Can somebody educate me about Waldorf? - Page 3

[Diana W]

I wrote: Click on Sune's link. There's nothiing there.

A clarification - I mean, go to Sune's site (link given in post above), and click on the link there that he (used to) provide for the "Folkspirits" essay (scroll down the page). It appears as if the text will be provided, so that readers can check out his claim that Staudenmaier was forging something. But when you click on the "Folkspirits" link, the text has been removed.

Sorry if that was confusing. Perhaps the point is that the accusations and counter-accusations are very confusing, but people should research for themselves, rather than claiming that critics of Waldorf or anthroposophy are actually forging material. Anthroposophists should *defend* their beliefs, not deny them.

The other point is that while it is possible to do this research, anthroposophists are working to make it more difficult to get your hands on this material if you are not already sympathetic to their cause. That should tell you something.

[Moon]

Every philosophy changes and grows over time. I don't understand why you feel the need to call that "hiding". It's called progress.

I don't understand why you feel the need to "protect" anyone by hanging around various sites till someone mentions Waldorf and then sweeping in with a very personal judgement. If you were using this kind of rubbish in a scientific study, it would all be completely written off as anecdotal. For every unhappy ex-Waldorf parent, there are probably just as many absolutely thrilled ones. If the topic were say, a religion, or brand loyalty this kind of behaviour would be condemned as bigotry or hatred. A "cult"? Get real.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience, I'm sorry you feel the need to proselytize, and I hope that everyone who has had the misfortune to read this crud takes the opportunity to go to a Waldorf school for a first hand look, or as many looks as it takes, or reads as many books as they may, to feel they are making an educated decision for themselves, without taking one bitter person's word as gospel. It might not be right for you. It might be.

For you, poor reader, who has no clue what either of us were searching for for our children, I hope you find the perfect thing for yours, whether it's waldorf, montessori, unschooling, sudbury, or public school. YOU are the only one who knows what's right for your kid, not some idealist, not some bitter vengeful militant.

[Diana W]

cumulus wrote:

>Every philosophy changes and grows over time. I don't >understand why you feel the need to call that "hiding". It's >called progress.

I'm sorry you felt the need to turn to insults and labels for me (bitter, vengeful, militant). I am sure the motives of *everyone* here are good, looking for options for their children - often so many, confusing options, none of them perfect. We don't have similar worldviews I guess - I think it is *denial* to try to rewrite the books, rewrite Waldorf's past. I don't think it's *ever* progress when the past is rewritten or denied. This is a very, very different matter from renouncing the founder's racism. *That* would be progress.



>I don't understand why you feel the need to "protect" anyone >by hanging around various sites till someone mentions Waldorf >and then sweeping in with a very personal judgement.

I don't understand how you could call it a "personal judgment" when what was posted was quotes from Steiner. You can judge them for yourself. (Assuming we've left aside the idea that I or other Waldorf critics made the quotes up.) And get real, I don't "hang around various sites" - or I guess I do, if I have something to say on the topic. (Don't you?)

>If you were using this kind of rubbish in a scientific study, it >would all be completely written off as anecdotal.

The quotes would be anecdotal? Huh? The quotes are what Steiner said.

>For every unhappy ex-Waldorf parent, there are probably just >as many absolutely thrilled ones. If the topic were say, a >religion, or brand loyalty this kind of behaviour would be >condemned as bigotry or hatred. A "cult"? Get real.

Denial. Did you read the quotes? I am the bigot? Jewry has no right to exist among modern nations - "savages" are deteriorated races - the French people will decline if their blood mingles with that of "Negroes"? I am the bigot?

>I'm sorry you had a bad experience,

thanks.

>I'm sorry you feel the need to proselytize, and I hope that >everyone who has had the misfortune to read this crud takes >the opportunity to go to a Waldorf school for a first hand look,

Agree with that advice. Insist on observing at length - like all morning - often Waldorf schools do not allow this. Some do not allow parents in the classrooms at all.

>or as many looks as it takes, or reads as many books as they >may, to feel they are making an educated decision for >themselves, without taking one bitter person's word as gospel. >It might not be right for you. It might be.

Agree solidly with this advice.

>For you, poor reader, who has no clue what either of us were >searching for for our children, I hope you find the perfect thing >for yours, whether it's waldorf, montessori, unschooling, >sudbury, or public school. YOU are the only one who knows >what's right for your kid, not some idealist, not some bitter >vengeful militant.

