assimilation
1
assimilation 2
From: at
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:10 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
Peter,
I was going through the archives, trying to
see if my notoriously unreliable short-term memory had omitted
anything of significance. I came across this, and wanted to ask
you a question about it.
Peter Staudenmaier (February
23rd, 2004 to the list):
Sorry to have caused confusion. I will
try to restate what I think is relevant about the concept of
assimilation and its role in Rudolf Steiner's views on Jews,
Judaism, and Jewishness.
Assimilation is most certainly not antisemitic
in and of itself. In the Germany of Steiner's day, most Jews
were firmly in favor of assimilation, and they definitely weren't
antisemites; in fact the most prominent organization of pro-assimilationist
Jews, the Centralverein, was also a major opponent of antisemitic
agitation. There were other tendencies within German Jewry that
were much more ambivalent toward assimilation, including many
Orthodox Jews and many Zionists, but these were minority viewpoints
at the time.
Daniel:
Summary: Assimilationist Jews are (mostly)
not anti-Semitic.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Within the non-Jewish population (which
is to say, the vast majority of Germans), there were many supporters
and defenders of Jewish rights; these people are sometimes called
philosemites (though that term, particularly in Germany, carries
a quite a few complicated connotations). In my view, Steiner
belonged to this stream around the turn of the century, when
he published a series of articles denouncing organized antisemitism.
Along with these philosemites, there were of course also many
antisemites, who appeared in a great variety of ideological types,
from religious antisemites to cultural antisemites to political
antisemites to economic antisemites to racial antisemites and
more. To complicate matters further, the range of general attitudes
toward assimilation among non-Jewish Germans was spread more
or less evenly across this ideological spectrum: some antisemites
were in favor of assimilation, as they understood it, and others
were opposed. Moreover, many philosemites also shared an emphatically
pro-assimilationist perspective.
Daniel:
Non-Jewish defenders of Jewish rights are
philosemites. They could also simultaneously be anti-Semites.
Steiner was an anti-Semitic philosemite.
Peter Staudenmaier:
The trouble is that for the most part,
Jews and non-Jews meant very different things by the term 'assimilation'.
For Jews, especially assimilationist Jews, it generally meant
fuller integration into mainstream German society while retaining
their Jewish identity. For many non-Jews, in contrast, assimilation
meant the abandonment of Jewish identity as such. This is how
Steiner understood the concept, for example. This fundamental
difference greatly exacerbated the existing social conflicts
surrounding the so-called "Jewish question" in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries.
I hope this won't muddle things even further,
but it's important to keep in mind that racism and antisemitism
are two different things. Although they do often coincide, there
are certainly racists who are not antisemites and antisemites
who are not racists. This is relevant to the contested notion
of assimilation because most racial antisemites -- those who
viewed Jews as racially distinct from 'German' or 'Aryans' --
opposed assimilation. However, there are instances of antisemites
who favored assimilation and who also held a more or less racial
conception of Jewishness; in my view, some of Steiner's mature
views on Jews (after his turn to Theosophy) fall into this category.
Daniel:
Steiner was an anti-Semitic philosemite because
his view of assimilation involved the loss of separate Jewish
identity.
Peter Staudenmaier:
In summary: assimilation itself is neither
necessarily antisemitic nor necessarily racist; it is, instead,
a significant distinguishing issue in the complex debates over
the status of Jews within German culture and society in Steiner's
day. The difference between Jewish and gentile understandings
of 'assimilation' is a mainstay of the abundant historical research
on German-Jewish history; when I get back to the computer later
today I will try to post a selection of quotes from various works
that will hopefully give a fuller picture of this multifaceted
question.
Daniel:
In the end, whether your view of assimilation
is anti-Semitic or not depends entirely on whether or not your
version of assimilation results in a loss of separate Jewish
identity.
Daniel:
So summing the whole thing up again:
Assimilationist Jews are (mostly) not anti-Semitic.
Non-Jewish defenders of Jewish rights are philosemites. They
could also simultaneously be anti-Semites. Steiner was an anti-Semitic
philosemite. Steiner was an anti-Semitic philosemite because
his view of assimilation involved the loss of separate Jewish
identity. In the end, whether your view of assimilation is anti-Semitic
or not depends entirely on whether or not your version of assimilation
results in a loss of separate Jewish identity.
Is this correct?
Daniel
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:26 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
Summary: Assimilationist Jews are (mostly) not anti-Semitic.
Yes.
Non-Jewish defenders of Jewish rights are philosemites.
Yes.
They could also simultaneously be anti-Semites.
No, not if you mean they could be antisemites and philosemites
at the very same time. But a number of German intellectuals went
through shifting phases on this score, and developed from philosemites
into antisemites or vice-versa, at different times in their lives.
Steiner was an anti-Semitic philosemite.
I think he had both antisemitic and philosemitic phases. I outlined
them in my first post to this list.
Steiner was an anti-Semitic philosemite because his view of
assimilation involved the loss of separate Jewish identity.
No, that criterion alone won't serve to distinguish philosemitic
from antisemitic positions. Mommsen's view of assimilation was
very similar to Steiner's and Treitschke's, for example, and
Mommsen was a philosemite, not an antisemite. To discern the
significant differences, we need to take a number of other contextual
factors into account, as I've tried to explain before.
In the end, whether your view of assimilation is anti-Semitic
or not depends entirely on whether or not your version of assimilation
results in a loss of separate Jewish identity.
No, not in my view. This version of assimilation-as-disappearance
could be incorporated into both philosemitic and antisemitic
paradigms, as the debate between Treitschke and Mommsen shows.
Assimilationist Jews are (mostly) not anti-Semitic. Non-Jewish
defenders of Jewish rights are philosemites. They could also
simultaneously be anti-Semites.
