Talk:Aryan race

This page makes it sound a lot like the Aryan invasions never happened. However, last I heard anyways, there was some pretty good evidence that they did, the introduction of Indo-European languages closely akin to those introduced in Iran being of special note. If we're claiming that the transition was mostly confined to the upper strata and that the migrants were quickly assimilated, like the Mitanni in Syria, we should say so. Otherwise we should provide some strong references, because this sounds fairly controversial.

Another poster: I agree. The evidence of the Aryan migration into India is mostly denied by Hindu Nationalists who wish to argue that the Vedas originated in the Indus Valley Civilisation. The liguistic evidence that it occurred is strong, as is recent genetic evidience.

Both sides greatly exaggerated the story. The British in India claimed that the Aryans invaded from central Asia and destroyed the native Indus Valley civilization (which is not supported by archaeoloigcal evidence). The Hindu nationalists claim that the Aryans and the Dravidians are the same people (which is also incorrect). The Aryan migration is certainly a fact, but Aryan invasion is not (or at least highly doubtful). (I'm a student of Indian history, and fairly sure of my NPOV here). -- Arvindn

This article claims that because Darius the Great claimed to be descended from the Aryans, this proves that they existed. That argument doesn't hold water. -- Zoe

It's Zoe's bizarre criticism that doesn't hold any water at all. Does she imagine that Darius thought the 'Aryans' were god-like mythic ancestors? Surely the article makes it clear that the word had no such connotations at this time. He's simply saying that he descends from the ruling ethnic group in Persia. Paul

I'm not sure either one of you are making sense. Isn't it possible that Darius was using "Aryan" in its original meaning as "noble"? It's certainly not bizarre for a king to claim descent from noblemen. --Ben

Well, yes, Ben's is a valid point. Several translations of the inscription do give the phrase as 'I am of noble descent..'. However that's obviously the same as saying that he descends from the ruling group. The question is whether this group saw themselves as ethnically distinct at this time. The jury is probably out on that one. I've altered the text to take account of that. Paul.

My understanding is that the Aryan myth was invented in Europe to explain the dissemination of Indo-European languages, around the turn of the century. The English and the Germans, interpreting Indo-European settlement in India as a conquest, and having vague reports of Dorian invasions in Greek prehistory, figured that Indo-European languages were the remnants of a vast horde of conquerors, who had the advantage of horses and chariots, and used them to overwhelm previous civilizations. This is where the Goddess, matriarchy versus patriarchy, and similar beliefs come from, BTW. My understanding is that almost all archaeologists and anthropologists reject this model now, at least as it applies in Europe. As to what the status of the belief system is in India is another matter. Some note ought to be taken of what the Vedas say about the different peoples in India, which my understanding was they were quoted in support of the myth by the British. It does seem designed with one eye on the prospect of making sure that the conquerors were aligned with the highest castes. -- IHCOYC 19:03 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how "aryan" can be a myth invented by Europeans. There are seveal clear mentions of the very words "arya" in Persian Achaemenids inscriptions (for example from Darius-I and Xerxes), which are nearly 2500 years old. Even before that, in the Avesta, there are clear mentions of "arya" and "ariana" (land of Aryans) as the first land that Ahura Mazda created on earth. There are several Achaemenid Persians with "arya" as part of their names, as recorded in their Inscriptions as well are recorded by Greek historian Herodotus. Examples: Ariamarta, Ariaborzin, Ariaramnes, etc ... and there are even more modern iranians with "aria" or "arya" as their names or part of their names.

The name "aryan" is not a myth invented by Europeans. The word appears from India to Ireland. The myth is that Europe was conquered by Aryans, who displaced a pre-existing, non-Aryan culture. -- IHCOYC 20:06 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have never heard about the theory of Aryans from the east "conquering" Europe or anything to that effect, but my understanding of the theory (based on linguistic anthropology) is that some Aryans migrated to Europe. I don't know how else to explain the undeniable linguistic commonality of the so-called Indo-European languages.

The Aryan myth as I understand it is more about cultural and religious replacement. It was a nineteenth century theory; supposedly there are clues in Greek mythology and similar things about how patriarchal, sky-god worshipping nomads arrived and conquered the fertility goddess worshipping people who lived before. The proof is supposed to be the spread of Indo-European languages. The problem is that there isn't really any evidence of widespread, consistent cultural replacement like you'd expect from this scenario in the archeological record. That, and there's no way of telling what language people spoke from pre-literate artifacts. There are of course two spins you can put on this: "hooray for the Aryan Supermen!" or "boo-hoo for the lost peaceful utopia of goddessdom." You don't get much of the first spin anymore, but you still get the second from some sources, which is only the flip side of the first. -- IHCOYC 01:51, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It seems to me your education on this subject is more based on novels and mythology than on factual academic research. If you could divorce from your mind the Nazi notion of the Aryan theory and instead investigate it academically, chances are you would not be so sensitive about the term, which, afterall, has thousands of years of "literate" ( to borrow your term ) documented history. Again, how else can the linguistic cognateness of the Indo-European language family be explained if not from a common root?

You might want to take a look at Poliakov's The Aryan Myth, or even Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans for a more popular look, on the state of thinking about the existence of an Aryan race or an Aryan conquest of Europe. Ronald Hutton's The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles also has some good information about more recent interpretation of mythology in this matter. While the hypothesis of the original unity of Indo-European languages is about as well established as anything in linguistics, the notion of Aryan conquests and cultural replacements is pretty much toast. I'm not arguing against the unity of Indo-European, only against the existence of conquerors who formed a cohesive and identifiable Aryan race. It seems likelier that the Indo-European languages were spread by mostly peaceful means that integrated into, rather than replaced, existing cultures in most places. -- IHCOYC 13:35, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the argument is here. No-one these days accepts the 'aryan master-race' concept, but I don't see how the IE languages can have got into Europe without large scale migrations of IE speakers from their staging area. This would have meant the displacement of pre-existing populations. This is hardly likely to have happened peacefully - though in some areas it may have done, depending on the size of the original population. The evidence is abundant that ancient population movements were not peaceful affairs. This current idea that some sort of happy acculturation took place seems to me to be at least as 'mythic' as the conquering master-race claim. It's a product of post-modern consumerist ideologies, just as much as the conquering race theory was a product of imperialism. Paul

That begs the larger question of where the IE speakers originally lived, which is something that remains a subject for a great deal of debate. The assumption of the conquest model typically starts with a very small area for IE to originate from, and that the broadcast of the language took place from a small homeland. Since various areas ranging from Germany to the Aral Sea have been ventured for the Aryan homeland, the hypothesis would have required the Aryans to have been a major imperial power. It seems unlikely that an army of 5000 BC could have achieved this goal, esp. w/o a written language.

Moreover, the Aryan myth affirms the existence of a civilization destroyed by Aryan conquerors. Total language replacement requires that the conquered people reject their original culture and cleave to their conquerors'. In Iberia and Gaul, Roman language replaced the native speech; in Britain and North Africa, it failed to do so, as it did in Greece. The Aryan myth is somewhat inconsistent, in that it affirms that the conquered pre-Aryans had a valuable and important culture, which was obliterated except for vague references in mythology that enable us to reconstruct its existence.

