Interesting picture
you've painted here. How about a priest being obliged to discuss His
message? Or closer to home - I would have a pretty good idea of what the
Catholic school teachers are up to in the classrooms. Or does "Catholic"
simply mean "wisdom from Cats?"

)You know that I agree that Waldorf needs to be more up-front with our
)spiritual foundations...to, in fact, wear our spirituality on our
)sleeves; but I often sense that all of the onus is on us.

Of course the onus is on YOU. Parent hears about the arts based Waldorf
schools. Parent chats with admin/teachers at local Waldorf school and hears
that Anthroposophy means "wisdom of Man" and that Anthroposophy is not in
the school as it only "guides the teachers." Parent signs cheques and
delivers child to Waldorf school. Parent is later upset that his child is
seen as an incarnating soul by the teachers, put into one of four medieval
psychological groups by the teachers, led through a daily dose of Eurythmy
where the child is forced to connect with the Spiritual World. Etc.

Yes, Lemuria, the onus is on YOU and the Waldorf leadership. No Brainer.
IMO.

-Walden




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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:21:41 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question



Pete and Peter and Walden answered you as I would have done but more
patiently, Lemuria, but I'll join the chorus:


)One of the things that I think I need to point out though, is that Waldorf
)is being accused of having an evil agenda, 

No it's not. It's being accused of having an *anthroposophic* agenda. It's
frustrating for all of us when the conversation veers off into paranoia like
this. 

)EVERY school has an agenda, and public schools have, in general the 
)most dangerous, insidious agenda. Are they obligated to talk about it? 

What Peter and Pete and Walden said: Yes. You are asking this without
embarrassment? Do you think the answer is they're *not* obligated to talk
about it?  

)Are psychoanalyists or surgeons obligated to discuss their methods?


What they said: Of course they are. Would you let a surgeon operate on you
if he or she *wouldn't* tell you what they planned to do? Wouldn't you be a
little nervous if they were reluctant to answer questions about their
methods?  

Or if you woke up from surgery and discovered they went in and took
something out that you didn't sign up for? LOL

Now I admit psychoanalysis has a greater reputation for, if not exactly
secretiveness, less than forthcomingness on the part of the therapist - who
traditionally says very little, and turns questions back on the patient
("Let's examine why you think you need to know this.") It is still not a
great analogy, though, because 1) It's not very often done that way anymore,
I don't think, and I think most therapists today will agree that patients
are entitled to clear information about how the therapist works (I certainly
wouldn't see one who wasn't willing to explain their approach); and 2)
psychoanalysis is much, much more widely known and understood in the culture
- most people who would sign up for psychoanalysis probably have a good idea
of what psychoanalysis is - quite unlike most parents approaching a Waldorf
school, the vast majority of whom have NO idea what anthroposophy is.

)Is every yoga program for housewives obligated to discuss the spiritual 
)underpinnings of their seemingly-benign exercises?

Pete:
)Are you suggesting that if a "housewife" asked about the spiritual 
)underpinnings, she would be rebuffed, talked down to, told the spiritual 
)underpinnings of yoga are "difficult"? 

Thank you Pete. Lemuria: What Pete said. Of course teachers should explain
the spiritual underpinnings, if any, of the techniques they are teaching.

Still, the comparison is silly - and kind of insulting. Peoples' lives
aren't ruined because they didn't understand the spiritual underpinnings of
their yoga class, the way children's lives can be disrupted sometimes beyond
repair by traumatic school experiences. It's not like a yoga class.

)You know that I agree that Waldorf needs to be more up-front with our 
)spiritual foundations...to, in fact, wear our spirituality on our 
)sleeves; but I often sense that all of the onus is on us.

)IT IS.  It's up to Waldorf to do this.  

Again: what they said. 

Nobody's asking you to "carry someone down the field," you aren't getting
any sympathy that way. This is about what to say at open houses and in
parent interviews, what to write in brochures and on websites, what to tell
the friendly local reporter. 

Yes: The onus is on you, and yes, it is completely on you. 

Diana





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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:32:19 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




Lemuria:

)Are psychoanalyists or  surgeons obligated to discuss their methods?

Walden:

)Psychoanalysts, surgeons and Waldorf teachers . . . Interesting picture
)you've painted here.

It is interesting isn't it! He picked two types of professionals with
reputations for big egos, perhaps stereotypically arrogant and aloof,
guarding specialized knowledge. Of course, psychoanalysts and surgeons,
unlike Waldorf teachers, actually *do* have specialized knowledge acquired
through years of higher education and specialized training.


)Or does "Catholic" simply mean "wisdom from Cats?"

Oh, lordy . . .
Diana




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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:04:07 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Theoretical question



))Or does "Catholic" simply mean "wisdom from Cats?"

)Oh, lordy . . .
)Diana

Ok, too obscure, huh? Should have been "addicted to cats" as in
Cat-o-holics. Sorry for the confusion (g)
Point: Anthroposophy as "wisdom of Man" is not accurate or useful to new
Waldorf parents.

-Walden




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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1978




-- Topica Digest --
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	Between a rock and a hard place...
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: Between a rock and a hard place...
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	Re: Theoretical question
	By ldenike aol.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	Court clears school of pushing religion with lesson on Islam
	By dan dandugan.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By pkcompany netzero.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By pkcompany netzero.net
	
	Re: Theoretical question
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca
	
	Re: Theoretical question
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca
	
	hello again
	By pstaud hotmail.com
	
	Italian anthroposophists and fascism
	By pstaud hotmail.com
	
	Re: Italian anthroposophists and fascism
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By feetapparel hotmail.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By feetapparel hotmail.com
	
	Re: hello again
	By dan dandugan.com

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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:27:38 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question





Lemuria wrote:

)I have never seen a community with enough Anthroposophists to rely on them
)to fill a school.
)There is no inherent reason that the general public cannot be part of an 
)Anthroposophical endeavor.

And I replied:
 
)Is the question then not whether the general public WANTS to be part of 
)an anthroposophical endeavor?


And Lemuria blows me off:

)I'll treat that as a rhetorical question.

No, don't. You're bobbing and weaving. Re-trace this: You asked if any of
the critics would put our children in Waldorf if they became more "open"
etc. I replied not me, personally, because the spirituality that is offered
isn't my cup of tea, and pointed out that critics, in general, don't expect
them to change in some qualitative way (i.e., we certainly don't expect them
to ditch anthroposophy) so much as figure out what they need to do to
attract the *appropriate* clientele - the people who are *not* turned off
from anthroposophy the more details they learn.

)From there, we discussed would Waldorf lose clients if they were totally
honest. At least, Walden and I discussed this, and you chimed in to say that
attracting *only* anthroposophists will not fill the schools. Then you say
that, at least hypothetically, there's no inherent reason anthroposophy
can't draw from the general public to pursue (finance?) its projects.

So: we are quite on the same page thus far. No, I quite agree - there's no
*theoretical* reason they can't draw from the general public. And, if we
believe in religious freedom, they certainly *should* be free to recruit
from the general public. I, for one, don't suggest anyone try to stop them,
and don't even personally want them to stop trying. (I may groan when I see
Jehovah's Witnesses coming up my front walk, but I don't suggest somebody
should try to stop them. I don't call the police and have them arrested for
trespassing. They've got every right to try to attract members to their
religion from the general public.)

So where does this stand, Lemuria? I suggested then that the salient
question is whether the general public WANTS to be involved in anthroposphy.
Religious freedom works both ways. I suggest to you now that this is totally
the HEART of the matter.

And that's where you decide to bow out?

C'mon. Answer it!

Diana






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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:01:29 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) 
) The problem is, you invite him to play without telling him what the game 
) 
) is about - in fact you tell him he's going to play a completely 
) different game altogether.
) 
) Pete
) 
) Pete

That is not even close to what *I* do.
That is a false accusation.
c


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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:19:16 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




walden wrote:
) 
Open book - what about the soul work and reincarnation?
) Where's that important stuff in the "open book?"
) 

The "open book" is figurative and literal.
There are hundreds of books...open one.


) 
) Yes, Lemuria, the onus is on YOU and the Waldorf leadership. No Brainer.
) IMO.
) 
) -Walden
) 
I don't accept the idea that ALL of the onus is on me...which is what I 
wrote in my post.
It seems that if I presented to prospective families everything that has 
been suggested by the regular contributors to this list, it would be a 
weeks-long orientation course.
If you think some people move toward the door now, imagine telling them 
they need 10 or 15 evening classes on the foundations of Anthroposophy 
before they can enroll little Rainbowkiwifruit (California!) in 
kindergarten.
Like I said...I'll be glad to point folks in the right direction...and I 
do; and, yes, it has gotten me in trouble because I give more 
information than most, but if you guys are expecting Waldorf schools to 
do vastly more than anybody else would in an equivalent situation, you'd 
better give it up, because you're just not going to get it.


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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:28:33 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




walden wrote:
 How about a priest being obliged to discuss His
) message? Or closer to home - I would have a pretty good idea of what the
) Catholic school teachers are up to in the classrooms. Or does "Catholic"
) simply mean "wisdom from Cats?"
) 

 
OK...let's take this example.
You go to enroll your child in Catholic school, and the enrollment 
person says, "Of course your child will be going to mass every Friday, 
and will likely be asked to eat some little wafers. Well...when those 
are blessed, they become the ACTUAL body... And we have these things 
called Rosary beads and we...... And did I mention the crusades? 
Yeah...we did that...and there was that little incident with Pope Leo 
XII....Maybe you should read some Martin Luther for another angle....And 
have you been reading the papers? Well, here are a few articles about a 
few little problems we've been having with priests....


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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:44:59 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Between a rock and a hard place...



)From discussions in the "Theoretical question" thread and in other 
threads, it seems that Waldorf Schools face a number of issues:

1. The lack of proper public relations information to enable potential 
students' parents to make an informed decision about the appropriateness 
of the school for their childern's education.

2. Unprofessional conduct by both teaching staff and school 
administration towards both students and parents.

3. Mismatched philosophical expectations between Waldorf community and 
the general public regarding education(-al concepts) and consistency of 
worldviews.

4. Lack of technical delivery of the essential elements of a modern 
education to students, eg. literacy; numeracy; reading; physical and 
life sciences; standard history, geography, etc.

5. Defiance by Waldorf schools of the principle of religiously neutral 
education in the (US) public school system where the relevant schools 
receive public funding. 


But the pattern for the education system as a whole seems to be that 
many of these same problems crop up: they have not been eliminated, 
despite the expectation of and on government regulatory control of 
public schools, and ideas about rationality and democracy in education. 
It is a whole of society problem (not just Waldorf): the crucial point 
is that it the behaviour of adults that determines the quality of 
education (or lack of) for children, that human choices and outlooks 
need to be looked at very closely. If you don't look at the source of 
the problem, the effects (including it's manifestation in Waldorf 
education) will just keep on happening and "popping up". And the source 
of the problem appears to be the following:

1. Bureaucracy and hierarchical control

2. Philosophical confusion/confusioned conceptual frameworks

3. Self-interest chosen over and instead of dedication to work

4. Unrealistic expectations

5. Poor communication


Anthroposophy and Waldorf philosophy is plagued with problems of 
interpretation and application, whether or not Anthroposophy in itself 
suffers basic flaws in it's design and conceptual framework. But like 
any theory and system it is open to question from some angle practically 
and theoretically - as has been seen in other school systems and 
ideologies.

In the excerpts below there are suggestions that the education 
bureaucracy maintains and perpetuates bad descision-making, stress, 
unprofessional conduct, and power struggles at the cost of a positive 
education experience for children and for teachers:


(i)

"Government schooling is the most radical adventure in history. It kills 
the family by monopolizing the best times of childhood and by teaching 
disrespect for home and parents. The whole blueprint of school procedure 
is Egyptian, not Greek or Roman. It grows from the theological idea that 
human value is a scarce thing, represented symbolically by the narrow 
peak of a pyramid.

That idea passed into American history through the Puritans. It found 
its "scientific" presentation in the bell curve, along which talent 
supposedly apportions itself by some Iron Law of Biology. It’s a 
religious notion, School is its church. I offer rituals to keep heresy 
at bay. I provide documentation to justify the heavenly pyramid.

Socrates foresaw if teaching became a formal profession, something like 
this would happen. Professional interest is served by making what is 
easy to do seem hard; by subordinating the laity to the priesthood. 
School is too vital a jobs-project, contract giver and protector of the 
social order to allow itself to be "re-formed." It has political allies 
to guard its marches, that’s why reforms come and go without changing 
much. Even reformers can’t imagine school much different.

David learns to read at age four; Rachel, at age nine: In normal 
development, when both are 13, you can’t tell which one learned 
first—the five-year spread means nothing at all. But in school I label 
Rachel "learning disabled" and slow David down a bit, too. For a 
paycheck, I adjust David to depend on me to tell him when to go and 
stop. He won’t outgrow that dependency. I identify Rachel as discount 
merchandise, "special education" fodder. She’ll be locked in her place 
forever.

In 30 years of teaching kids rich and poor I almost never met a learning 
disabled child; hardly ever met a gifted and talented one either. Like 
all school categories, these are sacred myths, created by human 
imagination. They derive from questionable values we never examine 
because they preserve the temple of schooling."

(Source: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue2.htm )


(ii)

"Nothing about school is what it seems, not even boredom. To show you 
what I mean is the burden of this long essay. My book represents a try 
at arranging my own thoughts in order to figure out what fifty years of 
classroom confinement (as student and teacher) add up to for me. You’ll 
encounter a great deal of speculative history here. This is a personal 
investigation of why school is a dangerous place. It’s not so much that 
anyone there sets out to hurt children; more that all of us associated 
with the institution are stuck like flies in the same great web your 
kids are. We buzz frantically to cover our own panic but have little 
power to help smaller flies.

Looking backward on a thirty-year teaching career full of rewards and 
prizes, somehow I can’t completely believe that I spent my time on earth 
institutionalized; I can’t believe that centralized schooling is allowed 
to exist at all as a gigantic indoctrination and sorting machine, 
robbing people of their children. Did it really happen? Was this my 
life? God help me.

School is a religion. Without understanding the holy mission aspect 
you’re certain to misperceive what takes place as a result of human 
stupidity or venality or even class warfare. All are present in the 
equation, it’s just that none of these matter very much—even without 
them school would move in the same direction. Dewey’s Pedagogic Creed 
statement of 1897 gives you a clue to the zeitgeist:

    Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for 
the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right 
social growth. In this way the teacher is always the prophet of the true 
God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of heaven.

What is "proper" social order? What does "right" social growth look 
like? If you don’t know you’re like me, not like John Dewey who did, or 
the Rockefellers, his patrons, who did, too.

Somehow out of the industrial confusion which followed the Civil War, 
powerful men and dreamers became certain what kind of social order 
America needed, one very like the British system we had escaped a 
hundred years earlier. This realization didn’t arise as a product of 
public debate as it should have in a democracy, but as a distillation of 
private discussion. Their ideas contradicted the original American 
charter but that didn’t disturb them. They had a stupendous goal in 
mind—the rationalization of everything. The end of unpredictable 
history; its transformation into dependable order."

(Source: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue4.htm )


(iii)

"Although it appears that our only focus is helping teachers, that is 
not the case. We believe we need to commence with parents to get reform 
started. Educational reform will never begin until teachers have rights.

Most teachers enter the profession wanting to help children, and end up 
submitting to the business as usual agenda in order to survive. It is 
nearly impossible to transfer a teaching degree into any other field. 
Teachers also think that staying in teaching and compromising some of 
their integrity is better than not helping children at all. We believe 
there is a slippery slope once a teacher begins compromising, and our 
profession has fallen into an abyss because the frontline people do not 
work as professionals. They merely follow orders.