Not in the sense of "simultaneous" that I think you
mean. They could be both philosemites and antisemites in the
course of their careers, however.
Steiner was an anti-Semitic philosemite.
No, he was both a philosemite and an antisemite at different
points in his life, in my view.
Steiner was an anti-Semitic philosemite because his view of
assimilation involved the loss of separate Jewish identity.
He held this view of assimilation in both the philosemitic and
the antisemitic phases. It is one of the unifying factors in
Steiner's attitudes toward Jews overall throughout his life.
In the end, whether your view of assimilation is anti-Semitic
or not depends entirely on whether or not your version of assimilation
results in a loss of separate Jewish identity.
No, that is not my argument. Here are some of the contributing
factors that I discussed previously: Did the figures in question
participate in existing antisemitic discourses about Jews? Did
they publicly praise prominent antisemites and endorse their
views on Jews? Did they defend anti-Jewish tracts against charges
of antisemitism? Did they derive terminology or central concepts
from sources in which antisemitic features played a prominent
role? Did they express their views on Jews, Judaism, and Jewishness
within contexts in which antisemitic themes were already conspicuous?
Did they incorporate longstanding antisemitic tropes into their
own doctrines? I think that Steiner did all of those things at
various points in his life.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:56 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
At 22:10 14.03.2004, Daniel wrote:
So summing the whole thing up again:
Assimilationist Jews are (mostly) not anti-Semitic.
Non-Jewish defenders of Jewish rights are philosemites. They
could also simultaneously be anti-Semites. Steiner was an anti-Semitic
philosemite. Steiner was an anti-Semitic philosemite because
his view of assimilation involved the loss of separate Jewish
identity. In the end, whether your view of assimilation is anti-Semitic
or not depends entirely on whether or not your version of assimilation
results in a loss of separate Jewish identity.
Good summary. I admire you for your work and
effort. They remind me of brain-twisters of sorts, which have
a certain kinship to tongue-twisters, like the unforgettable
"Moses Supposes" with Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor
from the best musical ever made on film, "Singin' in the
Rain" (1952):
Moses supposes his toeses
are Roses,
But Moses supposes Erroneously,
Moses he knowses his toeses aren't roses,
As Moses supposes his toeses to be!
Moses supposes his toeses are Roses,
But Moses supposes Erroneously,
A mose is a mose!
A rose is a rose!
A toes a toes!
Hooptie doodie doodle
Moses supposes his toeses are Roses,
But Moses supposes Erroneously,
For Moses he knowses his toeses arent roses,
As Moses supposes his toeses to be!
Moses
(Moses supposes his toeses are roses)
Moses
(Moses supposes erroneously)
Moses
(Moses supposes his toeses are roses)
As Moses supposes his toeses to be!
A Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is
A rose is for Moses as potent as toeses
Couldn't be a lily or a daphi daphi dilli
It's gotta be a rose cuz it rhymes with mose!
Moses!
Moses!
Moses!
(Dance Sequence)
AAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
I once had an anthology of British tongue-twisters.
Here are two favorites I remember:
The archbishop's cat crept
craftily into the Canterbury Cathedral crypt, causing cataclysmal
chaos in clerical circles by keeping cunningly concealed."
- Are you aluminiuming'em,
my man?
- No, I'm copperbottoming'em, Mom.
We could make a combined brain-and-toungue-twister
of our own with all these Jewish and non-Jewish philo-Semitic
anti-Semites. Any suggestions?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:32 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
We could make a combined brain-and-toungue-twister
of our own with all these Jewish and non-Jewish philo-Semitic
anti-Semites. Any suggestions?
Peter picked a peck of pickled poop,
a peck of pickled poop Peter picked:
if Peter picked a peck of picked poop.
where is the peck of pickled poop peter picked?
Answer: In the WC of course.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:28 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
Peter,
Thanks for your reply.
Summary: Assimilationist Jews are (mostly)
not anti-Semitic.
Yes.
Non-Jewish defenders of Jewish rights are
philosemites.
Yes.
They could also simultaneously be anti-Semites.
No, not if you mean they could be antisemites
and philosemites at the very same time. But a number of German
intellectuals went through shifting phases on this score, and
developed from philosemites into antisemites or vice-versa, at
different times in their lives.
Daniel:
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Let's see
if I got it:
"Within the non-Jewish population (which
is to say, the vast majority of Germans), there were many supporters
and defenders of Jewish rights; these people are sometimes called
philosemites. ... Along with these philosemites, there were of
course also many antisemites... ... ...the range of general attitudes
toward assimilation among non-Jewish Germans was spread more
or less evenly across this ideological spectrum: some antisemites
were in favor of assimilation, as they understood it, and others
were opposed. Moreover, many philosemites also shared an emphatically
pro-assimilationist perspective."
So nobody at that time was simultaneously
a philosemite and an anti-Semite. (From elsewhere) A person's
view of assimilation is not enough to determine philosemitism
or anti-Semitism. If a person defends Jewish rights and is therefore
a philosemite, whether or not their view of assimilation ends
with the disappearance of a separate Jewish identity will not
in itself cause them to be an anti-Semite. To be an anti-Semite
they must be shown to have advocated unequal treatment of Jews
and/or to have disparraged Jews as a group.
Now what of people who advocated Jewish rights out of principle,
but disparraged Jews out of habit or cultural prejudice? Would
they not be anti-Semitic philosemites?
Steiner was an anti-Semitic philosemite.
I think he had both antisemitic and philosemitic
phases. I outlined them in my first post to this list.
Daniel:
So how would you describe Steiner overall?
Steiner was an anti-Semitic philosemite
because his view of assimilation involved the loss of separate
Jewish identity.