I tend to believe that the spread of IE occurred relatively early, at some point between the collapse of the Cro-Magnon high hunting culture and the rise of agriculture. It happened not because there was a mighty Aryan empire, durable enough to replace other people, but because the Aryan way of life allowed survival and settlement of areas that were no longer intensively inhabited by humans. Of course this is one theory among many. -- IHCOYC 13:43, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well I think you are mistaken about 'the Aryan myth'. There was no such thing at any time as a single 'Aryan myth'. Scholars and ideologues of various kinds developed the idea of Indo-European/'Aryan' identity in many different ways during the 19th and 20th centuries. However, I know of none of importance who claimed that there was an Aryan 'empire' with a large army that invaded other territories in which 'civilisations' were already established.

Of course Persia can be called an 'Aryan empire' that invaded other civilised territories, but that's a very different matter from the IE occupation of Europe. No major scholar of the past as far as I know ever claimed that Persian expansion into Mesopotamia was preceded by some pre-Persian Aryan empire that expanded into (or from) Europe and destroyed civilisations. Typically they claimed that pre-Aryan populations were simply less energetic and effective than the Aryans, or that they lacked Aryan military technology and martial culture. If anything, the model was a kind of social Darwinism in which smallish independent groups of entrepeneurial Aryans were thought to have displaced, subordinated or annihilated less dynamic opponents. The model was derived more from Germanic population movements in the so-called 'dark ages' than from Roman or Persian imperial expansion. At no point was a pre-existing 'civilisation' in Europe assumed to have existed. Paul

note: the theory or assumption that most Germans are descended from Aryans/Iranians, is Uber-spurious!! I would never bet any money i could ever have on such an idea. the Germanic folk are descended fom the Baltic/North Sea area. What i speak of is a well known fact around the world, and what self-respecting german would call himself an Iranian? nada, just a cult-mastermind conspiracy by NAZIs who didnt know what the fuck they were talking about, unless all they meant was to create ethnic violence. why would hitler advocate pangermanism on Iranian(ie,Muslim) roots and he's part jewish, out of freakin' Austria? what a retard! hello! Iran vs Israel in the Mid East, not a new thing at all...D-U-H-! ____Ramir 09:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC):

The Nazi claim was that the Germans - or more strictly the 'Nordics' - were IE (Indo-European) peoples whose IE ethnicity was 'purer' than that of other peoples. Other Europeans had, they claimed, been mixed with non IE peoples. None of this has anything to do with Muslims. The ancient IE peoples of Persia were not Muslim. They were Zoroastrian. Rosenberg recommended Zoroastrianism as the model 'Aryan' religion. The term 'Aryan' was preferred to 'Indo-European' and 'Indo-German' partly because it is shorter and more memorable, and partly because it is Sanskrit for 'noble' - an ideal name for a master race. Of course all of this is a mixture of real history and spurious nonsense. But is dangerous because it seems plausible, not obviously 'retard' stuff, as you call it. Paul

This page seems not to be taking the Aryan origin of (most of) European peoples, or even the very existence of Aryan nation, as a proven historical fact. But I have never seen any other books etc. expressing any doubt on that issue.

Could the authors possibly provide any links to source material? Ramir 09:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you mean by an 'Aryan nation'. There's little doubt that there was a PIE population, and of course that there was an Iranian population. Likwise the existence of an Indo-Aryan population is not disputed.

As for Europeans, there is good reason to believe that non IE speaking peoples preceded the IE speakers and that they continued to exist into historical times (e.g Etruscans, Basques). Likewise, parts of Europe were populated by other non-IE speakers later. The genetic contribution of the PIEs is impossible to determine at present. Paul Barlow

The whole notion of Aryan Invasion is nonsense. No archeological evidence indicates a war overthrowing the Indus/Saraswati civilization. The oldest mention of Ar/Arya/Aryan is in Sanskrit texts then in Avestan. The people of India considered themselves as arya meaning noble in that they were farmers-earning an honest living, meaning they offered prayer and believed in the Vedas, meaning they were noble in character. The people of ancient Indian vis a vis Indus/Saraswati civilization show remarkable and SIGNIFICANT DNA markers to the present population of the state of Punjab. This evidence confers the people of the past were similar to the people you will see there today. Furthermore, previous archeological work was done to 'prove' european colonial angst and desires to show the world they are superior-so no wonder if a document, glyph or coin evidenced an advanced purely Aryan culture in India would somehow 'disappear'. Recent work since the 1990's onwards has shed more light on the Aryan invasion theory-the theory is proven to be false and aryans are actually Indians-however the 'old school' will never believe this despite actually having evidence indicating what they have so aptly hidden for the last hundred years. These are the very same people that will say 'Oh it is just hindu nationalist at work etc." Come on people wake up! First you believe conjecture and now you wont believe actual science? Wake up! Aryans are not imported to India but an export. The spread of Indo European confirms this as well. The language spread from India and went westward. Why do people always pick an obscure place in the Russian steppes as a centre of IE? Wake up! The Indus/Saraswati civilization supported a population base of over 1 million back in 6500BCE+/-2000. Is it not just child's play to figure out were a language may have evolved and spread from? The reality is the Europeans of Yor could not live with them selves if their linguo/socio/cultural existence came from India (how could a snake charming, curry licking Hindu be my forfather? rubbish...oh goody it is tea time-Hmmmm tea is an Indian idea exported to China and the west....anyways.....I am tired of being the only white guy realizing his true homeland....India.......for christ's sake.......Krishna in ancient Greek is Kristos which is Christ!!!!!!!Arya Varta becomes today's Bharat......

I Think that You are mistaking Christianity as a native Aryan culture. Monotheïsm was not yet invented at this point in history. The Aryan race is just a name given to the IE race, which invaded not as an army or empire, but rather as tribes like happened after the fall of the Roman empire. Wherever a tribe settled, it mixed with the people already living there, which, in Europe, were Proto-Europeans, from whom the white colour, for example, is a heritage. They were the ones already adapted to the climate and that was why they looked like that, with little pigment. In Arabia, the Indo-Europeans mixed with larger quantities of "Nubians", who were, in Egyptian times, mostly slaves (Egyptian rulers and nobleman are always pictured with a white skin. It is most logical that, becuase in that climate they couldn't have been white, it was to further contrast them from the Nubian slaves). After those times mixing occured, resulting in the Jewish, and Arab tribes, all of whom were monotheistic, in contrast to the European Indo-Europeans and the original Indo-Europeans, currently extinct as a distinctial race, and their "purest" children still living in India. The Indo-Europeans brought a lot of their culture into Europe, mixing with already existing tribes, to create the peoples whe knew in the Roman times, and who mixed again to what we are now. The Indo Europeans of Arabia first opressed the original, Nubian groups, and used them as slaves. This can be seen in remains of Egyptian and Persian culture. The lower social groups already began mixing at early times, I think, while the nobleman tried to remain distinct as long as possible. The existence of the various European tribes caused the difference between the various Indo-European cultures:

Balts
Celts
Germans
Greeks / Mycenians / Koptics / Dorics
Romans
Slavs

The Pictish and Finnish peoples are said to be the more "pure" Proto-Europeans, barely mixed with Indo-Europeans.

