"The German Spirit....is prepared for a truth that reveals itself to be true out of itself, not requiring external verification. The German Spirit is prepared for this and evidence may be found everywhere. The thoughts of those who were truly working within the essence of the German spirit have always taken the form of considering truth to be an inner gift of the human soul."
Rudolf Steiner.  (1)

"At the same time, (mid 19th century) a mixture of nationalism, radicalism, history and field observation introduced the equally dangerous topic of permanent national or racial characteristics in society…….The belief that specific racial stock survived…….fitted admirably into an age when men purported to discover the romantic and mysterious individuality of their nations, to claim messianic missions for them if revolutionary, or to ascribe their wealth and power to 'innate superiority'.. 
E.J. Hobsbawm.(2)

Professor Hobsbawm's observation in the immediate context of his book was in fact directed toward France, but it might have been directed toward any colonial power. How ironic that these colonial powers have outgrown such arrogance (and for the most part they have outgrown notions of empire as well) but that something as quietly worldwide as Anthroposophy should still adhere to something as contrived  as 'innate superiority'

Although some Anthroposophists sometimes distance themselves personally from certain Steiner pronouncements few Anthroposophists seem willing to repudiate Steiner entirely on a given topic. Presumably the fear is that to admit the fallibility of the guru in one instance leaves the door open to the possibility that he might have goofed elsewhere.

"The Western European peoples have become very much crystallized in their national characteristics, but in the case of the German people this cannot happen because of the peculiar nature of the German folk spirit. The result is that German attitudes will always ...have to remain more universal than those of other peoples. These things relate to profound realities in the spiritual world." (Steiner, 1915, DIN p. 176)

This "German Spirit" is presumably that as understood and articulated by Steiner i.e. Anthroposophy. Does this maybe have an effect on your take on just why (say) 'The Bell' or the 'Oberuffer Passion Plays' are performed?
Steiner again: 
"The representative people for the development of the consciousness soul, hence for what matters particularly in our age, is the Anglo-Saxon nation. The Anglo-Saxon people are those who through their whole organisation are predisposed to develop the consciousness soul to a special degree. The prominent position occupied by the Anglo-Saxon nation in our time is indeed due to the fact that this nation is especially suited for the development of the consciousness soul". (3)

At this juncture it might be worthwhile to discuss just what Steiner meant by 'Anglo-Saxon'. Given the unfortunate -and ill-informed- propensity of most of the world to conflate 'Britain' with 'England'. Perhaps he meant the British Isles, all 6000+ of them: the state of Great Britain and Ireland as it was at the time Steiner worked. 
Perhaps.
What seems more likely however is that Steiner was thinking of (Germanic origin) England in using such admiring terms, probably paying little regard to those additional  influences that have made  England and Britain what they are today- or even at Steiner's time.

'Anglo-Saxon consciousness' is the state of enlightenment to which Initiates should aspire. How is this done?  Well, we could try guesswork! Indeed, it may well be that guesswork is the best option since Initiates are exhorted to keep such things to themselves. Let's re-iterate: 
"You may flatter him, you may torment him: nothing can induce him to divulge anything which he knows should not be divulged to you because at your present stage of development you do not understand how to prepare in your soul a worthy reception for this mystery" (4)
       
Perhaps other devices such as blind acceptance and dumb acquiescence are equally - or more - efficacious: 
So, should we simply give Anthroposophy public money? This on the basis that while we might think we simply disagree, in fact (according to Steiner) we don't understand. Therefore, society should fund Anthroposophy's efforts to bring us to Anglo-Saxon -i.e. Anthroposophical-soul consciousness! Nor, without our blue card (First Class) membership of The Anthroposophical Society should we question this, because we are just too dumb...er unenlightened.

Maybe at this point it would be useful to remind ourselves of just what point in its own evolution Germany had reached before Steiner was born, and in his formative years

1790's -1814. Under French domination. This domination under Napoleon begins the unification process. In 1792, Germany consisted of between 300 and 400 independent units, by 1817, this had reduced to around 30. Some German states join in Russian pursuit of Napoleonic armies. First sign of a "common enemy" unity in German states.
    
