Morality and Racism
Selective quotation
From: at
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 2:12 pm
Subject: Morality and Racism - Selective quotation
Peter
Staudenmaier:
Selective quotation is only a bad idea
when others do not have access to the original. That is obviously
not the case on a public email list. Everybody reading your reply
to me has already read the post that you're replying to, and
so forth. In these circumstances it makes much more sense to
quote the specific portion you'd like to reply to. The rest of
us can always go back and check the earlier post for the full
argument.
Now that is an
interesting position. Essentially, you state that you are justified
in selectively quoting statements of others, even if this then
alters the original meaning, because theoretically anyone can
go back and look at the original statement to catch you at it.
While this absolves you of any requirements to be fair or accurate,
I have to point out that the logic of this justification will
not fly among historians. In history, quoting sources out of
context in a way that alters the original meaning is a cardinal
sin and something than no historian can do and hope to be taken
seriously. Completely independent of the question of the ethics
of such a stance, I would suggest that as a habit it is dangerous.
If this is consistent in your writing here, are you really sure
you can successfully switch modes and go for strict accuracy
when writing formally for publication?
If you are known to employ this technique
here, we may quite rightly suspect that you employ it in your
other writings. You may respond that you write polemic, not history.
If you'd do take that stance, then you are essentially telling
all your readers that they cannot actually trust anything the
you write, for at any point your examples may not actually support
your argument as they may appear to, and the summaries and explanations
that you give may intentionally not accurately represent the
things are describing at all. Of course, all your sources are
theoretically public, and anyone could go out and acquirer four-foot
stack of books and spend a month or two checking you (provided,
of course, they read German). But certainly you don't expect
to a majority of your readers to do this, so essentially you
have put us on noticed not trust anything you say. Perhaps you
might consider being upfront about this in your articles, and
lead off with a disclaimer of some sort.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 5:37 am
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism - Selective quotation
Daniel to Peter:
Now that is an interesting position. Essentially,
you state that you are justified in selectively quoting statements
of others, even if this then alters the original meaning, because
theoretically anyone can go back and look at the original statement
to catch you at it. While this absolves you of any requirements
to be fair or accurate, I have to point out that the logic of
this justification will not fly among historians. In history,
quoting sources out of context in a way that alters the original
meaning is a cardinal sin and something than no historian can
do and hope to be taken seriously. Completely independent of
the question of the ethics of such a stance, I would suggest
that as a habit it is dangerous. If this is consistent in your
writing here, are you really sure you can successfully switch
modes and go for strict accuracy when writing formally for publication?
Good grief, Daniel, this is an email list.
It's "netiquette," simple courtesy, to only quote the
part you are replying to and not repeat the entire dialogue every
time. That is annoying especially to people on digest and unnecessarily
time consuming to read or scroll through huge chunks of (often
not re-formatted) text one has already read seven times.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
- Selective quotation
Diana:
Good grief, Daniel, this is an email list.
It's "netiquette," simple courtesy, to only quote the
part you are replying to and not repeat the entire dialogue every
time.
Daniel:
It is "netiquette" to chop up post
to distort the original writer's argument and then respond to
tangentially to a side point?
A certain amount of chopping is certainly
necessary (note what I chopped for this reply). On the other
hand, this can be taken too far, especially if it is used as
a technique for avoiding discussion on substantive points by
appearing to reply but not actually addressing the question or
the central argument of the previous post. It is a technique
frequently employed by politicians (as the next election cycle
approaches, there should be plenty of opportunity to observe
true masters practice the art). From my training as a prisoner
of war interrogator (US Army) I have a certain amount of experience
detecting systematically evasive answers.
It is not a question of whether, it is a question
of how and how much.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 6:33 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Morality and Racism - Selective
quotation
Peter
Staudenmaier wrote:
Selective quotation is only a bad idea
when others do not have access to the original. That is obviously
not the case on a public email list. Everybody reading your reply
to me has already read the post that you're replying to, and
so forth. In these circumstances it makes much more sense to
quote the specific portion you'd like to reply to. The rest of
us can always go back and check the earlier post for the full
argument.
