This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Okay so the article states
"The use of 'Aryan' as a synonym for 'Indo-European' or to a lesser extent for 'Indo-Iranian', is regarded today by many as obsolete and politically incorrect, but may still occasionally appear in material based on older scholarship, or written by persons accustomed to older usage, such as in a 1989 article in Scientific American by Colin Renfrew in which he uses the word 'Aryan' in its traditional meaning as a synonym for 'Indo-European'."
and this is contradictory to the notion that Aryan refers to Indo Iranian(s)., as is stated in the Indo Iranian article..."Indo-Iranian peoples are a linguistic group consisting of the Indo-Aryan, Dardic, Iranian, and Nuristani peoples; that is, speakers of Indo-Iranian languages."
Your saying Aryan doesn't refer to Iranians? Why is it that "the earliest epigraphically-attested reference to the word arya occurs in the 6th century Behistun inscription, which describes itself to have been composed "in arya [language or script]" (§ 70). As is also the case for all other Old Iranian language usage, the arya of the inscription does not signify anything but "Iranian".[2]???
I think there is alot of conflicting views on this due to multiple editors, please keep a consensus on things. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 ( talk) 06:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This article might want to briefly mention the relationship between Nazi Germany's leader Adolf Hitler and the Shah of Iran at the time (Reza Shah). This relationship led to the invasion of Iran by British and Russian forces in fear of German influence. Hitler also gave the Shah paintings that he drew himself, and I am not sure about this, but I read somewhere (I will try to find the link) that Hitler had sent an anthropologist to (then Persia) who studied the archaeological sites of ancient Iran such as Persepolis and suggested to the King of Persia to change its name to Iran (Land of Aryans).
I think the article speaks to much of Indians, and there is very little evidence supporting their claims. The Indian sanskirt language has many burrowed words from the ancestor PIE language, making it not the home of the "Aryans" or PIE's This is associated with the steppe theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 ( talk) 06:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The section entitled British Raj has some problems. It starts...
In India, under the British Empire, the British rulers also used the idea of a distinct Aryan race in order to ally British power with the Indian caste system. It was widely claimed that the Aryans were white people who had invaded India in ancient times, [1] subordinating the darker skinned native Dravidian peoples, who were pushed to the south. Thus the foundation of Hinduism was ascribed to northern invaders who had established themselves as the dominant castes, and who were supposed to have created the sophisticated Vedic texts.
Much of these theories were simply conjecture fueled by European imperialism.
The problems I can see are as follows:
I suggest that the section be renamed Indo-Aryan migration and the references to the British Raj be removed from the start of the section. I would just do it but I note that this is a long standing section in the article so I thought I would run it past the other editors first.
Yaris678 ( talk) 16:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: line feed character in |title=
at position 64 (
help)
why there is no mention that some brahmins in india belong to aryan race Raja.m82 ( talk) 05:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
because the "Aryan race" was taken to include all Indo-European speaking peoples. The brahmins are just a caste within the Indo-Aryan group and as such a random subset of a subset that do not bear specific mention. If this article has any purpose, it is to teach people that the "Aryan race" has no intrinsic connection with either the Nazis nor the Indians. It was just an attempt to define "race" along linguistic rather than craniometric/physiological lines. The Indo-European languages at the time were known as "Aryan", and thus this is just the concept of an "Indo-European race" is just the idea that "race" has more aspects than skull shape and can also be defined along cultural boundaries. Nazi or Brahmanical racial supremacy came to capitalize on the concept, but is not at its origin. -- dab (𒁳) 11:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that Master race be merged into this article as a new section. The existing article only covers the Aryan master race concept, there is no reason for it to stand as a separate article; they would be better together. - AdamBMorgan ( talk) 17:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The two articles should NOT be merged because Master race was only the Nazi concept of the Aryan race--that is, Nordicism. As pointed out during the article, during most of its history, the concept of the Aryan race was simply that it was one of the subraces of the Caucasian race, composed of the original Proto-Indo-Europeans and their present day descendents--the people now called the Indo-European peoples. The term Aryan race was used in world atlases and other literature published by non-Nazis and anti-Nazis up to the end of World War II and even as late as 1989 in articles published in Scientific American