No, that criterion alone won't serve to
distinguish philosemitic from antisemitic positions. Mommsen's
view of assimilation was very similar to Steiner's and Treitschke's,
for example, and Mommsen was a philosemite, not an antisemite.
To discern the significant differences, we need to take a number
of other contextual factors into account, as I've tried to explain
before.
Daniel:
So you are arguing that Steiner fits the profile
of someone who advocated Jewish rights out of principle, but
disparraged Jews out of habit or cultural prejudice?
In the end, whether your view of assimilation
is anti-Semitic or not depends entirely on whether or not your
version of assimilation results in a loss of separate Jewish
identity.
No, not in my view. This version of assimilation-as-disappearance
could be incorporated into both philosemitic and antisemitic
paradigms, as the debate between Treitschke and Mommsen shows.
Daniel:
Ok. I am glad we have established this.
Steiner was an anti-Semitic philosemite
because his view of assimilation involved the loss of separate
Jewish identity.
He held this view of assimilation in both
the philosemitic and the antisemitic phases. It is one of the
unifying factors in Steiner's attitudes toward Jews overall throughout
his life.
Daniel:
Ok. I am glad we have established this.
In the end, whether your view of assimilation
is anti-Semitic or not depends entirely on whether or not your
version of assimilation results in a loss of separate Jewish
identity.
No, that is not my argument. Here are some
of the contributing factors that I discussed previously: Did
the figures in question participate in existing antisemitic discourses
about Jews? Did they publicly praise prominent antisemites and
endorse their views on Jews? Did they defend anti-Jewish tracts
against charges of antisemitism? Did they derive terminology
or central concepts from sources in which antisemitic features
played a prominent role? Did they express their views on Jews,
Judaism, and Jewishness within contexts in which antisemitic
themes were already conspicuous? Did they incorporate longstanding
antisemitic tropes into their own doctrines? I think that Steiner
did all of those things at various points in his life.
Ok. Thanks for the clarity. So, since you seem to be more up
to date on the issue, I would appreciate it if you could perhaps
provide the examples you have found in Steiner's writing that
fit each of the categories:
Did Steiner participate in existing antisemitic discourses about
Jews?
Did Steiner publicly praise prominent antisemites and endorse
their views on Jews?
Did Steiner defend anti-Jewish tracts against charges of antisemitism?
Did Steiner derive terminology or central concepts from sources
in which antisemitic features played a prominent role? (Isn't
this a bit of a guilt-by-association argument?)
Did Steiner express his views on Jews, Judaism, and Jewishness
within contexts in which antisemitic themes were already conspicuous?
(Wouldn't this apply to anyone speaking of Jews or Jewishness
in Austria or Germany between 1860 and 1945?)
Did Steiner incorporate longstanding antisemitic tropes into
his own doctrines?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:19 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
A person's view of assimilation is not
enough to determine philosemitism or anti-Semitism.
Agreed.
If a person defends Jewish rights and is
therefore a philosemite, whether or not their view of assimilation
ends with the disappearance of a separate Jewish identity will
not in itself cause them to be an anti-Semite.
Agreed.
To be an anti-Semite they must be shown
to have advocated unequal treatment of Jews and/or to have disparraged
Jews as a group.
Or disparaged Jewishness as a phenomenon.
The very notion of "antisemitism" was orginally based
on the idea that there was something like "semitism"
which Jewishness represented.
Now what of people who advocated Jewish rights out of principle,
but disparraged Jews out of habit or cultural prejudice? Would
they not be anti-Semitic philosemites?
No, they'd just be antisemites. Even Treitschke defended (some)
Jewish rights on principle.
So how would you describe Steiner overall?
I wouldn't, not in terms of philosemitic or antisemitic (though
we could do so in terms of his conception of assimilation as
amalgamation). It makes little sense to describe Steiner's views
on Jews "overall", except with vague characterizations
like "ambivalent" or "changing" or what have
you. The same is true for figures like Panizza, Bloem, and so
forth.
So you are arguing that Steiner fits the profile of someone
who advocated Jewish rights out of principle, but disparraged
Jews out of habit or cultural prejudice?
Partly. But his defenses of Jewish rights stem from his philosemitic
period around the turn of the century. Do you mean that he advocated
Jewish rights in 1888, or in 1924?
Ok. Thanks for the clarity. So, since you seem to be more
up to date on the issue, I would appreciate it if you could perhaps
provide the examples you have found in Steiner's writing that
fit each of the categories: Did Steiner participate in existing
antisemitic discourses about Jews?
Yes. He depicted Jewry as a closed totality, saw Jews as prone
to materialism, frowned upon Jewish influences on the German
language, and so forth.
Did Steiner publicly praise prominent antisemites and endorse
their views on Jews?
Yes. He did so with Wagner, for example (see Steiner, Die okkulten
Wahrheiten alter Mythen und Sagen pp. 138-139).
Did Steiner defend anti-Jewish tracts against charges of antisemitism?
Yes, of course. That's what the 1888 article is all about. It's
a defense of Hamerling's Homunkulus.
Did Steiner derive terminology or central concepts from sources
in which antisemitic features played a prominent role?
Yes. Theosophical literature (including the stuff that makes
Detlef giddy) is a fine example.
(Isn't this a bit of a guilt-by-association argument?)
No, of course not. I think you have a loose grasp of that concept
in general.
Did Steiner express his views on Jews, Judaism, and Jewishness
within contexts in which antisemitic themes were already conspicuous?
Yes. His first public statements about Jews were made in the
pages of Austrian pan-German periodicals.
(Wouldn't this apply to anyone speaking of Jews or Jewishness
in Austria or Germany between 1860 and 1945?)
No, of course not. Lots of Austrians and Germans rejected pan-Germanism,
rejected Theosophy, and so forth.
