Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Eliminate racial baggage NOW!

Expand Messages
  • winters_diana
    Thank you very much Scott. I have really appreciated seeing all these clarifications. This reply is much more satisfactory than the replies pretending
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 28, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you very much Scott. I have really appreciated seeing all these
      This reply is much more satisfactory than the replies pretending
      puzzlement or uncertainty about Steiner's racial doctrines. It is
      much better to see it spelled out that you agree with them, and
      believe it is possible that blacks may be earthy.

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Olmsted"
      <sa.olmsted@...> wrote:
      > Diana:
      > Do you believe that to say blacks are earthy is racist,
      > It isn't a trick question.
      > Dear Diana,
      > Thanks for asking the question. It is an opportunity to clarify my
      > on the subject.
      > Of course, it is a trick question because any answer I give is
      likely to
      > elicit more demeaning response from you unless it is exactly the
      answer that
      > fits your stance that, indeed, Steiner is a racist.
      > So, here, I agree that, by some people's definition he's a racist
      > among most modern educated people there's a tacit agreement that we
      > talk about racial characteristics anymore because those
      > are often used to deny rights, and to deny the ability of the
      individual to
      > be themselves and not live life through the filter of others' racial
      > prejudice.
      > "We've" decided that it is just too tough to live with a lot of
      > based on someone's "predominate statistical racial average quality"
      > still meet that person freshly without the pre-conceived baggage
      > stereotypes engender.
      > Using those characterizations and stereotypes is just too much food
      for the
      > haters and polarizers in the world (and the hater and the polarizer
      in me)
      > that I find it best to not think about race and racial
      characterizations in
      > that way. And I think the tendency for most modern thinkers is that
      > they hear someone say something that begins with 'Blacks are this"
      or "Arabs
      > are that" then they think that that someone must have an agenda or
      they must
      > at least be culturally insensitive. They must be a racist because,
      > haven't we all decided that the world is a fear based place full of
      > and dividers and weak thinkers and if someone uses this language
      then they
      > must be a hater and a polarizer.
      > Also, positively, we've decided this because we sense that race is
      > and the time of the individual is at hand. (It's a whole other
      > about why this individuality thing is so lonely and scary that
      people can't
      > live it without reverting to "if you're not with us, you're a
      terrorist" or
      > paint themselves like tigers so they can be part of the Cinncinati
      > family)
      > And yet, statistically, white men can't jump, oriental people have
      eyes that
      > are more slanted and maybe the black RACE is more earthy, whatever
      the hell
      > that means. So I think Steiner was justified in claiming through
      his own
      > insight and experience as a scientist that maple trees lose their
      leaves in
      > the winter and the average temperature in January in North Silesia
      is 33
      > degrees Farenheit and the black race is more earthy. Doesn't make
      him a
      > racist. Could be wrong. Definitely on the path of being
      > Naive to think that people hearing that later would have the moral
      > flexibility to hold that thought at bay when they met a black
      person so they
      > could meet them as an individuality? Perhaps that's why he didn't
      want his
      > talks taken shorthand--he knew what the critics would do with them.
      > If Steiner said "blacks are earthy and black individuals should
      > have different rights" I would only then consider him a racist.
      And if the
      > Waldorf schools used quotes like this to be haters and dividers
      or "to
      > inform and direct the policies and practices of modern Waldorf
      schools in
      > any
      > way" then you'd have a substantial case and you would have won in
      court and
      > you wouldn't have had to appeal your case to the AT (!?) where the
      > of a sympathetic jury are, shall we say, slim.
      > So Diana, if you can let me say, yes, I don't approve of those
      > because I can't overcome my weak thinking and meet each individual I
      > encounter, regardless of race,creed or national origin without
      > stereotypical baggage to that meeting then I will continue to put
      as much
      > distance between myself and the quotes and the type of thinking the
      > engender and will urge all my colleagues to do the same. As I've
      said, I
      > think the position statements from AWSNA and the AS do just that.
      > Racial ideas are just too dangerous to leave around the house where
      > racist might pick them up and use them to deny rights.
      > But I won't say that Rudolf Steiner is a racist for saying what for
      him was
      > just a spiritual scientific fact. I will say that his handlers and
      > doctors did a terrible job of warning him that haters and the
      > will take this quote up and shamelessly use it to discredit all
      the good
      > your other ideas will do in the world. I personally think he knew
      they were
      > coming regardless and that, as Tarjei says, we would have to learn
      > honey-butter them up anyway.
      > Diana:
      > Here's the crazy thing: You could say it, right now, in a few
      > words, and then you could watch what would happen.
      > Try it and see!
      > Sorry, I can't give you what you want. It would contradict what my
      > finds is the truth.
      > Diana:
      > Do you understand what it would take to *end* the controversy?
      > I think it would take that everyone involved would take up the
      notion that
      > there is no objective answer to "Is Steiner a racist" and stop
      trying force
      > everyone to deny thier own free inner process of deciding that
      question for
      > themselves. Kinda takes the fun out of your hobby, though, doesn't
      it? I
      > hear you loud and clear that you think he's a racist and support
      you in
      > whatever process you've got working there. I just request that you
      > making everyone else wrong for coming to an opposite conclusion.
      And God
      > grant me the strength to stop myself from making everyone who
      disagrees with
      > me wrong as well.
      > It does seem we find ourselves stuck in the place that I think Tom
      > well:
      > The battleground here is the middle, the Mind Soul. Where one
      > denies the opposite truth, then people regress back to Anger
      > they won't go forward to the religious devotion of the CS,
      where the
      > BEING of the person holding whatever ideas is more important
      than the
      > TRUTH content of those ideas.
      > So here's to religious devotion to the other in all situations and
      lots of
      > honey butter when necessary.
      > But if you still need a fight, I do encourage you to join me in
      > a far worse and more insidious practice in Waldorf Schools--
      > profiling. It's going on everywhere, and, let me tell you, the
      > are suffering.
      > Scott
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.