Occurrence of "main race" in the
"Missions ..." book
From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 3:10 pm
Subject: Occurrence of "main race" in the "Missions
..." book
Hello everyone,
sometime recently someone asked for the exact Steiner quotes
fuelling the discussion on how to translate "Hauptrasse".
I said at the time that I'd leave that to somebody else. As that
somebody else did not appear, I decided to search for all the
place where Steiner used "Hauptrasse(n)" ("main
race") in the "Missions ...." book (GA 121).
Surprise! He uses the word "Hauptrasse" (the singular
form) exactly zero times and he uses the word "Hauptrassen"
(the plural form) exactly once! That is in the second page of
the seventh lecture. Here is the context of the one and only
occurrence of the word:
"Wir müssen nämlich
weit zurückblicken, zurückblicken bis in die ersten
atlantischen Zeiten, wenn wir die Zeit erfassen wollen, wo die
Verteilung stattgefunden hat in die fünf Hauptrassen, von
denen wir gesprochen haben, wenn wir fragen wollen: Wann sind
hingekommen an den bestimmten Punkt nach Afrika diejenigen Menschen,
die dann die schwarze oder äthiopische Rasse bildeten, wann
sind in das südliche Asien gekommen diejenigen Völker,
welche die malayische Rasse ausmachen? Da müßten wir
in frühe atlantische Zeiten zurücksehen."
It's not online in English. So I will have
to do a quick translation:
"We have to look far
back, look back into the first Atlantean times, if we want to
understand the time where the division into the five main races,
of which we spoke, took place, if we want to ask: when did those
people come to a particular point in Africa, who then formed
the black or Ethiopian race, when did those peoples come into
southern Asia that then made up the Malaysian race? There we
have to look back into early Atlantean times".
"...of which we spoke earlier...":
the whole previous lecture talked about this. But there Steiner
consistently called them the five "Grundrassen" (i.e.
the five "principal" or "basic" races). The
editors later put "Die fünfte Hauptrassen der Menschheit"
in the table of content as the title of lecture six ("The
five main races of humanity"), even though this word does
not occur once in lecture six. But that is OK, because Steiner
is obviously using "Grundrassen" and "Hauptrassen"
(the one time he uses the latter in GA 121, see the above citation)
synonymously. The division into five main (or prinicple) races
refers to the division into the black, yellow, brown, red and
white race, as these are the only races he talks about in the
"Mission ..." book. He talks about "Atlantean
times", but does NOT refer to this as a "root race"
à la Blavatsky.
Anyone who replaces "main races" in the above quote
with "principle races" would be replacing the word
with a synonym. Anyone replacing it with "root races"
- as has been done by translators - is making an obvious error,
because then the five root races would refer to the black, yellow,
brown, red and white race. But we have hitherto agreed on this
list that there is obviously not a 1-1 correlation between the
black, yellow, brown, red and white race and the five historical
root races of Blavatsky, one reason being that the first two
root races didn't even possess physical bodies, as has been correctly
pointed out.
In fact, Steiner explicitly talks in lecture 7 not of the "5th
post-Atlantean root race", as Blavatsky would have done,
but of the "5th post-Atlantean cultural epoch". Steiner
has by 1910 shed the "root race" terminology altogether
as a misnomer and replaced it with "cultural epoch".
I recommend reading lecture seven! He talks about various archangels
in relations to peoples and cultures (also the Semites). It reads
very much like a big symphony. No more mention of race as the
lecture proceeds. Yes, he does make value judgements about certain
cultural impulses. For example, it is clear that for him the
Semitic impulse is of central significance.
I don't want to go into any more depth here. I simply wanted
to point out that anyone who still claims that "root race"
is the correct translation the one time "Hauptrasse"
occurs in this text after all that has been said cannot think
straight (and probably doesn't have enough wits to have made
it to the end of high school with a diploma). But some people
are so confused on certain things that they're beyond help.
