Anthroposophy

Thoughts and considerations on life, the universe and anthroposophy by Daniel Hindes. Updated occasionally, when the spirit moves me.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 67

Continuing my commentary on the 22nd paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.


The Anthroposophical Society of the Netherlands also formed a commission with the express purpose of examining all 90,000 pages of Rudolf Steiner's collected works (something Peter Staudenmaier/Peter_Peter Staudenmaier.php">Peter Peter Staudenmaier with his predilection for secondary sources has certainly not done). The commission was tasked with answering three questions:



  1. Does Anthroposophy contain a racist or race-based doctrine?

  2. Do the works of Rudolf Steiner contain statements by Rudolf Steiner that can be understood to be racially discriminating?

  3. Do the works of Dutch authors on Waldorf education contain elements of racial discrimination?


To the first question the commission found no racial bias in Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy. To the second question the commission found that out of 90,000 pages, “...sixteen statements, if they were in public by a person on his or her own authority, could be a violation of the prohibition of racial discrimination under the Criminal Code of the Netherlands.” That is, 16 statements by Steiner, if made by someone today, would legally be considered racially discriminatory in the Netherlands. Or simply stated, that 16 statements of Steiner’s are offensive. The commission also sought to answer the questions of historical context, as well as the role that these statements played in Steiner’s overall thought. (For an English version of the press release announcing the release of the final version of the commission’s report see: http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/Holland/Dutch-FinalPressSummary.htm). These are the real questions for historians to grapple with. Making selective use of these quotations for polemical purposes is made easier by the commission’s having collected them all in one place. Facile polemics should not be confused with actual scholarship, however, and Peter Staudenmaier has not shown any evidence of familiarity with the broader scope of Steiner’s thought, including the literally hundreds of statements about the equality of all people and the need for respect and tolerance.