Did Steiner incorporate longstanding antisemitic tropes into
his own doctrines?
Yes. His repeated invocations of the myth of Ahasver are a striking
example.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:17 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
Daniel wrote:
Now what of people who advocated Jewish
rights out of principle, but disparraged Jews out of habit or
cultural prejudice? Would they not be anti-Semitic philosemites?
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, they'd just be antisemites. Even Treitschke
defended (some) Jewish rights on principle.
Daniel:
Ok, so then anti-Semitism trumps philosemitism?
The definition you gave earlier of a philosemite was simply someone
who defended Jewish rights. So I asked about someone who advocated
Jewish rights but also disparraged Jews out of habit or cultural
prejudice. By your earlier definition, they ought to have been
an anti-Semitic philosemite. But now we just drop the philosemitism
part if anit-Semitism is present? How much disparaging is required
before the anti-Semitism erases the philosemitic elements in
labeling? (Sorry to make you think here, but it is something
I would like to be clear on, though it seems that despite great
effort it is hard to get you to be clear on anything).
Daniel wrote:
So how would you describe Steiner overall?
Peter Staudenmaier:
I wouldn't, not in terms of philosemitic
or antisemitic (though we could do so in terms of his conception
of assimilation as amalgamation). It makes little sense to describe
Steiner's views on Jews "overall", except with vague
characterizations like "ambivalent" or "changing"
or what have you. The same is true for figures like Panizza,
Bloem, and so forth.
Daniel:
So you go on the record as saying "Steiner
was not an anti-Semite, he merely held some anti-Semitic ideas
at certain points."?
Daniel wrote:
So you are arguing that Steiner fits the
profile of someone who advocated Jewish rights out of principle,
but disparraged Jews out of habit or cultural prejudice?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Partly. But his defenses of Jewish rights
stem from his philosemitic period around the turn of the century.
Do you mean that he advocated Jewish rights in 1888, or in 1924?
Daniel:
Do you mean to suggest that Steiner expressed
his opinion that Jews should have restricted civil rights in
1888 or 1924? If you honestly believe this, I would certainly
like to see the quotes that would support this. Saying that in
principle Jews ought to assimilate is a long way from saying
that they should be denied civil rights!
Daniel wrote:
Did Steiner participate in existing antisemitic
discourses about Jews?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. He depicted Jewry as a closed totality,
saw Jews as prone to materialism, frowned upon Jewish influences
on the German language, and so forth.
Daniel:
This would be the 1888 essay, correct? Or
somewhere else?
Daniel wrote:
Did Steiner publicly praise prominent antisemites
and endorse their views on Jews?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. He did so with Wagner, for example
(see Steiner, Die okkulten Wahrheiten alter Mythen und Sagen
pp. 138-139).
Daniel:
You don't honestly mean to argue that a praise
of Wagner's music constitutes anti-Semitism! Really, Peter, I
though you had more brains than that! Nor would praising Trietzschke's
history or Gobineau's literature indicate the least bit of anit-Semitism
in my mind.
Daniel wrote:
Did Steiner defend anti-Jewish tracts against
charges of antisemitism?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, of course. That's what the 1888 article
is all about. It's a defense of Hamerling's Homunkulus.
Daniel:
That is the tract which you have rejected
every reasonable reading in favor of your own interpretation.
If your case for Steiner's anti-Semitism rests on this alone,
it is weak indeed.
Daniel wrote:
Did Steiner derive terminology or central
concepts from sources in which antisemitic features played a
prominent role?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. Theosophical literature (including
the stuff that makes Detlef giddy) is a fine example.
Daniel wrote (anticipating the answer):
(Isn't this a bit of a guilt-by-association
argument?)
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, of course not. I think you have a loose
grasp of that concept in general.
Daniel:
Peter, you haven't addressed my objection.
How does borrowing a few names from a work that may be anit-Semetic
require that the derivitve work automatically be tainted with
the anti-Semitism of the source? That line of argumentation is
incredibly lame, if I may say so.
Daniel wrote:
Did Steiner express his views on Jews,
Judaism, and Jewishness within contexts in which antisemitic
themes were already conspicuous?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. His first public statements about
Jews were made in the pages of Austrian pan-German periodicals.
Daniel:
And if what he said was pro-Jewish? That makes
him an anti-Semite? This case is getting flimsier and flimsier.
Daniel wrote:
(Wouldn't this apply to anyone speaking
of Jews or Jewishness in Austria or Germany between 1860 and
1945?)
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, of course not. Lots of Austrians and
Germans rejected pan-Germanism, rejected Theosophy, and so forth.
Daniel:
You have again dodged the question. (And your
answer seems to indicate a belief that all pan-Germanism and
all Theosophy was anti-Semitic - would you like to explicitly
make this claim?) Austro-German culture between 1860 and 1945
was arguably anti-Semitic as a whole. This would make anything
said about Jews in that context, by your definition, anti-Semitic.
You seem to be setting up your criteria with Steiner in mind,
but I must point out that when applied consistently, they appear
ridiculous.
Daniel wrote:
Did Steiner incorporate longstanding antisemitic
tropes into his own doctrines?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes. His repeated invocations of the myth
of Ahasver are a striking example.
Daniel:
How is merely discussing the myth of Ahasver
anti-Semitic? Is all discussion of this off-limits for non-Jews?
Would it not make more sense to examine what Steiner said about
the subject?
Daniel:
In summary, the case for Steiner being an
anti-Semite rests on the following charges:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury!
The accused did once profess his admiration of Wagner's music!
The accused did transgress in the most grievous manner and mention
legends involving Jews! (And not just those in the Old Testament).