Mixing between Indo-Europeans and Nubian tribes resulted in the Arabian/Yewish tribes. The Nubians were all very similar creating less distinct tribes. Monotheïsm is their invention, probably invented by the local Nubians before mixing. Polytheïsm is an invention of Indo-Europeans, long before their migration. Proof of this is the close relationship between, for example, Hinduïsm and Germanic Heathenry. Note than none of the above groups is to be seen as superior or inferior. The links between certain groups and slavery were, as I believe, made by the ancient cultures, and are not my opinion. The reason of wars not being described in ancient text is that it wasn't an invasion like in Holywood movies, but rather a migration, resulting sometimes in war, but sometimes in direct mixing.

The Germanic myth about the joining of the Æsir and Vanir is often seen as a symbolic mirroring of the joining of an Indo-European tribe and a Proto-European one. The Æsir represent the Indo-Europeans, the Vanir the Proto-Europeans. The Æsir were a warrior Gods, the Vanir fertility Gods. The Indo-Europeans were warriors and nomads, the Proto-Europeans agricultural farmers / gatherers / hunters. The Æsir and the Vanir, in the myth, fought a terrible war, until they realised that destroying each other was not a good idea, and that more could be gained by coorporation, the one relying on the strengths of the other, and vice versa. This might be what happened between the tribes to, the myth being a symbolic chronical. (BrahnTelpefin 05:51, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC))

Contemporary anthropologists who believe in the existence of an ancient Aryan race generally have the opinion that its closest descendants today are the Persians, not the Germans; that is, if Aryans existed, they were white after the manner of imperial-era, pre-Muslim Persians, and possibly the Circassians and southern Slavs, but certainly not the Nordic Germans and English.

The name Aryan reffers to a culture once located in India. Wheter this culture was Indo-European or Indo-Iranian is still the subject of discussions. It can even have been before Indo peoples split into a European and an Iranian group. Persians are Indo-Iranian, and thus related to Indo-European cultures like English. This is not a very close relationship, but apparently some political groups saw it big enough to base their theories about. That is why the name also came to mean Indo-European (and in lesser extend still means Indo-Iranian). BrahnTelpefin 09:34, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Could someone tell me why southern slavs?

what BrahnTelpefin said. (yawn, another "scientific" indian nationalist). PIE is not derived from Indo-Iranian, and much less from Sanskrit: Labiovelars. Vowel-contrasts (a,e,o). etc. Parts of the RV describe the Aryan invasion, at least read your own sacred texts. The PIEans were an obscure tribe, just like any other, just their language proved successful, later. The concept of "closest descendant" is completely flawed. If you and I are each 500 generations removed from a common ancestor, which of us is the "closer descendant"? The whole thing is a question of terminology: In some uses Aryan=PIE, and then Slavs are just as aryan as Persians. In some uses, Aryan=Indo-Iranian, and then Farsi, Hindi, Urdu, Kurdish etc. speakers are all equally aryan, but not the rest of the IE group. The article Aryan makes this clear already. dab 11:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We are all supposed to believe that the nomadic , barbarian , cattle herding Aryan tribes actually wrote the Rig Vedas . This defies common sense . I have heard some writers refer to the vedas as merely hymns in praise of demigods . Such writers have clearly not read the Rig Ved even in its translated versions ( which in any case are full of mistakes and misinterpretations and can never capture the true meaning ) . There is no ancient book as profound or as philosophical as the Rig Ved . Just read the various creation hymns ( Rig Veda 10.121 , 10.129 , 10.130 ) . To suggest that Rig Veda was the product of nomads is the equivalent of suggesting that the Bible was a product of humanoids ( No disrespect intended to the Bible).Without going into various archeological , geological and other evidences which seriously undermine AIT , common sense is sufficient to tell us that Vedic literature was the product of a mature , urbanised society which had sufficient surplus resources to afford higher intellectual persuits . We are also told now that there was no Aryan Invasion but only migration and that too from Afganistan . Let us remember that Afganistan was just a part of India . The scenario being suggested now is that small bands of "Aryans" came down from the hills of Afganistan to the plains of Punjab and gently persuaded the original Proto Munda Highly urbanized Harrapan City dwellers to leave the fertile lands and retreat into the hills and jungles of Central India where they not only lost all advances in technology but even the science of writing . The Central Indian tribes have no native script even today . The displaced people conveniently forgot all that they knew about urban living and adapted to the blisfull state of being hunters and gatherers . Alternatively , it is suggested that the Aryan mingled with the city dwellers who were so impressed with these nomads that they gave up their language and cultural traditions and adopted those of the nomads . Not only that , the migrants also became the high priests , so godlike they were .And let us forget that these migrants are supposed to have lived originally in the Caspian basin area which even today is a backwater of civilization .

The proponents of the AIT ( Now called AMT and that to only from Afganistan ) remind me of the blind men groping an elephant . Each comes up with an interpretation limited by his faculties . Before the second half of 19th century , noone in India had heard of this Aryan nonsense . Is it possible that such impotant events can be completely erased from the collective racial memory . We are told now that the Dravidian migration took place at the same time as the Aryans were coming in . The Dravidians started from Iran and went south , via Gujarat . The Aryans went East . This is complete nonsense . The Vedas have been transmitted by word of mouth for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years . Are we to assume that only those hymns which spoke of migrations have been conveniently lost . All pilgrimages of Hinduism are within the Indian sub continent . Not one is beyond . What does it mean ?

It is becoming clear that the AIT was a racially motivated attempt by Europen scholars to deny antiquity to Indian civilization and to divide Indian society . The Philologists are increasingly finding it difficult to marshall facts to fit theory . Therefore , we are now to believe that some local nomads from the hills sneaked into the rich , urbanized plains where cities were flourishing and grovelled before the urban natives to leave the fertile plains for them . Of course , poor as these nomads were , they had developed some of the post advanced philosophy known to mankind . What absurdity ! And what a climbdown from the earlier theory of blond , blue eyed Nordics charging in horse driven chariots and laying waste all in their path , like Panzers . Does anyone seriously want to believe such an absurd theory .

why go through so much rubbish and myths- look at the cold hard facts, IRAN means land of the aryans - not land of peoples who speak indo-european languages or any other rubbish, darius and other persian kings claimed to be of aryan decent, herodotus one of the most ancient writers described iranians as aryans, indian texts also catagorize north indians as aryans. the fact is the aryans came from the indo-iranian region, Europeans barely exisisted for them to come down to the middle east and invade. iranian history spans 12000 yrs ago were decorated ceramics have been found, the indians have had a even longer civilisation - at this time the northern europeans still used clubs and lived in caves, the agricultural revolution wich started in the middle east and introduced homes and agri-commerce did not reach northern europe until 5000 yrs after its development in the mid east, how can these tools with nothing, up and go and invade such a perdiodically advanced cultures!

Absolutely correct, THE INVASION THEORY is false! the word aryan did not even appear in europe until a short while ago. I too find it hard to beleive that the less advanced european aryans could have invaded and take over the indo-pars region. We all have to agree that civilisation started in the middleast and it then moved to europe and asia, if any ethnicity had to start somewere it would be in the oldest region on earth, the indo-pars , iraq, israel, egypt areas!

.

removed paragraph

Much of these theories were simply conjecture on the part of European imperialism, as there is nothing in the ancient Indian literature to suggest that caste had any kind of racial basis. There is also no record in the vast corpus of ancient Indian texts of people with white racial features, and archaeological findings show that the inhabitants of the region had much the same racial features as the current population.

