The Lion is About
to Roar
Waldorf Principles
Fwd: In Your Neck of the Woods
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:25 pm
Subject: Fwd: In Your Neck of the Woods
From: Diana Winters
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:14 pm
Subject: RE: In Your Neck of the Woods
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
Christine wrote:
I say to your face, Diana
Winters, that you are a SNAKE.
On anthroposophy_tomorrow, it was worse - I'm a B**** :)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1813
but now I'm so scared of Christine's
lawyer that I think it best to link rather than quote :)
Christine, I agree that I
should probably have cc'ed you, it would have been more courteous.
It didn't even occur to me. On anthroposophy_tomorrow, the critics
are quoted virtually every day, and you yourself forward a gazillion
things from other lists to anthroposophy_tomorrow! so this hissy
fit seems a bit overblown to me.
Both lists are public, Christine.
Perhaps you didn't realize that? Anyone on the web can read it,
whether or not they're subbed to the list. You can read this
one any time you like, and I can read yours any time I like (until
or unless you guys decide to make it private - a very simple
option, if you all would rather your conversations were not quoted
or discussed elsewhere). There have been several running dialogues
going on between the lists, for a few weeks now. Tarjei, for
instance, quotes from this list virtually every day, he just
posted in reply to Walden since I started writing this a few
minutes ago.
Boy, this turned nasty fast,
didn't it? You might consider adopting Linda Clemens' air of
amused detachment, or hell, maybe she's calling a lawyer too.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:25 pm
Subject: Re: In Your Neck of the Woods
Diana,
Forwarding items from one post to another
is one thing, but attributing your own interpretations as to
the writer's intentions, "fantasies" "dreams of"
etc. is the wrong kind of manipulation, Diana. Don't take my
statement lightly, either. One of the best law firms in the world
is right in front of my house and there are plenty of young hot
shots who would love a juicy internet libel case.
The nastiness has all originated from your
side, Diana. I have always expressed understanding that there
have been and could have been mistakes on the part of individual
Waldorf Teachers and that all educational practices, in so much
as they are practices which affect children who in effect belong
to the society at large, should be constantly examined and re-evaluated.
For example, your objection to left-hand switching has gotten
me very interested in left brain/ right brain mainstream scientific
study and analysis to the point where I plan to start going back
to "regular" college to work on it.
But the way you think you are so cleverly
"exposing" bits and pieces of what other people think
only serves to amply illustrate the shallowness of your own thinking.
You actually cannot or will not do the intellectual work involved,
so you prefer a "hit and run" or "guerilla tactic"
method of attack.
Meet me in the street, Diana - my educational
psychology findings against yours. You will be suprised at what
"mainstream science" is really thinking these days.
Don't look for "instant iced tea"
type answers, though. We're both going to have a LOT of homework
to do!
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:01 pm
Subject: Re: In Your Neck of the Woods
In a message dated 2/10/2004 9:42:50 PM Eastern
Standard Time, Diana.Winters writes:
You have every right to
daydream, in public, about a future where everyone agrees Waldorf
education is so wonderful that it should be mandated. And I consider
it worthwhile to point out that, to those of us who are not anthroposophists,
such talk is, to say the least, alarming. Waldorf charter schools
- which, in the US, means publicly funded schools - are exactly
what you are dreaming of - the spirituality there is indeed "mandated"
by the government for those children.
JESUS CHRIST, DIANA - YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN!!
I NEVER said that I was "daydreaming
about a future where "everyone agrees Waldorf Education
is so wonderful that it should be mandated."
YOUR WORDS -
Waldorf charter schools
- which, in the US, means publicly funded schools - are exactly
what you are dreaming of - the spirituality there is indeed "mandated"
by the government for those children.
I SAID:
Subj: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf
Principles
Date: 2/9/2004
Hi Mike!