Agree again, but it might have been nice to just delete the insults before you sent your post.
Diana

[lovelee]

I personally have been reading EVERY SINGLE post with great interest. I personally was researching waldorf for my child because a friend of mine was getting ready to put her daughter in a Waldorf school, down south. I scoured the web reading everything I could. Everything I read was "perfect" in presentation, as if there were no better form of education out there. I am the one who posted the www.waldorfcritics.com website, because I thought it was a VERY interesting read, and I'm glad I found it. Maybe other people don't even know there is a Waldorf "controversy" my friend sure didn't.

I'm sure every Waldorf school isn't the same, I did have ocassional red flags go off in my mind when reading the majority of the Waldorf sites, and honestly some of my questions were answered by visiting the critic site.

[I Believe in Fairies]

Re: why I post only about Waldorf

Originally posted by momofgurlz
When Waldorf education is the topic, however, I *do* feel compelled to share what I (and many other families, with whom I am in touch often by internet) learned the hard way. I want to do whatever I can to make sure that parents considering Waldorf for their children know as much about it as possible.

So you go around to boards that you have no intention of contributing to as a member of the community. Then, when you see a post about Waldorf issues you jump in with accusations. That seems troll-like to me.

Originally posted by momofgurlz
I know there are some of you who believe -- or want to believe -- that people like me (Waldorf "critics") are out to promote our own nefarious "agenda:" that we delight in bashing Waldorf and will even lie (make up stories, make up Steiner quotes, etc.) to do so.[/B]

I do believe that, yes. Mostly because I've seen it done on two lists and this board.

Originally posted by momofgurlz
All of the Waldorf "critics" I know are moms and dads, just like you all, who love and care about their children and enrolled their children in Waldorf schools because we were led to believe that they were the very best place for our children. As Diana said earlier, many of us spent hundreds of hours volunteering in classrooms, baking and cooking, staffing open houses and parent committees, chaperoning field trips and so on. We come to you now simply to share with you what we learned, so that you can make the most informed decision about schooling possible.
Believe it or not (and I honestly don't know why it's so hard to believe!) I and other critics want to help you. Why not take our information in the spirit with which it is offered, consider it and then make your decision?[/B]

You all chose to put your kids in a Waldorf school and to do work for the schools of your own free will. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to do any of it. That you did not read a book or talk to other people is your own fault. Waldorf Critics have not, in my experience, just come to simply "share" their experiences. They come to scare people with half truths. Why was Debra Snell on a Waldorf HOME SCHOOLING list? Why have posts been taken from email lists and posted - without the author's consent or permission - to the Waldorf Critics email list? Why were they then posted HERE? Why does the Waldorf Critics site use inflamitory language such as "cult" and "guru"? I have never once been told who to have sex with or to give all of my belongings to the group leader. I am fairly sure Kool Aid would never be served at a Waldorf function.

I for one would like to see some of the Waldorf Critics list good things they got for their money. I personally love not having a TV in my life and I feel much better for not buying any new plastic toys. Do I believe that natural toys are better for my daughter's etherical body? Not really. I do believe that it's better for us to not use oil to make toys that don't stimulate the mind.

I have read the Waldorf Critics site and it's hysterical tone has put me off. None of the issues it raised concerned me much. What did worry me was that there were no children of color or handicaped kids at the school I have been to so far. I am a reasonable enough person to not think that what is true at one school is true at all of them.

Thomas Jefferson was sexist and a slave owner. Should we throw out the Declaration of Independence just because of who he was?

[Diana W]

Lisa:
>I know there are some of you who believe -- or want to believe >-- that people like me (Waldorf "critics") are out to promote our >own nefarious "agenda:" that we delight in bashing Waldorf >and will even lie (make up stories, make up Steiner quotes, etc.) >to do so.[/B]

Elizabeth:

>I do believe that, yes. Mostly because I've seen it done on two >lists and this board.

Excuse me. You need to put your money where your mouth is, sweetheart. You have flung this accusation twice now, and IGNORED my responses. Where and when were quotes made up? Which quotes? This is false - this is slander. You have a heck of a nerve complaining here about OUR ethics. Look within. You are LYING. You do NOT know of any quotes that were made up, and you know it. Or else in your next post, tell us which quotes you believe are made up. Then RESPOND when I proceed to post the source of the quote in Steiner. Then APOLOGIZE.

I am sorry, I do not normally yell on message boards but this is outrageous, and yet you are trying to put across here that WE are the ones lacking in ethics? I have been called bitter, militant and vengeful today, and my posts called "crud." I do *not* bash Waldorf parents or supporters in this way and I think it is low. This really, really sucks, from people who love Waldorf because it's all about love and light and angels right?

I sure hope that at least this little episode, the names I have been called, the rage caused by the posting of the Steiner quotes, in some way helps make my point about the underside of Waldorf.

>They come to scare people with half truths.