to mean this original definition, that is ALL Indo-Europeans (not just Nordics), as pointed out and referenced in the article. Keraunos ( talk) 19:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree this proposal is clearly ill-advised. It does not appear AdamBMorgan has bothered to read the article. -- dab (𒁳) 11:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I think it is important to have an article dedicated to just explaining the view of the Aryan race. Social Darwinism plays a large part with the Nazi's view of the Aryan race and was never mentioned in the article. The Nazis believed that only the strongest will survive and in their minds, anyone who was not a part of their perfect Aryan race, was considered subhuman and was not fit to survive. They considered their efforts a cleanse for the human race. ( Kamomilani ( talk) 06:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC))
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/19th-century-paradigms.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Charles Darwin's use of the term be mentioned in the article? In "The Descent of Man" Darwin wrote:
217.236.161.181 ( talk) 13:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
would like to mention some already fixed in accordance fact contained in the text and there is historical evidence. 1 - The translation to indicate the root of the word, arya. 2 - The oldest attend founde in Behistun ( which accualy should be Bi Stun, Bi= With out AND Stun=Pillar),which is KrudStan. (Kurd Stan, or Kurd Stan (Stan the swidish Means Town)) 3 - Kurdish as well as Persian is an Indo-European language. 4- Ary means in both Persian and kurdish (so long as I know): Free So it's not a race but a way of being. If to be free from all the involuntary is precious so I can go with it to consider Ary as noble people. The lies in man's desire to be noble or free, or that you want to be, namely a Ary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.121.68.1 ( talk) 13:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear admin and friends -
These are the words: "Ârya (Sk.) Lit., “the holy”; originally the title of Rishis, those who had mastered the “Âryasatyâni” (q.v.) and entered the Âryanimârga path to Nirvâna or Moksha, the great “four-fold” path. But now the name has become the epithet of a race, and our Orientalists, depriving the Hindu Brahmans of their birth-right, have made Aryans of all Europeans. In esotericism, as the four paths, or stages, can be entered only owing to great spiritual development and “growth in holiness ”, they are called the “four fruits”. The degrees of Arhatship, called respectively Srotâpatti, Sakridâgamin, Anâgâmin, and Arhat, or the four classes of Âryas, correspond to these four paths and truths." (ref: H. P. Blavatsky's words om Aryan or Arya from the Theosophical Glossary, 1892)
Another issue in the Theosophy Section of the "Aryan race" page. Those who claims that Samael Aun Weor is a theosophist and therefore aught to be mentioned in that paragrah on the subject "Theosophy" aught at least, as I se it, - by documentation - make it clear why they consider him to be a theosophist, and one of least some importance when compared to the founders of The Theosphical Society.
Do the readers not think so?
I do certainly not mind that people mention Samael Aun Weor on the page, but I find it wrong to place him in the paragraph under the subject "Theosophy", when he clearly deals with Tantric Yoga, - a teaching which is not the same as the most wellknown theosophical teachings given by any of the founders. It is in fact stated by the founders of the Theosophical Society that they opposed this teaching in many respects. (See Blavatsky views on the issue in The Theosophist, 1887 + 1888 and the articles by Rama Prasad - or - Blavatsky's Collected Writings, vol. XII p. 604, 611, 612-13, 621. Here H. P. Blavatsky warns aganist the Tantra Yoga teachings). The word "tantra" as such is almost only mentioned positively among theosophists (ie. members of the Theosophical Sociewty) when we talk about some very special Gelugpa Buddhist teachings given in some even today unknown edtions of a work called the Kalachakra Tantra. But this teaching is not called Tantra Yoga in any manner what so ever. If you call Samael Aun Weor a theosopbhist, then we aught also to call William Butler Yeats a theosophist as far as I am concerned. They spent just about the same amount of time on theosophical teachings and The Theosophical Society. But real real representatives of theosophical teachings or the Theosophical Society they they can hardly be called. - I would instead as an attempt of an improvement, that the Samael Aun Weor paragraph be given a section of his own named something like Neo-theosophy or New Age. But these are of course my views. - Who are the admin of the page Aryan Race? Why not mention the name somewhere related to the page? I thank you in advance for reading my words and giving me an answer. -- Khidr7 ( talk) 15:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like the text on "aryan race" to be changed to include the theory of racial evolution which was popular in Europe during the 1930's something along these lines THIS INFORMATION HAS A RIGHT TO BE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN - PEOPLE MUST KNOW WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVED AND WHAT PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!