Daniel replied:
Now that is an interesting position. Essentially,
you state that you are justified in selectively quoting statements
of others, even if this then alters the original meaning, because
theoretically anyone can go back and look at the original statement
to catch you at it. While this absolves you of any requirements
to be fair or accurate, I have to point out that the logic of
this justification will not fly among historians. In history,
quoting sources out of context in a way that alters the original
meaning is a cardinal sin and something than no historian can
do and hope to be taken seriously. Completely independent of
the question of the ethics of such a stance, I would suggest
that as a habit it is dangerous. If this is consistent in your
writing here, are you really sure you can successfully switch
modes and go for strict accuracy when writing formally for publication?
If you are known to employ this technique
here, we may quite rightly suspect that you employ it in your
other writings. You may respond that you write polemic, not history.
If you'd do take that stance, then you are essentially telling
all your readers that they cannot actually trust anything the
you write, for at any point your examples may not actually support
your argument as they may appear to, and the summaries and explanations
that you give may intentionally not accurately represent the
things are describing at all. Of course, all your sources are
theoretically public, and anyone could go out and acquirer four-foot
stack of books and spend a month or two checking you (provided,
of course, they read German). But certainly you don't expect
to a majority of your readers to do this, so essentially you
have put us on noticed not trust anything you say. Perhaps you
might consider being upfront about this in your articles, and
lead off with a disclaimer of some sort.
To
which Peter Staudenmaier first snipped out this portion:
Now that is an interesting position. Essentially,
you state that you are justified in selectively quoting statements
of others, even if this then alters the original meaning, because
theoretically anyone can go back and look at the original statement
to catch you at it.
Then
Peter said:
No. Altering the original meaning is not
what quotation is for. It's not okay to alter the original meaning
no matter how much or how little you quote. One of the functions
of quotation is to summarize the original meaning. That is, in
part, what quotation is for. In this sense, all quotation is
necessarily 'selective'. If you think I have altered the meaning
of any of the passages I have quoted, please point them out.
Daniel replies:
Ok. So first you agree that the purpose of
selective quotation is not to alter the original meaning. On
the other hand, you say, "all quotation is necessarily 'selective'.".
This means that altering the original meaning is actually inevitable.
So if every instance of selective quotation necessarily alters
the original meaning, we should be discussing how much the alteration
alters the original, and not whether. In my own writing, I try
to avoid the charges altogether by erring on the side of length
rather than shortness, and quoting in entireity, or at least
in whole paragraphs. In some of your attack pieces, you have
quoted as short as individual words, which I would argue has
something like a 99.9% chance of altering the original meaning
significantly, especially in polemical writing. I will take you
up on your offer, and try to point out your alterations whenever
time permits. I should also point out that I am not the only
one capable of determining when a selective quotation alters
the meaning of the original, and I have heard dozens of complaints
about your quotations from others on this list.
Peter
Staudenmaier next snipped:
If you are known to employ this technique
here, we may quite rightly suspect that you employ it in your
other writings.
Then
Peter further said:
That is foolish. Quite apart from the fact
that this is not the technique I employ, we are talking about
an email list with a very easily accessible public archive. It
is a waste of bandwidth to quote every bit of every post you
respond to. The proper procedure is to quote the specific part
you're replying to.
Daniel responds:
The reply avoids fact that I was talking about
your articles as well as your emails, Peter. In writing about
Steiner you also snip out just those parts you are talking about
as well. The accusation I am making is that your method in doing
this distorts the original to a degree that is more than normal
discourse would allow. I have duly noted your denial that you
ever distort the views of others you quote.
Peter Staudenmaier next snipped:
You may respond that you write polemic,
not history.
Then Peter further said:
No, I write both.
Daniel responds:
In one article? I question how we are supposed
to separate your historical writing from your polemic. Earlier
I suggested you include some sort of disclaimer in your polemical
writing so we know when to take you seriously. Otherwise I fear
we will have to assume you are always writing polemic, and not
history.
Peter Staudenmaier next snipped:
Of course, all your sources are theoretically
public
Then Peter further said:
You are very much missing the point. On
an email list like this one, every post you reply to is not just
"theoretically" public, it is actually public, with
no need to buy any books or visit any libraries. All you need
is a click of the mouse. Anybody reading this post has already
read the previous posts in the thread. If you think this is an
unreasonable approach to email discussion, could you perhaps
explain why?
Daniel responds:
Chalk that up as a distortion. I was talking
about both your e-mails and your articles, and not jsut your
e-mails as you reply would suggest. By shortening my original
quote, it is not clear what I was actually writing about. This
is exactly what I am suggesting you could avoid by longer quotation.