Go for it, Elizabeth. What have you seen that is "half true" on the critics site or wherever?

>Why was Debra Snell on a Waldorf HOME SCHOOLING list?

Not to speak for Debra Snell, but I would guess she is concerned about Waldorf homeschooling. (For the record, I think Waldorf homeschooling is fine, as homeschoolers are generally doing their own thing and I think that's great. They don't know from Steiner, or they take what they like and leave the rest, which is an entirely different thing from a Waldorf school, where the dogma is everything.)

>Why have posts been taken from email lists and posted - >without the author's consent or permission - to the Waldorf >Critics email list? Why were they then posted HERE?

We talked about this too, but I guess you didn't read or understand my response.

>Why does the Waldorf Critics site use inflamitory language such >as "cult" and "guru"?

Because Steiner was the guru of a cult called anthroposophy, which today continues outreach largely through the Waldorf schools.

>I have never once been told who to have sex with or to give all >of my belongings to the group leader. I am fairly sure Kool Aid >would never be served at a Waldorf function.

I don't know what the Kool Aid comment is about, but you need to inform yourself about cults. Most do not ask you to have sex with the leader, this is a stereotype, applicable probably in very extreme situations - not Waldorf. Cults recruit among young, idealistic people, and ask you to conform to rigid thinking and a rigid lifestyle, which at first appears beautiful and free and answers people's longings for spirituality, community, beauty (not to mention friends for their kids). Most people get sick of the dysfunction and leave. (Me a couple of years ago.)

>I for one would like to see some of the Waldorf Critics list good >things they got for their money.

Okay. We met lots of nice, like-minded families. The classrooms are beautiful. I learned to knit. I loved the handmade toys, the knitted and felted bunnies and kittens and the gnomes. I liked the story telling, the singing, and especially the puppet plays. I appreciated that they never showed videos and the snacks were healthy. I'm grateful they got my son eating oatmeal and millet. My son had a lot of good friends.

>I personally love not having a TV in my life and I feel much >better for not buying any new plastic toys.

I largely agree with all this, but you don't need Waldorf to give you permission not to have a TV or plastic toys. So don't have a TV or plastic toys.

>I have read the Waldorf Critics site and it's hysterical tone has >put me off. None of the issues it raised concerned me much. >What did worry me was that there were no children of color or >handicaped kids at the school I have been to so far.

Sorry to laugh ruefully, but is this the same person who states that the racist Steiner material that was posted is probably made up? Connect the dots. (Steiner also had some rather outlandish views on the treatment of the handicapped, which I could also post if anyone's interested. Possessed by demons, that sort of thing.)
Diana

[Diana W]

For the record, I do have my limits and don't plan to go on with this thread. I apologize that what should have been simply providing information deteriorated into such a conflict. Again for the record, I urge those interested in Waldorf to read the critics site with an open mind, and with assurances that the people who have worked on that site are people of integrity - there are no lies posted - the personal testimonies there are things that really happened in Waldorf schools - the pain of some of these families is real - and there are, absolutely, no fabricated quotes from anyone.
Diana

[I Believe in Fairies]

I can take apart DianaW's post and I can provide links to back up what I have said. However, this thread has been very ugly and I really don't want to keep it going. So I'll ask our community - do you want me to respond to this post by DianaW?

[Diana W]

Elizabeth wrote:
>I can take apart DianaW's post and I can provide links to back >up what I have said. However, this thread has been very ugly >and I really don't want to keep it going. So I'll ask our >community - do you want me to respond to this post by DianaW?

This is bull. A cop-out. You have made accusations and you need to back them up, not plead with others to let you off the hook. There are no faked quotes and you know it. I agree it has gotten ugly - false accusations are ugly.

[Jazmommie]

I just wanted to add that Steiner was /is not the only person who thought that souls "grouped "together & that nations & countries had "karma" & destinies.

Maybe he was extreme in examples-but Edgar Cayce(and many alive psycics ) also believe this-
"Cayce spoke of the Crusades ,and pointed to them as the beginning of the tensions between Middle Eastern & Western peoples,or soul groups."T
There are many examples of individual countries karma in several readings of Edgar Cayces.

Ok-back to the debate!

[Iguanavere]

I wouldn't mind if Elizabeth responded and then the thread ended.

I would also like a thread to talk about what we like about Waldorf, without it getting hysterical.

[I Believe in Fairies]

Originally posted by Diana W
Elizabeth wrote:
>I can take apart DianaW's post and I can provide links to back >up what I have said. However, this thread has been very ugly >and I really don't want to keep it going. So I'll ask our >community - do you want me to respond to this post by DianaW?