The purpose in writing this was not to
criticize you or Tarjei or anyone else. I have always been the
sort of person who gets real mad and just wishes I could roar
loud enough to get the other person to back down and say I was
right no matter what. But I think I had a high school teacher
who was the one who really took time to show me how important
it is to try to reign in those feelings (imagine trying to teach
that to a 16 or 17 year old Leo girl!) and to try to develop
an argument based on what the other person was actually saying.
I certainly am no great example of this,
even thirty something years later, but I have a paranoid feeling
about this WC/PLANS thing and it arises in me that we need to
be able to fight fire with fire and leave an extremely clear
record of our position and our reality. They may seem like a
somewhat isolated group of right wing fanatics, but their kind
of "information" spreads faster than truth and I am
sure that Waldorf Schools and potential school communities are
having to deal with a backlash from this mess all the time. Part
of my intention in writing little "treatises" is to
possibly give someone somewhere a response that they may not
have the time to write themselves. So, if you all think there
is any value in it, please pass it on to anyone that you think
might need it. If you think corrections
are needed first, please let me know.
As I said to Tarjei, this "mud"
sticks to us all and we might not be able to foresee down the
road how many people will turn up their noses at us if we even
mention the word "Waldorf". If Waldorf schools get
branded (wrongly and unfairly) as a "racist Nazi cult"
which the WC/PLANS group is coming perilously close
to doing, every one of us will be suspect and will have to spend
the rest of our lives trying to explain, defend and exonerate
ourselves. That is why I think we should be watching the court
cases very closely and if anyone is directly involved or knows
someone who is, try to insist that those buzz words not be allowed
into the proceedings.
In my personal opinion, this is one of
the biggest problems caused directly by the Waldorf School movement
ever allowing Waldorf Education to be brought into a public school
classroom in the first place. It was a stupid move. These are
the things I think are wrong with the idea:
1. It brings Waldorf Education under the
scrutiny and to an extent, under the control of the state government.
While there is nothing about Waldorf Schools or Waldorf Education
that needs to "hide", there are many aspects of our
methodology which are ahead of their time and require a great
deal of effort on our part to give the background and reasoning
for. There are many elements of state education that we do not
want to participate in, for example, pledging allegiance to a
national flag. In this unparalleled time of flag-waving, the
lack of the flag in the classroom is enough to raise antipathy
from any government entity. Also elements such as the Sistine
Madonna, morning verses with the word "God" in them,
candle-lighting and other "rituals" of our day all
envoke religious school practices and make state orthodoxy very
uncomfortable, to say the least. Remember, these people want
the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance
itself!
Technically, Waldorf teachers come from
many different backgrounds and from the inception of the first
school, Steiner made it clear that a good teacher did not necessarily
have to have a state teaching credential, but there were other
criteria of character and life experience that were more important.
The fact that some Waldorf teachers do not have state certification,
some not even a standard Bachelor's degree
is not something that sits well with the government, either.
2. The financial paradigm of tax funded
education is wrong and against the social principles on which
the Waldorf schools were founded.
3. The state schools as they exist today,
since the 1960s have become self-proclamed bastions of secularism.
Legal measures have been used ruthlessly to strip every religious
element out of the public school classroom. The concept behind
this (ostensibly) is to ensure that all children can feel comfortable
in a public school setting and do not have to face potential
ostracism due to their families' religious beliefs or lack of
beliefs. Considering the amount of "Christianity" active
in the public schools from around 1850 to 1950, there is a justifiable
basis for this attitude.
If I had a kindergarten age child and,
for whatever reason, had to or wanted to put him or her into
a public school, I would be appalled if it were run as a Montessori
school. The reason is that Maria Montessori's EXPRESS purpose
in her educational philosophy was to make all children good Catholics.
Whether the methods and techniques of a private school system
are "good" universally, the very existence of a "religious"
or "spiritual" background is enough to justify keeping
them out of the public school classroom.