The accused did say things about Jewry that I feel is anti-Semitic,
and did so in no less a place than a pan-German periodical! (Hang
him, Hang him!)
The accused didst once defend a poet against charges of anti-Semitism.
And since the poet was obviously anti-Semitic, so must the defender
be!
And the accused did advocate full and unequivocal assimilation!
(Although I have already stated that this is not anti-Semitic,
but I'll continue to throw it in anyway!).
Ignore his statments about human equality, about the dignity
of all human beings and their inherent right to equal civil liberties
in any state. Ignore his denunciations of all hatred based on
national or ethnic prejudices (he only said it about 3000 times!).
If the quote fits, you can't acquit!
The prosecution rests?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:04 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
Ok, so then anti-Semitism trumps philosemitism?
In many cases, yes. How else would one be
able to designate Treitschke or Lagarde or even Marr as antisemites?
So you go on the record as saying "Steiner
was not an anti-Semite, he merely held some anti-Semitic ideas
at certain points."?
That is an entirely reasonable position, but
it isn't my position. I think Steiner was an antisemite at several
points in his life, and a philosemite at other points.
Do you mean to suggest that Steiner expressed
his opinion that Jews should have restricted civil rights in
1888 or 1924?
No, of course not. That would hinder assimilation,
not speed it up. That's exactly why Treitschke supported civil
rights for Jews.
Saying that in principle Jews ought to assimilate is a long
way from saying that they should be denied civil rights!
Indeed. They are essentially opposites of one another. Assimilationist
antisemites generally did not oppose civil rights for Jews.
That is the tract which you have rejected every reasonable
reading in favor of your own interpretation. If your case for
Steiner's anti-Semitism rests on this alone, it is weak indeed.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. It almost sounds like you're
trying to say that you think Steiner's 1888 review of Hamerling's
Homunkulus did *not* defend the book against charges of antisemitism.
If that is what you mean, could you explain why you think this?
And if what he said was pro-Jewish?
Saying that Jews constitute a closed totality and that their
existence is a mistake of world history is not pro-Jewish.
Austro-German culture between 1860 and 1945 was arguably anti-Semitic
as a whole.
I think that thesis is quite mistaken. It has been thoroughly
dismantled by a wide variety of historical and comparative studies.
Aside from the vexed question of just what it might mean to say
that any culture "as a whole" is antisemitic, this
claim ignores the fact that France and Russia, to choose the
two most obvious examples, displayed considerably more virulent
and more widespread forms of antisemitism than Germany or Austria
during much of the period you point to. In any case, such sweeping
claims deprive the concept of antisemitism of its descriptive
force and analytical usefulness.
How is merely discussing the myth of Ahasver
anti-Semitic?
It isn't. Invoking the myth of Ahasver in order to portray Jews
as paradigmatic of racial stagnation is antisemitic.
Would it not make more sense to examine what Steiner said
about the subject?
Yes, it certainly would. I encourage you to do so. I've given
you a number of Steiner's antisemitic statements about Ahasver.
Now might be a good time to examine them.
The accused did once profess his admiration of Wagner's music!
Where do you think Steiner did this? (A helpful hint: take a
quick look at Lindenberg's biography on this one.)
The accused didst once defend a poet against charges of anti-Semitism.
And since the poet was obviously anti-Semitic, so must the defender
be!
Your position on this question remains unclear to me. Are you
now trying to say that you agree with Steiner that Hamerling's
Homunkulus contains no significant antisemitic elements?
Ignore his denunciations of all hatred based on national or
ethnic prejudices (he only said it about 3000 times!).
You should not ignore these. You should, instead, examine them
to figure out why Steiner thought that Jewishness itself was
based on national or ethnic prejudices.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 9:12 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
Ok, so then anti-Semitism trumps philosemitism?
Peter Staudenmaier:
In many cases, yes. How else would one
be able to designate Treitschke or Lagarde or even Marr as antisemites?
Daniel:
I just wanted to be clear on this. So essentially,
in any mixed biography, a few anti-Semitic elements suffice to
earn the label of anti-Semite (anti-Semitism trumps philosemitism).
I should point out that this definition comes dangerously close
to condemning anyone in Austria or Germany between 1860 and 1925
who spoke on Jews in any but the most approving way. (I suppose
condemning is the wrong word, since you seem to feel that there
is nothing wrong with being an anti-Seminte - it is merely a
lablel, after all.)
Daniel wrote:
So you go on the record as saying "Steiner
was not an anti-Semite, he merely held some anti-Semitic ideas
at certain points."?
Peter Staudenmaier:
That is an entirely reasonable position,
but it isn't my position. I think Steiner was an antisemite at
several points in his life, and a philosemite at other points.
Daniel:
You wiggle and wiggle on this. You repeatedly
condemn people for not separating the person from the argument,
but you refuse to consistently apply this principle yourself.
Why do you persist in trying to separate Steiner into a philosemite
and an antisemite? Above you have stated that anti-Semitism trumps
philosemitism, so the only purpose this serves is to facilitate
labeling Steiner an anti-Semite.
Daniel wrote:
Do you mean to suggest that Steiner expressed
his opinion that Jews should have restricted civil rights in
1888 or 1924?
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, of course not. That would hinder assimilation,
not speed it up. That's exactly why Treitschke supported civil
rights for Jews.
Daniel:
Ok. We are dancing the dance here. The list
of things for which Steiner can be considered an anti-Semite
is getting quite short.
Daniel wrote:
Saying that in principle Jews ought to
assimilate is a long way from saying that they should be denied
civil rights!
Peter Staudenmaier:
Indeed. They are essentially opposites
of one another. Assimilationist antisemites generally did not
oppose civil rights for Jews.
Daniel:
Indeed. As I said above, the list of things
for which Steiner can be considered an anti-Semite is getting
quite short.