EVOLUTION:
Africans left Africa approximately 115,000 to 150,000 years ago, groups of them moved to Scandinavia, India, Far East Asia & Australia. over 115,000 years In Scandinavia they evolved to Scandinavians. The Ice-Age happened but it is mostly a hoax by people claiming it was worse than it is, see this:
http://www.blavatsky.net/science/atlantis/emails/ice_age.htm
It is very possible than modern human could have lived and evoloved in Scandinavia during the first parts of the Ice-Age. They only moved out from there when it got to bad. Moving South into Europe.These Scandinavians had blonde hair, blue eyes & white skin developed because of the dark-icy environment. Then they moved down into Europe and settled in many parts before the Ice Age got worse. They then moved into Asia and mixed with the Indians they met there,, this formed the Arabs.(Arabs are mostly Indian with a small part Scandinavian, Light skin being dominant over dark skin). These Arabs then moved West into North Africa and from there North up in to Spain Italy and Greece, mixing with the Scandinavians already there which formed the basis of the Spanish, the Italians and the Greeks.Obviously brown hair and eyes being dominant over blonde hair and blue eyes which are recessive. that why so many europeans have these features
Because we (Europeans)are part Indian. slavic peoples are part mongoloid
The same thing happened in Far East Asia, Scandinavians mixed with orientals forming Chinese, Japanese types, the they moved West.
IF YOU WONT PUT SIMILAR INFORMATION TO THIS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT
IT IS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION WHICH IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT
Atlantean99 ( talk) 18:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The article as it reads gives a little too much credit to Arthur de Gobineau, I think, or we are talking about two different Aryan race theories. Commonly it means just the one associated with German nationlism and the Proto-Indo-European homeland, which was widely popular and easily arrived at by anyone. I haven't read de Gobineau and won't be reading any of his work, but I know Indo-European studies and haven't seen him mentioned that I can recall. Scholars usually just say that the Proto-Indo-Europeans ended up popular with German nationalists and the results were unfortunate. Nora lives ( talk) 05:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to just point out that section Neo-Nazism focuses entirely on some funny concepts created by the Western Neo-nazis (Americans, British). The rest of the world Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists have never heard of such things and do not even believe in something like that. They just believe that an Aryan race are all Whites, nothing less, nothing more. I've traveled through Eastern and Southern Europe and I know that Neo-Nazis there consider Aryans to be all White people. I've never met with any concepts of creating super-humans, sending anybody into space and so on. Please, change this section, it is misleading that all neo-nazis believe in such ridiculousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.227.150 ( talk) 20:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The section on the Indo-Aryan migration needs to be edited as it incorrectly quotes a source which actually substantiates the occurrence of said migration on a genetic level. Therefore I am requesting that the article be made unprotected. Any questions?
Bodhidharma7 ( talk) 18:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
According to the sources below, Kurds are Aryan;
- "The Kurds and the state: evolving national identity in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran", Denise Natali, page: 127, Syracuse University Press, 2005. - "The Kurds and Kurdistan: a selective and annotated bibliography" , Lokman I. Meho, page:52, 1997. - "Kurdistan: crafting of national selves", Christopher Houston, page:16, 2008. - "Kurds, Arabs and Britons: the memoir of Wallace Lyon in Iraq 1918-44", David Kenneth Fieldhouse, 2002.
please make correction with adding Kurds in the section of "Origin of the term". The sentence must be like this: It was soon recognised that Armenians, Balts, Celts, Kurds and Slavs also belonged to the same group.