Perhaps some day far in the future, Waldorf
Education will be so universally desirable within society at
large, that it will be mandated for all schools. But I have a
feeling that if society moves in a more "spiritualized"
direction, at least here in America, the rabid Christian fundamentalists
will pounce on it first and we will see a "Christian"
public school system the likes of which will make the early 20th
century seem positively enlightened.
I've got to run. More later.
Love,
Christine
AND I
CLARIFIED THIS WITH:
Subj: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re:
Waldorf Principles
Date: 2/9/2004
I meant in a few more centuries, when (hopefully)
the entire view of the human being will have matured. I certainly
don't mean the infantile, egotistical views
of "spirituality" that many people entertain today.
AND:
[link: "Waldorf
Principles"]
Subj: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re:
Waldorf Principles
Date: 2/9/2004
Sorry again - to clarify - not mandated
by Government- but by the totality of the social environment.
Please try to understand I am fantasizing a very different human
community than what we live with today. You are trying to fit
it into today's world and social/ political
reality. That is not what I was trying to say. It's like French
schools teach in French because the people in their society speak
French. The government doesn't have to "mandate" it
by law. Schools in a more "spiritual" society will
teach in a more "spiritual" way because that will be
the "language" of the people in that society.
Who knows what a few hundred years may
bring about? : )
I NEVER EVEN SAID THAT IT HAD TO BE, OR I
WISHED IT TO BE WALDORF EDUCATION, PER SE - I WAS COMMENTING
ON THE REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM MOST
WIDELY PRACTICED IN ANY GIVEN SOCIETY OUGHT TO BE AND IS THE
REFLECTION OF THE MORES, BELIEFS AND MOST WIDELY HELD OPINIONS
OF THAT GIVEN SOCIETY'S CITIZENS.
DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?????
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:49 pm
Subject: Re: In Your Neck of the Woods
In a message dated 2/10/2004 10:08:13 PM Eastern
Standard Time, Diana.Winters writes:
I'm sorry, I still don't
respect an attempt to dig up some kind of justification for left-handed
switching, since I am already very clear that the practice is
unkind to children. To me, it is not an intellectually - or morally
- justifiable exercise, to start from the premise that because
Rudolf Steiner said it, I should go looking for some justification
for it elsewhere. It isn't worth looking for - the practice
should stop - and that is my starting point on that issue. So,
I admit, I am not busily researching left brain/right brain cognitive
science or neuropsychology. If this makes me shallow, you can
have the point.
Diana,
I haven't spent my life looking for ways to
be "unkind to children" or to support unthinkingly
any ideas that are "unkind to children" no matter who
expressed those ideas. However, as much as modern parents tend
to be adverse to anything that may cause discomfort for their
children, the process of both learning information and developing
the resources of both mind and body in a way that optimises the
individual's chances for success in the learning process is fraught
by nature with uncomfortable moments and processes.
The child who wants to learn to play football
is going to be in for some very uncomfortable moments and very
uncomfortable processes of training and adapting both mind and
body to acquiring the skills and theories of the game.
The child who wants to become an architect
is going to be in for some very uncomfortable hours of struggling
with advanced mathematics and physics.
The child who wants to dance ballet may actually
experience bleeding toes.
The child who wants to go to college for anyone
of a few hundred career opportunities in this society is going
to have to learn a very uncomfortable amount of discipline and
sacrifice of momentary pleasure for a much longer term reward.
The child who wants to learn to type or play
the piano, violin, flute, drums, etc. is going to have to experience
the discomfort of using the "weaker" hand (whether
left or right) to the point where it becomes capable beyond it's
"natural" state.
The parents of a child who want him or her
to achieve self-discipline, self-direction and self-value in
later life are going to have to allow that child to go through
many and varied "discomforts" in all of the learning
processes that will be involved. Very little in life comes without
some form of "discomfort" and most people who value
the concept that every generation needs to achieve something
for itself in order to find fulfillment, accept that there will
be such "discomforts" along the way.
I don't KNOW that writing with the left brain
is more efficacious than writing with the right brain, but I
think there will be mainstream evidence to support this idea.