Daniel wrote:
That is the tract which you have rejected
every reasonable reading in favor of your own interpretation.
If your case for Steiner's anti-Semitism rests on this alone,
it is weak indeed.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I'm not sure what you're getting at. It
almost sounds like you're trying to say that you think Steiner's
1888 review of Hamerling's Homunkulus did *not* defend the book
against charges of antisemitism. If that is what you mean, could
you explain why you think this?
Daniel:
Steiner was quite clear that his intent with
the article was to defend Hamerling from charges of anti-Semitism.
Does this alone make Steiner and anti-Semite?
Daniel wrote:
And if what he said was pro-Jewish?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Saying that Jews constitute a closed totality
and that their existence is a mistake of world history is not
pro-Jewish.
Daniel:
Snipping, snipping, snipping. I asked if saying
pro-Jewish statements in a pan-German periodical would make the
author anti-Semitic because of the forum (earlier you had given
a definition of anti-Semitism as speaking in a typically anti-Semitic
forum - clearly attempting to tailor your definition to fit the
case at hand). But like a broken record you keep going back to
your oversimplifications and misphrased restatements of Steiner's
words (for example, Steiner said that "no one can deny that
Jews today present themselves as a closed totality" - this
is not the same as stating that they are a closed totality).
This is hardly a conversation, debate or discussion. You don't
really respond to what people say to you at all.
Daniel wrote:
Austro-German culture between 1860 and
1945 was arguably anti-Semitic as a whole.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think that thesis is quite mistaken.
It has been thoroughly dismantled by a wide variety of historical
and comparative studies. Aside from the vexed question of just
what it might mean to say that any culture "as a whole"
is antisemitic, this claim ignores the fact that France and Russia,
to choose the two most obvious examples, displayed considerably
more virulent and more widespread forms of antisemitism than
Germany or Austria during much of the period you point to. In
any case, such sweeping claims deprive the concept of antisemitism
of its descriptive force and analytical usefulness.
Daniel:
Come on Peter! In your attempt to snare Steiner
in the net of anti-Semitism, you are forced to create definitions
that are so large as to have to net the entire culture. When
I point this out, you backpedal. Consisted thinking appears quite
difficult for you. Perhaps it is you lack of training in logic
and philosophy.
Daniel wrote:
How is merely discussing the myth of Ahasver
anti-Semitic?
Peter Staudenmaier:
It isn't. Invoking the myth of Ahasver
in order to portray Jews as paradigmatic of racial stagnation
is antisemitic.
Daniel:
Well, is this what Steiner does? I note your
silence on the matter. You state in general that it would be
anti-Semitic, but you are only implying that this is what Steiner
does. Do you want to make that claim, or back away from it?
Daniel wrote:
The accused did once profess his admiration
of Wagner's music!
Peter Staudenmaier:
Where do you think Steiner did this? (A
helpful hint: take a quick look at Lindenberg's biography on
this one.)
Daniel:
Wagner is mentioned on three pages, and always
in connection with the MUSIC. Peter, this is the third time that
you have bluffed like this. I know what Steiner thought of Wagner;
I've been interested in this point for years. You keep writing
like you know things I don't, but it is a bluff. There is no
evidence that Steiner ever spoke in any way approvingly of Wagner's
anti-Semitism, for the simple reason that Steiner was against
all forms of anti-Semitism throughout his entire life. I could
give you a dozen other references to statements on Wagner's music,
but that is besides the point. Admiring Wagner's music does not
make anyone an anti-Semite, despite your attempts to the contrary.
Daniel wrote:
Ignore his denunciations of all hatred
based on national or ethnic prejudices (he only said it about
3000 times!).
Peter Staudenmaier:
You should not ignore these. You should,
instead, examine them to figure out why Steiner thought that
Jewishness itself was based on national or ethnic prejudices.
Daniel:
Well, have you, Peter? Can you answer your
own question?
Daniel:
In summary, the case for Steiner being an
anti-Semite rests on the following charges:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury!
The accused did once profess his admiration of Wagner's music!
The accused did transgress in the most grievous manner and mention
legends involving Jews! (And not just those in the Old Testament).
The accused did say things about Jewry that I feel is anti-Semitic,
and did so in no less a place than a pan-German periodical! (Hang
him, Hang him!)
The accused didst once defend a poet against charges of anti-Semitism.
And since the poet was obviously anti-Semitic, so must the defender
be!
And the accused did advocate full and unequivocal assimilation!
(Although I have already stated that this is not anti-Semitic,
but I'll continue to throw it in anyway!).
Ignore his statments about human equality, about the dignity
of all human beings and their inherent right to equal civil liberties
in any state. Ignore his denunciations of all hatred based on
national or ethnic prejudices (he only said it about 3000 times!).
If the quote fits, you can't acquit!
The prosecution rests?
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:45 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
I just wanted to be clear on this. So essentially, in any
mixed biography, a few anti-Semitic elements suffice to earn
the label of anti-Semite (anti-Semitism trumps philosemitism).
No, not in any "mixed biography". But in the case of
people like Steiner and Treitschke, yes, of course. I get the
sense that you're not paying attention to your own argument here.
I should point out that this definition comes dangerously
close to condemning anyone in Austria or Germany between 1860
and 1925 who spoke on Jews in any but the most approving way.
(I suppose condemning is the wrong word, since you seem to feel
that there is nothing wrong with being an anti-Seminte - it is
merely a lablel, after all.)
It is indeed not about condemning, it is about accurate analysis.
This is not at all the same thing as feeling that there is nothing
wrong with being an antisemite, by the way; the point is simply
that whether or not another person qualifies as an antisemite
has nothing to do with your personal feelings about antisemitism.