Everything you say is true about an e-mail list. But it does
not help the readers of your articles, whether they read them
on the web or in a magazine, and that was the entire point of
my original paragraph.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 9:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Morality and Racism - Selective
quotation
Hi Daniel,
I was talking about emails.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 9:25 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Morality and Racism - Selective
quotation
Peter Staudenmaier:
I was talking about emails.
Daniel:
And I was talking about emails AND articles.
But you didn't respond to what I was talking about, you selectively
snipped and then talked about something different. When I try
to point this out, you reiterate that you were, indeed, misquoting
me. Thanks.
For review:
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Selective quotation is only a bad idea
when others do not have access to the original. That is obviously
not the case on a public email list. Everybody reading your reply
to me has already read the post that you're replying to, and
so forth. In these circumstances it makes much more sense to
quote the specific portion you'd like to reply to. The rest of
us can always go back and check the earlier post for the full
argument.
Daniel replied:
Now that is an interesting position. Essentially,
you state that you are justified in selectively quoting statements
of others, even if this then alters the original meaning, because
theoretically anyone can go back and look at the original statement
to catch you at it. While this absolves you of any requirements
to be fair or accurate, I have to point out that the logic of
this justification will not fly among historians. In history,
quoting sources out of context in a way that alters the original
meaning is a cardinal sin and something than no historian can
do and hope to be taken seriously. Completely independent of
the question of the ethics of such a stance, I would suggest
that as a habit it is dangerous. If this is consistent in your
writing here, are you really sure you can successfully switch
modes and go for strict accuracy when writing formally for publication?
If you are known to employ this technique
here, we may quite rightly suspect that you employ it in your
other writings. You may respond that you write polemic, not history.
If you'd do take that stance, then you are essentially telling
all your readers that they cannot actually trust anything the
you write, for at any point your examples may not actually support
your argument as they may appear to, and the summaries and explanations
that you give may intentionally not accurately represent the
things are describing at all. Of course, all your sources are
theoretically public, and anyone could go out and acquirer four-foot
stack of books and spend a month or two checking you (provided,
of course, they read German). But certainly you don't expect
to a majority of your readers to do this, so essentially you
have put us on noticed not trust anything you say. Perhaps you
might consider being upfront about this in your articles, and
lead off with a disclaimer of some sort.
To
which Peter Staudenmaier first snipped out this portion:
Now that is an interesting position. Essentially,
you state that you are justified in selectively quoting statements
of others, even if this then alters the original meaning, because
theoretically anyone can go back and look at the original statement
to catch you at it.
Then
Peter said:
No. Altering the original meaning is not
what quotation is for. It's not okay to alter the original meaning
no matter how much or how little you quote. One of the functions
of quotation is to summarize the original meaning. That is, in
part, what quotation is for. In this sense, all quotation is
necessarily 'selective'. If you think I have altered the meaning
of any of the passages I have quoted, please point them out.
Daniel replies:
Ok. So first you agree that the purpose
of selective quotation is not to alter the original meaning.
On the other hand, you say, "all quotation is necessarily
'selective'.". This means that altering the original meaning
is actually inevitable. So if every instance of selective quotation
necessarily alters the original meaning, we should be discussing
how much the alteration alters the original, and not whether.
In my own writing, I try to avoid the charges altogether by erring
on the side of length rather than shortness, and quoting in entireity,
or at least in whole paragraphs. In some of your attack pieces,
you have quoted as short as individual words, which I would argue
has something like a 99.9% chance of altering the original meaning
significantly, especially in polemical writing. I will take you
up on your offer, and try to point out your alterations whenever
time permits. I should also point out that I am not the only
one capable of determining when a selective quotation alters
the meaning of the original, and I have heard dozens of complaints
about your quotations from others on this list.
Peter
Staudenmaier next snipped:
If you are known to employ this technique
here, we may quite rightly suspect that you employ it in your
other writings.
Then
Peter further said:
That is foolish. Quite apart from the fact
that this is not the technique I employ, we are talking about
an email list with a very easily accessible public archive. It
is a waste of bandwidth to quote every bit of every post you
respond to. The proper procedure is to quote the specific part
you're replying to.
Daniel responds:
The reply avoids fact that I was talking
about your articles as well as your emails, Peter. In writing
about Steiner you also snip out just those parts you are talking
about as well. The accusation I am making is that your method
in doing this distorts the original to a degree that is more
than normal discourse would allow. I have duly noted your denial
that you ever distort the views of others you quote.