School violence; the epidemic of drugs and sex; children sent to 
therapeutic boarding schools; 850,000 home-schooled children; special 
needs children’s rights violated; dumbed down curriculum; miserable 
parents; good teachers fleeing from the profession; age discrimination; 
and competent young people not considering education; are just some of 
the issues we believe exist because teachers do not have a voice.

    Ending the bullying of teachers will contribute to eradicating the 
excessive bullying of children that takes place in our schools, and that 
has led to tragedies such as Columbine. Why wouldn’t stronger, more 
popular children bully weaker children,when adults model the bullying of 
weaker adults in our schools? Is it any wonder that our schools have 
become minefields of torture for sensitive children?"

(Source: http://www.endteacherabuse.org/beliefs.htm )


(iv)

"Dom Antony Sutch, a Benedictine monk and head of Downside School in 
Somerset, condemned the government testing policies, saying that the 
examinations were now so central to education that even the Prime 
Minister had to hire private tutors for his children. According to The 
Daily Telegraph Dom Antony's comments carried extra force because he is 
"as far removed as possible from the stereotype of the left-wing 
educationist opposed to meritocracy and league tables." (League tables 
are the public ranking of schools by test scores.)

"A school is damned because it is 574th in the league table - but that 
school may have worked miracles by giving a child the confidence he or 
she needs," said Antony. "It is shameful to say, "This is a good school 
because it is top of a league table."

His comments made me think of the recent listings of "schools in need of 
improvement" in the United States. I know some schools that didn't make 
the list and I would never think of sending my daughter to them, and 
some schools that are on the list that are great schools.

Antony also criticized the "geek culture" in the government, which he 
says is overly focused on statistics. "People are not machines," he 
said. "We seem to believe that you can fatten a pig just by weighing it. 
The government wants to measure everything -- what are they measuring?"

Good question. Just what are we measuring in the new federally mandated 
tests?

Antony could have been talking about elementary schools in the United 
States when he continued, "Primary schools are teaching numeracy and 
literacy simply to pass the appropriate exams, and letting other vital 
subjects drop. Music, drama, even dance are not necessarily less 
important. We have reached a stage where teachers tick [check] boxes and 
say 'Look how good my system is - it must be working.' But it isn't.""

(Source: 
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/ESEA172.shtml 
)


(v)

"The anti-racist activists at the conference agreed that despite the 
achievement gap between white students and students of color in England, 
the national curriculum and testing system were part of the problem, not 
the solution. Chris Searle, a lecturer at Godsmith's College at the 
University of London and noted author of several books about inequality 
and racism in British schools, described the education system in Britain 
as a "curriculum prison" with the "national curriculum as the prime 
criminal." He noted a lack of international voices or literature by 
people of color in the curriculum and pointed out that when the 
curriculum was released there were no Black writers on the list of 
literature in the national curriculum . Searle also said that between 
the ages of four and 18, students take approximately 75 examinations. 
"Examinations have ceased to examine children's real knowledge," he 
said.

But the people I met on my trip were not resigned to the fact that their 
schools were being strangled by the national government. Martin Francis, 
head teacher (the equivalent to a principal who does some teaching ) at 
Park Lane Elementary School in London took a decidedly defiant attitude. 
He was brought into the school to help "turn it around" after it was 
designated as "failing." The school of 210 students serves many 
immigrant children and has 28 different language groups. Martin's 
general attitude was: We know what's best for children - not the central 
authorities - and we aren't going to stop teaching in a way that affirms 
their heritage and engages them in meaningful learning.

He conceded they spend some time specifically preparing kids for exams, 
but for the most part he felt too many educators in Britain were overly 
intimidated by the national curriculum and examinations. He lamented 
that the new generation of teachers that has been trained in the last 10 
years has known nothing different than the centralized system of 
curriculum and testing. "Teachers have become technicians and deliverers 
- not creators," he said. "The authorities don't monitor what we're 
doing most days in our schools and classrooms. Why not teach in ways we 
know that are best for the kids?" Martin challenged. It was refreshing 
to witness such defiant leadership in a head teacher. We could use more 
of that attitude in U.S. schools."

(Source: 
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/ESEA172.shtml 
)


(vi)

"In the 1992 military-justice drama A Few Good Men, Tom Cruise got into 
a heated dialogue with costar Demi Moore about a point of law, 
sarcastically asking if she was "absent the day they taught law at law 
school." Given the pathetic test scores of America's schoolchildren, 
many are wondering if a similar question might be raised about those 
hired to teach the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic.

Due to the public outcry over low test scores, teachers in a growing 
number of states are being required to take basic-skills examinations in 
their course curricula and, much to the surprise of no one but those in 
the teaching profession, they are failing these tests in alarming 
numbers.

In a nation that collects data on everything else, however, there are no 
national data to identify the extent of the problem. But there have been 
sporadic state and local news accounts that suggest it is both severe 
and alarming. So, based on the small amount of information made 
available, just how bad are teachers in the public schools?"

(Source: O'Meara, Kelly P. (2003) "When teachers flunk the test". 
WorldNetDaily; September 23, 2003. ( 
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34727 ) )


(vii)

"According to a September 2001 Chicago Sun-Times series that reviewed 
test scores for elementary, junior/middle and high-school teachers in 
Illinois, 67,118 teachers were tested between July 1988 and April 2001 
and 5,243 failed at least one test while 1,308 failed three or more. On 
basic-skills tests alone, 66,769 teachers were tested during the same 
period and 2,132 failed at least one test, 414 failed three or more 
tests and 868 failed to pass any basic-skills test.

In June of this year, the Lawrence, Mass., school district put 21 
teachers on unpaid leave because they could not test well enough in 
English to be understood in that language in a classroom. Of 92 teachers 
tested in Lawrence for English fluency, 31 failed and, given a second 
opportunity, only four passed."

(Source: O'Meara, Kelly P. (2003) "When teachers flunk the test". 
WorldNetDaily; September 23, 2003. ( 
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34727 ) )


(viii)

"According to a report commissioned by the National Commission on 
Teaching and America's Future:

    * Fewer than one-half of the nation's 1,200 teachers colleges meet 
professional standards of accreditation.

    * In recent years, more than 50,000 teachers who lack training for 
their jobs have entered teaching annually on emergency or substandard 
certification.

    * More than 40 states allow school districts to hire teachers who 
have not met basic education requirements, and more than 12 percent of 
new teachers nationwide begin with no training at all.

    * When Pennsylvania evaluated its teacher testing, it discovered 
that teachers could qualify for positions in hard-to-fill subject areas 
just by signing their names.

    * In Hawaii, one-half of new hires failed either to complete or pass 
certification exams.

    * In Long Island, N.Y., a superintendent who decided to give 
teaching applicants an English test normally given to 11th-graders 
discovered that only one in four could pass.

    * Among the 21 states using the Praxis I math test to screen 
teachers, most set cutoff scores so low that applicants could miss 40 
percent of questions and still pass. 

Given this data, it is little wonder the testing of teachers is one of 
the hottest issues facing educators. What is astonishing is that the 
vast majority of professional educators and school administrators 
interviewed for this article did not believe that failing the basic 
tests should be sufficient to disqualify a teacher from remaining on the 
job. In other words, the general mind-set is that just because a teacher 
doesn't know the material he or she is responsible for passing on to 
students, that teacher shouldn't be excluded from teaching that 
material."

(Source: O'Meara, Kelly P. (2003) "When teachers flunk the test". 
WorldNetDaily; September 23, 2003. ( 
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34727 ) )


(ix)

"How is public teaching different from private?

"Well, for example, if you were in New York," Stern explains, "and had 
to pick out the 20,000 most-sophisticated education consumers, you'd 
probably say it is the parents who send their kids to the elite private 
schools where they're paying $23,000 a year in tuition for elementary 
school. These are clearly people who want to get their money's worth, 
but what you find in these schools is not only don't teachers have state 
licenses but you can count on one hand the number of teachers who have 
even taken graduate courses in education."

Stern continues, "So the question is, what is it that they do in these 
schools, whose teachers don't have the graduate courses, etc., that 
produce better results? The point is that they use a system of close 
scrutiny of the knowledge the teacher brings to the subject – what 
they've studied, their academic performance and what they're like in a 
classroom – so they can weed out the teachers who can't make the grade. 
No one will tell you that having a license guarantees an effective or 
even adequate teacher. I'm on the side of less licensing and also giving 
principals and districts the right to devise their own way of assessing 
teacher competence. We'd save a tremendous amount of money.""

(Source: O'Meara, Kelly P. (2003) "When teachers flunk the test". 
WorldNetDaily; September 23, 2003. ( 
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34727 ) )


Regards,

Keith


Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:45:28 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




Diana Winters wrote:
) 
) 
) 
) Lemuria wrote:
) 
) )I have never seen a community with enough Anthroposophists to rely on 
) )them
) )to fill a school.
) )There is no inherent reason that the general public cannot be part of an 
) )
) )Anthroposophical endeavor.
) 
) And I replied:
)  
) )Is the question then not whether the general public WANTS to be part of 
) )an anthroposophical endeavor?
) 
) 
) And Lemuria blows me off:
) 
) )I'll treat that as a rhetorical question.
) 
) No, don't. You're bobbing and weaving. 

How could I answer this question?
Yes?
No? 
Maybe?
Some do and some don't?
The reason I wrote the comment about the question being rhetorical is 
that there is no cut-and -dried answer. Like any real question, it 
contains many other questions which continue to be answered.
If you want a simple answer based on my opinion (God help you), I say 
"yes".
I have seen the way most people react to being exposed to 
Anthroposophical experiences and ideas, and I definitely do believe that 
they appeal to many (if not most) people, and that many people do want 
to be involved in Anthroposophical endeavors.
In the same way that other philosophies suited people of a particular 
time and or place, and became a major gesture of that time/place; 
Anthroposophy is particularly well-suited to our time/place.
Fire away. ;-D
cl


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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:45:28 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question



Lemuria to Pete:

)The problem is, you invite him to play without telling him what the game
)is about - in fact you tell him he's going to play a completely different
)game altogether.


Lemuria:

)That is not even close to what *I* do.
)That is a false accusation.

It does sound to me like you, personally, try to give a lot of information.
Sometimes the "you" personal-sense gets mixed in with the "you" addressing
Waldorf as a whole and you as a representative of it. This is especially
likely to happen when you're defending Waldorf as a whole, as you seemed to
be.

I would say that this question of whether the "onus" is "all on you/Waldorf"
is answered fairly simply. What would be the very simplest thing would be a
comprehensive and well-organized reading list, including various
anthroposophical web sites. You don't have to give the parents a 15-week
orientation course as you say in a later post. You *do* have to provide very
clear directions to where to find this material and the nature of this
material - the fact that it is an esoteric religion, that it is not just
generally "Christian" and that the education is not just generically
"spiritual" (and of course, don't say it's "nonsectarian"), but is actually
BASED on anthroposophy. Explain the basics of reincarnation and karma, the
incarnating child's etheric and astral bodies, what is eurythmy, why are
academics delayed and why nothing abstract can be taught before puberty. The
spiritual reasons for delaying reading; the damaging effects of print on the
etheric body. The four temperaments, and the four kingdoms of nature and the
spiritual hierarchies and how the children will be encouraged to perceive
them. Steiner's cosmology and how it shapes the curriculum - planetary
incarnations, early earth history and how it differs from the scientific
conventions (like why they're going to write about ancient Atlantis in their
lesson books, but not dinosaurs), cultural "epochs" etc. This can be
basically a 5- to 10-minute spiel. After that, perhaps up to an hour spent
discussing with parents who have questions, what this philosophy involves,
is quite appropriate when people are considering putting their child here
for potentially the next 6 to 12 years!! 

Yes - this is the onus on you. *What* the parents make of this is up to them
- no, you can't do the reading for them, etc.

Diana




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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:49:48 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Between a rock and a hard place...




Keith McLean wrote:
) 
.
) 
) In the excerpts below there are suggestions that the education 
) bureaucracy maintains and perpetuates bad descision-making, stress, 
) unprofessional conduct, and power struggles at the cost of a positive 
) education experience for children and for teachers:.....
) 
)) 
) 
) Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
) and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
) understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
) people.
) 
) - Molleen Matsumura

Thanks, Keith.
In answer to the questions about the agenda of public schooling, I, too, 
was thinking of John Gatto.
cl


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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:51:43 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question





Lemuria:


)The "open book" is figurative and literal.
)There are hundreds of books...open one.

Fine - open one. Is this what you say to prospective parents? (I don't know
if in your jobs you actually did interviews, then is this what the director
says in interviews?) And while he or she is saying this, are the relevant
books spread out on the desk in front of the parents, who are encouraged to
pick them up and peruse them, and perhaps there is a lending library
allowing them to take one or two of these titles home for a few days, before
the child's visit to the school is scheduled?

Definitely in our interview nobody gestured toward any shelf of Steiner
books and said, "Open one." 


)imagine telling them they need 10 or 15 evening classes on the foundations
)of Anthroposophy before they can enroll little Rainbowkiwifruit
)(California!) 

LOL! I like that. Don't you have children named Rainbowkiwifruit where you
live? (G)

)if you guys are expecting Waldorf schools to do vastly more than anybody
)else would in an equivalent situation, you'd better give it up, because
)you're just not going to get it.

This is a fair point, Lemuria (which is why I'm willing to take it on; it'd
be nice if you'd do the same with my fair points!)

To some extent, yes I think the critics are asking Waldorf to do "more" than
other schools do. Perhaps even vastly more. But, this is fair because what
Waldorf is offering is vastly different from what most other schools are
offering and even more different from anything the parents can possibly be
expecting; hence - yes again, sorry - the onus is on the school to go the
extra mile making sure there is no misunderstanding.

There are quite a few differences between schools, and between varying
educational philosophies, to be sure, but you've got to admit, Waldorf is
just off the charts in terms of anyone's expectations (unless they are
anthroposophists).

Diana 





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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:04:31 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question



I'll take this on too, again because I think it's a fair argument and a fair
point, Lemuria.


walden wrote:
)How about a priest being obliged to discuss His message? 

Good grief - that's all priests *do* is discuss their message. It's called
preaching! They don't exactly keep their doctrines secret!

Lemuria:
)OK...let's take this example.
)You go to enroll your child in Catholic school, and the enrollment 
)person says, "Of course your child will be going to mass every Friday, 
)and will likely be asked to eat some little wafers. 

Actually Lemuria, we have interviewed at Catholic schools and that is pretty
much just what they say. We had it very clearly spelled out that our child
would go to Mass every Friday etc., since they wanted to make it crystal
clear to non-Catholic applicants that none of the religious aspects of the
school, either the explicit religion classes or the actual services, were
optional - EVERYONE will attend and everyone will study Catholic doctrine
and church history very explicitly regardless of their family's beliefs.


)Well...when those are blessed, they become the ACTUAL body... 

Okay, I'm with you. No, I don't think they said to us, "The communion wafers
become the actual body . . ." They did make clear that Mass is a full
Catholic mass and not optional. That is probably sufficient, since almost
everyone in America, unless perhaps a recent immigrant from - where?
somewhre there are no Christians - has a good notion what the communion
ritual consists of. Now the Catholics do understand the communion ritual
differently from Protestants in certain ways, and if they were interviewing
a Protestant family, I believe they inquire further about the extent to
which the family's beliefs might be at odds with what is taught at school.

But it is not necessary to explain what Communion is, Lemuria - everyone
knows. It is ENTIRELY necessary to explain what eurythmy is because no one
has frigging heard of it let alone has a tiny clue what is going on!