This is bull. A cop-out. You have made accusations and you need to back them up, not plead with others to let you off the hook. There are no faked quotes and you know it. I agree it has gotten ugly - false accusations are ugly.

You know, I am interested in your "quote" style. It has carrots in it like this - ">". Now, I normally only see that on a mailing list when something has been posted. Are my posts to these boards being forwarded to a group?

I don't "need" to do anything for you DianaW. If you look at the archives on Waldorf on this site you will find the post that was taken from a Waldorf mailing list, posted to the Waldorf Critics list and then reposted here.http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...0&pagenumber=4

It's the post by Mamamer.

I also find it interesting that there were posts by someone with the user name of "Winter_Diana". The posting style seems oddly similar.

The Swedish site has all the information about the false quotes.

A guru is a religious leader in Hinduism. Steiner was Christian.

www.m-w.com defines a cult as -
Main Entry:cult
Pronunciation:'k&lt
Function:noun
Usage:often attributive
Etymology:French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
Date:1617
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

DianaW, didn't you say your post before this one was your last one?

[momofgurlz]

to Elizabeth, specifically (but the rest of you can read it, too!)

Elizabeth --

You say so many things that can and should be challenged that it would take me at least an hour -- and several posts -- to do so.

First and foremost, however, there is the bottom line to consider: You, and everyone else reading this and wrestling with issues around Waldorf, will ultimately believe what you *want* to believe and *choose* to believe. There is no way I can force you to believe that I and other Waldorf critics are telling the truth -- that there *are* things you ought to know and understand about Waldorf that the schools are not telling you -- and I wouldn't force you if I could. I don't believe in that. I believe in choice .. and choice -- based on a legitimate information from a variety of sources -- is all I want parents considering Waldorf to have.

The allegations you make -- that critics "make up" Steiner statements and post them all over the web for some kind of perverse fun of their own -- I *can* prove are wrong. I see that my internet friend, Diana (who spent several years as an assistant in a Waldorf school and has been studying this stuff ever since, as have I) has already posted many carefully cited references to real Steiner books, which I hope you will peruse. What kind of proof will you believe, Elizabeth? Tell me. Perhaps I can accomodate you.

You also assert that it was my free will to enroll my child in a Waldorf school without, as you say, reading a book. You're only half right. It certainly was my free will to enroll my child in a Steiner school and, for that matter, to spend precious hours of my life volunteering for the school, writing pamphlets for them (I am a professional writer, so they asked me to do so) and so on. You are wrong, however, when you allege that I did not research Waldorf! I came upon Waldorf as a reporter writing a feature story, and thus I was able to interview half a dozen of the school's teachers/leaders for a number of hours, separately and together, as well as to observe in several classrooms. I also took my daughter, a toddler at the time, to several "mini mornings," during which Waldorf teachers bake bread with the children and parents, lead songs, etc. During my interviews, I asked multiple questions, including questions about what books I might read to better understand the education offered. I was led to "You are your child's first teacher," which tells one little to nothing at all real about Waldorf. I also was given a heavy packet of "information," which essentially amounted to a few superficial press clippings about Waldorf schools elsewhere and some info printed by the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America -- AWSNA, the organization that oversees and accredits Waldorf schools. This was back in 1993, and thus the internet and other sources of info about Waldorf from outside its own walls/movement was not available. I was told that Waldorf schools offer an arts based, nonsectarian education and that if enrolled, my child would learn what children in other schools learn, only through different methods.

I won't bore people here with a "War and Peace" length treatise on the details of my child's (and my!) experience, though I am more than happy to do so for anyone who asks. Suffice to say that as my child progressed through the early grades, it became increasingly, and then alarmingly, clear that my child was NOT learning what children in other schools were learning at all. What's more, my child was being educated (I use the term loosely) according to the tenets of pre-Medieval view of the world called "Anthroposophy" which translated into the most frighteningly rigid kind of treatment of children. (One little boy in the first grade was squirming in boredom and fell, accidentally, out of his seat. He was forced to kneel on the floor in front of his desk for what seemed quite a long time. Young children whose parents forgot the dress code and allowed them to wear teeshirts decorated with pictures of wildlife were forced to turn their shirts inside out and wear them that way all day. I later learned that this type of shaming is typical of Waldorf schools, and that children in some schools had been made to wear dunce caps and sit in the corner!)

I made my decision to enroll in Waldorf based on the information I had available at the time. Unfortunately, most of that information came from the Waldorf people themselves, and they neglected (I believe deliberately) to give me the whole picture.