But more to the point, could I ask why you seem to think it would
be unusual for non-Jews to speak of Jews in an approving way?
Do you think that most non-Jews in Austria and Germany from 1860
to 1925 spoke of Jews in a disapproving way?
You wiggle and wiggle on this. You repeatedly condemn people
for not separating the person from the argument, but you refuse
to consistently apply this principle yourself.
Huh? You didn't ask about me, you asked about Steiner. You asked
whether I thought that Steiner was an antisemite, and I replied
that I think Steiner was both an antisemite and a philosemite
at different points in his career (which is what I've been saying
all along, by the way, since my very first post to this list).
It's fine with me if other people simply say that he held antisemitic
stances and philosemitic stances.
Why do you persist in trying to separate Steiner into a philosemite
and an antisemite?
Because that's what I think he was.
Above you have stated that anti-Semitism trumps philosemitism,
so the only purpose this serves is to facilitate labeling Steiner
an anti-Semite.
No, not at all. During Steiner's philosemitic period, his antisemitic
views did not trump his philosemitic views. That isn't really
such a complicated idea, is it? Try applying it to Treitschke
or Marr and see what you get. It isn't unusual for historical
figures to display different emphases at different points in
their lives. If you are trying to say that the presence of some
philosemitic views at some points in Steiner's life means that
he could not possibly have been an antisemite at other points
in his life, then you'll need to re-examine your reasoning.
The list of things for which Steiner can be considered an
anti-Semite is getting quite short.
It is? What exactly has dropped off this list, in your view?
Are you now trying to tell us that you share Frank's view that
assimilationists could not be antisemites? Please answer that
question. It would clarify an awful lot.
Steiner was quite clear that his intent with the article was
to defend Hamerling from charges of anti-Semitism. Does this
alone make Steiner and anti-Semite?
No, it makes him an antisemite in combination with the other
seven factors I named.
for example, Steiner said that "no one can deny that
Jews today present themselves as a closed totality" - this
is not the same as stating that they are a closed totality
Yes, it is. Please re-read that sentence.
In your attempt to snare Steiner in the net of anti-Semitism,
you are forced to create definitions that are so large as to
have to net the entire culture.
That makes no sense. The definition you have offered is much
larger than the one I have offered. My definition certainly does
not net the entire culture, it nets people like Treitschke and
Steiner. Your definition, on the other hand, does net the entire
culture, quite explicitly so.
Well, is this what Steiner does? I note your silence on the
matter. You state in general that it would be anti-Semitic, but
you are only implying that this is what Steiner does. Do you
want to make that claim, or back away from it?
Not only do I "want to" make this claim, I have made
it very explicitly again and again, and provided several quotes
from Steiner to back it up. Steiner did indeed invoke the myth
of Ahasver to portray Jews as paradigmatic of racial stagnation.
Why don't you simply take a look at those passages and tell me
if you disagree?
Peter, this is the third time that you have bluffed like this.
I know what Steiner thought of Wagner; I've been interested in
this point for years.
Then why didn't you know about the passage on "semitism"
that I posted yesterday? And why did you think I was bluffing?
If you think that Steiner does not in fact roundly endorse Wagner's
writings on Jews in that passage, I encourage you to come right
out and say so.
There is no evidence that Steiner ever spoke in any way approvingly
of Wagner's anti-Semitism
Well, except for the evidence that I just posted, and which you
hadn't yet read when you wrote this post (though that isn't much
of an excuse, since I gave you the full citation weeks ago).
Steiner not only speaks approvingly of Wagner's antisemitism
here, he denies that Wagner was an antisemite at all!
I do hope you will keep this incident in mind then next time
you get upset about my attitude toward people who have been studying
Steiner for years.
Peter
Daniel wrote:
So you go on the record as saying "Steiner
was not an anti-Semite, he merely held some anti-Semitic ideas
at certain points."?
Peter Staudenmaier:
That is an entirely reasonable position,
but it isn't my position. I think Steiner was an antisemite at
several points in his life, and a philosemite at other points.
Daniel:
You wiggle and wiggle on this. You repeatedly
condemn people for not separating the person from the argument,
but you refuse to consistently apply this principle yourself.
Why do you persist in trying to separate Steiner into a philosemite
and an antisemite? Above you have stated that anti-Semitism trumps
philosemitism, so the only purpose this serves is to facilitate
labeling Steiner an anti-Semite.
Daniel wrote:
Do you mean to suggest that Steiner expressed
his opinion that Jews should have restricted civil rights in
1888 or 1924?
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, of course not. That would hinder assimilation,
not speed it up. That's exactly why Treitschke supported civil
rights for Jews.
Daniel:
Ok. We are dancing the dance here. The
list of things for which Steiner can be considered an anti-Semite
is getting quite short.
Daniel wrote:
Saying that in principle Jews ought to
assimilate is a long way from saying that they should be denied
civil rights!
Peter Staudenmaier:
Indeed. They are essentially opposites
of one another. Assimilationist antisemites generally did not
oppose civil rights for Jews.
Daniel:
Indeed. As I said above, the list of things
for which Steiner can be considered an anti-Semite is getting
quite short.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 12:06 am
Subject: Anti-Semitism and Communism (was: assimilation)
At 19:45 06.04.2004, PS wrote:
This is not at all the same thing as feeling
that there is nothing wrong with being an antisemite, by the
way; the point is simply that whether or not another person qualifies
as an antisemite has nothing to do with your personal feelings
about antisemitism.
The same thing was said about Communism by
Joseph MacCarthy's henchmen fifty years ago: Whether or not someone
you knew qualified as a Communist had nothing to do with your
personal feelings about Communism.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 4:40 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
Daniel wrote:
The list of things for which Steiner can
be considered an anti-Semite is getting quite short.
