racist is as Peter
S does
How to Avoid Discussion
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:57 pm
Subject: how to avoid discussion
In the ongoing saga of responding-while-not-responding,
Mike writes:
I've been thinking about the character of
racism in action:
I found this catalogue of characteristics most revealing. Not
one of Mike's chosen items has anything whatsoever to do with
race. No wonder Mike has trouble understanding what other people
write about racism -- he thinks racism is a matter of poor social
skills.
the arrogance that so easily turns a blind eye to invitations
to talk about other topics on this list
I'm not sure why this counts as arrogance, but I plead guilty
to disinterest in many of the topics broached on this list.
the subtle indignations implied to any and all that are "confused"
about the only topic that he cares to talk about
I think Mike has misread me on this score. I'm not indignant
about the various racist beliefs defended and promoted by a number
of listmates; it's more or less what I expect from some anthroposophists.
In fact I can't recall being indignant about anything that I've
seen on this list. The confusion that some listmates display
can admittedly be annoying on occasion, as it requires pointless
digressions explaining that yes, racism really does mean belief
in racial inequality, and no, direct quotation from Steiner's
published works does not constitute misuse of sources; but that
sort of thing doesn't make me indignant.
his seeming inability to see the people behind the words and
ideas, and to meet them as fellow human beings, in an altruistic
kind of way
I also plead guilty to disinterest in meeting most of the active
participants on this list. It's an email list, not a cocktail
party.
the categorization of the people on this list as "Anthroposophists";
Not all of them, obviously, but quite a few of them; anthroposophy
is, after all, the theme of this list.
the separatism of claiming that "Anthroposophists"
are confused and hard to talk to
Once again, this is only true of some anthroposophists, not all
of them. Although they don't seem to be very well represented
on this list, there are anthroposophists who recognize that some
of Steiner's ideas were racist and antisemitic.
So screw your "Textural analysis."
Well, that certainly would make it easier to hold on to your
cherished notions about what Steiner really "meant".
But nobody will take this seriously in public discussion. Which
is, I suppose, why so many of you avoid discussing Steiner's
racial and ethnic doctrines publicly.
Care to talk about the fact that you are still recovering
from your Catholic upbringing?
Sure! I talk about this quite a bit. If you'd like to start an
email list devoted to this theme, go for it.
always had an opposing idea to focus on
and argue about....
Heavens, not that.
Come to find out that he had repressed
memories of being sexually abused by an uncle when he was a child.
And you think this had something to do with his beliefs about
Noam Chomsky, nature, and god?
Even without the sexual abuse, Catholic shame and guilt can
influence a persons motives considerably, especially when considering
subject matter of a spiritual nature.
That's probably true. Since motives are irrelevant to the validity
of arguments that people put forward, I don't see what this might
have to do with anything. If you're trying to say that you can't
engage in public discussion with other people unless you have
a thorough inventory of their sexual history, Mike, then I think
you've made a fundamental mistake.
So based on your writings to date, and
your seeming lack of empathetic skills in comparison to your
intellectual prowess, there seems to be a major imbalance.
Yes, that's bound to happen when you try to assess people's character
based solely on emails. Public email lists are often imbalanced
in this way.
My diagnosis is that you have not yet recovered enough from
your traumatic Catholic up-bringing to be truly objective in
your analysis of RS and Anthroposophy in General.
No shit, Sherlock. People who think their own ideas are "truly
objective" are naive.
you might find a more empathetic view in
general of your own writings from an even broader populace
You mean from people like the ones on this list? Sorry, those
aren't the kind of people I write for. But I'm still interested
in discussing Steiner's work with you, if any of you can manage
to get over your shyness for a moment. Avoiding discussion is
not a sign of emotional intelligence, in my view, and it won't
help endear your belief system to a "broader populace".
I recommend skipping th primal scream therapy and trying simple
reading and discussion instead.
Yours for self-analysis,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:48 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to avoid discussion
At 02:57 20.04.2004, PS wrote:
I'm not indignant about the various racist
beliefs defended and promoted by a number of listmates;
The public should be aware that this trickster
is operating with eccentric definitions of his own, especially
what "racist beliefs" are concerned. It's interesting
to notice that his allegation of racism, which must be characterized
as pathological and obsessive, is now openly extended to the
listmates.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 9:21 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to avoid discussion
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
The public should be aware that this trickster is operating
with eccentric definitions of his own, especially what "racist
beliefs" are concerned.
If that were indeed the case, then the public would already be
aware of it, obviously. But I don't think it is the case. I think
that many people share the understanding of racism that I've
put forward here, and reject the understanding that you have
put forward. Lots of folks recognize that racism is a set of
beliefs about race, not a spiritual pathology or a disease of
the soul, as you would have it.
It's interesting to notice that his allegation of racism,
which must be characterized as pathological and obsessive, is
now openly extended to the listmates.
I'm not sure why you think I've just done so now. Did I fail
to make clear earlier that I consider some of the views you have
championed racist? I think your beliefs about the existence and
character of an "Aryan race" are racist, and I think
your beliefs about what you call "eugenic racial evolution"
are racist, for example. I can't agree with Sophia that pointing
this out means provoking you. It simply means that we disagree
about what constitutes racism.
Yours for public discussion,
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
April/May
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