Which is why I come before you all today, and as often as I can. I want you guys to have the benefit of the whole picture -- you need to be able to look at Waldorf and not just see the pretty pastel colored walls and the cute little knitted toys and beeswax models and the recorder playing, but also the rigid doctrine that it is based on and which permeates it. As soon as Waldorf schools begin to present this picture -- when they say "Hey folks! We are an Anthroposophical school and we offer an Anthroposophical education. That means (followed by a litany of information, including details on how they will try to prevent children under 7 from reading even if they want to, believe that fairies and gnomes are real, that reading and writing and thinking critically before age 14 might cause hardening of the organs, etc.) -- then I can spend my time doing something else. What a happy day that will be! <g>

You say: <<I for one would like to see some of the Waldorf Critics list good things they got for their money. I personally love not having a TV in my life and I feel much better for not buying any new plastic toys. Do I believe that natural toys are better for my daughter's etherical body? Not really. I do believe that it's better for us to not use oil to make toys that don't stimulate the mind.>>

Lisa here again: Good things about Waldorf? Very pretty classrooms with sweetly colored walls uncluttered by bright posters; nice natural toys ,made of wool and wood; goof quality art supplies; some nice preschool songs. Taht is honestly it for me. I guess I don't understand why one would need Waldorf in order to choose not to have a TV in the home or to watch it, or to give my children wooden toys or organic juice. In fact, Waldorf did not invent those things and does not have a patent on them! I would contend, further, that those Waldorf "trappings" are what attract most people to Waldorf .... think about the fact that those are the things you chose to bring up as being "given" you by Waldorf, when they are not *owned* by Waldorf at all!

As for your daughter's "etherical" body (btw: it's "etheric," not "etherical) body: I don't believe it even exists. You obviously do, and that is your choice. I just want to make sure that others here who might not believe in etheric and astral bodies and such do not enroll in a Waldorf school without knowing how strongly the teachers there believe in them, and find themselves bewildered by the teachers' approach, belief system, etc. when it finally is revealed. (Waldorf teachers have a neat trick of talking the anthro talk around the parents known to be either anthro or "open," and not mentioning such things as etheric and astral bodies around people who are not.)

Elizabeth, I must say I find it utterly fascinating that you have no trouble believing that your child has an etheric body you can't see, but you won't believe certain truths (Steiner said some awful racist things that are still believed by Waldorf teachers today) when you *can* see them and they are right under your nose. Who said "There are none so blind as they who will not see?"

Yours for critical thinking (not encouraged in Waldorf schools until the children are at least 14, but encouraged here, thank goodness, on Mothering's boards) <g>

Lisa

[momofgurlz]

internet quoting style

Elizabeth notes:

You know, I am interested in your "quote" style. It has carrots in it like this - ">". Now, I normally only see that on a mailing list when something has been posted. Are my posts to these boards being forwarded to a group?

Lisa: Elizabeth, copying statements one wants to repond to and then pasting them into an message blank, preceeded and followed by << carets, is simply the accepted style in internet circles. I post on any number of lists, and everyone does it. It is considerate to the other readers of the list, because it clearly isolates what one wants to respond/refer to so that all can see, without tacking one's comments on the end of another person's long message.

I am not posting anything you have said anywhere else, and neither is Diana (I am on several other lists with her.)

Please be aware, however, that this IS a public forum: anyone can register and read everything you have said.

Lisa

[I Believe in Fairies]

Re: to Elizabeth, specifically (but the rest of you can read it, too!)

Originally posted by momofgurlz
What kind of proof will you believe, Elizabeth? Tell me. Perhaps I can accomodate you.

You can't. I think you and Diana are Internet trolls. Nothing PLANS or the Waldorf Critics group can say will make me think one way or another. I am currently reading Steiner's works and I will come to my own conclusion.

Originally posted by momofgurlz I was led to "You are your child's first teacher,"[/B]

So you liked that book? I haven't liked it, though the authoress is a very lovely woman. I still recommend that people read it since it does seem to cover the early childhood years the best from a Waldorf point of view.

Originally posted by momofgurlz
You say: <<I for one would like to see some of the Waldorf Critics list good things they got for their money. I personally love not having a TV in my life and I feel much better for not buying any new plastic toys. Do I believe that natural toys are better for my daughter's etherical body? Not really. I do believe that it's better for us to not use oil to make toys that don't stimulate the mind.>>

Lisa here again: Good things about Waldorf? Very pretty classrooms with sweetly colored walls uncluttered by bright posters; nice natural toys ,made of wool and wood; goof quality art supplies; some nice preschool songs. Taht is honestly it for me. I guess I don't understand why one would need Waldorf in order to choose not to have a TV in the home or to watch it, or to give my children wooden toys or organic juice. In fact, Waldorf did not invent those things and does not have a patent on them! I would contend, further, that those Waldorf "trappings" are what attract most people to Waldorf .... think about the fact that those are the things you chose to bring up as being "given" you by Waldorf, when they are not *owned* by Waldorf at all![/B]

I have yet to see all of these "trappings" in any other school setting or even recommended all together outside of Waldorf. I never once used the word "given" nor did I say that Waldorf owns them.