Peter Staudenmaier next snipped:
You may respond that you write polemic,
not history.
Then Peter further said:
No, I write both.
Daniel responds:
In one article? I question how we are supposed
to separate your historical writing from your polemic. Earlier
I suggested you include some sort of disclaimer in your polemical
writing so we know when to take you seriously. Otherwise I fear
we will have to assume you are always writing polemic, and not
history.
Peter Staudenmaier next snipped:
Of course, all your sources are theoretically
public
Then Peter further said:
You are very much missing the point. On
an email list like this one, every post you reply to is not just
"theoretically" public, it is actually public, with
no need to buy any books or visit any libraries. All you need
is a click of the mouse. Anybody reading this post has already
read the previous posts in the thread. If you think this is an
unreasonable approach to email discussion, could you perhaps
explain why?
Daniel responds:
Chalk that up as a distortion. I was talking
about both your e-mails and your articles, and not jsut your
e-mails as you reply would suggest. By shortening my original
quote, it is not clear what I was actually writing about. This
is exactly what I am suggesting you could avoid by longer quotation.
Everything you say is true about an e-mail list. But it does
not help the readers of your articles, whether they read them
on the web or in a magazine, and that was the entire point of
my original paragraph.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 3:15 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Morality and Racism - Selective
quotation
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
And I was talking about emails AND articles.
Yes, that's the problem. Those are two very different things.
Quotation procedures that make sense in the one are not always
appropriate in the other.
But you didn't respond to what I was talking about, you selectively
snipped and then talked about something different. When I try
to point this out, you reiterate that you were, indeed, misquoting
me. Thanks.
I didn't misquote you.
[from another thread:]
In his last round of responses, he bundled
four different threads into one response, convieniently removing
any reference at all to where I made the original argument.
This is frequently a helpful way to reply to multiple posts on
related themes. Why does it bother you?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 5:56 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Morality and Racism - Selective
quotation
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
And I was talking about emails AND articles.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, that's the problem. Those are two
very different things. Quotation procedures that make sense in
the one are not always appropriate in the other.
Daniel:
Skipping away from the original again, I see.
Your statement here is, of course, eminently sensible, and of
course I agree completely that quotation procedures that make
sense in the one are not always appropriate in the other. However...
I never stated that the opposite was true,
as this seems to imply (chalk that up as distortion number three).
Nor did I suggest different standards of accuracy in one or the
other. I suggested that since you have been less than scrupulous
in one medium, we can suspect that you might carry this tendency
over into another. Let's review the exchange:
For review:
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Selective quotation is only a bad idea
when others do not have access to the original. That is obviously
not the case on a public email list. Everybody reading your reply
to me has already read the post that you're replying to, and
so forth. In these circumstances it makes much more sense to
quote the specific portion you'd like to reply to. The rest of
us can always go back and check the earlier post for the full
argument.
Daniel replied:
Now that is an interesting position. Essentially,
you state that you are justified in selectively quoting statements
of others, even if this then alters the original meaning, because
theoretically anyone can go back and look at the original statement
to catch you at it. While this absolves you of any requirements
to be fair or accurate, I have to point out that the logic of
this justification will not fly among historians. In history,
quoting sources out of context in a way that alters the original
meaning is a cardinal sin and something than no historian can
do and hope to be taken seriously. Completely independent of
the question of the ethics of such a stance, I would suggest
that as a habit it is dangerous. If this is consistent in your
writing here, are you really sure you can successfully switch
modes and go for strict accuracy when writing formally for publication?
If you are known to employ this technique
here, we may quite rightly suspect that you employ it in your
other writings. You may respond that you write polemic, not history.
If you'd do take that stance, then you are essentially telling
all your readers that they cannot actually trust anything the
you write, for at any point your examples may not actually support
your argument as they may appear to, and the summaries and explanations
that you give may intentionally not accurately represent the
things are describing at all. Of course, all your sources are
theoretically public, and anyone could go out and acquirer four-foot
stack of books and spend a month or two checking you (provided,
of course, they read German). But certainly you don't expect
to a majority of your readers to do this, so essentially you
have put us on noticed not trust anything you say. Perhaps you
might consider being upfront about this in your articles, and
lead off with a disclaimer of some sort.