Thanks. Avanakapti ( talk) 16:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)avanakapti , 6.10.2011
According to the sources below, Kurds are Aryan;
please make correction with adding Kurds in the section of "Origin of the term". The sentence must be like this: It was soon recognised that Armenians, Balts, Celts, Kurds and Slavs also belonged to the same group.
Thanks.
Avanakapti ( talk) 17:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)avanakapti
As of now - 01:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC) - it says, It was soon recognised that Armenians, Balts, Celts, Kurds and Slavs also belonged to the same group. [1] - thus, I cannot see what you would like changed. If some other change is required (or I missed it), please re-request. Thanks. Chzz ► 01:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion need to seriously modify the section Indo-Aryan migration (by the way, is not entirely apt name, given, so to speak, "exposing" the function of this section), and to focus precisely on contemporary research, particularly in genetic research, as the most precise at the moment the instrument of restoration of ancient migrations, it is necessary to add data on the results of studies of Y-chromosomal haplogroups of European and Asian populations (actually I'm surprised that the article devoted to the aryan race there is no mention of haplogroup R1a). As a result, we must come to a conclusion similar to that which was made in the Russian wikipedia, regarding the indo-europeans: "Хотя в настоящее время к индоевропейцам относят по языковому признаку, 5 тысяч лет назад это была группа генетически родственных народов. Маркером индоевропейского происхождения, возможно, является гаплогруппа R1a1a в Y-хромосоме у мужчин.", translation - "Although currently the indo-europeans unite on the grounds of language, 5 thousand years ago it was a group of genetically related peoples. Marker of indo-european origin, is possible, is the haplogroup R1a1a in the Y-chromosome in males." http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%86%D1%8B, it is also desirable to attach a map of distribution of this haplogroups in Eurasia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:R1a1a_distribution.png. These changes will allow to avoid many of the ambiguities that arise after reading this article, and in particular can contribute to the eradication of the consciousness of masses of two common and mutually opposite myths:
1. On the alleged scandinavian homeland of the aryan race, and in general about the close genetic relationship between the Scandinavians/German/Anglo-Saxons and the Aryans, as a consequence, the sign "=" between Nordiс and Aryan. Good example of thinking of supporters of this myth - "we (Europeans)are part Indian. slavic peoples are part mongoloid";
2. The complete denial of any genetic connection between europe and asia (particularly india) populations. From the supporters of this myth have heard that the Aryans - the Arabs at all or "black" race.
Sorry for my English.
D.E.E.F.E.I.N. (
talk) 16:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Neither this article nor any article about race adequately defines the term. It seems to be assumed that everyone knows and agrees on a definition of the word, and its present standing in the fields of history, anthroplogy and human biology. Is there no possibility of soliciting an expert article on "race", so that such a foundational term can be linked back to for the articles which depend on it? Verde10 ( talk) 17:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)verde10
The current page says "It is envisioned that the North American part of the "Aryan Federation" would be a new nation for Euro-Anglo Americans (European Americans and English Canadians) called Vinland which would include what is now the northern United States and all of Canada except Quebec, and which would use the Vinland flag.[47]" .
The site referenced defines Vinland as the United-States and Canada, but nowhere excludes (or even mentions) Quebec. Similarly it does not mentions English Canadians, French Canadians and Euro-Anglo Americans.
Furthermore modern white supremacists respect and even embrace the cultural and linguistic differences among its different factions.