)And we have these things called Rosary beads and we...... And did I mention
)the crusades? Yeah...we did that...and there was that little incident with
)Pope Leo XII....Maybe you should read some Martin Luther for another
)angle....

Yeah funny. You get points for humor here :) but none of this is necessary
in a country where nearly everyone knows this stuff. 
I believe it is sufficient for them to explain that it is a Catholic school.
The name of the school itself is usually a good indicator, Saint this or
that or Our Lady of this or that, to most people in the English-speaking
world, I think signifies Catholicism.

 
)And have you been reading the papers? Well, here are a few articles about a

)few little problems we've been having with priests....

There too you are making a good point, but look at this analogy! You are
right - they would rather not talk about this. The church has put forth a
huge effort to hide, deny and direct public attention away from these
scandals. 

So are you saying Waldorf should emulate this?

Diana




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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:15:40 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




 
)Is the question then not whether the general public WANTS to be part of 
)an anthroposophical endeavor?

Lemuria:
 

)How could I answer this question?
)Yes?
)No? 
)Maybe?

I'll tell you the answer then, it's yes, whether the general public wants to
be part of anthroposophy is indeed the relevant question.

)Some do and some don't?

Bingo! So you simply tell them *exactly* what you are offering, and those
who are seeking exactly that, will come. Others will clear out, some of them
knocking some chairs over in their haste to reach the exit. I have made a
case that the movement overall won't necessarily lose clients in this
affair, long-term, though, OTOH, if you do, frankly it's your problem. I am
trying to crystallize this issue for you: it's choice, religious and
educational freedom. Present honestly and clear what is being offered so
that it is freely chosen. Eliminate obfuscation, denial, evasiveness,
"discreet" responses like "Steiner is difficult" etc.

)The reason I wrote the comment about the question being rhetorical is 
)that there is no cut-and -dried answer.

Yes, there is. There is no cut-and-dried answer as to whether particular
families are looking for anthroposopy (though let's face it, Lemuria, many
of your colleagues believe that it families drawn to Waldorf have karma
there and the fact that they are at the damn interview means the family is
"meant" to come to the school. Some decide on even more ridiculous grounds -
I must admit I've gotten a shaky impression over the years that children
with anthroposophically groovy names like Michael or Gabriel or Claire or
Joan or Angela are practically guaranteed acceptance).

But it is indeed cut and dried regarding the role the school must play.
There is nothing at all ambiguous about this. Quit pretending it's fate or
karma that determines all this. IT'S UP TO THE FAMILY and they have to base
their decision on honest and complete information from the school.





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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:52:35 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




Lemuria said:

)I have seen the way most people react to being exposed to Anthroposophical
)experiences and ideas, and I definitely do believe that they appeal to many
)(if not most) people, and that many people do want to be involved in
)Anthroposophical endeavors.

May I politely suggest that you see what you want to see; and also, that you
(read "you" as either you personally or "you" as Waldorf representative, as
you like) likely present "anthroposophical experiences and ideas" in a way
that you think will be palatable to the audience.

What I mean is, people are enthusisastic to "anthroposophical ideas" when
they think you mean things like encouraging children's creativity, a lot of
playing outside, baking bread and playing the kinderharp.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, Lemuria, but those aren't actually
anthroposophical ideas. Those are the same ideas a lot of people have who
aren't anthroposophists for their children's education.

People are not *nearly* so enthusiastic about the more quintessentially
anthroposophic ideas, such as the child as a not fully incarnated being and
having four "members" born in 7-year stages, typing according to the four
temperaments, the specific spiritual hierarchies of anthroposophy, the laws
of karma and reincarnation as applied to children with disabilities, or
children of different races, the laws of planetary incarnations, the future
of humanity on Venus and Vulcan, etc.

)In the same way that other philosophies suited people of a particular 
)time and or place, and became a major gesture of that time/place;
)Anthroposophy is particularly well-suited to our time/place.

This conviction of yours is simply misplaced. This is simple denominational
enthusiasm. There is nothing at all about anthroposophy that is specific to
our time/place, especially when you consider that as we speak, we are people
in a wide variety of places (ok, not times, unless you mean time zones).
That is one of the things that is wrong with anthroposophy in fact - it
tries so hard to standardize peoples' spiritual and cultural experiences and
impose very culturally specific rituals and images on children, where such
an amazing variety is available if Waldorf would only get over this
provincialism.
Diana




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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:37:00 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Theoretical question




How can people (the general public) know whether they want to be involved in an Anthro endeavor if the folks running/putting forth that endeavor are not open and honest about what that endeavor is, and the belief system/tenets behind it?
 
They can't. Some people, in fact, decide to "get involved in" the Anthro endeavor (glad you realize that it is an Anthro endeavor, Lemuria!) on false pretenses. They don't know it's an Anthro endeavor: they are told it's a school dedicated to children's creativity, as well as intellectual growth. (Both are wrong.) Sot, many of those who are getting involved are not aware of what it is they are getting into.
 
If Waldorf would be honest and open about what their agenda is and the tenets that underpin, gird, and form the basis of all that is done at those schools, we could better ascertain whether people want to be involved.
 
Lisa
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:15:40 -0500
Subject: RE: Theoretical question


Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FREE DVR
And up to 3 additional standard receivers!
Call 1-800- 901 - 5080 Today
http://click.topica.com/caaeas1b1dkiGbOrq7Ba/DirectSatTV
-------------------------------------------------------------------


 
)Is the question then not whether the general public WANTS to be part of 
)an anthroposophical endeavor?

Lemuria:
 

)How could I answer this question?
)Yes?
)No? 
)Maybe?

I'll tell you the answer then, it's yes, whether the general public wants to
be part of anthroposophy is indeed the relevant question.

)Some do and some don't?

Bingo! So you simply tell them *exactly* what you are offering, and those
who are seeking exactly that, will come. Others will clear out, some of them
knocking some chairs over in their haste to reach the exit. I have made a
case that the movement overall won't necessarily lose clients in this
affair, long-term, though, OTOH, if you do, frankly it's your problem. I am
trying to crystallize this issue for you: it's choice, religious and
educational freedom. Present honestly and clear what is being offered so
that it is freely chosen. Eliminate obfuscation, denial, evasiveness,
"discreet" responses like "Steiner is difficult" etc.

)The reason I wrote the comment about the question being rhetorical is 
)that there is no cut-and -dried answer.

Yes, there is. There is no cut-and-dried answer as to whether particular
families are looking for anthroposopy (though let's face it, Lemuria, many
of your colleagues believe that it families drawn to Waldorf have karma
there and the fact that they are at the damn interview means the family is
"meant" to come to the school. Some decide on even more ridiculous grounds -
I must admit I've gotten a shaky impression over the years that children
with anthroposophically groovy names like Michael or Gabriel or Claire or
Joan or Angela are practically guaranteed acceptance).

But it is indeed cut and dried regarding the role the school must play.
There is nothing at all ambiguous about this. Quit pretending it's fate or
karma that determines all this. IT'S UP TO THE FAMILY and they have to base
their decision on honest and complete information from the school.

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
http://click.topica.com/caaedmqb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/PC PowerScan
-------------------------------------------------------------------

==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New 
threads are always welcome.

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



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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:42:14 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question





Lisa:

)Some people, in fact, decide to "get involved in" the Anthro endeavor (glad
)you realize that it is an Anthro endeavor, Lemuria!) on false pretenses.
)They don't know it's an Anthro endeavor: 

Right; and sometimes, they're told it's an "anthro" endeavor, but not what
that means. Parents frequently defend the Waldorf schools saying, "Oh, they
told us all about anthroposophy," but when you ask what they think
"anthroposophy" means, they say encouraging creativity, wearing warm
clothes, something about St. Michael and a dragon.

So sure yeah, Lemuria, people are very enthusiastic about these
"anthroposophic ideas." (sarcasm)
Diana




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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:52:09 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Court clears school of pushing religion with lesson on Islam



Court clears school of pushing religion with lesson on Islam
  - Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, November 18, 2005

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/18/BAGLFFQENB1.DTL&hw=egelko&sn=002&sc=991

A Contra Costa County school was educating 
seventh-graders about Islam, not indoctrinating 
them, in role-playing sessions in which students 
used Muslim names and recited language from 
prayers, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected 
a lawsuit by two Christian students and their 
parents, who accused the Byron Union School 
District of unconstitutionally endorsing a 
religious practice.

"The Islam program activities were not overt 
religious exercises that raise Establishment 
Clause concerns,'' the three-judge panel said, 
referring to the First Amendment ban on 
government sanctioning a religion.

During the history course at Excelsior School in 
the fall of 2001, the teacher, using an 
instructional guide, told the students they would 
adopt roles as Muslims for three weeks to help 
them learn what Muslims believe.

She encouraged them to use Muslim names, recited 
prayers in class and made them give up something 
for a day, such as television or candy, to 
simulate fasting during Ramadan. The final exam 
asked students for a critique of elements of 
Muslim culture.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled in 
favor of the school district in 2003, saying that 
the class had an instructional purpose and that 
students had engaged in no actual religious 
exercises.

The appeals court upheld her ruling Thursday in a 
three-paragraph decision that was not published 
as a precedent for future cases, which generally 
is an indication that the court considers the 
legal issue to be clear from past rulings.

The court cited its 1994 ruling rejecting a suit 
by evangelical Christian parents in Woodland 
(Yolo County) who objected to elementary school 
children reading texts that contained tales and 
role-playing exercises about witches. In that 
case, the court said classroom activities related 
to the texts, which included casting a 
make-believe spell, were secular instruction 
rather than religious rituals.

The brevity of Thursday's ruling "underscores the 
fact that what the district and its teachers did 
was entirely within the mainstream of educational 
practice,'' said Linda Lye, attorney for the 
Byron schools.

Edward White of the Thomas More Center, the 
attorney in the case for the two children and 
their parents, said he will ask the full appeals 
court for a rehearing. He said the panel failed 
to address his argument that the district 
violated parents' rights.

"What happened in this classroom was clearly an 
endorsement of religion and indoctrination of 
children in the Islamic religion, which would 
never have stood if it were a class on 
Christianity or Judaism,'' White said.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko sfchronicle.com.

  Page B - 3
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/18/BAGLFFQENB1.DTL
©2005 San Francisco Chronicle


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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:43:40 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question



I meant the collective "you" not you personally.

Pete

Lemuria wrote:
) 
) 
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) 
) ) The problem is, you invite him to play without telling him what the game 
) ) 
) ) 
) ) is about - in fact you tell him he's going to play a completely 
) ) different game altogether.
) ) 
) ) Pete
) ) 
) ) Pete
) 
) That is not even close to what *I* do.
) That is a false accusation.
) c


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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:50:44 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




Lemuria wrote:
) 
) 
) walden wrote:
) ) 
) Open book - what about the soul work and reincarnation?
) ) Where's that important stuff in the "open book?"
) ) 
) 
) The "open book" is figurative and literal.
) There are hundreds of books...open one.
) 
) 
) ) 
) ) Yes, Lemuria, the onus is on YOU and the Waldorf leadership. No Brainer.
) ) IMO.
) ) 
) ) -Walden
) ) 
) I don't accept the idea that ALL of the onus is on me...which is what I 
) wrote in my post.

Your acceptance or non-acceptance doesn't change this.

) It seems that if I presented to prospective families everything that has 
) 
) been suggested by the regular contributors to this list, it would be a 
) weeks-long orientation course.

How about a few sentences that gives parents some clue about what 
Waldorf is REALLY about and that they need to do their own research 
before enrolling?


) If you think some people move toward the door now, imagine telling them 
) they need 10 or 15 evening classes on the foundations of Anthroposophy 
) before they can enroll little Rainbowkiwifruit (California!) in 
) kindergarten.

Not at all - Tell them Anthroposophy drives Waldorf.  Let them decide if 
they need to know what Anthroposophy is.  Saying that Anthroposophy is 
something that teachers read about and that it is NOT in the classroom 
and is not presented to students is simply a lie.

) Like I said...I'll be glad to point folks in the right direction...and I 
) 
) do; and, yes, it has gotten me in trouble because I give more 
) information than most, but if you guys are expecting Waldorf schools to 
) do vastly more than anybody else would in an equivalent situation, you'd 
) 
) better give it up, because you're just not going to get it.

I've yet to hear of an equivalent situation.  Do you have one where 
people are traditionally lied to in order to get them and their children 
in the door - and where such lying is considered morally acceptable?

Pete


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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:00:01 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Theoretical question



Lemuria wrote:
)OK...let's take this example.
)You go to enroll your child in Catholic school, and the enrollment
)person says, "Of course your child will be going to mass every Friday,
)and will likely be asked to eat some little wafers. Well...when those
)are blessed, they become the ACTUAL body... And we have these things
)called Rosary beads and we...... And did I mention the crusades?

I'm fine with this example because it illustrates my point. When we speak
about a "Catholic School," we have an understanding of what
it means. If, during the initial contact between parents and School
Admin/Faculty, the latter realizes the parents have NO idea what "Catholic"
actually means (not likely), would there be a problem for the teachers to
explain at least *some* of the important bits of what happens at a Catholic
School?  Would they feel compelled to utter things like, "Well, Jesus is
difficult . . . ."

At a school founded on Anthroposophy, where the teachers are immersed in
Anthroposophy during their training and where Anthroposophy can easily be
found
everywhere in the school - from the paint on the walls to the Main Lesson
Books and beyond - there is virtually NO information regarding the very real
Anthroposophic nature of the school given to parents before they/we enrol
kids in the school(s). In fact, Waldorf PR seems inclined to steer AWAY from
their own association with Anthroposophy at web sites and the infamous and
widely circulated Waldorf FAQ.  Although Rudolf Steiner was first and
foremost a dedicated occultist and wrote about the "occult" for many years
(check the title of lectures/books!), there is rarely a whisper of this fact
in new-parent Waldorf circles. Instead we hear from *those who know better*
about Steiner the artist, educator, etc.

And Jesus was a simple carpenter interested in public speaking?

I have Catholic friends who fully support their children's Catholic School.
I have non-Catholic friends whose children used to attend a Catholic School
because mom and dad found that type of education to be the best option at
that time.  Both groups of parents fully understand what "Catholic School"
really means. Nobody at the Catholic School tried to pretend it was NOT a
Catholic School

Therein lies the difference. IMO.

-Walden






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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:17:52 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Theoretical question



Lemuria wrote:

) It seems that if I presented to prospective families everything that has
) been suggested by the regular contributors to this list, it would be a
) weeks-long orientation course.

Pete replied:
"How about a few sentences that gives parents some clue about what
Waldorf is REALLY about and that they need to do their own research
before enrolling?"

I agree. There is no need for hours of explanation to new parents. A few
sentences with a *real* FAQ would suffice.

Matter of fact, back in August '04 on this very list there was a wonderful
idea put forth from a Waldorf teacher named Charlie Frey.
Here's what he wrote:

"Hardly *anybody* knows *anything* about Waldorf when they show up at a
school, and most happily stay as long as they can. There is something to
this. The cold, hard fact is, many of the people who would happily stay as
long as possible might leave skidmarks toward the door if I told them
about Lemuria, Elohim, the Akasha Chronicle, elemental beings and both
Jesuses on their first visit. Where this gets irresponsible, though, is
when Anthroposophy isn't even given in small bites."

While I do not agree that most parents are blissful in their ignorance and
nor do I think it is the duty of the teacher to decide how much information
to give to parents in case they leave "skid marks," I completely agree with
rest of what this Waldorf teacher has written. The same teacher went on to
write about what *he* tells prospective Waldorf parents:

"we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our
center, I tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and
ego bodies; and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form
into the room...among many other things."