Peter Staudenmaier snipped this to:
Of course, all your sources are theoretically
public
And then Peter responded:
You are very much missing the point. On
an email list like this one, every post you reply to is not just
"theoretically" public, it is actually public, with
no need to buy any books or visit any libraries. All you need
is a click of the mouse. Anybody reading this post has already
read the previous posts in the thread. If you think this is an
unreasonable approach to email discussion, could you perhaps
explain why?
Daniel responded:
Chalk that up as a distortion. I was talking
about both your e-mails and your articles, and not jsut your
e-mails as you reply would suggest. By shortening my original
quote, it is not clear what I was actually writing about. This
is exactly what I am suggesting you could avoid by longer quotation.
Everything you say is true about an e-mail list. But it does
not help the readers of your articles, whether they read them
on the web or in a magazine, and that was the entire point of
my original paragraph.
Peter Staudenmaier then simply said:
I was talking about emails.
And Daniel said:
And I was talking about emails AND articles.
But you didn't respond to what I was talking about, you selectively
snipped and then talked about something different. When I try
to point this out, you reiterate that you were, indeed, misquoting
me. Thanks.
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 5:56 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Morality and Racism - Selective
quotation
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
But you didn't respond to what I was talking
about, you selectively snipped and then talked about something
different. When I try to point this out, you reiterate that you
were, indeed, misquoting me. Thanks.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I didn't misquote you.
Daniel:
Really? The record indicates otherwise.
For review:
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Selective quotation is only a bad idea
when others do not have access to the original. That is obviously
not the case on a public email list. Everybody reading your reply
to me has already read the post that you're replying to, and
so forth. In these circumstances it makes much more sense to
quote the specific portion you'd like to reply to. The rest of
us can always go back and check the earlier post for the full
argument.
Daniel replied:
Now that is an interesting position. Essentially,
you state that you are justified in selectively quoting statements
of others, even if this then alters the original meaning, because
theoretically anyone can go back and look at the original statement
to catch you at it. While this absolves you of any requirements
to be fair or accurate, I have to point out that the logic of
this justification will not fly among historians. In history,
quoting sources out of context in a way that alters the original
meaning is a cardinal sin and something than no historian can
do and hope to be taken seriously. Completely independent of
the question of the ethics of such a stance, I would suggest
that as a habit it is dangerous. If this is consistent in your
writing here, are you really sure you can successfully switch
modes and go for strict accuracy when writing formally for publication?
If you are known to employ this technique
here, we may quite rightly suspect that you employ it in your
other writings. You may respond that you write polemic, not history.
If you'd do take that stance, then you are essentially telling
all your readers that they cannot actually trust anything the
you write, for at any point your examples may not actually support
your argument as they may appear to, and the summaries and explanations
that you give may intentionally not accurately represent the
things are describing at all. Of course, all your sources are
theoretically public, and anyone could go out and acquirer four-foot
stack of books and spend a month or two checking you (provided,
of course, they read German). But certainly you don't expect
to a majority of your readers to do this, so essentially you
have put us on noticed not trust anything you say. Perhaps you
might consider being upfront about this in your articles, and
lead off with a disclaimer of some sort.
Peter Staudenmaier snipped this to:
Of course, all your sources are theoretically
public
And then Peter responded:
You are very much missing the point. On
an email list like this one, every post you reply to is not just
"theoretically" public, it is actually public, with
no need to buy any books or visit any libraries. All you need
is a click of the mouse. Anybody reading this post has already
read the previous posts in the thread. If you think this is an
unreasonable approach to email discussion, could you perhaps
explain why?
Daniel responded:
Chalk that up as a distortion. I was talking
about both your e-mails and your articles, and not jsut your
e-mails as you reply would suggest. By shortening my original
quote, it is not clear what I was actually writing about. This
is exactly what I am suggesting you could avoid by longer quotation.
Everything you say is true about an e-mail list. But it does
not help the readers of your articles, whether they read them
on the web or in a magazine, and that was the entire point of
my original paragraph.
Peter Staudenmaier then simply said:
I was talking about emails.
And Daniel said:
And I was talking about emails AND articles.
But you didn't respond to what I was talking about, you selectively
snipped and then talked about something different. When I try
to point this out, you reiterate that you were, indeed, misquoting
me. Thanks.
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 6:01 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Morality and Racism - Selective
quotation
Daniel wrote (to Diana, in
a different thread):
In his last round of responses, he bundled
four different threads into one response, convieniently removing
any reference at all to where I made the original argument.
Peter Staudenmaier:
This is frequently a helpful way to reply
to multiple posts on related themes. Why does it bother you?