1848. German nationalists call National Assembly in Frankfurt. Decide to strive toward 'Klein Deutschland' - little Germany:- a Germany of ethnic Germans under Prussian leadership, rather than 'Gross Deutschland' with multi-ethnic Austria as leader. Johann Gustav Droysen at the assembly claims 'already Prussia is Germany in embryo. She will "merge" with Germany'.
 
1862. Otto von Bismarck becomes Prussian Minister President.
      
1864. German Federation together with Austria seizes Schleswig-Holstein and other territories from Denmark.

 
1866. Prussian challenge to Austrian occupation of Holstein. Seven weeks war leads to utter defeat 
 of Austria. Huge areas of ethnic German territories ceded to Prussia.
      
1870. Franco-Prussian war. Paris occupied. Alsace-Lorraine ceded by France.

1871. At Versailles,  The German Empire is declared. Wilhelm I, King of Prussia, becomes Emperor of Germany.

 With a modicum of feeling for Romanticism, it is not at all difficult to see how easy it would have been for any young, educated German, with the least sense of history, to feel that he was living in momentous times, and that Germany's time had come, perhaps with a resurgence of something akin to Holy Roman Empire and that the Anglo-Saxon was about to reassert his pre-dominance. What does seem strange though is that Steiner's formulations should have been so exportable. That is, until one considers that just about anything 'alternative' has ever attracted a certain chic.
However, in this case, one must pause to consider the effects of riding rough shod over the cultures and histories of other societies, if not one's own.  One's own?

"Over the centuries the figure of Arthur became a symbol of British history - a way of explaining the 'matter' of Britain, the relationship between the Saxons and the Celts, and a way of exorcising ghosts and healing the wounds of the past.
In such cases the dry, historical fact offers no solace, it is myth that offers real consolation, not in literal, historical fact but in poetic, imaginative truth. And a body of myth like the Arthurian tales therefore represents in some magical way the inner life of our history as Britons, over many hundreds, even thousands, of years. In this sense the fabulous myths really do serve Britain and make Arthur, perhaps, the real 'once and future king'." 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/anglo_saxons/arthur_01.shtml

Does the body of myth of Arthurian tales really stand as 'more' mythical than the corpus of Steiner's work? There are people in Britain and abroad who hold these legends of Britain as a wish for the 'once and future'. Maybe we all do to a greater or lesser extent.

Does any of this matter? Perhaps. As St. John's Day approaches (June) which version of the Grail legends does your local Anthro focus on? It probably wouldn't be a good idea to bet against it being the German, Wolfram von Eschenbach one rather than our own British version.
Now just why might that be do you suppose?

"British authors who have written of the great legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table have said little of the story of Parcifal. To Mallory it is Gawain who holds a central place, with Parcifal ( Sir Percival ) relatively unimportant; others have concentrated on the romantic tales of Lancelot and Guinevere.

And whilst acknowledging the British origin of these legends it is to the troubadours of France and Germany, notably Chrétien de Troyes and Wolfram von Eschenbach that we need to turn for a complete rendering of the wonderful story of Parsifal.

Rudolf Steiner recommended this story for children of class 11 in the Waldorf education curriculum (age 16-17 years) as a way of introducing them to world literature and to one of the central problems of our time - the journey of the 'Consciousness Soul' and the imperative to learn to ask the right questions. Like Parcifal they will all go through their own individual way of finding the Grail as a requirement of living in this century."

http://www.waldorfeducation.org.uk/secondary/foreword.shtml  (website link no longer valid)

Decision time. Is such a view a reasonable adoption of a different version, or does it smack of "Steiner said" so it must be followed? Is it really to much to ask that the lessons to be taught can't be derived from our own traditions? Must everyone in the world on the journey of the 'Consciousness Soul' follow this alien route? Do these pro-British questions necessarily mean they are anti-German? Do we have to be open minded to the point where our own brains fall out?