This French-bashing does not belong in this paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.144.212 ( talk) 23:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Under the header "Genetic anthropology of Indo-Aryan Migration" appears the name Reich. This is the first mentioning of this name in the article, and it is quite unclear who this person is, and what is his relation to the subject (other than his rather interesting name). Change the name to "Reich et al." and add the note " http://genepath.med.harvard.edu/~reich/2009_Nature_Reich_India.pdf" (note 79 in the "Out_of_India_theory" article), and it will all become much clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilyst ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
We can't have an article on the Aryan race concept that doesn't discuss Rosenberg and The Myth of the Twentieth Century. Dougweller ( talk) 10:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Wherein the significance of the placing of the conception in the article? OOC, unless it's a miraculous one of course! Basket Feudalist 22:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if at this point the sections Nazism and Italian Fascism sections belong in a new separate Wikipedia article on Aryanism? I'm no expert on this topic, but, as a casual observer these section appear to be given too much weight and there does seem to be a clear distinction between "Arianism" and "Aryanism". Comments? Opinions? BashBrannigan ( talk) 16:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The Aryan is an ancient Indo-Iranian word and has nothing to do with the Semites (Jew-Arabs) linguistically or racially. There is surely an effort to Semitize the Aryans by means of false propaganda.
I agree the word Aryan is firstly mentioned in the Rigveda and refers to a Race and the Jews even though they are working overtime can not remove the word Aryan and Swastiks from India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.242.211 ( talk) 12:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really an expert or anything, but it seems to me that there is a completely non-racist, colloquial usage of the term "Arian" merely to describe physical characteristics (blond hair, blue eyes, fair skin, etc.) and that it might be noteworthy (usage example: "I did a sketch the other day of a model with very Arian features.").
I might be completely wrong on that; if so please disregard this comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblingdp ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I am under the impression that the Aryan Race orginated from the Indus River Valley in India and migrated to Iran. The article should begin with this fact instead of saying it is important in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyan777 ( talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 June 2009
I've just edited out the reference to Gobineau using the term Aryan in a 'neutral' fashion, as a reading of his work reveals that he certainly did not. Joecronin ( talk) 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is UTTERLY RACIST against Aryans. To bring up Hitler or Nazi's at -all-, when giving a definition for the Aryan race, is a racist & propagandistic portrayal. If you open up the wiki on "black people" (note also that the title of the article about black people calls them "black people", but the article about Aryans calls them "a concept", (read the very first line)... the wiki on "black people" does not mention "black panthers", kids with AK-47's, black hate crimes, black crimes in general, or any other negative thing about blacks. But THIS article, on the other hand... this article makes a point to dig up every piece of dirt ever pinned against people of the Aryan race, because the article is propaganda. Hey... NP? Google does the same thing. Apparently it's "academically and socially acceptable" to use racist propaganda against Aryans (as if Aryans were all Nazi's, or that were remotely close to what it means to BE Aryan, or that the Aryan race is merely a concept that only Nazi's would employ) that wiki and google don't even bother to check their racist propaganda. SamJennings ( talk) 13:30, 12 September 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.157.32 ( talk)
That is such a wash. For the right point of contrast, see whether the views of Farrakhan or MalcolmX appear in the article about black people. See whether the theory behind the horrors of black vs black genocide in Africa are cobbled into the wiki on black PEOPLE. They -aren't-, because those theories have nothing to do with what it is to -be- black.
The article is entitled "Aryan RACE", Not "Aryan Racial Theories" or "Racial Theories of the Nazi's". Aryan Racial Theory & Nazi Racial Theory does NOT belong in the article about the Aryan Race.
Aryan is a RACE of people: blond, blue eyed, fair skinned... If you study the historical invasions against Europe (from outsiders) you will see that the Aryan race is that set of people whose lands were never fully conquered by the Mongols, Arabs, Ottomans, Saracens, Romans... (with the exception of the Basques Celts Poles Czeks etc...) you might still find SOME aryans within those lands, but the point is that the Aryans are the ones who weren't raped out (or "peaceably" mixed with) by those invading forces.
A race is a set of people whose genetic and family background describe them... the mentioned racial THEORIES have nothing to do with the race they are about, except that they are theories ABOUT the Aryan race... well there are people who have THEORIES about blacks, Jews, Asians... need I go on? Alot of those theories are racist, too... the Jihad killed 270 million people, and still counting... for example... should the Article on Arabs tell about the religious dogma of Jihad, from the Koran? Should people think about them as identical, or so closely linked that to see an Aryan is to see a Nazi? To see an Arab is to see a Jihadist?