Detlef Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 5:31 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Occurrence of "main
race" in the "Missions ..." book
Detlef,
It is amazing how Peter Staudenmaier's case
just melts away! All this arguing, and a quick check of the context
completely rules out the translation he proposes! Steiner obviously
did not mean something to the effect of "we go back to the
beginning of the fourth root race to find the origins of the
five root races". Only principle races makes any sense in
this context. It makes me wonder why he spends a month fighting
for the wrong translation based merely on his pet theory. Did
he not check the context? Does he simply like to be argumentative?
Did he not think we would check?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Detlef
Hardorp
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:24 am
Subject: Re: Occurrence of "main race" in the "Missions
..." book
Daniel,
you wrote:
It is amazing how Peter Staudenmaier's case just melts away!
All this arguing, and a quick check of the context completely
rules out the translation he proposes! Steiner obviously did
not mean something to the effect of "we go back to the beginning
of the fourth root race to find the origins of the five root
races". Only principle races makes any sense in this context.
It makes me wonder why he spends a month fighting for the wrong
translation based merely on his pet theory. Did he not check
the context? Does he simply like to be argumentative? Did he
not think we would check?
He gives the answer to this himself. You just have to be able
to read it. In psychopathologies, it is often the case that you
project your own problems and shortcomings onto the people about
you. It is trying to avoid self-knowledge: something deep inside
you makes these shortcomings surface, but the person doesn't
want to see them in themselves and projects them onto people
about them. Actually a very common phenomenon.
Now to the concrete case at hand: In message
4324 he writes: "To follow on your own sentence above:
if "root race" can be translated as "Hauptrasse",
that does indeed mean that "Hauptrasse" can be translated
as "root race", even in those circumstances where you
might have preferred a different rendering."
"... you might have preferred ..." needs to be read:
"I (PS) prefer a different rendering to what Steiner actually
says."
Or in message 4277:
"This renders Detlef's argument absurd. I confess that I
have no idea why this remains somehow unclear to Detlef. Would
anybody else care to explain it?"
This needs to be read: "This renders my (PS's) argument
absurd. I confess that I have no idea why this remains somehow
unclear to me (PS). Would anybody else care to explain it?"
Well, I'm trying here! But this kind of explanation never helps
towards self-knowledge. It always infuriated the people concerned
even more. Self-knowledge has to come from within, it cannot
be "thrust upon you" (Malvolio).
And one last one (there are more): "Detlef's private views
on the appropriateness of such terms are irrelevant to the question
of translation."
This needs to be read: "PS's private views on the appropriateness
of such terms are irrelevant to the question of translation."
The translators that made the mistake decades ago can easily
be excused. The word only occurred once in the text. And they
translated without sufficient reading comprehension. It happens
all the time. But translators are generally quick to admit mistakes
when these are pointed out. Since Parker and whoever translated
the first edition (maybe also Parker? does it say who the translator
was? Or Parker simply copied the mistake from the first translator,
whoever he was?) are long since dead, they won't get the chance.
But I'm sure they're shouting at PS as loud as they can from
beyond the threshold. To which PS, of course, is completely deaf.
Detlef Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 9:38 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Occurrence of "main
race" in the "Missions ..." book
Good morning Detlef, you wrote:
The division into five main (or prinicple)
races refers to the division into the black, yellow, brown, red
and white race, as these are the only races he talks about in
the "Mission ..." book.
So far so good (though you are missing the various other terms
he uses in this book for each racial group).
He talks about "Atlantean times", but does NOT refer
to this as a "root race" à la Blavatsky.
That is incorrect. Blavatsky freely mixed her root-race terminology
with stuff about black, brown, etc races, throughout her works.
Root races were not just chronological periods for Blavatsky,
they were human types.
Anyone who replaces "main races" in the above quote
with "principle races" would be replacing the word
with a synonym.
Indeed.
Anyone replacing it with "root races" - as has been
done by translators - is making an obvious error, because then
the five root races would refer to the black, yellow, brown,
red and white race.
That makes no sense whatever. How could this be an "error"?
All you are saying is that you prefer one usage of root-race
terminology over the other uses. Since neither Steiner nor Blavatsky
shared your preference, why do you demand that their translators
do so?