So there you go, Lemuria. No need to cruise the Waldorfcritics list for
relevant material. One need only find an honest Waldorf teacher willing to
help the Waldorf PR folks with their websites and promotional material. What
do you think?

-Walden






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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:46:18 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: hello again



Hello again waldorf critics,

I have just re-joined your list, for a relatively brief stay this time 
around, to try to share some of the anthroposophy-related research I’ve done 
since I was last subscribed. In particular I want to provide some excerpts 
from the materials I gathered in Italy this summer, as well as some of the 
German stuff that is my usual fare. I will do my best to keep up with any 
related discussion. I’ll post an introductory message on the Italian 
documents soon. I hope that everyone is well and that conversation is still 
lively,

Peter Staudenmaier




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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:02:21 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Italian anthroposophists and fascism



I spent the past summer learning Italian in Siena, Italy, and while I was 
there I found and photocopied a wide array of materials by and about Italian 
anthroposophists during the fascist era. By far the largest proportion is a 
series of articles by Massimo Scaligero from fascist periodicals in the 
1930s and 1940s. For those unfamiliar with him, I will give basic background 
on Scaligero (1906-1980), Italy’s most prominent post-war anthroposophist, 
in a later post. First, some general considerations on Italian 
anthroposophists, fascism, and racial doctrine.

When Mussolini came to power in 1922, the Italian branch of anthroposophy 
was still a young movement with limited membership. By the downfall of the 
original Fascist regime in 1943, the Italian anthroposophist movement had 
expanded considerably. For anyone who reads Italian, an insufficiently 
critical but quite informative overview of the Italian anthroposophist 
movement during the fascist era can be found in the following essay: Michele 
Beraldo, “Il movimento antroposofico italiano durante il regime fascista”, 
Dimensioni e problemi della ricerca storica, no. 1/2002, pp. 145-179.

Already in 1910, Giovanni Colazza, one of the founders of the Italian 
anthroposophical movement, emphasized the importance of racial differences 
in distinguishing western from eastern forms of esotericism (a topic which 
also preoccupied Rudolf Steiner). Colazza wrote: “The desire to exclusively 
apply Indian methods in our time and to our race, means not taking into 
account the fact that evolution has considerably modified the ability of our 
organism, nor taking into account the new spiritual currents that have been 
introduced into the world.” (quoted in Beraldo, “Il movimento antroposofico 
italiano” p. 147)

What I would like to focus on for now, however, are the specifically fascist 
variants of race discourse among Italian anthroposophists before 1945. The 
three major figures in this regard are Aniceto del Massa, Ettore Martinoli, 
and Massimo Scaligero. I will provide historical background on each of them, 
as well as quotations from their work during the fascist period, in order to 
give a concrete sense of how some Italian anthroposophists approached racial 
questions and how they tried to influence public discussions of race. Much 
of what I will present is of a noxious nature; all three of the figures were 
at this time vociferous racists and particularly strident antisemites. As 
always, I am happy to send a copy of the original of any of the material I 
quote to anyone interested; and if there are Italian speakers currently on 
the list, I encourage you to check my translations and when necessary offer 
corrections.

I will devote one post each to del Massa and Martinoli, and I will divide 
the ample Scaligero material among several posts.

Peter Staudenmaier




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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 20:14:00 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Italian anthroposophists and fascism



Hi Peter and welcome back,

 Scaligero has come up before on this list so perhaps others will chime in
to share different research, as well. In any case, I look forward to the
fruits of your recent research.

-Walden



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

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 06:26:32 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question



Lemuria wrote:
)
)
)OK...let's take this example.
)You go to enroll your child in Catholic school, and the enrollment
)person says, "Of course your child will be going to mass every Friday,
)and will likely be asked to eat some little wafers. Well...when those
)are blessed, they become the ACTUAL body... And we have these things
)called Rosary beads and we...... And did I mention the crusades?
)Yeah...we did that...and there was that little incident with Pope Leo
)XII....Maybe you should read some Martin Luther for another angle....And
)have you been reading the papers? Well, here are a few articles about a
)few little problems we've been having with priests....
)


Guess what. By and large the people who send their children to Catholic 
schools are catholics. They don't need to be told the details, they already 
know. The next issue is that Catholic education methods aren't specific. The 
differences between a catholic school and a public school is the near 
religious uniformity of the inhabitants of the catholic school, some classes 
on Catholic instruction and some religious events (such as going to mass as 
part of the school on some holy days). The physics classes (for example) are 
likely to be indistigushable. It may be the physics teacher isn't a 
catholic.

Anthroposphy is much less well known than catholicism in the general public. 
As well it has a history of representing itself dishonestly from day one.

See you, Peter




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

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 06:51:03 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question



I find Lemuria's argument about disclosure to be strangely reversed. It's 
not a question of onus. It is a question of what is the right and ethical 
thing to do. If you (individually and Waldorf teachers as a group) wish to 
behave ethically then it is clearly inappropriate that you taillor the 
information for your own benefit, or to further some esoteric aim within 
Anthroposophy. The ethical thing to do is to tailor the information so that 
those things which are likely to disturb non Anthroposophical parents are 
right up front. If your desire is to live honestly, then it is a self 
imposed onus.
See you, Peter




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

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:09:45 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: hello again



Peter Staudenmaier, you wrote,

)I have just re-joined your list, for a 
)relatively brief stay this time around, to try 
)to share some of the anthroposophy-related 
)research I’ve done since I was last subscribed.

What a pleasant surprise! Welcome back.

-Dan Dugan


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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1979




-- Topica Digest --
	
	RE: Between a rock and a hard place...
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
	
	RE: Between a rock and a hard place...
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
	
	Re: Italian anthroposophists and fascism
	By pstaud hotmail.com
	
	Aniceto del Massa
	By pstaud hotmail.com
	
	Ettore Martinoli
	By pstaud hotmail.com
	
	Massimo Scaligero
	By pstaud hotmail.com

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

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:56:07 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Between a rock and a hard place...



Hi Lemuria,

Lemuria wrote:
) 
) 
) Keith McLean wrote:
) ) 
) .
) ) 
) ) In the excerpts below there are suggestions that the education 
) ) bureaucracy maintains and perpetuates bad descision-making, stress, 
) ) unprofessional conduct, and power struggles at the cost of a positive 
) ) education experience for children and for teachers:.....
) ) 
) )) 
) ) 
) ) Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
) ) and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
) ) understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
) ) people.
) ) 
) ) - Molleen Matsumura
) 
) Thanks, Keith.
) In answer to the questions about the agenda of public schooling, I, too, 
) 
) was thinking of John Gatto.
) cl


No problem. Yes, an interesting chap who seems to have a strong grasp on 
those issues.


Regards,

Keith

---
"What's especially interesting about these mystical teachings is their 
epistemology, which in many respects resembles that of science. For 
instance, while mystics recognize that faith is, indeed, a significant 
part of a spiritual path, they also maintain that faith alone is not 
enough. In fact, according to the mystics, if faith solidifies into 
dogmatic belief, it will actually become an obstacle to further 
progress. As Simone Weil wrote: "In what concerns divine things, belief 
is not fitting. Only certainty will do."4 It was out of this same 
concern that his disciples not rest on mere faith that the Buddha 
admonished them:

    As the wise test gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it (on a piece 
of touchstone), so are you to accept my words after examining them and 
not merely out of regard for me.5"


- Joel Morwood

---

Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:04:54 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Between a rock and a hard place...



Hi Lemuria,

Lemuria wrote:
) 
) 
) Keith McLean wrote:
) ) 
) .
) ) 
) ) In the excerpts below there are suggestions that the education 
) ) bureaucracy maintains and perpetuates bad descision-making, stress, 
) ) unprofessional conduct, and power struggles at the cost of a positive 
) ) education experience for children and for teachers:.....
) ) 
) )) 
) ) 
) ) Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
) ) and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
) ) understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
) ) people.
) ) 
) ) - Molleen Matsumura
) 
) Thanks, Keith.
) In answer to the questions about the agenda of public schooling, I, too, 
) 
) was thinking of John Gatto.
) cl

No problem. Yes, an interesting chap who seems to have a strong grasp on
those issues.


Regards,

Keith

---
"What's especially interesting about these mystical teachings is their
epistemology, which in many respects resembles that of science. For
instance, while mystics recognize that faith is, indeed, a significant
part of a spiritual path, they also maintain that faith alone is not
enough. In fact, according to the mystics, if faith solidifies into
dogmatic belief, it will actually become an obstacle to further
progress. As Simone Weil wrote: "In what concerns divine things, belief
is not fitting. Only certainty will do."4 It was out of this same
concern that his disciples not rest on mere faith that the Buddha
admonished them:

    As the wise test gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it (on a piece
of touchstone), so are you to accept my words after examining them and
not merely out of regard for me.5"


- Joel Morwood,

"Science and Mysticism in the Twentieth Century".
( http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/teachings/science.html )
---

Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 09:46:06 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Italian anthroposophists and fascism



Hi Walden,


)Hi Peter and welcome back,
)
)  Scaligero has come up before on this list so perhaps others will chime in
)to share different research, as well. In any case, I look forward to the
)fruits of your recent research.


You are quite right, Scaligero has been the subject of extended controversy 
here in the past. I recommend a look at this previous material for anyone 
who is interested in the related issues of anthroposophical race thinking 
and anthroposophical involvement in fascist movements. Many of the prior 
exchanges can be found simply by typing in “Scaligero” as the search term at 
the topica list archive.

Massimo Scaligero (1906-1980) was undoubtedly the most prolific of our three 
figures I identified in my post yesterday. I have a very large amount of 
material by him, and I plan to provide extensive passages from his 
fascist-era writings in several posts. Scaligero began as the chief sidekick 
to fascist race theorist Julius Evola, and went on to become the single most 
prominent Italian anthroposophist in the post-war period; today his works 
are highly recommended by English-speaking and German-speaking 
anthroposophists as well. Standard anthroposophist descriptions of his 
biography say nothing at all about his fascist activities and writings, even 
going so far as to deny that he had any engagement with fascism whatsoever 
(see, for example, the lengthy entry on Scaligero in Bodo von Plato, ed., 
*Anthroposophie im 20. Jahrhundert*, Dornach 2003, pp. 695-6). Since 
Scaligero has indeed been a prominent point of contention on this list 
before, I will also review some of that discussion in a subsequent post. For 
now, my basic stance from the previous debates about Scaligero's role in the 
emergence of “spiritual racism” can be read here:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1709750244


And on Evola’s variety of spiritual racism see:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/7178


Before getting back to Scaligero, I will follow up with some information 
about and passages by Aniceto del Massa and Ettore Martinoli.


Peter Staudenmaier




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

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 09:49:54 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Aniceto del Massa




Aniceto del Massa (1898-1975) was an adherent of the Italian fascist 
movement from its very beginnings after WWI, and was a student of Steiner 
and anthroposophy by 1923 (see biographical information and excerpts from 
del Massa’s diaries in Aniceto del Massa, *Pagine esoteriche*, ed. by Angelo 
Iacovella, Trent 2001, pp. 28-29, 44). Del Massa belonged to the “Ur” group 
in 1927-28, one of the early collaborations between anthroposophists and 
Julius Evola and his followers. By 1929 he was notably enthusiastic about 
Steiner and the “science of the spirit” (p. 52). He remained committed to 
Steiner after 1945 as well. Iacovella’s very sympathetic introduction to del 
Massa’s Pagine esoteriche describes del Massa in the 1930s as a “fervent and 
convinced fascist” (p. 33); and even after the downfall of the first fascist 
regime in 1943, del Massa supported the hard-line fascist Republic of Salò. 
Iacovella further notes del Massa’s “participation in the unfortunate 
antisemitic campaign” (p. 33) after 1938. Del Massa was also the editor of 
Il Problema Ebraico (The Jewish Problem), the bulletin of the fascist 
“Centers for the Study of the Jewish Problem” established in 1941 in several 
cities throughout Italy.

Late in the war del Massa published a book under the title *Razzismo 
Ebraismo* (Racism Hebraism; Verona 1944). Iacovella says that in this book 
del Massa offered “an interpretation of the concept of race that was not 
narrowly ‘biological’.” (p. 34) This was typical for fascist 
anthroposophists, who favored a form of “spiritual racism”. For background 
on “spiritual racism” I recommend Aaron Gillette, *Racial Theories in 
Fascist Italy*, New York 2002. At the end of the following message I will 
give further sources online (in Italian) for those interested.

According to del Massa’s *Razzismo Ebraismo*, “the Jewish problem” presents 
a grave threat to the “formative values of the race”. He writes: “Hebraism 
has always and incessantly thwarted these values and their resurgence, 
seeking with its slow penetration to undermine and to smash to the 
foundations the organic constitution of civilization.” Employing the phrase 
“the Jewish virus,” which we will encounter more than once from Italian 
anthroposophists, del Massa declares: “The modern world has offered the best 
footing for the expansion of the Judaic virus,” and indeed the modern world 
has already been “partly Judaized, betraying the traditional principles on 
which the West was founded”. He continues: “in every country the Jew has 
found the most propitious terrain for the flourishing of his plans.” Del 
Massa concludes: “The truth is that in Italy the Jew has been an invisible 
master, has always done everything possible to achieve the highest posts of 
command, in order to conceal himself in those neuralgic zones from which it 
would be easy, without anyone noticing, to maneuver under his own orders 
those who operate behind the scenes according to a pre-arranged program 
whose goal is to maintain Jewish supremacy over the world.”

(excerpts from *Razzismo Ebraismo* in Ugo Caffaz, ed., *Discriminazione e 
persecuzione degli ebrei nell’Italia fascista*, Florence 1988, pp. 62-63)

More on del Massa's colleague Martinoli to follow.

Peter Staudenmaier




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

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 09:56:09 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Ettore Martinoli




Ettore Martinoli (1895-1958) was a lawyer from Trieste, co-founder and 
Secretary of the Anthroposophical Society of Italy, founded in Trieste in 
1931. Italian anthroposophists continue to honor him today as one of their 
chief forebears. A decade after the founding of the Italian branch of the 
Anthroposophical Society, Martinoli became the director of the “Center for 
the Study of the Jewish Problem” in Trieste, and in that capacity worked 
with Aniceto del Massa. After 1943 Martinoli served as a propaganda official 
in the last-ditch fascist Republic of Salò.

Michele Beraldo characterizes Martinoli’s politics in the 1930s as “of 
proven fascist faith” and quotes Martinoli himself, in an official letter as 
Secretary of the Anthroposophical Society of Italy, describing himself as “a 
senior fascist since July 1919” (Beraldo, “Il movimento antroposofico 
italiano” p. 153). A very detailed 1994 book analyzing fascist-era racism 
and antisemitism in Italy also discusses Martinoli, noting several times 
that he was an anthroposophist and observing that Martinoli’s vision of the 
“science of the spirit” in 1939 was “remarkably similar to the vision 
contained in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” (Centro Furio Jesi, La 
Menzogna della Razza: Documenti e immagini del razzismo e dell’antisemitismo 
fascista, Bologna 1994, p. 254)

In 1940 Martinoli published a booklet under the title Funzione della mistica 
nella rivoluzione fascista (The Function of Mysticism in the Fascist 
Revolution, Trieste 1940). Martinoli begins the book by declaring in its 
very first sentence: “The mysticism of Fascism was born when the Duce, in 
the immediate aftermath of the war, took into his hands the rebirth of Italy 
and with it the fate of the new history of Europe.” (p. 7) Martinoli quotes 
Mussolini copiously throughout the book. The introductory chapter discusses 
“Fascism as a spiritual fact”, explaining that “Fascism is a counterattack 
of the spirit against the materialism of the nineteenth century.” (p. 13) 
Martinoli continues: “the Fascist revolution not only brought a new 
political-social order into the world, it also ushered in the beginning of a 
new civilization, one which the white race, having exhausted its previous 
historical cycle, necessarily had to take to heart if it did not want to 
die.” (p. 14) Martinoli invokes the white race (“la razza bianca”) at 
several other points in the book as well, e.g. pp. 18, 32. He also decries 
“Jewish-Masonic demo-plutocracy” (p. 19). Characterizing fascism as a truly 
spiritual movement, Martinoli proclaims: “The impulse of renewal at work 
within Fascism demonstrates that the white race still has for the future the 
task of guiding human civilization toward its further goals.” (p. 32)

There is one further publication by Martinoli that is of direct interest 
here but that I have not yet been able to obtain, a 1943 article titled “Un 
preannunziatore della nuova Europa: Rudolf Steiner” (A Herald of the New 
Europe: Rudolf Steiner). Once I find a copy, I will report on it.

