RE: news from the sky (question around background of the word 'aryan')

[Elthore]

Im rather curious why that thread was locked?

Because the word nazi and hitler came up?(it is what the link provided-by mod- states)

Ive personally only heard of aryans in germany from nazi claims and therefore im very skeptical of it. I was hoping some discussion would rise and some alternate sources would come up.

So, unless its against forum policy to talk about history and mention hitler's party, i'd like to try and bring it back alive by this link:

http://www.patriot.dk/aryan1.html

The site there basically states that aryans are from asia, and tries to prove it by providing pictures of non-white and non-christian SS troops, which definetly would not be tolerated during the nazi regime otherwise.

[We all need someone]

Are you sure it ain't troops from an Ost battalion? The Germans had all sorts of people they considered undesirables in those military units, manning defensive positions, flank and rear positions of their armies, and other secondary roles to fill their manpower gap. Poles, Russians, Serbs, Croats, even Koreans from Japan's empire, all forced into military service and held practically at gunpoint by their German NCOs. As can be assumed, their "allegiance" to the Nazi regime was anything but.

[Foot]

Aryan is not a race it is a language group better known as indo-european. The idea of an Aryan race is connected to the erroneous idea that language groups are racial groups, so the aryan "race" is different from the semitic "race". It was an late 19th century fad, but its complete crap. Please don't use the word aryan in any other context than as a language group, it doesn't mean anything otherwise.

Foot

[eadingas]

The Nazis were morons, not scientists. They invented words and invented their meanings to suit their use. And "Aryan" meant to them whatever they wanted it to mean. When they needed alliance with Turkey, Japan or Romania, they expanded the meaning to include those people in it somehow. Basically, "Aryan" came to mean "Not Jewish" or, more broadly, "Not of the people we don't like for some reason".

[Dooz]

The Nazis were morons, not scientists. They invented words and invented their meanings to suit their use. And "Aryan" meant to them whatever they wanted it to mean. When they needed alliance with Turkey, Japan or Romania, they expanded the meaning to include those people in it somehow. Basically, "Aryan" came to mean "Not Jewish" or, more broadly, "Not of the people we don't like for some reason".

Well, really, isn't that how all words come about? Words mean what those who make them and use them want them to mean.

[eadingas]

Well, they didn't invent the word "Aryan", they just absorbed it, like many other ideas. Also, they pretended that there is some kind of "science" behind their definitions, which was obviously not the case.

[Dooz]

If they had won, it would be the case. History is written by the rulers. Basically I'm just making a general observation here. What they said is only wrong now because they lost and their opposers made the history.

[eadingas]

Umm... no, it's wrong because it's internally inconsistent and against the facts. It's objectively wrong. They could force everyone to say it's right, but that wouldn't make it right - not any more than, say, their cosmological ideas. Morality or winning the war don't come into this.

[Dooz]

It's internally inconsistent because you were conditioned to think so. Look, the fact is that had they emerged out of WWII the world's dominant superpower, there would be no problem with anything anyone did now. The entire nation and many others knew what was going on, nothing was done about it. In fact, they were supportive and were for it. There are many reasons as to why, but that's not the point right now. The point is that if properly lead and given the desired outcome, history will say what you want it to say. You can disagree all you want. The facts are in the history books themselves.

[eadingas]

Umm... what's all this have to do with what "Aryan" means? I see now why these threads get closed...

[Dooz]

Indeed. I'll stop with my views on this. Apologies for derailing the thread. I hope it doesn't get closed for Elthore's sake. Carry on.

[eadingas]

For anyone interested in these things, I recommend a book I've been reading this holiday:
Rosa Dela Rose, Diccionario Critico de Mitos y Simbolos de Nazismo

http://www.agapea.com/Diccionario-cr...mo-n92820i.htm

I don't know what languages it's been translated into, except Polish, but among other things, it explains a lot about what Nazis thought when they said "Aryan", and why it could be perfectly acceptable for non-white, non-european people to be accepted as "Aryan".

[Persian Horseman]

just got back after a few days, noticed that the old thread was locked.
as the guy who first brought up the word "aryan" i want to say that all i was saying was things i had read in some history books which also matched the link that was given.

in no way do i support, like, or agree, blah blah blah etc with nazi/hitler/blah blah. i just mentioned that he also used the word aryan which happened to be what the iranians say they are.
Iran = land of aryans
plus, i think a bunch of them also ended up in northern india but dont know what happened to them.