Daniel:
Helpful to whom? It certainly helps you obscure
the argument, as it makes tracking a thread difficult for subsequent
readers of the archives. It bothers me in your case particularly
because I have to check you so frequently, going back to see
what I said and what statements I was responding to, in order
to to figure out what you are responding to and how far off track
the discussion has been directed, and this makes that research
all the more difficult.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 10:52 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Morality and Racism - Selective
quotation
Hi Daniel, thanks for your abundant posts.
You wrote:
I agree completely that quotation procedures that make sense
in the one are not always appropriate in the other. However...
I never stated that the opposite was true,
as this seems to imply (chalk that up as distortion number three).
Nor did I suggest different standards of accuracy in one or the
other. I suggested that since you have been less than scrupulous
in one medium, we can suspect that you might carry this tendency
over into another.
I think you aren't making sense. There is absloutely nothing
unscrupulous about skipping over large swaths of text in a public
email discussion group. Doing so leaves nothing hidden and misleads
no-one. That is precisely why the quotation procedures that are
appropriate to archival materials are not appropriate to email.
Once again: the distorting kind of selectivity is only a problem
when others do not have access to the original. Since that is
obviously not the case with email lists like this one, your worry
is quite beside the point, in my view. Misquoting somebody generally
means to quote them inaccurately, that is, to attribute to them
words that they did not say or write. I have not done that with
you. Misquoting does not mean skipping over those portions of
your posts that you wish I had commented on. There is nothing
wrong with picking and choosing what you want to reply to on
an email list. Email lists are not journal articles, and they
are not POW camps.
It certainly helps you obscure the argument, as it makes tracking
a thread difficult for subsequent readers of the archives. It
bothers me in your case particularly because I have to check
you so frequently, going back to see what I said and what statements
I was responding to, in order to to figure out what you are responding
to and how far off track the discussion has been directed, and
this makes that research all the more difficult.
I do not find this difficult, and I have no idea why you find
it difficult. If you think that someone has misunderstood you,
all you need to do is re-state your position.
And this is what sets you apart from serious historians.
Could you maybe say more about how you got your impression of
what historians do? I think it is highly inaccurate. Intellectual
and cultural history depends centrally on the sorts of sources
I named, periodicals and official statements. You mentioned that
you have some of George Mosse's books; surely you have noted
that these are the sorts of things he relied on. Why do you think
such an approach is improper in the case of anthroposophy?
A historian has the responsibility for attempting to the best
of their ability to fairly present the entire case, and not just
the part that fits their pet theory. Subsequent scholars generally
have a dim view of so-called historians with obvious biases.
I disagree completely. I think you have a naive view of historians.
There is nothing wrong with biases. The point is to make them
explicit. I urge you to read the first three pages of chapter
one in Yehuda Bauer's book Rethinking the Holocaust; you will
get a very different view of bias. I also highly recommend the
superb study of this very question by Peter Novick, That Noble
Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American
Historical Profession, particularly the Introduction. Last, on
the question of relativism, I recommend the Postscript to Michael
Bentley's book Modern Historiography: An Introduction.
It is precicely in the fact that you fail to see how the rest
of Steiner's work relates to his views on race that I consider
your greatest weakness.
Great, let's argue about that.
If you did that, you would have an incomplete view of Besant.
You could not claim to understand Besant, only her athiest writings.
No kidding. That's the point. If you want to get an accurate
account of Steiner's views on race and ethnicity, it doesn't
make sense to focus on his views on eurythmy.
I don't feel that you can get around the basic problem that
if you don't understand Steiner's main points, you simply don't
possess the historical context in which to evaluate the rest
of the quotes.
If I understand you correctly, I think you've made a major error.
It is entirely backwards, in my view, to first decide what you
think "Steiner's main points" were, and then slot his
specific statements about race into that pre-fabricated construct.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Morality and Racism - Selective
quotation
Hi Daniel, thanks for your abundant posts.
You wrote:
I agree completely that quotation procedures
that make sense in the one are not always appropriate in the
other. However...
I never stated that the opposite was true,
as this seems to imply (chalk that up as distortion number three).