There are also a number of interesting references to these three figures 
(Martinoli, del Massa, Scaligero) available online in Italian. On Aniceto 
del Massa see this sympathetic account:

http://www.airesis.net/recensioni/Aniceto_Del_Massa.htm

(It describes del Massa as a “poet, journalist, art critic, esotericist, 
race theorist, fascist, supporter of the Republic of Salò” and gives 
significant attention to his “Steinerism”)


For a very good discussion of del Massa, Martinoli, Scaligero, and Evola (in 
Italian, but with pertinent graphics even for those who don’t read Italian) 
see:

http://www.ibc.regione.emilia-romagna.it/soprintendenza/htm/menzogna/Ideologia.htm

(this is part of the website associated with the excellent book La Menzogna 
della Razza)


Another very worthwhile discussion of del Massa, Martinoli, and Scaligero by 
historian Mauro Raspanti (a chapter from La Menzogna della Razza) is 
available as a pdf here:

http://www.scuoladipace.org/DATA/download/RazzismidelFascismo.pdf


Peter Staudenmaier




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

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:30:33 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Massimo Scaligero





Long-time list members will recall several lengthy debates on this list 
about Massimo Scaligero and his politics. Because they are perhaps 
representative of anthroposophist attitudes toward their own past, those 
Scaligero exchanges are worth a brief recap. (As I mentioned earlier, lots 
more can be had by simply typing in “Scaligero” as the search term at the 
topica list archive.) The debate arose in early 2002 when several 
anthroposophist list members, including Joel Wendt, invoked Scaligero as a 
positive model in one of our many discussions of race. Peter Zegers and I 
then pointed out Scaligero’s compromised past, which prompted furious 
denials from the anthroposophist side, above all from one Italian 
anthroposophist in particular, posting under the name Percedol. Here is what 
he had to say on the matter in March 2002:

“I only wanted to say that Scaligero did not support racism. Someone 
questioned the content of some articles. Those articles eventually may be 
found. It would take time. But those whose agenda is to attack Steiner and 
Scaligero do not care. They try to accuse these teachers that they were 
racist. And when they convince people with their allegations, what will 
happen? It will not change anything for those who seek seriously.”

This mantra was repeated in various forms for more than a year, with the 
recurring refrain that it would “take time” for our Italian correspondent to 
find any of the printed sources. Indeed one of the more interesting elements 
of those exchanges was Percedol’s consistent refusal to quote from any of 
Scaligero’s fascist-era writings, claiming that he was unable to track them 
down. Again in March 2002 he wrote:

“I haven't yet found any of those articles. Until one of us finds the 
articles, no conclusion can be made. The fact is that it's easy to post an 
article everyday, but to search libraries and contact people is a much 
longer work. It may take months.”

Both Peter Zegers in the Netherlands and I in the US searched as thoroughly 
as possible, coming up with many citations for Scaligero’s fascist writings 
but no full texts. It became clear that these journals were rather scarce 
outside of Italy. So we showed our Scaligero fan what a wide range of 
Italian historians had said about Scaligero’s fascist activities (his 
response: “to some historians the fact he wrote on fascist and racist 
journals made them think he supported fascism racism”), and then included 
quite a few direct quotations from Scaligero (his response: “most likely 
those Italian historians barely read a few lines of those articles.”) We 
also passed all of the Scaligero citations along to Percedol, who somehow 
was unable to find anything at all anywhere in Italy. Again in March 2002 he 
wrote: “To find those articles may take quite some time.” Quite some time 
passed, and in February 2003 he still hadn’t managed to find anything but 
was still insisting: "Scaligero condemned racism completely and without 
doubts."

In Siena this summer I found, copied, and read dozens of Scaligero’s fascist 
articles. It took me several afternoons, not several years. I found all of 
the articles in the public library in Siena. Not a university library or a 
research library, just the regular public library in a mid-sized town -- 
Siena has about 60,000 people, and isn’t even in the top 50 Italian cities 
by population. They weren’t exactly difficult to track down in Italy.

I examined three periodicals: Il Regime Fascista (a daily newspaper) for the 
latter half of 1938 (the period when the Manifesto of the Racist Scientists 
was published and when the racial laws were promulgated), La Vita Italiana 
(a monthly journal) for 1938-1941, and La Difesa della Razza (a biweekly 
journal) for 1938-1942. Scaligero published dozens of articles on race in 
these periodicals during this time. These articles are outspokenly racist, 
several of them aggressively antisemitic, and nearly all of them incorporate 
theosophical/anthroposophical /esoteric terminology. Before I present 
excerpts, here is a brief summary.

Throughout the latter half of 1938 Scaligero wrote a series of articles on 
race for Il Regime Fascista (published in Cremona by Roberto Farinacci, one 
of the most fanatical racists in the Fascist leadership). Some of these had 
to do with “the race of Rome”, one of Scaligero’s favorite themes, some of 
them had to do with “the mystery of the Atlantean race”, and some of them 
had to do with “the true face of Israel”.

La Vita Italiana, published in Rome by Giovanni Preziosi (another rabidly 
racist Fascist), was the monthly counterpart to Il Regime Fascista. It was 
obsessed with occult themes, and particularly antisemitism, as crucial 
elements of fascism. Particularly from 1933 onward, racism became a very 
prominent topic for the journal, along with lots of material on “occult 
powers”. Preziosi, one of Italy’s most extreme antisemites, had a 
longstanding interest in anthroposophy. Scaligero was a frequent contributor 
in the late 30s and early 40s. His articles for La Vita Italiana mix 
esoteric racism, antisemitism, and a form of fascist radicalism; Scaligero 
uses the terminology of "subraces" and "Aryans" and "Hyperboreans" and the 
"I" and denounces materialism, rationalism, and so forth.

The most striking of the three periodicals is La Difesa della razza (Defense 
of the Race), published by Telesio Interlandi, yet another racist hardliner 
within the Fascist movement. Founded in August 1938, the journal often 
argued for a closer relationship between Italian and German forms of fascist 
racism. Antisemitism is the single most prominent theme throughout its 
existence, the defining characteristic of the magazine as a whole: 
aggressive, obsessive, fantastic antisemitism. Anti-black racism also 
appears particularly in the graphics, which are copious. The two most 
frequent and consistent contributors are Guido Landra and Julius Evola, but 
by 1941 and 1942 Scaligero is a close third, and he has the lead article in 
several important issues.

While I will focus on the three periodicals just named, these are by no 
means the only source for Scaligero’s writings on race from this period. For 
example, a 1941 pamphlet by Scaligero, L’India contro l’Inghilterra, 
(Bologna 1941) contains a section on “India and the Jews” (pp. 48-9), where 
Scaligero boasts of the civilizing effects of the racial laws in Italy and 
admiringly mentions Germany’s “determined racist campaign.” (49) Scaligero 
also praises the Axis powers as the only bulwark against “the 
demo-plutocratic tyranny, the real evil of the modern world.” (61)

One important question that remained unresolved in the earlier debates over 
Scaligero was the timing of his move toward anthroposophy. In the 1930s 
Scaligero was viewed, accurately, as a sort of junior mouthpiece for Evola, 
one of the most important figures in the development of a specifically 
Italian fascist inflection of racial theory, who had a generally negative 
attitude toward anthroposophy. It seemed a reasonable enough hypothesis to 
assume that Scaligero did not become a follower of Steiner’s path until 
after 1945.

I now think that assumption is mistaken. Scaligero’s early fascist 
journalism shows that he was already familiar with German occultist sources 
by the start of the 1930s (see e.g. Scaligero, “Pericolo di un mito 
contemporaneo”, Critica Fascista 15 luglio 1931 pp. 268-9). Some of 
Scaligero’s disciples date his turn to anthroposophy to 1940 or early 1941 
(see Massimo Scaligero: Il coraggio dell’impossibile, Rome 1982, pp. 34, 
67). The matter is complicated by the fact that even many of Scaligero’s 
later, indisputably anthroposophist works, while full of obviously 
anthroposophical content, assiduously avoid mentioning either Steiner or 
anthroposophy by name. By my reading, Scaligero’s writings from 1939 onward 
display marked signs of Steiner’s growing influence, although in the works I 
have examined so far he does not mention Steiner explicitly until July 1941, 
in a key article on “spiritual racism and biological racism”.

Scaligero’s autobiography (Dallo Yoga alla Rosacroce, Rome 1972) is 
remarkably obtuse on this and other questions. Pages 35-41 in particular 
recall his personal evolution from Evola to Steiner, but without dates or 
clear chronological indications. Some of his other remarks seem to imply 
that he was familiar with and committed to anthroposophy by the start of the 
war (e.g. pp. 63, 89, 100). At one point he suggests that he was introduced 
to Steiner’s work already by the beginning of the 1930s (p. 81). Discussing 
his own relationship with Giovanni Colazza, Scaligero notes that Evola later 
regretted having introduced Scaligero to Colazza, seeing this as the origin 
of Scaligero’s turn from Evola to Steiner. But Scaligero says that this was 
not the case: “In reality I had always felt myself joined with Steiner and 
with his esoteric teaching” (p. 79).

To give readers a concrete and detailed sense of how Scaligero viewed racial 
and ethnic themes during the fascist era, I will post a series of selections 
from Scaligero’s writings from that period. There is a lot of material, and 
presenting adequate samples of it will require a number of messages.


Peter Staudenmaier




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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1980




-- Topica Digest --
	
	Scaligero on “Semitic contamination”
	By pstaud hotmail.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By cffrey mindspring.com

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

Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 13:37:41 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Scaligero on “Semitic contamination”





Here are some longer passages from Massimo Scaligero, “Omogeneità e 
continuità della razza italiana” (Homogeneity and Continuity of the Italian 
Race), La Difesa della Razza vol. 2 no. 15 (June 5, 1939), pp. 38-40. The 
opening paragraph reads:

“When the ethnographers and the historians rediscover at the origins of Rome 
different peoples and races, when they talk of Ligurians who come from the 
north, of Sicilians who display Mediterranean ethnic characteristics and 
traditions, of Etruscans-Pelasgians and of Italics, of Aryan peoples who 
encounter Mediterranean peoples, it is impossible not to recognize in these 
ethnic branches an individuality of the “Aryan” type, produced by the 
absolute absence of Semitic contamination, let alone Jewish contamination. 
This is fundamental for the history of the Aryan occidental race. What is 
needed today is an understanding of the profound difference that separates 
Mediterranean man (Minoan-Mycenaean-Hellenic-Italic) from Semitic man 
(Phoenician-Chaldean-Assyrian-Hebraic). They were in struggle for centuries 
in the ancient Mediterranean with various weapons. Mediterranean man 
recapitulates in himself the hero and the priest, he bears the “Apollonian” 
spirit, the classic, “solar” spirit; while Semitic man is the merchant, the 
nomad, the invader, bearer of obscure “Telluric” cults and of a 
sensualistic-individualistic religion.” (p. 38)

Scaligero uses the theosophical-anthroposophical term “sottorazze” 
(subraces) throughout this article, along with references to the 
“Atlanteans”, “Hyperboreans”, etc. Noting the presence of “Aryan” and 
“Nordic” components within the “Italian race”, he praises “the profound 
resistance of a superior ethnic element that keeps itself awake” in the face 
of various threats to its racial character (p. 40). Scaligero declares that 
the rightful role of the “Aryan peoples” is “world conquest and the 
consolidation of colonial hegemony.” (p. 40) Invoking the German-Italian 
axis, Scaligero points to the “two fundamental sub-races of the Aryan 
stock”, and the article is accompanied by copious photographs of Nazi 
military paraphernalia, with numerous swastikas, as well as fasces; indeed 
this entire issue of the periodical is “dedicated to the two races of the 
Axis”. Scaligero’s closing paragraph reads:

“It is these Italian racial values with their perennial character, whether 
in the sense of civilization or in a strict biological sense, that are 
resurfacing in the heroic spiritual climate of the Great War and of the 
Fascist Revolution: today, through the new racist action, they provide 
impulses toward the fertile union of the Aryan sub-races for the unified and 
integral reconstitution of the ancient inextinguishable “solar” race.” (p. 
40)


Peter Staudenmaier




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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:18:42 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




ldenike aol.com wrote:
)  
) If Waldorf would be honest and open about what their agenda is and the 
) tenets that underpin, gird, and form the basis of all that is done at 
) those schools, we could better ascertain whether people want to be 
) involved.
)  
) Lisa
)  
)  
I feel you...as they say.
cl


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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:21:44 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




Diana Winters wrote:
)) 
) So sure yeah, Lemuria, people are very enthusiastic about these
) "anthroposophic ideas." (sarcasm)
) Diana
) 
) 

Actually...you might be really surprised to know how many people just 
don't want to know.
It's like the sausage analogy...it tastes good...please don't tell me 
how it's made and ruin it for me.
BTW...I keep handing them reading material anyway.
cl


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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:28:54 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




walden wrote:
) 
) Lemuria wrote:
) 
) ) It seems that if I presented to prospective families everything that has
) ) been suggested by the regular contributors to this list, it would be a
) ) weeks-long orientation course.
) 
) Pete replied:
) "How about a few sentences that gives parents some clue about what
) Waldorf is REALLY about and that they need to do their own research
) before enrolling?"
) 
) I agree. There is no need for hours of explanation to new parents. A few
) sentences with a *real* FAQ would suffice.
) 
) Matter of fact, back in August '04 on this very list there was a 
) wonderful
) idea put forth from a Waldorf teacher named Charlie Frey.
) Here's what he wrote:
) 
) "Hardly *anybody* knows *anything* about Waldorf when they show up at a
) school, and most happily stay as long as they can. There is something to
) this. The cold, hard fact is, many of the people who would happily stay 
) as
) long as possible might leave skidmarks toward the door if I told them
) about Lemuria, Elohim, the Akasha Chronicle, elemental beings and both
) Jesuses on their first visit. Where this gets irresponsible, though, is
) when Anthroposophy isn't even given in small bites."
) 
) While I do not agree that most parents are blissful in their ignorance 
) and
) nor do I think it is the duty of the teacher to decide how much 
) information
) to give to parents in case they leave "skid marks," I completely agree 
) with
) rest of what this Waldorf teacher has written. The same teacher went on 
) to
) write about what *he* tells prospective Waldorf parents:
) 
) "we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our
) center, I tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and
) ego bodies; and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form
) into the room...among many other things."
) 
) So there you go, Lemuria. No need to cruise the Waldorfcritics list for
) relevant material. One need only find an honest Waldorf teacher willing 
) to
) help the Waldorf PR folks with their websites and promotional material. 
) What
) do you think?
) 
) -Walden
) 
)
Charlie Frey?!??!?!
I LOVE that guy!
I'm sure that the people who fired him will be desperately sorry some 
day...if they're not already!
;-}
cl
cl


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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1981




-- Topica Digest --
	
	The Features of Fascism
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
	
	RE: The Features of Fascism
	By pstaud hotmail.com
	
	Re: The Features of Fascism
	By dan dandugan.com
	
	Re: Theoretical question
	By ldenike aol.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	the nature of history
	By pstaud hotmail.com
	
	my exchange with Goran Fant
	By pstaud hotmail.com
	
	RE: the nature of history
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	Re: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By pstaud hotmail.com
	
	RE: the nature of history
	By pkcompany netzero.net
	
	Re: Theoretical question
	By awaldenpond shaw.ca
	
	RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au

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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:15:49 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: The Features of Fascism



"Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt"
	
By Umberto Eco

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html


Regards,

Keith


Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:54:36 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: The Features of Fascism



Hi Keith,

Eco's article is a fine summary, though unfortunately the Utne version omits 
his autobiographical introductory section. The fact that he begins his 
typology with a discussion of Traditionalism suggests that he had Evola and 
comrades primarily in mind. I think his point 12 only has limited validity, 
but aside from that what he offers is a useful way of getting at the 
ideological underpinnings of classical fascist movements. I would be 
interested to hear what you think of his analysis, and how you see it in 
relation to the material from del Massa, Martinoli, and Scaligero.