[Elthore]

at least some discussion and info is better than none, what got me befuddled is what Persian Horseman mentioned in the other thread. He mentioned that the Aryan(speaking?) group of people came from the east, and split into 3. One being the fars, the others i cant recall(medes?), and one going to germany.

Its that last bit that gets me. I guess migrations happened all the time, but how come you dont hear of these guys doing anything special in northern europe? Im sure they would be talked about more if they were there, and because they would have been much different from the germanics.

From the sounds of things the debate here is wether these Aryans were anybody special, and they probably werent. Because, what is the reason that they were? (non-nazi proganda evidence preferably).


Sorry about that confusion, its entirely the cause of my own un-educatedness on the subject:
My original impression was that even their existence was simply nazi babble, but i guess they did exist, and were no one special. Thats what i get outta this.

[Elthore]

as well, i agree with 'we all need someone' in regards to that first link i posted. Those are probably just what ive seen refered to as eastern troops(osttruppen?), of the wehrmachtl; ill trained, unmotivated, forced troops of the conquered

[eadingas]

You have all the info you need in the wiki link provided in previous thread. "Aryan", originally, is just an old word for "Indoeuropean". So yes, they were "somebody special" - most of us in this meaning are "Aryan".

[Persian Horseman]

ok, first of all, ill stop using the word "race" and refer to them as "the aryan speaking people". is that better? eadingas?

to the guy that got confused:

i think u got confused. there were 2 BIG divisions. each broke out to 3 seperate ones EACH.

1st division/migration:

1. moved to germany or around there
2. modern day iran
3. northern india

then the 2nd division that im talking about was related to the group that moved to iran. i dont know what happened to the other 2 groups. of the ones who moved to iran, they were the

1. Maad
2. Fars
3. Pars

so yeah, i dont know much about indian history or german ones. maybe someone could add more to it. but not me. this is wat i learnt when i was a kid living in iran and was taught in the history class. anyway, that was more than 10yrs ago.

well, i wouldnt go as far as saying these bunch of people were special. just another group of people with another way of speaking. doesnt mean they were any stronger/smarter/weaker/dumber, etc.

hope that clears a few things.

[We all need someone]

Although I agree that history is written by the ones who won, I agree with the other viewpoint as well- the Nazis just took whatever expedient was necessary. In this regard, they are similar to many other groups throughout history. However, to say they weren't morally reprehensible scumbags is ridiculous as well. Scumbaggery is scumbaggery, whether it's filthy Nazis, the US and its internement camps during that war, the French handling of their North African colonies, Britain slaughtering Zulus, or the Catholic Church torturing people brutally in the Inquisition. It's like how George Carlin says- we're semi-civilized apes with baseball caps and automatic weapons.

[Epistolary Richard]

This really isn't appropriate discussion for the Europa Barbarorum mod forum. Moved to history discussion forum - the Monastery. Any issues, please PM me.

[We all need someone]

Oh fiddlesticks. Well at least it's more engaging than discussing how many more rivets are in a lorica squamata as compared to a lorica segmenta.

[eadingas]

I'm not aware of any PIE-speaking "group that moved to Germany". That was another nazi lie justifying why Germans are supposed to be "more Aryan" than other Europeans. PIEs just spread all over Europe - and Asia - from wherever they came from originally (I don't know what the latest consensus is, when I learned about it, it was area around Danube).

[Spino]

FYI, Aryan racial naysayers also need to keep in mind that the Indian government classifies the bulk of its population (~70-75%) as being of the Indo-Aryan ethnic/racial group with Dravidian being the country's largest racial minority. Right or wrong it's hard to argue the anti-Aryan position when the second most populous nation in the world readily uses the term without much controversy or fanfare. Iran also acknowledges the existence of an Aryan race or group as most Persians are considered to be descendants of the Aryans (the fact that the name Iran and the word Aryan sound similar is no coincidence).

Sure, the Nazis subverted the term and applied a liberal interpretation & analysis of the Aryan peoples for their own use but that doesn't discount the existence of an Aryan race or ethnic group.