Originally posted by momofgurlz
As for your daughter's "etherical" body (btw: it's "etheric," not "etherical)[/B]

Oh, wow. Well, since we're doing spelling it's "than" not "taht" and "good" not "goof" and it's "accommodate" not "accomodate". Yet another mark of a troll, telling someone that they have spelled poorly. Bully for you, honey : D

Originally posted by momofgurlz
body: I don't believe it even exists. You obviously do, [/B]

No, I don't. I never said I did.

Originally posted by momofgurlz
Elizabeth, I must say I find it utterly fascinating that you have no trouble believing that your child has an etheric body you can't see, but you won't believe certain truths (Steiner said some awful racist things that are still believed by Waldorf teachers today) when you *can* see them and they are right under your nose. Who said "There are none so blind as they who will not see?"[/B]

I can't see air, but I do believe it's there. I can't see a Black Hole with my eyes, but I do believe they are out there.

Like I said, because of the actions of a number of PLANS and Waldorf Critics members I don not think that either organization has integrity. I do not trust you since the only time you post on these boards is anti-Waldorf. It's like someone who goes to a town just to poop but won't buy a drink to help pay for the toilet paper.

I see as much as I can. Like I said I AM READING STEINER BOOKS RIGHT NOW. I am currently reading "Theosophy". It's not my cup of tea, but I am reading it.

I also find it amusing that I have been writing this post while wearing all black, nursing my two year old and testing her letter recognition by reading an Edward Gorey books to her (The Gashlycrumb Tinies. if you must know)

edited to clean up my HTML in the post

[I Believe in Fairies]

Re: internet quoting style

Originally posted by momofgurlz
Elizabeth notes:

You know, I am interested in your "quote" style. It has carrots in it like this - ">". Now, I normally only see that on a mailing list when something has been posted. Are my posts to these boards being forwarded to a group?

Lisa: Elizabeth, copying statements one wants to repond to and then pasting them into an message blank, preceeded and followed by << carets, is simply the accepted style in internet circles. I post on any number of lists, and everyone does it. It is considerate to the other readers of the list, because it clearly isolates what one wants to respond/refer to so that all can see, without tacking one's comments on the end of another person's long message.

I am not posting anything you have said anywhere else, and neither is Diana (I am on several other lists with her.)

Please be aware, however, that this IS a public forum: anyone can register and read everything you have said.
Lisa

I just like the little quote button at the bottom of the post.......

Yes, I know anyone can read these boards.

[TraceyMc]

I just wanted to stress how one school can differ so much from another. I am not sure where these schools are that have dunce caps, shaming and children made to turn their clothes inside out, but our school has nothing like this. We are invited to observe at any time and I have.
No one has asked me to conform to a rigid lifestyle or rigid thinking. What is the lifestyle they asked you to confrom to?

We have a school library with books that children are welcome to check out and read, even before they are seven. They don't teach reading before 7, but they don't discourage you from reading.
There are children and teachers of color in our school. The center for Anthroposphy has cluster groups that meet in many places to educate people about anthro and give many opportunities to read about Steiner. There are advertisements for it all over the school to make sure that anyone who may be interested can find out what it is all about.
The racist comments mentioned here from Steiner do not reflect the way things are run in our school at all. I think he had some great ideas and some obviously not great ideas, as is the case with many philosophers.
A friend and I stopped by the school one day, out of the blue to see what it was like when our kids were toddlers. They welcomed us in with no problem. The admissions director picked out a seventh grade girl walking down the hall to give us a tour. She showed us around the whole school with such enthusiam. She had been there since kindergarten and told us how much she loved school. The seventh graders that live in our neighborhood don't love school. When I was in seventh grade I didn't love school either. That sparked our interest and we started with parent child classes.
I just urge everyone to check out their local school for themselves and ask as many questions as you feel you need to. We love Waldorf and are very happy with our informed choice.

[Diana W]

Elizabeth:
You know, I am interested in your "quote" style. It has carrots in it like this - ">". Now, I normally only see that on a mailing list when something has been posted. Are my posts to these boards being forwarded to a group?

No. (Though as I have pointed out, there is nothing sneaky about copying it, as it is all a public record, and by the same token no need to copy it anyway, as anyone can come look for themselves.) I have told people at PLANS that there is presently a discussion here.