I removed this because:

I'm getting tired of attempts to lump the "Aryan invasion theory" together with the Nazi use of the term. The racist part of the Nazi use is the suprematist idea, "these tribes were superior". Simply saying "this tribe walked from A to B" is not racist or imperialist at all.

It is not true as stated. See caste: the very term for caste means "colour". Skin colour is commonly included under "racial features" (sometimes used as the only feature used for classification, see the US use of "African American" vs. "Caucasian": they don't measure your nose length to classify you, they just look at your skin). It is a simple fact that the 'higher' castes, especially the Brahmans still (4000 years after the supposed 'invasion') clearly have a lighter skin tone than the lower castes, especially the Shudra. I don't know what the archaeological finds are supposed to tell us: we are not talking about different species here, just different "races", i.e. humans with a quite minimal genetic difference.

I do not want to censor the fact that the Brits used the theory for imperialistic purposes. But such criticism would have to be phrased differently: In as much as they did, it would reflect badly on the Brits, and not on the theory itself.

dab (ᛏ) 14:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The selection was not in reference to the "Aryan invasion theory" which is another topic in itself. As an aside though, the notion of invasion is in many ways inextricable from the idea of racial supremacy, as it was used to legitimate the European conquest of India and other "uncivilized" nations. The Europeans claimed they were simply doing what the Aryan ancestors of the Indians had done thousands of years ago.

But getting back to the topic at hand, its clear that the Europeans were primarily the first ones to "racialize" the notion of caste, as prior to the English conquest of the sub-continent, there was no conception of caste having anything to do with race, ethnicity, or skin color. There is nothing in ancient Indian literature to suggest a racialized view of society based on skin tone. "Varna" means "color", but that color does not refer to "skin color"; the root word for Varna is 'Vri' which means one's occupation. It refers to the nature of one's supposed character (gunas) and the daily activities that each group performs. As Wikipedia's section on caste states:

"The varna system is based on division on labor. The colors are based upon the daily activities of each group. The Brahmin wears white because he performs various sacrifices and has to be clean. Any impurities will show on the white clothing. The Kshatriya warriors wear red because they see a lot of blood and wounds as they practice their daily warrior routines. The Vaishya traders handle items like turmeric and other spices and they wear yellow because it masks the colour. The Shudras wear blue because the color blue was more appropriate for the work environment".

If caste truly was originally predicated on ethnicity, where are these "blue", "yellow", and "red" skinned people? Clearly there are none. As I said before, it is only the Western world, with its narrow conception of race and skin color that emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries, that read a racial angle into these terms. Many Bhramans do have lighter skin tones, but there are many who have dark skin as well. Many Vaishyas and Shudras also have lighter skin, and many Kshatriyas are quite dark-skinned. These kind of observations tell us little about the origins of a system that developed over 4000 years ago, well before notions of "race" had become firmly embedded into the social discourse. Im not a supporter of the caste system, as I believe it has outlived its purpose, but any discussion about its origins cant be complete without mentioning that its "racial" nature is more a creation of European colonialist academia than any reality.

I disagree completely. But I don't have the time for this. Much more like that, and I'll just slap "NPOV, Cleanup" on the article. You cannot just change the intro to

Aryan race is a notion mentioned in the Old Persian inscriptions

That's completely bogus. If anything, the Persians had a notion of "Aryans", not of "Aryan race". The sweeping statement about the "vast corpus of Indian literature" will be very difficult to back up, and is, at that, completely irrelevant here. This article is about "Aryan race", and Indian varna only appears here in asmuch as it is seen as a continuation of a migration of that people. Discussion of Brahmins garments belongs on the varna article itself. Add to that the ridiculous theosophia paragraph pasted into the "fascism" section. If people simply slap their pov on articles in passing, it will never be balanced. I ask you for references about what you say about the "vast corpus". I ask you for reference that "Aryan race" appears in Persian inscriptions (rather than in 19th century English). dab (ᛏ) 12:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the comments regarding the Aryan Race and Persia, the Persians used the word Aryan, as did also the Hindus, Buddhists and Jains, but not with the meaning of "Aryan Race", i.e. not designating racial or linguistic groups. The theosophical part has changed since then, it is important to note in the article that Blavatsky was not racist, and that her definition of the Aryan (Fifth Root) Race was broad, and not only limited to blue-eyed, blond people. She used the word Aryan in several meanings, most importantly as the Aryan Fifth Root Race, with a meaning more related to large time periods than to "Race", and she also used the word "Aryan" in the spiritual and religious meaning of the word. It is interesting to note that she may have been among the earliest critics of Max Muller, who is credited with the introduction of the term Aryan in linguistic studies. One chapter of her book Isis Unveiled is titled "India the cradle of the race", which indicates that she thought that the homeland of the "Aryans" was India rather than Afghanistan. (I think it is possible that the Hindus may have originally come from Afghanistan, or maybe even (though improbable) from the North Pole (as suggested by Tilak) or from Tibet or even from a "sunken continent" for that matter, but that was more probably long before 1500 BC.)

As to the case of the "vast corpus of Indian literature", if we only look at Sanskrit literature the statement could be correct, there are descriptions of black hair in Sanskrit literature, but apparently only one of "golden hair" (apart from gods). (See [1] and citation below) I once heard about a hindu solar deity with golden hair (don't remember where), but solar deities and sun gods are usually symbolized with golden hair. There are also blue-skinned gods in Hindu mythology, does this mean that there once were blue skinned people? In any case, some Hindus have and may have had lighter hair, and they may have been lighter or darker in the past, but Sanskrit literature does not seem to give much importance to race, or to hair, eye and skin color. And also, the Hindus, ancient and modern, do indeed have caucasian features, because they are part of the Mediterreanean branch of the Caucasian Race. It is similar with Greece, most of the Ancient Greeks looked more or less like the modern Greeks of today, while some of them were lighter and some darker, and some were shorter and some taller etc. There were also some blue eyed, blond people and some black Africans in Greece, but most of the ancient Greeks looked like the Greeks of today.