Don't fall into the PC inspired trend of treating the term race with contempt, doing so has a nasty side effect of stifling productive conversation on the subject. Personally I believe if one takes exception to the concept of race then the concept of ethnicity should be considered equally erroneous and offensive.

[eadingas]

I'm sorry, but you are confusing so many things here I don't know where to start. Look up what "race", "ethnicity" and "language group" really mean.

[Silver Rusher]

Aryan is not a race it is a language group better known as indo-european. The idea of an Aryan race is connected to the erroneous idea that language groups are racial groups, so the aryan "race" is different from the semitic "race". It was an late 19th century fad, but its complete crap. Please don't use the word aryan in any other context than as a language group, it doesn't mean anything otherwise.

Foot

Slight clarification, it isn't the indo-european language group, it is the indo-iranian language sub-group I believe you are referring to.

Also, I can't understand how the bolded statement can be true as German Jews spoke Yiddish, which is in fact a Germanic language (a sub-division of Indo-European), not a Semitic language (although I believe it takes a large influence from Hebrew). Then again, Nazi theorists mostly took historical myths and converted them into propaganda so it could well be true.

But I agree, people who say that aryan means a person with blonde hair and blue eyes are simply taking in misinterpreted Nazi propaganda.

[IrishArmenian]

There were Aryan invaders into the Indus valley. They rode in on chariots and horses and left their mark on Indian Culture (castes for exampel).

[Conqueror]

There were Aryan invaders into the Indus valley. They rode in on chariots and horses and left their mark on Indian Culture (castes for exampel).

Whether there was an invasion or not is a matter of dispute - and it's a very hot, touchy subject in modern Indian politics from what I've read. There were certainly migrations, but the nature and scale of these migrations isn't clear. The Sanskrit-based languages were probably imported to India from Western/Central Asia though. Also the origin of the castes is a complicated matter and wasn't necessarily brought there by foreign settlers (if that's what you were saying).

[IrishArmenian]

I was not aware. Thank you, Conqueror. I'll remember that time I talk about Aryans, Indian Culture or Indian history. Learn something new every day.

[Kraxis]

Do not gobble down everything you hear.

Now, I'm not saying that the Indian scholars are wrong, for I don't know much about this to be honest. But I know that in the human psyche it is important to be 'the original' people of whreever we live. We like to think of ourselves as 'the ones', 'here we belong'.
If suddenly that notion is questioned, even if 3500 years old we are going to get upset. But if the previous inhabitants aren't around we aren't bothered much.

However, in the case of India the previous population is still around, Dravidians and Tamils for instance. They could then use this situation to call the other 'invaders', 'newcomers' ect ect, to further their own agendas.
That is of course an unwanted situation, however silly the notion is. So it is easy to be blinded to fact and see a situation that disputes this unpleasant situation.

You can see the same in Egypt, where they claim to be the exact same people as those of the Old Kingdom, and not Arabs at all. I don't know if that is true, but it is done with such fervour that one get the feeling they fear it might be true.
So do not be surprised if it is a similar situation in India.

Also consider the British Isles, where people who can claim Celtic heritage seem to make certain everybody knows that, while those of Saxon, viking or *gasp* Norman heritage either don't care or don't show it (unles they are related to some specific family or some such). As if being of Celtic stock has a higher importance...

I know that Denmark was invaded by the Danes in around 200AD and the celtic people that lived there previous vanished (presumably absorbed, but we know close to nothing about this). So there aren't any 'Celtic' people around. So we don't have this kind of 'struggle'. But I'm certain we would have if the Romans had conquered Denmark and we would have known something about it and it's people.

So just be careful when dealing with this, you might just have entered a hornets nest.

[Leet Eriksson]

You can see the same in Egypt, where they claim to be the exact same people as those of the Old Kingdom, and not Arabs at all. I don't know if that is true, but it is done with such fervour that one get the feeling they fear it might be true.
So do not be surprised if it is a similar situation in India.

There are alot of claims, egypt was invaded time and again so no one knows their true ethnic identity, but it has some truth in it.

Most people in the arab world are arabic speaking, but not ethnically arab.

[Reverend Joe]

"Wild thing... you make my heart sing... you make everything... groovy..."