Peter Staudenmaier:
It is? What exactly has dropped off this
list, in your view? Are you now trying to tell us that you share
Frank's view that assimilationists could not be antisemites?
Please answer that question. It would clarify an awful lot.
Daniel:
No, I don't share Franks view as you represent
it here. And I wonder why you present it at all. I have gone
over your list of seven points several times, and reposted my
analysis repeatedly. Not paying attention, are we? Try the archives.
Daniel wrote:
for example, Steiner said that "no
one can deny that Jews today present themselves as a closed totality"
- this is not the same as stating that they are a closed totality
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, it is. Please re-read that sentence.
Daniel:
Ah yes, a perfect example of the famous "Staudenmaier
Selective Reading Technique".
Daniel wrote:
Peter, this is the third time that you
have bluffed like this. I know what Steiner thought of Wagner;
I've been interested in this point for years.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Then why didn't you know about the passage
on "semitism" that I posted yesterday? And why did
you think I was bluffing? If you think that Steiner does not
in fact roundly endorse Wagner's writings on Jews in that passage,
I encourage you to come right out and say so.
Daniel:
Ok. I posted a reply as to why those are not
Steiner's actual words. Nor do I read in them an endorsement
of Wagner's anti-Semitism.
Daniel wrote:
There is no evidence that Steiner ever
spoke in any way approvingly of Wagner's anti-Semitism
Peter Staudenmaier:
Well, except for the evidence that I just
posted, and which you hadn't yet read when you wrote this post
(though that isn't much of an excuse, since I gave you the full
citation weeks ago). Steiner not only speaks approvingly of Wagner's
antisemitism here, he denies that Wagner was an antisemite at
all!
I do hope you will keep this incident in mind then next time
you get upset about my attitude toward people who have been studying
Steiner for years.
Daniel:
Except for the fact that you "evidence"
is acutally evidence of incredibly sloppy historical work, like
not even reading the title of the book you are quoting. Those
are not Steiner's words at all. Nor would any historian consider
them "proof" of Steiner's views on the subject. I hope
you will keep this incident in mind next time you open a book
with Steiner's name on it.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
I just wanted to be clear on this. So essentially,
in any mixed biography, a few anti-Semitic elements suffice to
earn the label of anti-Semite (anti-Semitism trumps philosemitism).
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, not in any "mixed biography".
But in the case of people like Steiner and Treitschke, yes, of
course. I get the sense that you're not paying attention to your
own argument here.
Daniel:
On the contrary, it is you who are not paying
attention to your argument. In attempting to always be right,
you have now come full circle. Further, you have just admitted
that in your definition of anti-Semitism, Steiner and a few others
occupy a special position where they have offended you so greatly
that they are by your definition anti-Semites regardless of what
they might have said on the subject. Just so long as we are clear
on this, we can probably let the matter of how to define an anti-Semite
rest.
Daniel wrote:
I should point out that this definition
comes dangerously close to condemning anyone in Austria or Germany
between 1860 and 1925 who spoke on Jews in any but the most approving
way. (I suppose condemning is the wrong word, since you seem
to feel that there is nothing wrong with being an anti-Seminte
- it is merely a lablel, after all.)
Peter Staudenmaier:
It is indeed not about condemning, it is
about accurate analysis. This is not at all the same thing as
feeling that there is nothing wrong with being an antisemite,
by the way; the point is simply that whether or not another person
qualifies as an antisemite has nothing to do with your personal
feelings about antisemitism. But more to the point, could I ask
why you seem to think it would be unusual for non-Jews to speak
of Jews in an approving way? Do you think that most non-Jews
in Austria and Germany from 1860 to 1925 spoke of Jews in a disapproving
way?
Daniel:
"Qualifying" as an anti-Semite implies
some sort of objective measure, some standard against which all
men and women are defined equally. You have offered several such
standards. Some are overly broad, others overly narrow. Your
latest is probably the most accurate: Steiner is an anti-Semite
because you want him to be, and for no other objective reason.
From my impression, gained admittedly from numerous works specifically
on anti-Semitism, I did get the impression that praise of Jewish
culture by Germans and Austrians between 1860 and 1925 was indeed
quite rare. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested
in hearing it.
Daniel wrote:
You wiggle and wiggle on this. You repeatedly
condemn people for not separating the person from the argument,
but you refuse to consistently apply this principle yourself.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Huh? You didn't ask about me, you asked
about Steiner. You asked whether I thought that Steiner was an
antisemite, and I replied that I think Steiner was both an antisemite
and a philosemite at different points in his career (which is
what I've been saying all along, by the way, since my very first
post to this list). It's fine with me if other people simply
say that he held antisemitic stances and philosemitic stances.
Daniel:
Missing the point as usual, I see. You accused
Patrick of not being able to separate the person from the argument.
You accused Dottie of the same thing. You even accused all Anthroposophist
in general of the same thing. But you persist in labeling Steiner,
that is, not separating the person from the argument.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 10:15 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
Hi again Daniel, you wrote:
Further, you have just admitted that in
your definition of anti-Semitism, Steiner and a few others occupy
a special position where they have offended you so greatly that
they are by your definition anti-Semites regardless of what they
might have said on the subject.
No, figures like Treitschke and Steiner were antisemites in my
view *because* of what they said on the subject of Jews and Jewishness.
But you persist in labeling Steiner, that is, not separating
the person from the argument.
That really doesn't make sense, Daniel. The term "antisemite"
refers to people whose arguments are antisemitic. It's always
a good idea to separate the person from the argument by, for
example, recognizing that people's arguments change over time,
and that they can hence be philosemites at one point and antisemites
at another point. Or you can simply discard such labels entirely.
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
March/April
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