Reference to fair hair would certainly qualify, but according to Michael Witzel, there is in Sanskrit literature exactly "one 'goldhaired' (hiranyakeshin) person that is not a god, the author of HShS", i.e. the Hiranyakeshin-Shrauta-Sûtra named after him. (p.390, emphasis in the original) Quite possibly, even the author called Hiranyakeshin or Goldhaired was not goldhaired at all, but had one of the epithets of the solar deity Vishnu as his given name, just as people called Nîlakanth, "blue-throated" like Shiva after he swallowed poison, are not blue-throated at all. (...) Prof. Hock provides a detailed survey of the Vedic verses which have been cited as proof of a racial antagonism between the Vedic people and their enemies (verses containing terms like asikni and krshna, "black"), and concludes that the racial interpretation "must be considered dubious". (p.154) He points out that "early Sanskrit literature offers no conclusive evidence for preoccupation with skin color. More than that, some of the greatest Epic heroes and heroines such as Krshna, Draupadi, Arjuna, Nakula and (...) Damayanti are characterized as dark-skinned. Similarly, the famous cave-paintings of Ajanta depict a vast range of skin colors. (p.154-155) [2] --Wilsonm 01:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the western so called Sanskrit scholars interpreted some sanskrit verse in their advantage to say that aryan are white & south indian people ( dravid people )are black. In ancient India Dravid term was used to mention south beyond Vindhya Mouintain range in central India which roughly divides North & South. But Maharahtra and south gujarat people are also called Dravida in that sense but there language is mentioned as IE one. Now let me ask you all, is Italic - Greek and Norway - finnish person is not different in look and skin tone wise. Norway is in extreme North and Italy - Greece in South getting Mediteranian sun shine. So clearly more darker then Finnish poeple. So, can we say them as different racially ? ( As same logic is implied on India ). Do you know Lithuanian & Latvian has very much similarity in Grammer wise. Why these `so called Baltic' group is showing much more similarity with Sanskrit. If you know Sanskrit then it can called very much scientific language. I feel that any nomad people in central asia can produce such a scientific language ? Right or wrong ? Why after many millenium Central Asia is not advanced in language & science wise if same people who have migrated in India in form of `Aryan Migration Theory'. The Aryan Invasion becomes Migration theory ( ya, it's only theory without any proof. Right? ) And what about finding of ancient Saraswati river in NW India with all types of proofs.This same Saraswati river is cherished in Rigveda with naming her Mother River and Greatest River. This river stopped flowing Indian soil around 1900 BC and then in 1500 BC ( which is arbitrary date given by Max Muller ) so called Aryans migrates to India and writes poems in praise of Saraswati river. Really they have great feeling for the dead river then their `original' central asian homeland river that they are saying verses to praise that river whose width was 3 to 10 Km in width during her hay day. Secondly, I want to quate that when Alexander came to NW India then they were amazed to see big rivers of NW India which is written as much bigger than any native,persian or Nile in Egypt.

I say that a great culture like Indus valley civilization ( which had common weights & measurements, planned towns with waste water underground pipelines, having area much bigger than Roman, Greek , Mesopotamia , Egypt allcombined ) ; very civilized than central asian nomad wonderers can only produce very logical, phonetical and very structural language like Sanskrit and not nomad people of steppes. Secondly, Tamil people attribute their language to Sage Agatsya which was great sage from `so called Aryan world'. Just explain these riddle please !

PIE

Image:Indo-Europeans 3000-1000 BC.gif does not belong on this article. If anywhere, it belongs on Proto-Indo-European. But, it has no information as to its source (copivio?), and it is very speculative anyway (the arrows are drawn quite arbitrarily). As to the "Root Race" edits, I don't know. This article is cranky enough... What is this "Root Race" business? is it notable? dab (ᛏ) 19:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One of the many definitions of Aryan Race and Aryan is that of the theosophical Aryan Fifth Root Race. In my opinion, the following points are important to mention in the article: a)That Blavatsky was not racist. (see for example The Key to Theosophy) b) In what different senses Blavatsky and other theosophists used these terms (most importantly she used the term Aryan Race for the Aryan Fifth Root Race,with a meaning more related to large time periods than to "Race", she also used the word Aryan in the spiritual and religious meaning of the word.) c) that her definition of the Aryan (Fifth Root) Race was broad, and not only limited to only blue-eyed and blond Germanic people (the "Nazi Germany" definition of the word). (The terms Aryan Race, Aryan and Root Race were used in a very different manner by Nazis under Nazi Germany and by "Nazi writers", it must be made clear that these terms got falsified, "perverted" and modified by such people, that these people used these terms with a very different meaning, a fact also clearly mentionned by Rudolf Steiner in his writings.) However, I will take some minor details out of the text, because the details are already mentionned in the article Root Race.

User:66.213.109.25 deleted this information: The concept of Aryan race, and the various beliefs related to it, should not be confused with the religious belief called Arianism. I don't know how important this information is, but I will revert the deletion of it, because the deletion of it should have been discussed or explained by the user. Regards, --Wilsonm 10:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suggest the "Arianism" link is given by way of a disambiguation, like on Aryan. I do not think it is necessary, though, because while somebody may conceivably type "Aryan" for "Arianism", it is unlikely that anybody is looking for information on Arianism on "Aryan race".

As for the theosophical classification, by all means, it is interesting and should be included (and referenced, because it sounds cranky and people will want to check it). It is not possible to assert that the author of a theory on "root races" is not "racist" however. Rather, we could say that these "races" are not associated with suprematist notions. "Racism" is the belief in a concept of "race" as fundamentally existent -- even if does not imply the belief that one's own race is somehow superior (or inferior), it is still racism. dab (ᛏ) 13:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I reworded the paragraph. I hope that this version is better. Maybe the information should be put some time or other under a separate sub-title (e.g. esotericism or religious meanings?), because it is not a "imperialist, nationalistic or nazi" use of the term. Regards, --Wilsonm 01:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Proto-Europeans were peaceful agricultural farmers. So called Indo-Europeans (Aryans) were Mongoloidic nomads and warriors. They were wandering in the Northern bank of Black see. About six thousands years ago, they started invading to Europe and India. They obtruded their language and mixed with Proto-Europeans. That is why many modern Europeans have Mongoloidic features. The Northern Europeans are more developed, because they lived in the severe climatic zone. It has nothing to do with any Aryans. Please, read about it the book "The realdom of the Goddess" by Marija Gimbutas. User Asevicius.

Indo-Aryan peoples

I think the bit on Vedic Aryans in the article should be moved to a separate article maybe called Indo-Aryan peoples (or maybe Indo-Aryan/Indo-Aryans or something similar). In the Ancient peoples Category [3] the "ancient peoples" don't have the term "race" in their title, I think the ancient Indo-Aryans deserve to be treated similarly. They need a separate article. The word "race" could be considered a bit pov because the Indo-Aryans could have been more than one race and especially all others in Category Ancient Peoples are called "peoples" (or only their name) and not "race". The similar Iranian peoples and Indo-Iranians also have their own article, as do the ancient Celts, Greeks, ancient Germans etc. An Article "Aryan Race" is primarly for topics on Nazism, Root races and similar things. These discussions should be kept in separate articles. It is reasonable to include in this article a short discussion of the topic, but the main text of this section belongs to an article on Indo-Aryan peoples. --Machaon 07:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this page has been drifting off in too many directions. I think it is time to have a seaparate Indo-Aryans page. I think this page should concentrate on the concept of the Aryan Race as it existed in European anthropology/ideology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The ancient Iranians and Idno-Aryans should only be there to explain the origin of these European ideas. Paul B 10:09, 21 May 2005 (utc)

I moved the concerning section to Indo-Aryans. Maybe a few sentences or a summary should be readded to this article later. Also, the new article Indo-Aryans could of course be ameliorated and expanded. Regards, --Machaon 12:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup

I've tried to clean up the article and to restore 'flow' and consistency. Rightly or wrongly, I've taken the view that this article should concentrate on racialist ideas propagated from c1850-1945, though they were most influential from c1880-1920. Other articles explore in more detail the aspects related to ancient India/Iran. The previous version also included a whitewash of Blavatsky. Having now read The Secret Doctrine, I think I can confidently say that the book is distinctly racialist in character1 She persistently denigrates "semitic" culture in relation to "aryan" values. Nevertheless, there's no denying that HPB's version of 'Aryan' identity is very different from Nazi Nordicism, and acccepted wide diversity of skin-colour. By 1933 theosophical use of 'Aryan' in English-speaking culture was profoundly anti-Nazi, and the Aryan Path journal was consistently opposed to racialism. However it would be dishonest to deny HPB's own, albeit idiosyncratic, racialism and the links between her work and the more esotericist modes of Nazism. Footnotes are still required. Paul B 22:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

definition out of a 3rd Reich encyclopedia

Here's a definition contained in an encyclopedia produced in the Third Reich – the “Volks-Brockhaus” from 1935: it says

Aryans: … members of those races that have lived in Europe for a long time (Nordic, Falish, Dinaric, Mediterranean, Alpine, East Baltic) especially in contrast to the Semitic races. Only Aryans can hold public office and serve in the military and labor service.