What is even more exciting, TO ME PERSONALLY, is that mainstream
science is ALSO starting to recognize the value and application
of right brain thinking - it's strengths and how it compliments
and supports left brain thinking. This is truly exciting, in
that it supports the validity of the kinds of "right-brain"
activities that Waldorf Education has held in esteem for the
better part of a century, during many decades when only left
brain functions had any mainstream recognition in education.
Even if mainstream educational psychology
were to "prove" that writing with the right brain was
essential for successful linear and analytic learning throughout
the course of a developing human's education (I am positing an
"if" - I am NOT fantasizing a "when"!) Even
then, I would agree that methods would have to be found and implemented
that were designed to protect the self-esteem and emotional safety
of each child involved. But since no such definitive pronouncement
has been made, my personal opinion in the matter is that teaching
to both sides of the brain is best and if there is an obstacle
in any child to developing in the "normal" range of
their capabilities, then therapies should be decided
on a case by case basis with educators, parents and specialists
involved.
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:12 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: In Your Neck of the
Woods
So Diana is essentially saying that before
she ever asked us any "questions" about the practice
of switching left-handed children in Waldorf she was already
clear that she would not "respect" any answer she might
encounter, no matter how well reasoned, how well researched or
how scientific they might be. Well that is certainly telling.
Now why is it such a common complaint on the WC list that you
can't "talk to" (at) anthroposophists? The question
is usually raised in such a way that it implies that anthroposophists
are the problem, but if "talking" means what it usually
does, then pretending to start a conversation when you are unprepared
to listen to any response is probably more at the root of the
problem.
Daniel Hindes
In a message dated 2/10/2004 10:08:13 PM
Eastern Standard Time, Diana.Winters writes:
I'm sorry, I still don't
respect an attempt to dig up some kind of justification for left-handed
switching, since I am already very clear that the practice is
unkind to children. To me, it is not an intellectually - or morally
- justifiable exercise, to start from the premise that because
Rudolf Steiner said it, I should go looking for some justification
for it elsewhere. It isn't worth looking for - the practice
should stop - and that is my starting point on that issue. So,
I admit, I am not busily researching left brain/right brain cognitive
science or neuropsychology. If this makes me shallow, you can
have the point.
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:24 pm
Subject: Re: In Your Neck of the Woods
In a message dated 2/10/2004 11:14:13 PM Eastern
Standard Time, momof2gals writes:
Truth is the ultimate defense
against libel. You cannot libel someone if you are telling the
truth about him or her.
That's one of the useful things about a court
of law (in it's intended ideal state, anyway). It is supposed
to provide a forum for the truth. If someone makes a statement
that is INJURIOUSLY negative toward someone else, then they must
provide proof that the statement is true or face whatever legal
consequenses are deemed appropriate by the court to make amends.
(Sorry for the caps, I have an old e-mail provider and my font
formatting doesn't usually show up, so caps are my only means
of emphasis.)
The words "racist" "Nazi"
and "cult" are significantly INJURIOUS to the reputation
and work of any group in the United States and most countries
of the world today. Allowing these words to be attached to Waldorf
Education or Anthroposophy cannot be permitted. The words must
be clearly defined in their usage and specific examples of application
provided. Speculation will not suffice. I have outlined in my
previous post what are the definitions that I believe are commonly
and universally accepted and why examples of specific applications
cannot be found.
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:27 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: In Your Neck of the
Woods
In a message dated 2/10/2004 11:20:48 PM Eastern
Standard Time, at [Daniel]
writes:
then pretending to start a conversation
when you are unprepared to listen to any response is probably
more at the root of the problem.
Exactly! which is why I responded so snidely
when I pointed out the "pigs and mud" quote to Daniel!
I was angry at the realization that she simply wasn't listening
to a word he was saying and refused to even acknowledge that
he was actually working on a reasonable answer to her question.
Aaarrrgghhhhh!!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
February/March
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