This article makes it as if "to identify with being a member of that race" also carries the implication of being partially guilty of all these racist views. Because it implicitly links the race with the racist view, the article is anti-Aryan racist propaganda.
SamJennings ( talk) 12:14, 13 September 2011 — Preceding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.157.32 ( talk)
I'm sure the KKK would agree with that opinion's analogy, if they were writing about what it means to be black. If you want to read or converse about Aryan Racial Theories, or Nazi Racial Theories, make a NEW article about THOSE. Don't clutter up the page about Aryan People with all this junk about racist theory. It's not related at ALL. The place for that is NOT the article about the Aryan Race. The Nazi's did NOT gain a right to "tag" the Aryan race with articles about their doctrines. It's simply not the place for it. It's people who push that doctrine that make it politically incorrect for an Aryan person to SAY they are an Aryan person. Just imagine if you couldn't say you were Black, or Jewish, or Asian... imagine if the social attitude were so utterly hostile to your racial identity that you couldn't even SAY who you WERE, racially... That's what this article promotes against Aryan people, and that's why I sustain that it's racist propaganda. 70.36.157.32 ( talk) 03:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC) SamJennings ( talk) 12:14, 13 September 2011
Bash, you never refuted my argument. Nor did you refute the developments of that argument. You simply persisted in doing what you wanted to do, without even thinking. The topic of Nazi Racial theory is not the same thing as the topic of the Aryan Race. Nor is the pseudoscience of racial propaganda. Because I have seen no neutral party here, indeed, I only see racial propaganda, designed to make Aryans look like racists, I intend to open a neutrality dispute and not to close that until those topics are removed from this page. SamJennings 70.36.157.32 ( talk) 04:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of controversy associated with the term "Aryan", and the reasons for this controversy is the past and present politics of the word. It is interesting that the term "race" receives little scrutiny in these pages, when that is an underlying concept without which "Aryan" has no meaning. The term "race" never seems to be adequately defined in the article - it is simply assumed everyone knows the definition and subscribes to it. It would be better if all articles which discuss "race"-based terms would link to an article which discusses the concept of race, its historical roots, its use through time and its current standing in the fields of human biology, anthropology and history, among others. Can't wikipedia solicit such a foundational article from some expert source? Or is this never an option? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verde10 ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is jibberish. The Aryan Race was, indeed a race that spawned from Iraq or Iran, litterally out of the garden of Eden. It is NOT a sub-race. It is NOT derived from any other race. It IS, in fact, the FIRST race; the race of Adam and Eve. Refer to the WHITE skinned people of the area. In fact, Mahammed is described as being of white skin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetydave720 ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The Demise of the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus myths I am publishing my sixth research paper directly online as it is an extension of my previous papers. Kindly read pages 4 to 18 as it contains a detailed discussion of the term ‘Aryan’. This paper shows why the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories are not tenable. http://www.scribd.com/doc/136268397/The-demise-of-the-Dravidian-Vedic-and-Paramunda-Indus-myths Methods to reconstruct the languages of the Harappans were presented in the present and previous papers. We hope other scholars take up the exercise of reconstructing the languages of the Indus Valley civilization! The older papers were written taking the assumptions of the 19th century school of Indology as a base and working backwards. These may appear to be outdated now (at the end of our very long journey). However, the fundamentals are still correct. Part one http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One Part Two very,very important! http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two (These comprise the complete and comprehensive solution to the Aryan problem) for those who have trouble reading part two in the above link use the link below: part two http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25865304/SUJAY-NPAP-Part-Two Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC) Please find my collection of papers on literacy in Pre-Buddhist India Before mature phase of Indus valley civilization (before 2600 BC) - There are some potters marks but none qualify as full writing Indus valley civilization (2600 BC to 1900 BC) 1. The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script thesis (very logical and self explanatory paper)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46387240/Sujay-Indus-Script-Final-Version-Final-Final
2. The reintroduction of the lost manuscript hypothesis (the case for this thesis has obviously become much stronger in the recent past)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111707419/Sujay-Indus-Reintroducing-Lost-Manuscript-Hypothesis
Post-Harappan India (1600 BC to 600 BC)
1. Literacy in post-Harappan india (obviously literacy in post-Harappan India existed in certain pockets & were limited to very small sections of society- alphabetic scripts were brought from West Asia and the Indus script also continued – this a very logical and self-explanatory paper and anyone can cross-verify the conclusions)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/127306265/Sujay-Post-Harappan-Literacy-and-origin-of-Brahmi
Sujay Rao Mandavilli
[email protected]
182.72.239.115 ( talk) 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Recently a large section on population genetics was included. I had to remove it because it is not about the topic of "Aryan race" and noen of the studies included claim to investigate the Aryan race. Including it is therefore a breach of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It could go in its own article on Population genetics of Europe or similarly, but it does not belong in this article which is about a pseudoscientific historical race concept. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Where in Mein Kampf does Hitler say that Slavs are not Aryans?