Nor did I suggest different standards of accuracy in one or the
other. I suggested that since you have been less than scrupulous
in one medium, we can suspect that you might carry this tendency
over into another.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think you aren't making sense. There
is absloutely nothing unscrupulous about skipping over large
swaths of text in a public email discussion group. Doing so leaves
nothing hidden and misleads no-one. That is precisely why the
quotation procedures that are appropriate to archival materials
are not appropriate to email. Once again: the distorting kind
of selectivity is only a problem when others do not have access
to the original. Since that is obviously not the case with email
lists like this one, your worry is quite beside the point, in
my view. Misquoting somebody generally means to quote them inaccurately,
that is, to attribute to them words that they did not say or
write. I have not done that with you. Misquoting does not mean
skipping over those portions of your posts that you wish I had
commented on. There is nothing wrong with picking and choosing
what you want to reply to on an email list. Email lists are not
journal articles, and they are not POW camps.
Daniel:
Ok. I have noted you denial, and I think I
understand your position. The fact remains, whether something
is true or not is independet of whether the speaker believes
it to be true or not. You can justify it any which way you want,
your record remains.
Daniel wrote:
It certainly helps you obscure the argument,
as it makes tracking a thread difficult for subsequent readers
of the archives. It bothers me in your case particularly because
I have to check you so frequently, going back to see what I said
and what statements I was responding to, in order to to figure
out what you are responding to and how far off track the discussion
has been directed, and this makes that research all the more
difficult.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I do not find this difficult, and I have
no idea why you find it difficult. If you think that someone
has misunderstood you, all you need to do is re-state your position.
Daniel:
Indeed. And when I find myself doing this
with just about every post, I start to wonder who I'm talking
to and why they find it necessary to resort to such games. Is
it perhaps that their argument is so weak that it can't stand
up to direct scrutiny?
Daniel wrote:
"And this is what sets you apart from
serious historians."
Daniel comments: (What is it that I say sets
Mr. Staudenmaier apart from other historians? Oh, I'll have to
look it up, because it is not included here. How inconvienient.
I hope it is at least under the same thread heading).
To this Peter Staudenmaier said:
Could you maybe say more about how you
got your impression of what historians do? I think it is highly
inaccurate. Intellectual and cultural history depends centrally
on the sorts of sources I named, periodicals and official statements.
You mentioned that you have some of George Mosse's books; surely
you have noted that these are the sorts of things he relied on.
Why do you think such an approach is improper in the case of
anthroposophy?
Daniel responds:
Well, to reiterate (I found it, and it was
under a different thread heading. Figures. Appearently keeping
a discussion on-thread is "inconvienient"):
Daniel wrote:
You have made no attempt whatsoever to
determine what the majority of Anthroposophists thought about
Hitler or Nazism at the time.
To which Peter Staudenmaier replied:
Indeed. What I focus on is what anthroposophical
periodicals published at the time, what anthroposophical officials
said at the time, and so forth.
And then Daniel said:
And this is what sets you apart from serious
historians. Further, the mere fact that you focus on what anthroposophical
periodicals published at the time and what anthroposophical officials
said at the time, etc. does not tell the whole story, for you
only focus on those aspects of these sources that support your
contention, and not what all these sourcs say on the balance.
You are stuck in polemic if all you do is look for the parts
you like and ignore the whole.
Daniel continues:
It makes a little more sense in context (chalk
that up as number four) I think I am rather clear on what I expect
of a "historian" in what I wrote above. What did Mr.
Staudenmaier say to this? He questions my basic grasp of history.
Slick moves.
In the snipped portion of the above text, I questioned whether
SELECTIVE USE of ONLY periodicals and official documents can
ever create a COMPREHENSIVE PICTURE of the period being investigated.
If this is "highly inaccurate" then I'm living in a
different reality than Mr. Staudenmaier. Uriel Tal relied not
just on periodicals, but went to family archives and quoted extensively
from personal letters of the principles involved in order to
build a COMPREHENSIVE picture of those aspects of the time period
he was studying. He quoted pro and con, from both sides of the
issue, in order to recreate the mood and thought patterns of
the time period. That is first rate scholarship. That is what
I don't find in Peter Staudenmaier's articles. For pointing this
out I am being accused of ignorace of basic methods and philosophy
of history. Nice attempt to take back the initive.
Daniel wrote:
A historian has the responsibility for
attempting to the best of their ability to fairly present the
entire case, and not just the part that fits their pet theory.
Subsequent scholars generally have a dim view of so-called historians
with obvious biases.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I disagree completely. I think you have
a naive view of historians. There is nothing wrong with biases.