By the way, a listmate recommended I take a look at the exchange on the 
nature of history from last week; I will try to do that today before I get 
back to Scaligero.

I never got a reply from you to my last message in our earlier exchange on 
Steiner's racial doctrines, and I would still welcome one.

Greetings,

Peter Staudenmaier



)"Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt"
)
)By Umberto Eco
)
)http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html
)
)
)Regards,
)
)Keith




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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:20:27 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: The Features of Fascism



Keith, you pointed us to:

)"Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt"
)
)By Umberto Eco
)
)http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

Thanks. Most items on his characteristics of fascism list resonate 
with Anthroposophy for me.

-Dan Dugan


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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:35:05 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Theoretical question




Um, please don't. (g)
 
Lisa 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:18:42 +0000
Subject: RE: Theoretical question


Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FREE DVR
And up to 3 additional standard receivers!
Call 1-800- 901 - 5080 Today
http://click.topica.com/caaeas1b1dkiGbOrq7Ba/DirectSatTV
-------------------------------------------------------------------


ldenike aol.com wrote:
)  
) If Waldorf would be honest and open about what their agenda is and the 
) tenets that underpin, gird, and form the basis of all that is done at 
) those schools, we could better ascertain whether people want to be 
) involved.
)  
) Lisa
)  
)  
I feel you...as they say.
cl

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
http://click.topica.com/caaedmqb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/PC PowerScan
-------------------------------------------------------------------

==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New 
threads are always welcome.

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



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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:26:10 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question






Lemuria:

)Actually...you might be really surprised to know how many people just 
)don't want to know.

No! I think you are far off base. You seem totally unaware how self-serving
your reasoning is.

Lemuria, you are quite correct that many, many people do not want to know
much about anthroposophy. The irony is you do not know how correct you are!

But that's not what we're talking about. What parents need to know is how
anthroposophy affects and undergirds their children's education. Missing
this piece, it is no wonder they kinda blow you off when you start talking
about anthroposophy.

If you have parents in for a conference about their child, for instance, and
you have shown them the beautiful Main Lesson Book and talked about how Suzy
is doing in Form Drawing, Eurythmy, and Handwork, and as they are standing
up to leave, you suddenly say, "Would you like to know more about
anthroposophy? I happen to have a Steiner book here on the karma of
planetary incarnations in the Hyporborean Epoch . . ." I think you cannot be
surprised if most will say, somewhat confused, "Er . . . no thanks. Not
really! Maybe another time?"

They just think you are a little weird, friend. Sorry. 

That is *different* from explaining to parents that they need to have
information about anthroposophy because it is the origin of and shapes the
curriculum, teaching methods, and child development theory at this school
and influences practically everything the teachers do and say to their child
all day long.

Do you see a difference there? Worldwide, very few people are interested in
anthroposophy. Many parents are, however, extremely interested in things
that deeply affect their children's education. What they may not get is the
CONNECTION. Once they figure out that anthroposophy explains nearly
everything going on in this school, you may see a lightbulb go off! "Let me
see that Steiner book again. Steiner said to emphasize what about ancient
Persia? What is this about cultural epochs?" As long as they think this tiny
little esoteric religion that you mumble about occasionally, and that they
had never heard of before Waldorf, is just the personal, eccentric shared
interest of several of the teachers at this quaint little school ("Somebody
said there's a study group?") no, very few will want to be proselytized
about anthroposophy. When you start explaining what they REALLY need to
know, you may find quite a few more are interested in listening!

Do you have kids, Lemuria? Parents in any school put up with the unexpected
quirks of our children's teachers (and of course, they put up with ours). It
is a normal attitude, to think, Who knows what he/she believes, who knows
what he/she does on the weekend, it is not my business as long as things are
going along well for Junior at school. Most of us would politely decline,
and be a little weirded out, if the teacher, out of the blue, handed us
reading material about their personal religious inclinations.

Explain to parents what's really going on in a Waldorf school, Lemuria.
Explain *why* they need to be interested in anthroposophy.

Diana




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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:34:53 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question



Lemuria, also keep in mind just how confusing and unpalatable anthroposophy
is, and how many things work against people (frankly) giving a hoot about
it. When you have been immersed in a religion for so many years, and built
your life around it, as you have, Lemuria, perhaps it's hard to remember
that other people have their lives built around *other* things - things
that, to them, are equally important, careers, family, causes, other
religions! Many things compete for parents' attention, parents are very
busy, and most aren't interested in reorganizing their spiritual life (as
anthroposophy requires) just because their child's teacher is a member of
this little sect that believes (like all little sects) that they are saving
the world. It is normal that people are are averse to this without good
cause - we are all inundated with exhortations to try this, try that, try
the other thing to improve our lives, all day long, and anthroposophy is
just one more.

If you want parents to understand just *why* they "need to know" all about
anthroposophy, you'll have to . . . tell them. It's because their child's
education is based on it.
Diana





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

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:41:51 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question




Diana Winters wrote:
) 
) 
) 
) 
) Lemuria:
) 
) )Actually...you might be really surprised to know how many people just 
) )don't want to know.
) 
) No! I think you are far off base. You seem totally unaware how 
) self-serving
) your reasoning is.
) 
) Lemuria, you are quite correct that many, many people do not want to 
) know
) much about anthroposophy. The irony is you do not know how correct you 
) are!
) 
) But that's not what we're talking about. What parents need to know is 
) how
) anthroposophy affects and undergirds their children's education. Missing
) this piece, it is no wonder they kinda blow you off when you start 
) talking
) about anthroposophy.
) 
) If you have parents in for a conference about their child, for instance, 
) and
) you have shown them the beautiful Main Lesson Book and talked about how 
) Suzy
) is doing in Form Drawing, Eurythmy, and Handwork, and as they are 
) standing
) up to leave, you suddenly say, "Would you like to know more about
) anthroposophy? I happen to have a Steiner book here on the karma of
) planetary incarnations in the Hyporborean Epoch . . ." I think you 
) cannot be
) surprised if most will say, somewhat confused, "Er . . . no thanks. Not
) really! Maybe another time?"
) 
) They just think you are a little weird, friend. Sorry. 
) 
) That is *different* from explaining to parents that they need to have
) information about anthroposophy because it is the origin of and shapes 
) the
) curriculum, teaching methods, and child development theory at this 
) school
) and influences practically everything the teachers do and say to their 
) child
) all day long.
) 
) Do you see a difference there? Worldwide, very few people are interested 
) in
) anthroposophy. Many parents are, however, extremely interested in things
) that deeply affect their children's education. What they may not get is 
) the
) CONNECTION. Once they figure out that anthroposophy explains nearly
) everything going on in this school, you may see a lightbulb go off! "Let 
) me
) see that Steiner book again. Steiner said to emphasize what about 
) ancient
) Persia? What is this about cultural epochs?" As long as they think this 
) tiny
) little esoteric religion that you mumble about occasionally, and that 
) they
) had never heard of before Waldorf, is just the personal, eccentric 
) shared
) interest of several of the teachers at this quaint little school 
) ("Somebody
) said there's a study group?") no, very few will want to be proselytized
) about anthroposophy. When you start explaining what they REALLY need to
) know, you may find quite a few more are interested in listening!
) 
) Do you have kids, Lemuria? Parents in any school put up with the 
) unexpected
) quirks of our children's teachers (and of course, they put up with 
) ours). It
) is a normal attitude, to think, Who knows what he/she believes, who 
) knows
) what he/she does on the weekend, it is not my business as long as things 
) are
) going along well for Junior at school. Most of us would politely 
) decline,
) and be a little weirded out, if the teacher, out of the blue, handed us
) reading material about their personal religious inclinations.
) 
) Explain to parents what's really going on in a Waldorf school, Lemuria.
) Explain *why* they need to be interested in anthroposophy.
) 
) Diana
) 
Don't get all in a lather, Diana. ;-)
I think I've been pretty clear over the years (in my last incarnation on 
the list, too) about my dedication to openness with parents. But I can 
tell you from years of experience that there are also parents who don't 
care, irrespective of the context. And, my approach is almost 
exclusively as follows: "This is what I believe and this is the stuff 
that directly affects how I see and educate YOUR child. If you want to 
know what I'm doing, and what eyes I'm looking through when I see your 
child, you should read THIS. This is stuff that you really should know 
if you're going to send your child to school here."
I'm telling you...most still don't bother.
I wish they would.
cl


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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:24:54 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Theoretical question



Lemuria wrote:

)Don't get all in a lather, Diana. ;-)
)I think I've been pretty clear over the years (in my last incarnation on 
)the list, too) about my dedication to openness with parents. 

Fine - so what was all that petulant whining last week about "Why is all the
onus on me?"?

But this is not about you personally. It could be that you personally are
totally dedicated to openness about anthroposophy with your students'
parents. I'm very willing to believe you have often done this if you say you
have. Then the only problem you face is . . . the school firing you for this
openness.

One teacher in a school can't do it. It's not so much the individual
teacher's comments to parents coming in for their conferences. It has to be
*systematic* - it has to be presented coherently and explicitly from the
parents' FIRST, superficial contacts with the school, not piecemeal over the
years. It is already too late when the parents are sitting there looking at
the child's eurythmy report.


)But I can tell you from years of experience that there are also parents who
)don't care, irrespective of the context. 

Lemuria (I am having such a hard time not using your name!), I know that in
any school, there are parents who truly don't care, or manage to give a very
good impression that they don't care. Nevertheless, I'm really not buying
that this is the case with a great majority in a Waldorf school. I'm just
not. I've been a Waldorf parent, remember? They are among the most dedicated
parents, most involved and impassioned for their children's education and
well being on the planet. The occasional deadbeat who drops off and picks up
and doesn't care what goes on at the school, doesn't know anyone, doesn't
volunteer, doesn't return the teacher's calls, or is too busy with their
high-powered career, is not the real story here, and we all know it. Those
people just don't (usually) send their children to Waldorf.

)nd, my approach is almost exclusively as follows: "This is what I believe
)and this is the stuff that directly affects how I see and educate YOUR
)child. If you want to know what I'm doing, and what eyes I'm looking
)through when I see your child, you should read THIS. This is stuff that you
)really should know if you're going to send your child to school here."

Okay, that sounds fine to me. Again, it's the back-up and the commitment
from the school that makes the difference. The tone is set at the top - by
the administration. If this is all coming to the parents as a shock or an
anomaly when the child has already been there some period of time, it is too
little, too late, hence the hands over the ears, the sense that the parents
can't deal with something going wrong with this now. 

I do know there are Waldorf parents taking the attitude "Better not to
know." (Especially when someone mentions the racist Steiner, you see people
leaving the room quickly.) This is not from lack of caring, lack of interest
in the foundations of the education. It can come from the sense that their
hands are tied. Why anguish about it, if it can't be changed? The child is
settled, the child has friends. Often, a number of crises have been
weathered already, and the parents have already put in a staggering amount
of work for the school. The child can't read, the curriculum is increasingly
odd, disturbing incidents are reaching a critical mass, these are serious
problems, but . . . the other schools won't TAKE the child who can't read,
Lemuria, and they feel like they can't leave NOW, having had their faith in
Waldorf severely tested already and lived to tell about it. Some families
are STUCK. And in that position, perhaps being asked if they want to hear
more about Rudolf Steiner is adding insult to injury. By then they want to
hear *less* about Rudolf Steiner.


)I'm telling you...most still don't bother.
)I wish they would.

What you perhaps don't know is the proportion who do read some of it, go
home and look at each other and say, "Good lord, what have we gotten
ourselves into?" And yet, what are the exit options? What is the exit
strategy? It can be tough. Next time you hand them Rudolf Steiner, you have
the distinct impression they are restraining themselves from hitting you?
Diana




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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:22:38 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: the nature of history





I've just looked at last week's exchange on the nature of history and my 
approach to it. I think Keith pulled together a number of thoughtful and 
relevant passages about how historians work, and I gladly endorse virtually 
everything in that first post. (It does sound like Keith may have mistaken 
me for a marxist, something I find fairly common among admirers of Steiner, 
but I don’t think this makes much of a difference in the present context.) I 
disagree with Keith’s view on the appropriate relationship between 
historical interpretation and political argument. If I’m reading him right, 
he proposes a sort of abstentionism on the part of historians, which I 
consider misguided in principle, and particularly so when the topic under 
discussion is race thinking. All historical interpretation involves a 
measure of political judgement and an inevitable moment of ethical 
evaluation; this is a good thing, not a bad thing, and it works best when 
made explicit. In any case, the one example of my work that Keith mentions 
in this thread is an article for a popular audience, part of an 
unequivocally polemical exchange with Swedish anthroposophist Göran Fant. I 
will have more to say on that exchange in a moment, because I think Keith 
has misunderstood its origins. It seems to me that the exchange with Fant is 
not an especially sensible choice for the point Keith wanted to make, and if 
part of the concern here really is my own approach to historical writing, I 
recommend instead a look at my two recent scholarly publications on 
anthroposophy: an article on “Rudolf Steiner and the Jewish Question” in the 
latest Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, and an article on “Racial and Ethnic 
Evolution in Rudolf Steiner’s Anthroposophy”, forthcoming in Cultic Studies 
Review, currently available at the waldorfcritics website:

http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Staudenmaier%20AFF%200410.html

I welcome critical commentary from Keith and anyone else on these analyses.

Peter Staudenmaier




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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:33:09 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: my exchange with Goran Fant




In last week's discussion, Keith McLean took umbrage at the tone of my 
rejoinder to Göran Fant from 2001. It’s a little hard to take Keith’s 
comments on this exchange entirely seriously. He can't really mean what he 
says about my tone and style, unless he simply hasn’t read Fant’s own 
article, to which my article replied (it is my reply that Keith quotes 
disapprovingly). As we’ll see in a moment, any complaints Keith might have 
about my rhetorical style plainly apply even more directly to Fant’s initial 
piece. Fant compares me, among other things, to holocaust deniers. Keith may 
be unfamiliar with the content of Fant’s article, but I don’t quite 
understand how he could have been unaware of its existence.

