Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution
- Hi Bradford, you wrote:"Because Evolving is seemingly forward it makes a nice term doesn't it? The condition of retardation doesn't merely come from races... or races at all. Retardation comes from Retarding beings."We don't disagree about that. Steiner did indeed teach that retardation comes from retarded beings (for example, those who decline to accept Christ as the Leader of humankind). He also taught that these retarded beings will incarnate into lower racial forms, into backward races, because for Steiner spiritual advancement and retardation were directly tied to physical and racial advancement and retardation. That idea is racist, in my view. The entire notion that some racial and ethnic groups are "more backward" than others, as Steiner says in the snippet on the Aryan myth that you posted today, is patently racist. If you disagree, you just need to provide a non-racist account of the notion of backward races and lower racial forms and so forth."Racism for you is leveling and dismissing qualites inhereent in different
language based cultures, but the individual I Am who goes forward to
brotherhood and idealism transcends all this bullshit you wallow in."That is beside the point. The individual I Am is not and cannot be the object of racist thinking. Only particular incarnations and specific embodiments can be the object of racist thinking. That is how Steiner used the term 'race', and that is how critics of racist thought use the term. The conflation of language, culture, ethnicity, and race is one of the fundamental roots of modern racist thought.
"Upwards in the thinking world, where idealism lives, brotherhood
prevails."That may well be, but it has nothing to do with whether some of Steiner's doctrines were racist. Lots of racists were idealists who believed in brotherhood."it means that one studies the general and specific, but certainly, far above your examination of second hand reality, is the fact of how the distrubution of various qualites were meted out by the Divine."The question is simply whether these qualities are distributed along racial lines. Racists believe that they are. Non-racists believe that they are not.Peter
- Another difficult question that Peter Staudenmaier continues to run away from: cultural evolution. He has indignantly declared that natural selection does not apply to cultures. I don't know why he thought anyone would claim such a thing. But he cannot explain if he feels cultures evolve at all, or how. Condescend to me, Peter. Try answering this.
Daniel Hindes----- Original Message -----From: at@ael...Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:21 PMSubject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolutionHi Daniel, you wrote:"So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?"Peter Staudenmaier:Not by natural selection. If you believe that cultures evolve by natural selection, then I think you have an inadequate grasp of the concept. Cultures are neither genetic nor hereditary.Daniel:Peter, one of the first things you learn in Biology is that evolution does not equal natural selection. There are many theories of evolution. Relativly few of them involve natural selection as the method of evolution (though the generally accepted ones do). Your education might benefit from a few basic biology courses.Repeat: "Evolution does not equal natural selection."Good, now I hope that you won't misapply the methods of biology to culture (you of all people should know what a mess that creates).Back to my origional question:"So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?"Note: I did not ask if cultures evolved through natural selection. I asked if they evolved at all by any mechanism.Daniel Hindes