But we have hitherto agreed on this list that there is obviously
not a 1-1 correlation between the black, yellow, brown, red and
white race and the five historical root races of Blavatsky, one
reason being that the first two root races didn't even possess
physical bodies, as has been correctly pointed out.
Quite so. For the fifteenth time, what would that possibly have
to do with "errors" in translation? The translator's
job is not to anticipate your predilections and conform to them.
Your personal sensibilities are not a meaningful standard of
error. If you really, truly disagree with that, go right ahead
and say so.
Yours for reading comprehension,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 9:46 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Occurrence of "main
race" in the "Missions ..." book
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
All this arguing, and a quick check of the context completely
rules out the translation he proposes!
You're having trouble following the argument again, I'm afraid.
I do not propose any particular translation of the 'folk souls'
book. Several anthroposophist translators have already provided
authorized translations of the book. Those are the translations
we've been discussing. They both use "root race" in
the exact same places in the text. You and Detlef think this
is an "error" because it does not align with your preferred
reading of the text. That argument is nonsensical.
Only principle races makes any sense in this context.
Principle races would be a fine translation choice. So would
primary races. And so would root races, of course.
It makes me wonder why he spends a month fighting for the
wrong translation based merely on his pet theory.
The anthroposophists who translated the book did not base their
choices on my theories. Or on your theories. Get it?
Yours for reading comprehension,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 9:54 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Occurrence of "main
race" in the "Missions ..." book
Hi again Detlef, you wrote:
"... you might have preferred ..." needs to be read:
"I (PS) prefer a different rendering to what Steiner actually
says."
But my preferences make no difference to the translators. Neither
do yours. That's why your argument about their "errors"
is silly.
It always infuriated the people concerned even more.
You haven't infuriated me, you've entertained me, along with
several other readers of this exchange.
This needs to be read: "PS's private views on the appropriateness
of such terms are irrelevant to the question of translation."
Yes, exactly. That is the point. The authorized anthroposophist
translators of this book paid no attention to either my private
views or your private views. They were entirely correct, and
not at all mistaken, to do so. I once again invite you to explain
why you disagree with that stance.
Yours for reading comprehension,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 9:56 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Occurrence of "main
race" in the "Missions ..." book
Peter
Since neither Steiner nor Blavatsky shared
your preference, why do you demand that their translators do
so?
Hi Peter,
It seems Steiner did not share YOUR preference
that would be neccessary in order to make your pet theory have
some semblance of reality. You are barking up the wrong tree
and you should retrain your sights on ARIOSOPHY. But unforutnately
for you this study would hold no value as they really don't exist
as a group in the manner that Anthroposophy does today. There
would be no recognition for what you are hoping for in this sphere.
We all look for recognition in our lifes chosen
career path. Unfortunately for you this ego of yours has overridden
any kind of basic understanding in order to make its mark on
the world. It will make you look foolish as it drives you on
this seriously mistaken path of trying to hook Dr. Steiner and
a nazi ideology as one. You could not be more mistaken. If you
continue to allow your ego to run roughshod all over your self
far be it from anyone else to try and wake it up from its deep
slumber. You continue to talk in circles and nothing good can
come from it Peter.
Happy Sunday,
Dottie
p.s. once again I have to ask: are you riding
the horse or is the horse riding you?
One time a word appears, and you have grabbed
onto it like a drowning man holding onto a limb before fallling
into the abyss. Let go Peter and course correct yourself.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:03 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Occurrence of "main
race" in the "Missions ..." book
Hi again Dottie, you wrote:
It seems Steiner did not share YOUR preference
that would be neccessary in order to make your pet theory have
some semblance of reality.
Since Steiner isn't around, we can't ask him what his preferences
might be. As for my preferences, they played no role whatsoever
in the translations of this book. I didn't translate it.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Deborah
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:42 pm
Subject: Occurrence of "main race" in the "Missions
..." book
Dear Detlef Hardorp,
I was the one who asked for the quotes. Thank
you very much for doing the tedious work of tracking them down
and translating the relevant passages. Of course, clearing up
the occurrence and context of the word hasn't convinced Peter
to either shut up or go away. He certainly is a persistent nuisance
(sort of like a mosquito, he just keeps on buzzing).