The point is to make them explicit. I urge you to read the first
three pages of chapter one in Yehuda Bauer's book Rethinking
the Holocaust; you will get a very different view of bias. I
also highly recommend the superb study of this very question
by Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question"
and the American Historical Profession, particularly the Introduction.
Last, on the question of relativism, I recommend the Postscript
to Michael Bentley's book Modern Historiography: An Introduction.
Daniel responds:
Thanks for condescending to educate me by
proxy on the methods and practices of history. I think you'll
find that I am at least as well prepared as yourself in this
area. There is only "nothing wrong with biases" in
that everybody necessarily has one. Reducing bias is the aim,
not indulging it to all its excesses. If you indulging your biases
to all their excesses, you are writing polemic, or polemical
history. This is not to say that such writing doesn't have its
place or uses, but it is generally a poor subsititute for the
real thing. If you disagree, I encourage you to formulate your
objection yourself, or post the authorities you wish to cite
directly to the list. I could, for example, give you a long list
of books on empiricism vs. idealism, but I take it upon myself
to speak directly on the subject.
Daniel wrote:
It is precicely in the fact that you fail
to see how the rest of Steiner's work relates to his views on
race that I consider your greatest weakness.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Great, let's argue about that.
Daniel:
I don't see that there is much to argue. I
have presented a case for why it is important. You have agreed
with every example, and then leap away again whenever we come
back to Steiner. Basically, you say that it is good in principle,
but unnecessary in this case. That is illogical. Doubtless you
will continue to argue.
Daniel wrote:
If you did that, you would have an incomplete
view of Besant. You could not claim to understand Besant, only
her athiest writings.
Daniel comments: (Did what and you would have
an incomplete view of Besant? Is Mr. Staudenmaier even responding
to my point, or is he arguing my point back against me? Oh, I'll
have to look it up, because it is not included here. How inconvienient.
I hope it is at least under the same thread heading.)
Peter Staudenmaier:
No kidding. That's the point. If you want
to get an accurate account of Steiner's views on race and ethnicity,
it doesn't make sense to focus on his views on eurythmy.
Daniel:
Well, if you reject a priori that his views
on Eurythmy could have any relationship to his views on race
and ethnicity, then you certainly will never discover if they
do. Back to Besant (I found what I wrote, and it was under a
different thread heading. Figures. Appearently keeping a discussion
on-thread is "inconvienient"):
First Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
I don't think that would be a sensible
way to approach the matter. If you want to study Annie Besant's
atheist writings, for example, you'd do well to set aside her
Theosophical writings.
To which Daniel replied:
If you did that, you would have an incomplete
view of Besant. You could not claim to understand Besant, only
her athiest writings. The same applies to Steiner. If you want
to be an expert on those quotes that make Steiner appear racist,
so be it. If you want to be an expert on Steiner, you'll have
to do a little more work than that. I can understand you hesitency
to attempt an full understanding of Steiner - it is a lot of
work, after all - but I don't feel that you can get around the
basic problem that if you don't understand Steiner's main points,
you simply don't possess the historical context in which to evaluate
the rest of the quotes.
Daniel continues:
It appears that Peter Staudenmaier has missed
the point on this completely. I essentially stated that you can't
fully understand Steiner unless you know BOTH his allegedly racist
statements AND his views on eurythmy. Peter Staudenmaier sarcastically
states "no kidding" and then argues the opposite. (Distortion
number five; reading only what he provided, you would think I
had just argued the opposite of what I did).
Daniel wrote:
I don't feel that you can get around the
basic problem that if you don't understand Steiner's main points,
you simply don't possess the historical context in which to evaluate
the rest of the quotes.
Peter Staudenmaier:
If I understand you correctly, I think
you've made a major error. It is entirely backwards, in my view,
to first decide what you think "Steiner's main points"
were, and then slot his specific statements about race into that
pre-fabricated construct.
Daniel:
It doesn't matter what direction you approach
things from, the point is to look at the whole picture. So no,
I have not made a "major error". You can either decide
what Steiner's main points are and then look at his appearently
racist statements and their context, both within his work and
within his entire culture, or you can look first at his appearently
racist statements and their context, both within his work and
within his entire culture, and then consider what Steiner's main
points are. Either way you should come to the same results, and
if you don't, then it is time to start considering where the
errors of understanding lay. What I accuse you of is starting
at one end and then stopping half way through. It makes little
sense to stop halfway, whichever end you start at.
Daniel Hindes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
