Daniel Hindes

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 22 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

In 1995 there was a scandal in the Netherlands when it became publicly known that Dutch Waldorf schools were teaching "racial ethnography," where children learn that the "black race" has thick lips and a sense of rhythm and that the "yellow race" hides its emotions behind a permanent smile. In 1994 the Steinerite lecturer Rainer Schnurre, at one of his frequent seminars for the anthroposophist adult school in Berlin, gave a talk with the rather baffling title "Overcoming racism and Nationalism through Rudolf Steiner." Schnurre emphasized the essential differences between races, noted the "infantile" nature of blacks, and alleged that due to immutable racial disparities "no equal and global system can be created for all people on earth" and that "because of the differences between races, sending aid to the developing world is useless." (Footnote: Schnurre quoted in ibid., p. 144)

So here again we have a misleading statement extrapolated from a basic fact. A scandal in the Netherlands broke when it became publicly known that one teacher in one Dutch Waldorf school was teaching "racial ethnography". She was fired. At the time the press attempted to determine whether this was common to all Waldorf schools, but found out that, in fact, it was not. Further, the claims that Dutch Waldorf schools might be propagating racism were promptly investigated in by the State Education Inspection Service of the Netherlands. The results of this investigation were made public on March 28th, 1995:

"The investigation into Steiner Schools in the Netherlands, carried out by the State Education Inspection Service at the request of Deputy Minister Netelenbos, conclusively proved that there is no evidence of racism in the Steiner Schools. In fact much attention is given in the schools to developing an awareness among the students so that racism is actually countered." (Joint press release of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Science, and Cultural Affairs, and the Association of Rudolf Steiner Schools in the Netherlands. Translation Detlef Hardorp )

The commission investigated all 95 Waldorf schools in the Netherlands. While it found no evidence of racism, it did uncover instances of racial stereotyping in seven of the 95 schools. The Association of Rudolf Steiner Schools in the Netherlands instituted new procedures and a curriculum review in order to ensure that racial stereotyping would not reoccur. (For a detailed description see: http://www.waldorfanswers.org/Netherlands.htm).

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 21 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Anthroposophists today often attempt to excuse or explain away such outrageous utterances by contending that Steiner was merely a product of his times. This apologia is utterly unconvincing. First, Steiner claimed for himself an unprecedented degree of spiritual enlightenment which, by his own account, completely transcended his own time and place; he also claimed, and anthroposophists believe that he had, detailed knowledge of the distant future. Second, this argument ignores the many dedicated members of Steiner's generation who actively opposed racism and ethnocentrism. Third, and most telling, anthroposophists continue to repeat Steiner's racist nonsense to this day.

The apologia may not convince Staudenmaier, it is also virtually non-existant, and unnecessary; Steiner did not hold any view remotely resembling the ones here attributed to him. We can only wonder what counterargument to his blatant misrepresentations Peter Staudenmaier would be willing to entertain. It is little wonder that anthroposophists are unwilling to stand by and see Steiner's record of struggle for equality being maligned and his work towards racial equality turned into its opposite. It appears Peter Staudenmaier is unwilling to consider even the theoretical possibility that an argument counter to his thesis might have any validity; they are all apologias. Going further into the problems with Peter Staudenmaier's objections, Steiner was generally quite modest about his spiritual enlightenment. When he spoke about his abilities, it was usually in the third person, as in “when the initiate has reached the fourth stage of enlightenment, he is able to see...” and did not specify which stage he felt he had reached. Nor did he claim that his knowledge transcended time and space. And Steiner's indications about the future were in the most general terms, and are not detailed at all. The mere fact that Steiner spoke of events the he felt likely to happen in the future seems to bother Peter Staudenmaier. Steiner's statements are for the most part the equivalent of saying today that bioengineering will play a role in the future.

Finally, Peter Staudenmaier will try to build an entire case for the racism of present-day anthroposophists on a few examples below, attempting to characterize a movement of some half a million people by the actions of at most a few dozen black sheep. Yet even here it is necessary for him to mischaracterize events and misrepresent the actual facts.

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 20 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

But the worst insult, from an anthroposophical point of view, is Steiner's dictum that people of color can't develop spiritually on their own; they must either be "educated" by whites or reincarnated in white skin. Europeans, in contrast, are the most highly developed humans. Indeed " Europe has always been the origin of all human development." For Steiner and for Anthroposophy, there is no doubt that "whites are the ones who develop humanity in themselves. [ . . . ] The white race is the race of the future, the spiritually creative race." (Footnote: Steiner quoted in ibid., p. 128.)

Once again we have a collection of short quotes strung together for effect, without any sort of context. Peter Staudenmaier writes confidently of the conclusions that we should draw from his arrangement. While doubtless effective polemic, this is not scholarship by any stretch of the imagination, nor does it in anyway resemble Rudolf Steiner's actual thought. And again, Peter Staudenmaier is doubtless faithful to Geden’s presentation. What he has not done is any critical examination of whether Geden accurately represents Rudolf Steiner.