I believe we exchanged a few e-mails back
in the 90's when I was working for the Anthroposophical Society
in America. I can't remember what the topic was, probably something
to do with computers.
Deborah Kahn
Hello everyone,
sometime recently someone asked for the exact Steiner quotes
fuelling the discussion on how to translate "Hauptrasse".
I said at the time that I'd leave that to somebody else. As that
somebody else did not appear, I decided to search for all the
place where Steiner used "Hauptrasse(n)" ("main
race") in the "Missions ...." book (GA 121).
Surprise! He uses the word "Hauptrasse" (the singular
form) exactly zero times and he uses the word "Hauptrassen"
(the plural form) exactly once! That is in the second page of
the seventh lecture. Here is the context of the one and only
occurrence of the word:
"Wir müssen nämlich
weit zurückblicken, zurückblicken bis in die ersten
atlantischen Zeiten, wenn wir die Zeit erfassen wollen, wo die
Verteilung stattgefunden hat in die fünf Hauptrassen, von
denen wir gesprochen haben, wenn wir fragen wollen: Wann sind
hingekommen an den bestimmten Punkt nach Afrika diejenigen Menschen,
die dann die schwarze oder äthiopische Rasse bildeten, wann
sind in das südliche Asien gekommen diejenigen Völker,
welche die malayische Rasse ausmachen? Da müßten wir
in frühe atlantische Zeiten zurücksehen."
It's not online in English. So I will have
to do a quick translation:
"We have to look far
back, look back into the first Atlantean times, if we want to
understand the time where the division into the five main races,
of which we spoke, took place, if we want to ask: when did those
people come to a particular point in Africa, who then formed
the black or Ethiopian race, when did those peoples come into
southern Asia that then made up the Malaysian race? There we
have to look back into early Atlantean times".
"...of which we spoke earlier...":
the whole previous lecture talked about this. But there Steiner
consistently called them the five "Grundrassen" (i.e.
the five "principal" or "basic" races). The
editors later put "Die fünfte Hauptrassen der Menschheit"
in the table of content as the title of lecture six ("The
five main races of humanity"), even though this word does
not occur once in lecture six. But that is OK, because Steiner
is obviously using "Grundrassen" and "Hauptrassen"
(the one time he uses the latter in GA 121, see the above citation)
synonymously. The division into five main (or prinicple) races
refers to the division into the black, yellow, brown, red and
white race, as these are the only races he talks about in the
"Mission ..." book. He talks about "Atlantean
times", but does NOT refer to this as a "root race"
à la Blavatsky.
Anyone who replaces "main races" in the above quote
with "principle races" would be replacing the word
with a synonym. Anyone replacing it with "root races"
- as has been done by translators - is making an obvious error,
because then the five root races would refer to the black, yellow,
brown, red and white race. But we have hitherto agreed on this
list that there is obviously not a 1-1 correlation between the
black, yellow, brown, red and white race and the five historical
root races of Blavatsky, one reason being that the first two
root races didn't even possess physical bodies, as has been correctly
pointed out.
In fact, Steiner explicitly talks in lecture 7 not of the "5th
post-Atlantean root race", as Blavatsky would have done,
but of the "5th post-Atlantean cultural epoch". Steiner
has by 1910 shed the "root race" terminology altogether
as a misnomer and replaced it with "cultural epoch".
I recommend reading lecture seven! He talks about various archangels
in relations to peoples and cultures (also the Semites). It reads
very much like a big symphony. No more mention of race as the
lecture proceeds. Yes, he does make value judgements about certain
cultural impulses. For example, it is clear that for him the
Semitic impulse is of central significance.
I don't want to go into any more depth here. I simply wanted
to point out that anyone who still claims that "root race"
is the correct translation the one time "Hauptrasse"
occurs in this text after all that has been said cannot think
straight (and probably doesn't have enough wits to have made
it to the end of high school with a diploma). But some people
are so confused on certain things that they're beyond help.
Detlef Hardorp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