Keith’s analysis not only strikes me as backwards, it seems oblivious to the 
context of the exchange as a whole. Both Fant’s article and my response were 
solicited by the Swedish magazine Folkvett. Fant is a music teacher at a 
Waldorf school in Sweden. Folkvett is dedicated to “popular education”, in 
their own words, not to scholarly etiquette. This was not an exchange 
between historians, it was not published in a professional journal, and its 
very reason for existence was to address issues of concern to both 
anthroposophists and non-anthroposophists today, in an openly controversial 
manner. None of the participants was under the illusion that this was an 
instance of academic discourse or dispassionate inquiry. The final three 
paragraphs of my reply to Fant, which Keith quoted, are quite explicit about 
this – as is, for that matter, the entire exchange, on both sides.

Moreover, it is difficult to discern what this might have to do with Keith’s 
reflections on the nature of history. Of the five phrases from my reply to 
Fant that Keith singles out as problematic, only one refers to a historical 
figure (namely Steiner); the other four refer unambiguously to my 
contemporaries and interlocutors, including Fant himself. There is of course 
nothing wrong with judging the arguments put forward by one’s debating 
counterparts and finding them severely wanting; this is indeed exactly the 
point of that sort of exchange.

Although the real disagreement between me and Keith appears to be about the 
proper format for public discussions of historical topics, I will try to 
give some context to his remarks on my reply to Fant by simply providing 
some pertinent passages from Fant’s original article. The entire exchange 
can be accessed by following the link in Keith’s initial post on the topic.

Fant’s article carries the title “The Art of Turning White into Black”. Here 
is one of his nicer sentences:

“Already using elementary argumentation analysis, the reader discovers the 
journalistic populism in Staudenmaier's style with unfounded insinuations 
and false deductions to such an extent that his rancours hardly can be taken 
seriously.”

Fant goes on to say that my “sneers” about anthroposophy are “pathetic”, and 
early in the article exclaims: “Bah, the boy doesn't know what he's talking 
about.”(I found that line particularly amusing; I was 35 years old at the 
time of our exchange.) Offering readers a very different version of 
anthroposophy’s past and present, Fant insists that “Staudenmaier’s way of 
twisting things is remarkably unserious.” His most telling remarks are a 
series of comparisons and amalgamations. Fant avers that I am part of a 
“smear campaign” which “relentlessly repeats falsified statements.” He adds: 
“It's the same method that is used by the Holocaust deniers.” Fant also says 
that my method is “identical to the method of racism.” And so forth.

I think that if Keith will take a few moments to review the full exchange, 
he will quickly see that my reply to Fant is in fact markedly restrained (I 
do not respond to any of the above passages, for example). I hasten to add, 
however, that I myself do not find Fant’s rhetorical choices troubling; my 
standards for stylistic decorum are notably different from Keith’s. In my 
view, it is not the form but the content of Fant’s argument that demands 
criticism, and that is what I provided in my reply. Thus I reproached his 
ill-considered defense of Nazi anthroposophist Franz Lippert, and pointed 
out the myopic nature of Fant’s conception of racism (he opines at one point 
that it would be “impossible” for a “well-meaning book” to inspire racism).

In other words, my response focused squarely on Fant’s political naivete and 
historical nonchalance, not on his occasionally overheated rhetoric. But 
even here I avoided wholesale condemnation, and made very clear that my work 
is not an attack on anthroposophy in general. (Indeed there were lots of 
other errors in Fant’s article that I didn’t address at all; here is a 
relatively insignificant example: In response to an observation of mine 
about the sources used by anthroposophist author Uwe Werner, Fant declared 
that only four of the archives listed in Werner’s book are anthroposophical. 
That is preposterous; eight of the ten organizational archives and at least 
thirteen of the twenty-four private archives listed by Werner are 
anthroposophical. Fant’s figure is thus off by a factor of five or more.)

Since concerns such as these were of minimal importance to the subject of 
our dispute, however, I happily let them slide. This allows readers of the 
debate to focus on the core of the argument and better assess what is at 
stake. With that in mind, I invite Keith to re-think his appraisal of this 
exchange with Göran Fant.

There are a number of other interesting issues raised in Keith’s subsequent 
posts, which I will address shortly.


Peter Staudenmaier




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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:34:13 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: the nature of history




Thank you, Peter, I'm sure there are quite a number of us reading and
appreciating your work (if not necessarily understanding it all!) 
Diana





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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:39:58 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach




Hi again Keith,

In previous entries on this thread you wrote:


[Keith:] “I think it's deliberately loaded language in those examples. 
Loaded
and indeed provocative because it implies judgement, condemnation, and
moral superiority over the person criticised. It is not so much the
individual words, but how they are used together.”


If you change the word “person” to “position”, then that is indeed a more or 
less accurate description of my approach in the 2001 exchange with Göran 
Fant. Part of the reason for that kind of public debate is precisely to 
subject various positions to reasoned judgement and moral examination of 
this sort. Withholding judgement would be a serious failure of 
responsibility, not to mention a waste of everyone’s time.


[Keith:] “As can seen from some of the other passages in my last post, it 
might be
possible for those writing history and historical critiques to pursue
and express their political views (and shape the evidence to that
effect) in their writing, but I find it difficult to accept that it is
necessary to use combative and discriminatory language (such as
"unconscionable" - Lacking a conscience; and the pairing or collection
of words in phrases to imply weakness or lack of character, eg.
comforting myths, self-exculpatory abdication of moral responsibility,
etc.) - I'm sensing a negative tone is being employed as a rhetorical
tactic. Not surprising, given that Peter S. is not only a commentator on
social issues, but is *also* a **player**. There is just a large
concentration of pejorative terminology in that section of the document,
it irks me.”


I think your squeamishness on this score is misplaced. But it’s also 
hypocritical. I did not decide on a whim to pick on Göran Fant, out of the 
blue. He wrote a critique of my work that is replete with what you call 
pejorative terminology and combative and discriminatory language (which, as 
I indicated, is just fine with me); his descriptions of me would seem to 
fulfill your definition of negative tone as a rhetorical tactic. The 
passages you quoted from me are of course part of my response to Fant; I 
must say again that it is difficult to see how this might have been unclear 
in the first place. If this sort of tone genuinely distresses you, I think 
you are barking up the wrong tree.


[Keith:] “Drawing a distinction between someone's political acitivities as a
political *agent* and his role as an *observer*, thus identifying two
roles fulfilled by one person, seems to also then entail that these two
roles might influence each other; and Peter S. writings seem to
demonstrate this about his approach.”


Those two things always influence each other. The point is to be up front 
about it rather than wish it away or pretend that it isn’t happening.


[Keith:] “It seems odd that Steiner would support racist claims about the
African soldiers mentioned in the Peter S. excerpt, and I would explain
it in one or two ways: 1. Deliberate racism, or 2. European
ethnocentricism, where Europe is seen as the leader of world
civilization. It was deeply presumptuous of Steiner to support the
racist characterisations if he did so, and therefore deeply unfair to
the soldiers in question.”


I don’t know why you think this seems odd. Steiner supported lots of racist 
claims about Africans. Why would he somehow exempt soldiers from these 
claims? (By the way, it was Göran Fant who argued that several of Steiner’s 
more egregious racist statements about Africans were meant to apply to 
African soldiers who were part of the French forces occupying western 
Germany at the time; I did not raise this point, I merely responded to it.)


[Keith:] “It's my view that historians should be observers not players, and 
that
should focus more on recording and analysing/assessing/conceptualising
information that is clearly understandable and informative, so that a
reader gets all points of view and understands the issues and
implications. One can do this without value judgements and moralising,
or imposing one's ego on the material. What about Geoffery Blainey as an
example of generally dispassionate yet relevant commentary on history?”


I’m not sure I’m reading you right. Did you mean to offer Blainey’s 
ill-fated foray into contemporary race politics as an example of being an 
observer and *not* a player?? And did you really mean to include Keith 
Windschuttle as well?!? If that is indeed what you meant, I’m afraid your 
paragraph makes no sense. Blainey is a fine historian. He quite obviously 
did not refrain from becoming a player, and wasn’t shy about offering value 
judgements. What exactly are you trying to say here?


[Keith:] “It may be that Peter S. has employed this rhetorical flourish for 
effect
rather than ideological considerations (regarding leftism and rightism)
in order to attempt to make an impact, but it's not my style.”


I don’t share your stylistic preferences, but more to the point, it sounds 
to me like you aren’t being consistent in your own standards. Quite apart 
from the fact that you somehow missed Fant’s original contribution to the 
style you say you find distasteful, you yourself took the opposite position 
regarding Rudolf Steiner’s style in our last exchange six months ago. In a 
discussion of some of Steiner’s more patently racist writings, you opined 
that “reading Steiner's material reveals a creative, independent spirit,” 
and hypothesized that he was perhaps “telling a humourous joke to enliven 
the atmosphere,” and you concluded: “It's possible he's being playful and 
self-deprecating with that passage.” All of this in response to Steiner’s 
warnings against pregnant women reading Negro novels, lest they bear mulatto 
children. If you’re willing to grant that sort of extraordinary leniency to 
Steiner and his supporters, Keith, you’ll need to offer some reason for 
applying very different criteria to Steiner’s critics.

Greetings,

Peter Staudenmaier




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

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:26:56 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: the nature of history



Yes, thank you Peter!  I, for one, greatly appreciate and admire the 
trouble you go to and the patience you have whenever you visit.

Pete


Diana Winters wrote:
) 
) 
) Thank you, Peter, I'm sure there are quite a number of us reading and
) appreciating your work (if not necessarily understanding it all!) 
) Diana
) 
) 
) 


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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:04:18 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Theoretical question



Lemuria wrote:

)Charlie Frey?!??!?!
)I LOVE that guy!
)I'm sure that the people who fired him will be desperately sorry some
)day...if they're not already!
);-}

While you might indeed love that guy, you did not respond to my actual post.
I was trying to help you understand what simple actions are available to the
Waldorf PR people to help them/you inform prospective Waldorf parents about
. . . Waldorf. Too bad about Charlie being fired but it seems par for the
course when it comes to communication problems and Waldorf. Maybe Charlie is
a good natured honest fellow who had trouble stepping in line with the
spiritual elite or perhaps there are some serious communication problems at
his old school? I have no idea.  Should you, Lemuria, feel like responding
to the post, please find it below.

-Walden


) Lemuria previously wrote:
)
) ) It seems that if I presented to prospective families everything that has
) ) been suggested by the regular contributors to this list, it would be a
) ) weeks-long orientation course.
)
) Pete replied:
) "How about a few sentences that gives parents some clue about what
) Waldorf is REALLY about and that they need to do their own research
) before enrolling?"

Walden:
) I agree. There is no need for hours of explanation to new parents. A few
) sentences with a *real* FAQ would suffice.
)
) Matter of fact, back in August '04 on this very list there was a
) wonderful
) idea put forth from a Waldorf teacher named Charlie Frey.
) Here's what he wrote:
)
) "Hardly *anybody* knows *anything* about Waldorf when they show up at a
) school, and most happily stay as long as they can. There is something to
) this. The cold, hard fact is, many of the people who would happily stay
) as
) long as possible might leave skidmarks toward the door if I told them
) about Lemuria, Elohim, the Akasha Chronicle, elemental beings and both
) Jesuses on their first visit. Where this gets irresponsible, though, is
) when Anthroposophy isn't even given in small bites."
)
) While I do not agree that most parents are blissful in their ignorance
) and
) nor do I think it is the duty of the teacher to decide how much
) information
) to give to parents in case they leave "skid marks," I completely agree
) with
) rest of what this Waldorf teacher has written. The same teacher went on
) to
) write about what *he* tells prospective Waldorf parents:
)
) "we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our
) center, I tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and
) ego bodies; and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form
) into the room...among many other things."
)
) So there you go, Lemuria. No need to cruise the Waldorfcritics list for
) relevant material. One need only find an honest Waldorf teacher willing
) to
) help the Waldorf PR folks with their websites and promotional material.
) What
) do you think?
)
) -Walden
)
)

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
http://click.topica.com/caaedmqb1dkiGbPRG0Jf/PC PowerScan
-------------------------------------------------------------------

==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.




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

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:12:01 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach



Hi Peter,


Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) 
) 
) Hi again Keith,
) 
) In previous entries on this thread you wrote:
) 
) 
) [Keith:] “I think it's deliberately loaded language in those examples. 
) Loaded
) and indeed provocative because it implies judgement, condemnation, and
) moral superiority over the person criticised. It is not so much the
) individual words, but how they are used together.”
) 
) 
) If you change the word “person” to “position”, then that is indeed a 
) more or 
) less accurate description of my approach in the 2001 exchange with Göran 
) 
) Fant. Part of the reason for that kind of public debate is precisely to 
) subject various positions to reasoned judgement and moral examination of 
) 
) this sort. Withholding judgement would be a serious failure of 
) responsibility, not to mention a waste of everyone’s time.
) 


Fair enough comments. However, I was not meaning one should withhold 
criticism or analysis from this or any discourse. Maybe I'm referring to 
psychological themes in discourse ( -) no controversy intended by this 
statement). Irrelevant or relevant to history discourse and commentary, 
the psychological dimension interests me somewhat - human beings are 
affected both by history and psychology. Again, no controversy intended 
by my response here.


) 
) [Keith:] “As can seen from some of the other passages in my last post, 
) it 
) might be
) possible for those writing history and historical critiques to pursue
) and express their political views (and shape the evidence to that
) effect) in their writing, but I find it difficult to accept that it is
) necessary to use combative and discriminatory language (such as
) "unconscionable" - Lacking a conscience; and the pairing or collection
) of words in phrases to imply weakness or lack of character, eg.
) comforting myths, self-exculpatory abdication of moral responsibility,
) etc.) - I'm sensing a negative tone is being employed as a rhetorical
) tactic. Not surprising, given that Peter S. is not only a commentator on
) social issues, but is *also* a **player**. There is just a large
) concentration of pejorative terminology in that section of the document,
) it irks me.”
) 
) 
) I think your squeamishness on this score is misplaced. But it’s also 
) hypocritical. I did not decide on a whim to pick on Göran Fant, out of 
) the 
) blue. He wrote a critique of my work that is replete with what you call 
) pejorative terminology and combative and discriminatory language (which, 
) as 
) I indicated, is just fine with me); his descriptions of me would seem to 
) 
) fulfill your definition of negative tone as a rhetorical tactic. The 
) passages you quoted from me are of course part of my response to Fant; I 
) 
) must say again that it is difficult to see how this might have been 
) unclear 
) in the first place. If this sort of tone genuinely distresses you, I 
) think 
) you are barking up the wrong tree.


However, I was unaware of Fant's approach to the subject - I overlooked 
it in the process of reading. Thank you for pointing that out, you make 
good points about it.


) 
) 
) [Keith:] “Drawing a distinction between someone's political acitivities 
) as a
) political *agent* and his role as an *observer*, thus identifying two
) roles fulfilled by one person, seems to also then entail that these two
) roles might influence each other; and Peter S. writings seem to
) demonstrate this about his approach.”
) 
) 
) Those two things always influence each other. The point is to be up 
) front 
) about it rather than wish it away or pretend that it isn’t happening.


Yes, I would accept that. Politics as a tool for dialogue and change is 
abused, though: take Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc. as 
examples of this.


Honesty is important, indeed.