I'm not sure about the translation - it originally said: nordisch, fälisch, dinarisch, westisch, ostisch, ostbaltisch in contrast to vorderasiatisch, orientalisch.

You see there are not only the old racial myths, but also the modern myths about old racial myths ;) --80.131.255.235 21:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of races in the text you quote uses Hans F.K. Günther's typology. "Fälisch" is conventionally anglicised as "Phalic", though that has slightly unfortunate connotations. What modern myths do you refer to? Paul B 23:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a modern myth that in the Third Reich only "blond and blue-eyed" people were regarded as Aryans, or if not that misinformed, some people still argue, that those were regarded superior.

I don't think that's right. When looking at pictures of SS members, one can clearly see, that the majority did not have blond hair, and leading positions were also not mostly held by people with blond hair.

I read biographies on Hitler and Goebbels [Maser, Haffner, Reuth] - and they were not shown as regarding blonde Germans superior to others.

Gordon Williamson wrote in his book "The SS: Hitler's Instrument of Terror" that Hitler didn't take Himmler's concept of creating an order of Nordic heroes seriously but let him have his way as long as the SS was completely loyal.

Furthermore Hitler did not mention Rosenberg's book favourably and Goebbels even called it a "philosophical burp" [sic!]. The third most prominent Nazi – Göring – also talked derogatorily about Rosenberg.

So I think this modern myth is totally wrong.

"... the seemingly scholarly nature of such works was very effective in spreading Aryan supremacist theories among German intellectuals in the early 20th century" ... this is not true. Hitler mentions in his table talk that the number of copies printed of Rosenberg's book only rose after the church protested against it. I'm very sure that Rosenberg was NOT AT ALL taken seriously by the VAST majority of the Germans, let alone the intellectuals. Only some esoteric circles embraced it.

So now to this article:

It should but does not shatter this myth. Such information is simply missing and the poster which is mocking at Goebbels for not looking Nordic in an article about the “Aryan race” suggests that the Nazis identified it with the “Nordic race”.

--80.131.255.235 15:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it is exactly a myth, though it's certainly true that in both British and American English the term "Aryan" is usually used to refer to Nordicism, as if that's the primary meaning of the term. That usage pre-dates Nazism, as the article already states. It is of course true that the Nazis did not legally discriminate against non-Nordics. The Nuremberg laws were primarily designed to exclude Jews, and there was much later legal argy-bargy about who was and was not included as "Aryan" - not disimilar from US laws of slightly earlier which used the term "white" (see United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind), leading to much confusion about who was and was not included in the category. But it's nevertheless undeniable that Nordicism suffused Nazi ideolgy. The principal pro-Nazi race-scientists in Germany at that time were all Nordicists, including, of course, Günther whose typology you quote. Fritz Lenz and Eugen Fischer were the other major contributors in this regard. The Nazis's sifting of individuals according to Nordicist athropometry is well recorded. Yes, it's true that Rosenberg was disliked by some of the more practical-minded Nazis like Boormann and Göring who thought his ideology was politically counter-productive and merely "academic". Nevertheless he was put in charge of many of the most important ideology-forming institutions within the regime. Both Mein Kampf and the Mythus only became big sellers after the Nazis took power, which is hardly surprising. Under the regime it was a big seller, as were Günther's books and other popular expositions of Nordicism. Race theory was also taught in schools, so I think the sentence about the popularity of such "seemingly scholarly" texts is perfectly valid and accurate. Don't forget that Günther, Lenz and Fischer were bona fide scientists and university professors, not eccentric nutters. They all clearly asserted, along with Rosenberg and others, that the original Aryans had been of Nordic race, and that Nordic peoples had inborn leadership skills. At the time these theories were very well known - the anti-Geobbels cartoon was made during WWII. The fact that many Nazi leaders themselves did not seem to fit the Aryan racial ideal was often joked about even within Germany itself. Of course Nazism was a complex phenomenon with many conflicting and contadictory elements to it. We should not oversimplify "Nazi ideology", but it's still not unreasonable to argue that there was a tendency to blur the distinction between "Nordic" and "Aryan" in the practices and rhetoric of the regime. Paul B 14:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think our Nordic theory article explains how the Nazis started out with hyping the "Nordic race", but this became impractical after the Anschluss, when most of the Reich's inhabitants would have been of the "Mediterranean race", so they dropped the "Nordic" rhetorics in favour of "Aryan" rhetorics, since even non-blonde Austrians (like Hitler) while manifestly not "Nordic" could imagine being "Aryan". dab (ᛏ) 14:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on most points and don't have time for a carefully considered answer (and won't have either for some time). --80.131.249.182 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "blond-blue eyed" myth.. It was usually accepted by Nordicist racial anthropologists that you didn't necessarily have to be blond and blue eyed to be part of the Nordic racial type. If you read some of their works, you'll see them give examples of dark-haired Nordics. Also, remember Germany was divided into different racial sub-groups with the Nordic as the ideal. "Blond hair and blue eyes" is not a very good way to describe this ideal because if you do some research you'll see the "East Baltic" race was also typically classified as having blond hair and blue eyes and in some cases even Alpine and other non-Nordic racial types. ALL of the different sub-racial groupings were considered to be part of the "Aryan Master Race" not just the Nordic. If you look in an official Third Reich textbook/dictionary for the term "Aryan" it says "Races that have lived in Europe for a long time: The Nordic, the Pfalzish (fälische), the Western (westliche) the East Baltic (ostbaltische), the Ostic (ostische) and the Dinarish (dinarische) races." Therefore while Nordics were definately considered to be part of the "Aryan race", they were not the only race that were "Aryan". I find it hard to believe the ignorance of many history teachers today, especially in America. All they say is "Hitler killed anyone who wasn't blond and blue-eyed" or "In the Third Reich, an Aryan was a blue-eyed blond person." To say dark-haired Germans were killed is a pure sign of ignorance because a dark-haired Nordic would have fit the ideal better than a blond East Baltic or Alpine. To say that "Aryan" is a racial designation that is soley decided by blond hair and blue eyes is ridiculious. Considering there are so many dark-haired Germanics, including Hitler, anyone with any common sense would see this as bizarre. I think it's time we started teaching accurate history.

Theories on Aryan race?