This is a strange way to try to make me look bad - I have done nothing unethical. You, on the other hand, have made a false allegation that you have not provided any evidence for, and you don't respond to the Steiner quotes that I posted - the full citations have been provided.

The carets > are there because I've sometimes copied things into my own email program since I find it easier to work with, and sometimes start a reply and can't finish it till later, which it doesn't seem possible to do on this board (and don't really get how message boards work (even though I am an Internet "troll"). I'll leave out the > if they bother you. This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic in response to a challenge to BACK UP WHAT YOU HAVE SAID HERE - complaining about carets in my post?


I don't "need" to do anything for you DianaW. If you look at the archives on Waldorf on this site you will find the post that was taken from a Waldorf mailing list, posted to the Waldorf Critics list and then reposted here.http://mothering.com/discussions/sh...40&pagenumber=4

It's the post by Mamamer.

Not going to go back over that - I've already responded and you haven't said anything new on that topic.

No, you don't "need" to do anything because I think you should. It's your conscience. You made a charge which you cannot back up and you don't care. You can expect to be challenged on that in a public forum, because it is slander.


I also find it interesting that there were posts by someone with the user name of "Winter_Diana". The posting style seems oddly similar.



I'm Diana Winters. This is goofy, Elizabeth. I was last on these boards months ago, as Winters_Diana. This time when I tried to log on, it told me "Winters_Diana" was taken. I couldn't figure out how to sort this out and didn't care to waste the time, so I just tried Diana W, and it let me on. (So I guess there's two of me here, technically, but the other "me" is quiet.)

The Swedish site has all the information about the false quotes.


It has false information. It is way too confusing to explain the whole story here, but Sune Nordwall made this accusation against Peter Staudenmaier, who is a historian who knows more about anthroposophy than many anthroposophists. Many people think anthroposophy is just about being spiritual, and don't care to learn more about the history of their own movement. Historically this sort of naivete has had very bad consequences. Peter Staudenmaier has studied the history of right-wing political involvement among anthroposophists. Sune Nordwall accused him of inventing an entire lecture, because Sune didn't know the lecture. For some time he referred to it as Peter's "forgery." Sune later realized his own mistake. That is why he took down the link to the lecture in question. He did not, however, retract his accusation. He may plan to update this on his site at some point, I don't know. I notice he's in no hurry. Elib took the lecture down at around the same time.
It is obvious you have no idea at all what any of this is about, Elizabeth. Posting the link to Sune's site, where this charge is made, does not show there are fabricated quotes anywhere; you'd need to show it *yourself*. You obviously have no idea what the lecture or quotes were even about (the soul missions of various racial groups). You, yourself, need to post here the quotes that you believe are not real quotes. I'm sure we can all see now that you will not be doing this, because there aren't any such quotes. You post a so-called fabricated quote, okay? and I will find you the source in Steiner.




www.m-w.com defines a cult as -
Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: 'k<
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
Date: 1617
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

DianaW, didn't you say your post before this one was your last one?

That's a great definition of cult. Anthroposophy fits every one of those definitions. Cults aren't all bad. You just need to know what you are getting into - that there is a dogma behind what appears simple and lovely on the surface. Again I advise everyone to learn all they can, from visiting the schools and (insisting on) observing classes at length. That will say far more than I ever can, and some people will like what they find. Yes, good things happen in Waldorf schools too; it's important not to go on superficial impressions, however, like pretty classrooms, the wonderful smell of bread baking, silk puppets. These things mask an ideology that is very questionable, and I advise parents that there is *no* enchanted fairy garden for your children, it is the real world and there are people with an agenda running the fairy garden. No one wants to believe it because it's very depressing. I go on "trolling" about it if you like that term, because of the children I know who are still getting over the damage that was inflicted, and I hope a few who read this will see that something serious is going on, that they need to research and ask their own hard questions and not content themselves that this is just about bread baking, and not be deflected from learning what Steiner was all about and why Waldorf teachers are like a dog with a bone when it comes to Steiner.
Diana

[Diana W]

Jazmommie wrote:

>I just wanted to add that Steiner was /is not the only person >who thought that souls "grouped "together & that nations & >countries had "karma" & destinies.

No, of course Steiner is not the only one. He wasn't a particularly original thinker, he rehashed and rewrote a lot of stuff from various centuries-old mystical and religious traditions.

To say that people have karma together - or share "spiritual" characteristics - *because of their race or national origin*is racist. It is the heart of racism.

[momofgurlz]

why should I be surprised?

