Following are some examples of your faulty argumentation. Daniel was
nice enough to collect them. The actual quotes from you and Daniel
are at the bottom of the e-mail.
#1 Insistence that one sentence is more than enough to build an
#2 Creating your own version of anthroposophy and then arguing
#3 Arguing against a position which neither Daniel nor Steiner
actually stated, on the basis that it was implied by what they said.
Taking number 3, which Europeans do you think are getting off the
hook, or to reverse it, which Europeans do you think need to be held
responsible for these epidemics.
a)Everyone living in Europe or Asia at the time (1492 and thereafter)
because they were all riddled with diseases? Diseases that the Native
Americans were vulnerable to?
b)The Europeans who were pushing for exploration? Not sure exactly
who fits this definition, but they were probably wealthy and hoping
to get more by going out and taking over the world. A greedy but
undefined sector of the population.
c)Christopher Columbus? He thought he was heading towards China, or
maybe India, but I'm guessing that geographical incompetence won't
get him off the hook either.
d)The sailors on the various ships. Generally common sailors had not
control over their lives and may not even have chosen to be sailors
but I don't see why they shouldn't be blamed.
e)The captains and other officers serving on the ships? The Spaniards
who went inland to try to conquer and get gold? Now we are getting on
to something substantial, however we have passed the point of first
contact and now we're getting into the historically recorded
f)We could blame the Jews and the Moors who had been expelled from
Spain. It was their money which had been stolen by Ferdinand and
Isabella and used to finance CC's expedition.
Anyway, I don't like vague stuff like blaming the "europeans." Too
general. I mean, after all it was the Spaniards who made the first
landing and therefore, if we want to get specific, it was the
Spaniards who brought the diseases that caused millions of people to
die. Will that do?
It goes back to the nature of the forces that the Native
Americans "had" to
acquire. These are related to the forces behind immunology. You would
be helped by reading the whole lecture in question rather than trying
guess an entire philosophy off a one-sentence quote.
> I wonder if this will ever sink in on you.
And I might wonder if you will ever understand Anthroposophy
properly, or if
you will remain forever indignant against a worldview that is exactly
opposite of Anthroposophy.
> So there is not just racism at the core of anthroposophy but also a
> kind of spiritualized biological determinism.
In the worldview you have constructed and projected onto
is true, but it is not true of actual Anthroposophy.
> > 3)How you can interpret the statement "The Native American
> > population did not die out because this pleased the Europeans, but
> > because the Native American population had to acquire such forces
> > as lead to their dying out" as *not* exonerating the Europeans
> > for their dealings with the native Americans
> >Let me reverse the question. How does that exonerate the Europeans?
> It exonerates the Europeans because it explains that the cause of
> the population decimation was not their actions. Not guilty.
> Vindicated. Off the hook. Not their fault. Someone, or something,
> else's fault. They did have a bad record where atrocities are
> concerned, but you can't pin this one on `em. They were in the
> neighborhood, and they might have knocked some heads together, but
> the brutal crime that was committed the same night? Someone else got
> there before them. (Germs.)