Could it be that the Roma people and Aryans are supposed to derive from the same source and that this is the issue with those Indo-Aryanists? Who would have thought that scientific racism would promote the scoundrels of their society as eugenically sound, after all the Gypsies had been through. Who would have thought that Gypsies were a general European people, when always on the outskirts of European acceptance? Maybe the racists couldn't account for hidden Romas in their own blood; couldn't take a chance. All I know is that this is theoretical and nothing solid; wishful thinking. In all the history of the world, when has India been natively associated with Europe? Indo-Europeanism is a racist concoction to support the imperialism for tea and textiles, with no basis before the idea was published--only Alexander the Great and Greco-Buddhism (blown out of proportion, both of them) seem to have had truthful associations with India. When has Hinduism been European?--since the British Empire. In the words of J.R.R. Tolkien:

I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by 'arisch'. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. ... But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.... I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.
- One of two draft letters (25 July 1938) written for Stanley Unwin to select as a response to his German publishers inquiry about his ancestry.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien

Lord Loxley 12:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what point you are making here. "Indo-Europeanism" is neither racist nor anti-racist, it is simply an arena of academic study. It seems to me, however, rather odd to claim that a theory which undermines a simple "east"/"west" opposition is a "racist concoction". After all, it runs counter to populist-imperial oppositions as embodied by Kipling's "east is east and west is west". Edward Said wants to tell us that "westerners" construct an "orientalist" image the "east" as alien to the "west". The concept of IE commonality from Eire to Bengal actually introduced deep problem for any such fantasised division. The Nordicist model is, in a sense, an attempt to resolve that very problem. Other models did so in more surpising ways. Paul B 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user appears to have some rather odd theories about European linguistic origins which might explain his position. --Saforrest 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B, you make several interesting remarks regarding "east" and "west" (never shall they meet?). Still, if the Nordic theory or IE model holds true, the "racist concoction" is only intensified; easterners jump up two notches from "backwards because they're different/the West doesn't understand them" to full-blown "inferior" due to past "Aryan domination". It would take us right back to a colonizer's view of the world, only this time, "underachievement" wouldn't be justified along the lines of climate, resource scarcity, historical circumstance or the effect of imperialism itself. While it would show that we are one in the same culturally, this would most certainly reopen a larger pandora's box. That being said, is there still a considerable amount of contemporary debate regarding the IE theory? Science and the media seems to be pushing us to accept the theory of common ancestry in Africa, but I'm not sure I buy this or any other hypothesis - including those I mentioned.--72.92.0.83 12:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The racialised version of Nordic theory is not held by anyone other than White Supremacists anymore, so there's not really much sense in which it "holds true". Even in the unlikely - but not impossible - event that IE did prove to originate in northern Europe it would not show that the people who live in the place where it originated are or were "superior". Does the likely origin of Afro-Asiatic languages in Ethiopia prove that Ethiopians are superior to Arabs, Egyptians and Jews? I don't think so. Nor would that prove that North Africans and Arabs experienced "Ethiopian domination". The origin of a language group is simply the place at which its earliest recoverable form developed. It may have expanded through migrations, cultural influence, invasions, luck, or a mixture of all these over a period of millenia. Common ancestry in Afria is not "pushed" by "the media" but is the conclusion of science. No one say it becasue of some political ideology. Paul B 12:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits? Also, you failed to grasp my main point above: it isn't the common origin of a language that leads one to such conclusions. It is the details that are likely to follow, such as the Aryan invasion theory. I hardly agree with your argument that common origin is a "fact proven by science"...I'm still waiting for the conclusive evidence which proves common origin - or rather, disproves the idea that evolution didn't occur seperately from different "common" mutations in the world. I have a scientific collegiate text, dated two years ago, that acknowledges both, yet only one version is being hammered home all over the media. Neither has been proven successfully or adequately to show that we have reason to believe one over the other. Not part of a political or ideological agenda, you say? I'm not sure where you hail from, but direct yourself towards Newsweek or Discover sometime - endless amounts of POV pushing and ideological rhetoric in terms that the pauper can understand. I find it peculiar how scientific "conclusions" are reported in a way that supports the socio-political agenda of the age - a theory is never final, that is one beautiful thing about the scientific method.

My favorite was the Newsweek article where a "white" Jew had a genetic test w/ new tech. to determine his full ancestry. Part of it came up African...apparently this was a big deal. Another test showed an African who had a small percentage of German ancestry. Newsweek's bold conclusion from this research? This proves that the concept of ethnicity is null and void - our differences are an illusion! What baffled me is no examination was done of anyone of the Nordic stock, yet most people ate it all up, and walked away with a headful of nonsense about internationalism. Just as we are now skeptical of the British scientific claim that the Caucasians were in India (supported imperialism) and the German scientific claim that Germany was home to the "Aryans" (this supported supremacy theories), so we respond with the same wariness when those who reject any notion of tribal belonging to begin with tell us we're all the same. I don't buy it, especially when those who want to abolish whiteness whisper sweet nothings about scientific "conclusions".

I think the opening is a mess with all of the (parenthesis) and I merely added another reference to the word "Aryan". Why do you object? Also, the information on Wells book was incorrect, and something needs to be mentioned about its content. --72.92.0.83 23:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. The main objections to your edit were the over emphasis on the meaning "noble", which is already discussed, and the claim that a Sumerian word is related to "Arya", which was uncited but asserted as fact. (perhaps you got it here[4]?)I doesn't really matter whether you, me, or any individual "buys" the scientific consensus that humans originated in Africa, what matters is the fact that it is the consensus. Paul B 15:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was all rather off topic, but you questioned the promotion of such view in your last post, so I provided you with details. I do not agree with your conclusion that it is the consensus, nor do I understand exactly what it means if it is the majority opinion because it is not sufficiently proven beyond doubt. Anyway, the article..yes..the article. I did not have the exact details on the source I quoted, so I did not include them, but I knew they were legitimate. If you object to it not being sourced, thats fine, I'll find it again (thought it appears you have done so already). In an article about the Aryan race I find it fairly important to mention such details. Where is the "meaning of noble" discussed? Archieved?--72.92.0.83 03:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right about "noble". It must have been deleted as some point without my noticing. My apologies. Still, I think we need a rather more reliable source than Vishnaivite websites for the speculation about "aya". I've never heard of it, and it sounds rather dubious to say the least - an attempt to demonstrate that it always had a mystical meaning. Paul B 09:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems legitimate, but I can understand your concern. I'll look for another, shouldn't be too difficult.--72.92.8.6 13:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

In the first paragraph is the term "Nordic People" which implies Germanic/Tuetonic peoples of Scandinavia and Central Europe, or at the very least Norse/Norwegians. However, a major problem occurs when clicking this link. What one finds is the Wikipedia page on "Nordic Theory." I hate to brake the news to everyone, but Nordic PEOPLE and Nordic THEORY are, very much so, two sepearte and distinct things.

The concept of a "Nordic people" in this sense (i.e a "North European race") is covered in the Nordic theory article, not in any other articles. Other articles tend to loosely equate "Nordic" with "Scandanavian", which is not the meaning here. Paul B 13:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"anti-Semitism" vs. "anti-Syrianism"

I've never heard of anti-Syrianism... but seeing that Syrians are SEMITIC wouldn't/SHOULDN'T the term "ANTI-SEMITISM" be used for, not only hatred of Jews, but ALSO of Syrians, Arabs, Iraqis, Yemenites, Omanis, ... etc... ???

Yes, well anti-Semitic mainly means anti-Jewish, but I've altered that line. I don't know what "anti-Syrian" is supposed to mean. Paul B 13:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy???