A serious 'Bogey Man' to Anthroposophy is Peter Staudenmaier, and his article "The Art of Avoiding History" (5) challenges just such things. In order to become a fully integrated associate of Anthroposophy, it is necessary to subscribe to Steiner's teachings. Peter Staudenmaier persuasively argues that most of Steiner's teachers allude to a mystical supremacy of all or at least most things Aryan.

 Does it not therefore follow that in order to mitigate Steiner's teachings, which seem to be at least a romanticised version of Germanic history as much as anything else, one needs must relegate one's own history and culture to a lesser level? This has been called "cultural alienation" and is perhaps most attractive to those who have little or no knowledge and/or feeling for their own history and culture?
Try floating this premiss with Anthroposophists, and then with ordinary German folk. Find out for yourself who becomes embarrassed and who becomes aggressive.

A final gem from Steiner. Does it say anything to you of the ubiquitous German classes in Steiner Waldorf schools?

"Now it will certainly seem strange and fantastic when mankind nowadays is told that in Central Europe the close association of the "I" with the Christ principle had put a stamp on the entire development of the area, to the effect that even the linguistic spirit of a people took up this association and equated "I" (Ich) and "CH" (Christ): I-CH conjoined became "Ich." In pronouncing "Ich " in Central Europe one utters the name of Jesus Christ. That is how close the "I" wants to be to the Christ, longing for the most intimate closeness with Him. This living together, as one, with the spiritual world, which we in Central Europe must strive to attain in all intellectual fields, is not known in the West or in the East.
Therefore, something in the twentieth century is necessary so that the Christ principle can gradually spread over the entire European continent. I have frequently emphasized in several lecture series that in November 1879 the spiritual being we call the Archangel Michael had reached a special stage of development. Michael had become, so to speak, the leading spirit who is now preparing the event that has to take place in the twentieth century. This is alluded to in my first mystery play as the appearance of the etheric
Christ on earth. It will come to pass that at first a few, and gradually more and more souls will know that the Christ is really here, is again on this earth, but as an ether body and not as a physical body."
"Christ In Relation to Lucifer and Ahriman ", lecture, May 18, 1915.

Powerful eh? Do you really find this any more substantive than the centuries old "demonstrated fact" of Gaelic scholars that Gaelic is that spoken by Adam and Eve in Eden: that Gaelic is in fact The Language of Heaven? 
 
In Sophie's World, Jostein Gaarder's charming novice's introduction to philosophy, Professor Knox apprises Sophie of Goethe's declaration that "he who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth." (6)
Hence, it was not only o.k. for Sophie to be aware of her own (Norwegian) history; it was quite desirable that she should become so. No mention is made of Goethe's - a primary influence on Rudolf Steiner - specifying that Sophie's Norwegian (hence part of Steiner's Germanic-Nordic) awareness would elevate her to anything higher than that of other cultures.
It is sufficient for most of us to walk our own path and to wish well to others on a different path.
Can the same be said for Anthroposophy? 
Your call.

(1) Steiner, Rudolf. The Destinies of Individuals and of Nations. (1914-1915) Trans. Anna R. Meuss.
    NewYork: Anthroposophic Press; 1987*
 
(2) Hobsbawm, E.J. The Age of Revolution (Europe 1789-1848): London: Abacus; 1977. p.353

(3) Steiner, Rudolf. Materialism and the Task of Anthroposophy. (1921)  Trans. Maria St. Goar.   
     Hudson, New York: Anthroposophic Press; 1987*

(4) Steiner, Rudolf. Wie erlangt man Erkenninise der hoheren Welten? Berlin; 1918, pp. 3-4.
     Quoted by Sven Ove Hansson, Uppsala in his article 'Is Anthroposophy Science? Conceptus    
     (1991); XXV, No 64. pp. 37-49. Reproduced by permission at:   
     http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/Hansson.html

(5) Staudenmaier, Peter. The Art of Avoiding History. First published in 'Folkvett' magazine, Sweden, 2001.
     Text is available at: http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/Art_of_Avoiding_History.html

(6) Gaarder, Jostein. Sophie's World. London: Phoenix Press; 1996, p. 137.
 
*Taken from collected quotes at
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/Racism_intro.html 

 
Published 23/10/06
Revised 28/03/07