) 
) 
) [Keith:] “It seems odd that Steiner would support racist claims about 
) the
) African soldiers mentioned in the Peter S. excerpt, and I would explain
) it in one or two ways: 1. Deliberate racism, or 2. European
) ethnocentricism, where Europe is seen as the leader of world
) civilization. It was deeply presumptuous of Steiner to support the
) racist characterisations if he did so, and therefore deeply unfair to
) the soldiers in question.”
) 
) 
) I don’t know why you think this seems odd. Steiner supported lots of 
) racist 
) claims about Africans. Why would he somehow exempt soldiers from these 
) claims? (By the way, it was Göran Fant who argued that several of 
) Steiner’s 
) more egregious racist statements about Africans were meant to apply to 
) African soldiers who were part of the French forces occupying western 
) Germany at the time; I did not raise this point, I merely responded to 
) it.)
)


I think it's odd because if one reads in a report that one or more 
people are being mistreated, a reaonable person could hardly support 
such behaviour. To the extent to which Steiner was racist in other 
instances regards Africa, this would also fly in the face of his image 
as an apparently reasonable person. I could not accept or agree with 
Steiner's racist sympathies. 


) 
) [Keith:] “It's my view that historians should be observers not players, 
) and 
) that
) should focus more on recording and analysing/assessing/conceptualising
) information that is clearly understandable and informative, so that a
) reader gets all points of view and understands the issues and
) implications. One can do this without value judgements and moralising,
) or imposing one's ego on the material. What about Geoffery Blainey as an
) example of generally dispassionate yet relevant commentary on history?”
) 
) 
) I’m not sure I’m reading you right. Did you mean to offer Blainey’s 
) ill-fated foray into contemporary race politics as an example of being 
) an 
) observer and *not* a player?? 


It was a dire episode which didn't put him in a good light, and might 
cause people to wonder about his (political) stance on the issues.

I cited three links there (which were on more than the immigration 
issues) to give a smallish picture of what Blainey has been involved in. 
I'd agree it's not clear whether or not Blainey is being 
political/partisan in his comments or motivation towards the materials  
refered to in the links. But I'd also say he strives to look at the 
details where possible and provide a picture of "what happened" - his 
interpretation of events.



And did you really mean to include Keith 
) Windschuttle as well?!? If that is indeed what you meant, I’m afraid 
) your 
) paragraph makes no sense. Blainey is a fine historian. He quite 
) obviously 
) did not refrain from becoming a player, and wasn’t shy about offering 
) value 
) judgements. What exactly are you trying to say here?


Well, Keith Windschuttle is viewed with suspicion regarding his 
interpetation of history, as far as I can gauge. Is he an historical 
revisionist in the negative sense? I'm not sure. I'm rather suspiciosus 
of right-wing leadings being at the heart of Windschuttle's discourse, 
but then his opponents are probably left-leaning. I don't quite accept 
that the debater's in the "History Wars" are just offering us a fruitful 
education in history, but want to persuade their own "politically 
correct" version of events (hence the colourful tag "History Wars"). So 
we have more than just questions of history, but questions of who holds 
(or claims to hold) the "correct" or "incorrect" conception of social 
relations and politics. Clearly, the general public - the readers of 
history apart from historians - will not agree on any particular 
charactisation or on the validity or otherwise of any given political 
stance. It's one giant discourse between and among authorities/authors 
and the public as to what ideas are acceptable or unacceptable, and 
anyone can (if they desire) reject or assert authority on a given 
subject with the right consensus/persuasion/connections, eg. academics 
receive (professorship) tenure at university, politicians gain office, 
very successful atheletes can be solicited by many for their commercial 
or social endorsements, etc. Question is, who is really an authority on 
a given subject? By what criteria, and by whose agreement on said 
criteria?


) 
) 
) [Keith:] “It may be that Peter S. has employed this rhetorical flourish 
) for 
) effect
) rather than ideological considerations (regarding leftism and rightism)
) in order to attempt to make an impact, but it's not my style.”
) 
) 
) I don’t share your stylistic preferences, but more to the point, it 
) sounds 
) to me like you aren’t being consistent in your own standards. Quite 
) apart 
) from the fact that you somehow missed Fant’s original contribution to 
) the 
) style you say you find distasteful, you yourself took the opposite 
) position 
) regarding Rudolf Steiner’s style in our last exchange six months ago. In 
) a 
) discussion of some of Steiner’s more patently racist writings, you 
) opined 
) that “reading Steiner's material reveals a creative, independent 
) spirit,” 
) and hypothesized that he was perhaps “telling a humourous joke to 
) enliven 
) the atmosphere,” and you concluded: “It's possible he's being playful 
) and 
) self-deprecating with that passage.” All of this in response to 
) Steiner’s 
) warnings against pregnant women reading Negro novels, lest they bear 
) mulatto 
) children. If you’re willing to grant that sort of extraordinary leniency 
) to 
) Steiner and his supporters, Keith, you’ll need to offer some reason for 
) applying very different criteria to Steiner’s critics.


I agree with that criticism regarding my inconsistency. I have found 
instances where Steiner's language is harsh in the extreme - I don't 
approve of it.
 
The problem is that is the critics do not easily occupy the same ground 
as Steiner for the purpose of critique, for the reason that (treated 
from a philosophical perspective) the two worldviews don't understand 
one another. Steiner appears to be an able supporter of the gnostic and 
occult tradition, which is the reason many have an interest in Steiner's 
work. I realise there is criticism of his concepts and how he and others 
interprets them, however what I am doing is utilising and interpreting 
Steiner from the standpoint of someone who lives in the modern 
quasi-democratic liberal age: I have different values to Steiner, but 
the occult is a subject we share an interest in. So, for me there is a 
paradox at work here which I have not resolved yet: on one hand you have 
someone seemingly *progressive* in the occult, and on the other, 
politically ultra-conservative it would seem. The problem is knowing 
which statements proceed from a personal prejudice on Steiner's part, 
and which is genuine material of interest to spirituality. You might 
say, "Well, it's obvious which statements are suspicious", and I could 
agree with you on several examples but not on others.


-) Why:

I accept at the moment the assertion and idea that Steiner was accessing 
information from the spiritual world. From an intellectual point of 
view, it is not necessary to necessarily accept or reject this idea: 
it's all relative to theory and can be disposed of quickly if found 
wanting. But this is not so from a gnostic point of view, where 
disposing of any idea would require testing it with intuitive techniques 
and direct visionary experience - the idea is regarded as viable as long 
as it still thought to point to a possible occult metaphysical 
phenomena.

We can look at the language used to express ideas and as well as the 
content as a whole, but does the content originate exclusively from the 
intellect or from the brain, or does it have another source also? Can we 
tell when something is just an idea stemming from mental activity, can 
we conceive of another source for our information? Is history and 
society formed only by human life as we know it through the physical 
senses, or is there something more? Is there something else actively and 
rationally influencing the course of human affairs beyond politics and 
other social phenomena?

)From a general scientific perspective, there is no such thing as a 
spiritual world (at least not one which is anything but abstract): 
where's the evidence for it? if it exists why can't we detect it with 
instrumentation or the normal human senses? There is no accepted view or 
academic support for a literal empirical model for the spiritual world 
in social science as far I'm aware, so it probably cannot be discussed 
as such, eg. it does not exist, so how could it be valid or relevant to 
discourse or criticism of discourse?

So in this light, critics of Steiner can only critique Steiner in terms 
of political models and other social theory. It's not possible then for 
them to interpret any statement by Steiner as being anything more than 
ravings or prejudice, some of which have a racist flavour. Clearly, 
fairness and an awareness of the practical realities of everyday life 
demand that we take very seriously dangerous and divisive thinking in 
the community - we need to apply a social critique of this and of 
tradition and history (where many problematic ideas originate) in order 
to warn of/prevent social problems.


If Steiner's statements were seen purely as manipulations of facts and 
twisting of reality, it would very easy to support this claim with the 
necessary evidence. It's much harder to show and prove to the public 
that Steiner could be capable of integrity and unusual insight, because 
you can't prove the spiritual/inner life to physical senses and then 
evaluate the issues/individual from that standpoint. It is easier to 
claim underhandedness and negative or destructive ideology in an 
individual (especially a leader of a group), because we have so many 
existing examples of this behaviour in certain individuals, eg. Hitler, 
Mussolini, several Roman emperors, several English monarchs, etc.

If someone, living or dead, deserves criticism they should be 
criticised. Equally, there is always the possibility that one or more 
criticisms/allegations might actually be wrong even if it seems an 
obvious conclusion (even after doing extensive research). Thus, what is 
really known and understood, and how much is guesswork? Identifying 
patterns of behaviour and thought can give a reasonable impression of 
the person studied, but things can be missed in that analysis. No human 
being has omnipresent insight, and therefore no-one can claim perfect 
insight or rationality regarding a given issue. Yet we assume quite a 
lot regarding the evidence we have on a given thing.

Every "authority" and "expert" is a social construct to some extent, 
molded from the behaviour of the person in the role and the expectations 
and assumptions of those that surround them. Steiner's role or roles 
were so constructed. And opinion is therefore also a construct because 
opinion is molded by social behaviours. Opinion is invented by these 
behaviours, as are ideas are invented, as are facts are invented. The 
interpretation of facts is influenced by social norms and conventions 
and expectations, so the role of critics as providers of expert 
interpretations of information is always mediated by other 
considerations.

Critics are motivated by the need to resist: to resist or oppose things 
which are deemed wrong or inadequate, to resist interpretations which 
deviate from their own analysis, to resist claims that counter their own 
claim to authority or expertise. Critics keep people on their toes, 
create awareness of certain issues, and help maintain standards. But 
criticism requires substantial information in order to be effective, 
otherwise it's value is limited.


) 
) Greetings,
) 
) Peter Staudenmaier
) 
) 


Regards,

Keith


Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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



==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.

End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1982




-- Topica Digest --
	
	RE: The Features of Fascism
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
	
	Re: Theoretical question
	By ldenike aol.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By cffrey mindspring.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	Re: Theoretical question
	By ldenike aol.com
	
	RE: Theoretical question
	By diana.winters verizon.net
	
	RE: The Features of Fascism
	By pstaud hotmail.com
	
	RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By pstaud hotmail.com
	
	the mission of the racist ethic
	By pstaud hotmail.com
	
	RE: The nature of history and Peter Staudenmaier's approach
	By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au

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

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:13:21 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: The Features of Fascism




Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) 
) Hi Keith,
) 
) Eco's article is a fine summary, though unfortunately the Utne version 
) omits 
) his autobiographical introductory section. The fact that he begins his 
) typology with a discussion of Traditionalism suggests that he had Evola 
) and 
) comrades primarily in mind. I think his point 12 only has limited 
) validity, 
) but aside from that what he offers is a useful way of getting at the 
) ideological underpinnings of classical fascist movements. I would be 
) interested to hear what you think of his analysis, and how you see it in 
) 
) relation to the material from del Massa, Martinoli, and Scaligero.


Yes, interesting point about Evola and Traditionalism (Apparently Evola 
was an occultist, and a very active individual.). indeed, it would 
interesting to see how del Massa subject, et al compare with the Eco 
critique/summary of Fascism. I've found Eco's ideas and approach to very 
accessible. I'll comment soon about the Ur-Fascism.


) 
) By the way, a listmate recommended I take a look at the exchange on the 
) nature of history from last week; I will try to do that today before I 
) get 
) back to Scaligero.
) 
) I never got a reply from you to my last message in our earlier exchange 
) on 
) Steiner's racial doctrines, and I would still welcome one.


I can't recall the exact date of my last post on that (and it's not easy 
to navigate the Topica system, really. Sigh.). I'll see if I can locate 
it.

) 
) Greetings,
) 
) Peter Staudenmaier


Regards,

Keith


) 
) 
) 
) )"Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt"
) )
) )By Umberto Eco
) )
) )http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html
) )
) )
) )Regards,
) )
) )Keith
) 
) 



Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason 
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to 
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other 
people.

- Molleen Matsumura


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

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:11:43 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Theoretical question




Lemuria,
 
How do you know that there are many parents who don't want to know? Have you actually asked parents to sit down and talk to you about the Anthroposophical approach used in Waldorf (and what it means not only to the "eyes" the teachers uses to view the kids, but what they actually will learn, what they will not, and how) and found they just brush it off?
 
I think saying that most parents just don't want to know or don't care is a huge cop out. As Diana said, Waldorf parents are some of the most caring parents on the face of the Earth.
 
Lisa 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:41:51 +0000
Subject: RE: Theoretical question


Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
http://click.topica.com/caaedmqb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/PC PowerScan
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Diana Winters wrote:
) 
) 
) 
) 
) Lemuria:
) 
) )Actually...you might be really surprised to know how many people just 
) )don't want to know.
) 
) No! I think you are far off base. You seem totally unaware how 
) self-serving
) your reasoning is.
) 
) Lemuria, you are quite correct that many, many people do not want to 
) know
) much about anthroposophy. The irony is you do not know how correct you 
) are!
) 
) But that's not what we're talking about. What parents need to know is 
) how
) anthroposophy affects and undergirds their children's education. Missing
) this piece, it is no wonder they kinda blow you off when you start 
) talking
) about anthroposophy.
) 
) If you have parents in for a conference about their child, for instance, 
) and
) you have shown them the beautiful Main Lesson Book and talked about how 
) Suzy
) is doing in Form Drawing, Eurythmy, and Handwork, and as they are 
) standing
) up to leave, you suddenly say, "Would you like to know more about
) anthroposophy? I happen to have a Steiner book here on the karma of
) planetary incarnations in the Hyporborean Epoch . . ." I think you 
) cannot be
) surprised if most will say, somewhat confused, "Er . . . no thanks. Not
) really! Maybe another time?"
) 
) They just think you are a little weird, friend. Sorry. 
) 
) That is *different* from explaining to parents that they need to have
) information about anthroposophy because it is the origin of and shapes 
) the
) curriculum, teaching methods, and child development theory at this 
) school
) and influences practically everything the teachers do and say to their 
) child
) all day long.
) 
) Do you see a difference there? Worldwide, very few people are interested 
) in
) anthroposophy. Many parents are, however, extremely interested in things
) that deeply affect their children's education. What they may not get is 
) the
) CONNECTION. Once they figure out that anthroposophy explains nearly
) everything going on in this school, you may see a lightbulb go off! "Let 
) me
) see that Steiner book again. Steiner said to emphasize what about 
) ancient
) Persia? What is this about cultural epochs?" As long as they think this 
) tiny
) little esoteric religion that you mumble about occasionally, and that 
) they
) had never heard of before Waldorf, is just the personal, eccentric 
) shared
) interest of several of the teachers at this quaint little school 
) ("Somebody
) said there's a study group?") no, very few will want to be proselytized
) about anthroposophy. When you start explaining what they REALLY need to
) know, you may find quite a few more are interested in listening!
) 
) Do you have kids, Lemuria? Parents in any school put up with the 
) unexpected
) quirks of our children's teachers (and of course, they put up with 
) ours). It
) is a normal attitude, to think, Who knows what he/she believes, who 
) knows
) what he/she does on the weekend, it is not my business as long as things 
) are
) going along well for Junior at school. Most of us would politely 
) decline,
) and be a little weirded out, if the teacher, out of the blue, handed us
) reading material about their personal religious inclinations.
) 
) Explain to parents what's really going on in a Waldorf school, Lemuria.
) Explain *why* they need to be interested in anthroposophy.
) 
) Diana
) 
Don't get all in a lather, Diana. ;-)
I think I've been pretty clear over the years (in my last incarnation on 
the list, too) about my dedication to openness with parents. But I can 
tell you from years of experience that there are also parents who don't 
care, irrespective of the context. And, my approach is almost 
exclusively as follows: "This is what I believe and this is the stuff 
that directly affects how I see and educate YOUR child. If you want to 
know what I'm doing, and what eyes I'm looking through when I see your 
child, you should read THIS. This is stuff that you really should know 
if you're going to send your child to school here."
I'm telling you...most still don't bother.
I wish they would.
cl

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-