Why does the author of this article consider it "noteworthy that Heinrich Himmler, the person ordered by Adolf Hitler to implement the final solution (Holocaust), carried a copy of the ancient Aryan scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita with him wherever he went[???]"

There is no single "author of this article". That particular piece of information was added by User:Keraunos, who wrote much of the section on neo-Nazism. Leave a message on his talk page if you want him to explain. It seems noteworthy to me, since it links the Nazi section to Indo-Aryan culture, and shows that Himmler, for one, took seriously the idea of an "Aryan religion". Paul B 19:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to 8 October 2006 version

I reverted the latest 21:29, 11 October 2006 version to the 03:40, 8 October 2006 version by Andres. The additions by 24.60.114.201 (talk • contribs) were taken virtually ad verbatim from copyrighted material delivered by the Iran Chamber Society. Furthermore, I considered the addition by 129.44.175.23 (talk • contribs) to be POV. It is not an encyclopedia's job to state that, "It should be noted that these stories are mere mythology and has no evidential basis," nor delete the statement (which I presume to be factual) that "In old Persian superstions, white children were known to be the children of Angra Mainyu." If you have any concerns regarding my revert, please contact me on my talk page. --Iamunknown 04:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, but you missed a bit. the amount of bullshit added to this article is astounding, we need more people watching it :\ dab (ᛏ) 08:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unforunately, somewhat reverted the removal Was that removal by you? It was done by 172.128.106.216 (talk • contribs), and was reverted b/c an anonymous user did it. Is it even wrong? I don't know. =S --Iamunknown 05:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of this article that is substatially problematic at the moment is the bizarre section on "golden skinned" Aryans, which is wholly unreferenced and which seems to be trying to prove via mytholgy that "Aryans" somehow hated white skinned and blue-eyed people represented as demons and "Turanians". Paul B 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea how accurate this stuff is as an account of various legends, but it seems to have little or nothing to do with the theory of the "Aryan race": Paul B 21:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden-skinned Aryans?

Indo-Aryans In the Vedas most of the Devas or gods appear to have a Gaur ("golden") or simply a yellow complexion with others have other brown complexions. Goddess Durga also known as Gauri is said to have golden skin. They fought with many invading tribes from the north. They are further shown with black hair and black eyes. In Indian superstitions it is said to never trust a cat-eyed (e.g. blue, green, etc) person.

Iranians Furthermore, in an ancient Iranian legend Shahnama the King of Persia (King Kavus) is taken captive by the Div-sefid (white demon), the emperor of Mazandaran and so it is up to Rostam and his Aryan comrades to kill the demon and rescue the King. They visit the Mount Damavand in the middle of theWhite Mountains and there find the demon and kill him. Most likely this tale illustrates the war between the Aryans and their arch nemesis, the white Turanians constantly invaded north Iran and drove the Iranians out. The father of Rustam, Zal ironically was born to Saam (meaning blue or black) the tall, dark and handsome hero but is somehow an albino and so is thought to be of demon descent and is abondoned. In old Persian superstions, white children were known to be the children of Angra Mainyu. There is also the tale of Arash the archer who fought the Turanians and captures new land from them. In one legend, when King Fereydun captured the land Farr from the Turanians, they named it Farr-i Ariya'i (the glory of the Aryans.) Also when King Fereydun and Kaveh joined forces to fight Zabhak and when Zabhak is captured they chain him up in the Damavand Mountains. Mohammad Taghi Bahar wrote a poem and in the first lines he wrote, The first verse of this poem is:

"Ay deeve sepeede paay dar band,

Oh white demon with feet in chains"

Ay gonbade giti, ay Damavand....

Oh celestial dome, Oh Mount Damavand."

In Persian mythology the demon Apaosa, who has a white face brings white face to the land, illustrating the ways the Turanians punished the Persians. Further in Zoroastrianism, it is said that the demon of demons, Angra Mainyu lives north and that he drove the Aryans out from their homeland. Yima the legendary first king of the Aryans who was the founder of the Aryan country known as Aryana Vaejah had two wives in the country of Bawri (Brown.)

extremely offtopic, remove. I seem to remember that the gaura notion was used to justify "white Aryans" theories in the early 20th c. -- in that case, this should be referenced, instead of idly re-telling random myths. dab (ᛏ) 21:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy turanians was scythians (iranians nomads of northern steppes) who didn't joinet zoroastrism. Later this name was aplied to turkic nomads.

Nordic?

According to the "Aryan Invasion Theory", "Aryans" had "invaded" or "occupied" Northen India (including modern day Pakistan and Afghanistan) more than 3,000 years ago. Linguists have found similarities in Sanskrit, language of Ancient India, and European languages, suggesting a link between the two cultures. Hence the notion of people from the Vedic India and Europe having come from a common point gains credence. However the next proposition is less logical. The British and other Europeans claimed that the "Aryans" were white skinned, blue eyed, blonde haired people, with genuine Nordic traits. The reasoning behind this could be that they believed that the advanced culture of India could only have arisen with the assistance of "white" people, and given the technological and cultural "superiority" the European colonialists claimed to have over the Indians, this idea seemed feasible for some people. However, 3000 years ago, it must be noted that the "civilisation" of Europe was far less advanced than the "civilisation" of Ancient Egypt, Ancient India (Indus Culture), Ancient China and of course the birthplace of civilisation: Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq). I am no linguist or anthropologist, but it would seem more likely to me that the so-called "Aryans" were in fact from the Mesopotamia region, even Caucasia. From this place, the "Aryans" brought their way of life to Europe and India. Naturally people would mix when placed amongst each other, and hence the "Aryans" would naturally have mixed with natives in India, and would have also mixed with the "blue eyed, blonde haired" natives of Europe. This is what I can tell from the situation. Please tell me what you think. Kshatriya knight 23:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the "British and other Europeans" claimed no such thing - or rather very few of them did. The claim was that the Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in Northern Europe - a theory that was prominent between around 1880 - 1930. At the time these people were typically labelled "primitive Aryans" ('primitive' here meaning 'original'), which often leads to confusion. Most writers assumed that the historical Aryans (Indo-Iranians) looked much like the Iranian people do now. Of course it's not impossible that IE originated in Mesopotamia, but there's no good reason to think so, because of the known historical distribution of IE languages. None of this depends on how "civilised" cultures were. Paul B 23:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article you are talking about is Aryan. The article talked about here is a different definition of Aryan, i.e: Northern Europeans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thulean (talk • contribs)

No, we have an article for the theory of the superiority of the Nordic race. It's called Nordic theory. This article discusses the full range of definitions of the "Aryan race" concept. Paul B 07:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism

Dear anonymous. This article is not about the history of the word "antisemitism". Cutting and pasting chunks of text from the Antisemitism article merely leads to unnecessary bloating and repetition. We should keep this article focussed on this topic. Paul B 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for educational purposes and to avoid confusion a brief explanation and background of the word antisemitism is needed as it is already mentioned and also to keep the objectivity. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.234.178 (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't know what you mean about keeping "the objectivity", nor do I see how simply copying text from one article and adding it to another one improves matters. That's what wikilinks are for. This article is not about antisemitism. Antisemitism was closely associated with Aryanism but is not identical to it, so the history of the word is very tangental. No-one is putting the detailed etymology of "Aryan" in the antisemitism article. Paul B 10:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]