Elizabeth,

First, I *am* sorry that I took a cheap shot at you for your use of the word "etherical" rather than the accepted (and anthroposophically correct) "etheric." I admit to being more than a bit frustrated in our debate/dialogue, which I can see clearly now is useless, at least when it comes to you.,

Your mind is made up in regard to Waldorf and its critics, and that is your right, for sure. I am sad that you are so defensive about it all, but I recognize the feeling. When I signed onto the Waldorf critics list five years ago, I did so because I was determined to show those critics how wrong they were, how great Waldorf was for my child, how each Waldorf school was different, etc. I wore myself out arguing there, but I thought it was worthwhile in case someone -- anyone -- considering Waldorf spent time on the board. I didn't want them hearing just the nasty old critics' side, which I was convinced was being put forth by hard hearted, unimaginative and bitter people who I thought should just go get a real life.

Big sigh. Imagine my surprise when, as the time at our former Waldorf school moved along, so many of the things they had spoken about came to pass. Because of what I learned there, I was able to pose some good questions to teachers and school leaders, and I found myself unhappy with their refusal to answer. (Example: bringing the racist Steiner quotes, available in the very books the school store was selling, to teachers' attention and being told that "some of Steiner is difficult." Pressing on about why racist garbage -- such as Steiner's statement that blonde hair and blue eyes bestow intelligence -- was being sold by the school store and did the teachers actually believe this and work on that principle -- I was again told, "some of Steiner is difficult.")

Worse, I watched as my daughter (later tested as "gifted") was discouraged in learning by the very people who claimed to want to teach her. More than once, I was told we needed to "move Olivia out of her head and into her trunk area" and that my husband and I should not answer any "cause and effect" questions she had. In third grade, the children in Olivia's class were prohibited from checking non-fiction books out of the schools (understocked and pathetic) library, because learning real facts about animals and such would "diminish the children's ability to live into the stories they hear."

By the time we withdrew our daughter from the school in the middle of fourth grade, my child knew extensive facts about fairies and gnomes (gnomes hate frogs more than anything, for instance) and still thought a harvest moon could fall from the sky and crush our house. She had never written a book report or done a science project (what passes for science in Waldorf elementary schools is another topic -- very scary, is all I can say, but they hide that behind words such as "zoology" and "botany" in the curriculum lists they give to parents); she had never written a poem or a fiction story in class. Worried about how listless she had become ("In school, it feels like they don't want me to think"), we had her seen and tested by an educational expert who asked "Where does this girl go to school? Wherever it is, get her out. Now!" The educational consultant told us that the gap between our daughter's ability and her achievement could only be explained by what he coined as a "teaching deficit" -- in other words, the child could definitely learn and process information, if only she had been given some! This person had heard of Waldorf, but knew nothing about it. He advised us to take her out almost right away, as soon as we could come up with a plan to either send her to another school or educate her at home. We did half a year of homeschooling (our child cried with happiness when we unloaded all the textbooks and other books she would be using in the homeschooling) and she is now, after half a year of intense homeschooling work and a year at a good public school that ended up offering almost everything we had hope to find in Waldorf (except the pretty classrooms and natural toys), an honor roll student at a fine private college prep school.

Elizabeth says:

<< I also find it amusing that I have been writing this post while wearing all black, nursing my two year old and testing her letter recognition by reading an Edward Gorey books to her (The Gashlycrumb Tinies. if you must know)>>

Lisa: That worries me, Elizabeth. If you allow your two year old to learn her letters (which you know and I know is good for her if she is ready, and it sounds like she is!), your Waldorf story may end up like ours did. No fooling. When Olivia began to read, and I mean really read, at the age of 4, I told her Waldorf teacher, thinking she would be happy. (So much I didn't know then.) She took me aside and gave me strategies for "slowing her down." She advised us not to read books to Olivia (so she could not follow along with the words) and to only tell stories. I chalked it up to a teacher's own idiosyncracies, but it was a foreshadowing of the anti-intellectual attitude of the school in general. Waldorf does what Steiner said, and Steiner taught that children would really be better off not reading and writing until age 14. Waldorf schools today know that parents won't stand for this, so they compromise. But they drag their feet doing so, all the way. If you are reading your Steiner, you will learn that.

Your child sounds like she may be verbally gifted, Elizabeth, which is the story with my older daughter who wilted at Waldorf. I beg you to go carefully, if you go to Waldorf at all. And please don't expect your school to actually support your daughter's verbal ability; they may act like they are going along, but chances are, they will do whatever they can to slow her down once she is in their care. Is that what you define as "education?" To me, education means nurturing a child's true abilities and rejoicing in their blooming, and helping and coaxing what is less natural and easy with kind words, real help and real information and knowledge.

Lisa