He says he didn't want Austria to become primarily Slavic, that is all.-- English Patriot Man ( talk) 13:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Here Fate itself seems desirous of giving us a sign. By handing Russia to Bolshevism, it robbed the Russian nation of that intelligentsia which previously brought about and guaranteed its existence as a state. For the organization of a Russian state formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the state-forming efficacity of the German element in an inferior race. Numerous mighty empires on earth have been created in this way. Lower nations led by Germanic organizers and overlords have more than once grown to be mighty state formations and have endured as long as the racial nucleus of the creative state race maintained itself. For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata. Today it can be regarded as almost totally exterminated and extinguished. It has been replaced by the Jew. Impossible as it is for the Russian by himself to shake off the yoke of the Jew by his own resources, it is equally impossible for the Jew to maintain the mighty empire forever. He himself is no element of organization, but a ferment of decomposition. The Persian empire in the east is ripe for collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state. We have been chosen by Fate as witnesses of a catastrophe which will be the mightiest confirmation of the soundness of the folkish theory.
Our task, the mission of the National Socialist movement, is to bring our own people to such political insight that they will not see their goal for the future in the breath-taking sensation of a new Alexander's conquest, but in the industrious work of the German plow, to which the sword need only give soil.
This is complete nonsense. Nobody denied that the Nazis viewed the vast majority of Slavs are inferior but that did not deem them as non-Aryan. They were well aware that Slavs are Aryans.
This is from the Ahnenpass itself: The Ahnenpaß stated that "wherever they might live in the world" Aryans were "e.g. an Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian". - Explain that?
Also, the SS divisions had volunteers and many were recruited. Saying that they viewed them as non-Aryan is wrong, they viewed the vast majority as inferior for political motives NOT racial motives unlike with Jews, Roma people and so on.-- English Patriot Man ( talk) 19:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Easy. They regarded Slavs as inferior and less than Germanic people there is NO DOUBT about that but they did not regard them as non-Aryan, clearly stated here; he Ahnenpaß stated that "wherever they might live in the world" Aryans were "e.g. an Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian". (Czech and Pole are Slavs). Many Nazis themselves who were high up had Slavic ancestry and was easily noted. The Czech place Hitler went into in 1938 was to bring back the Germans from there the Sudeten Germans, the reason he hated Slavs was nothing to do with race at all it was to do with geographical reasons, he wanted to expand Germany and settle the Germans there ( Generalplan Ost for example) but even then there was many that were Germanised during the invasions, expansions and so on. What you are doing it posting half-truth stuff and completely exaggerating it. When the SS recruited the Slavs into the army they weren't awarded Honorary Aryan passes like non-Aryans were like the Japanese.
The same as you posted a long quote from Mein Kampf as "evidence" but even there it does not say that Hitler considered them non-Aryan at all. Stop twisting things.-- English Patriot Man ( talk) 19:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Paul, can you show me some evidence that after 1940s that a German was not allowed to marry a Czech or Pole? I asked for you to show me some words from Hitler's own mouth that he directly said "Slavs are not Aryans" and there is no such thing, of course he disliked them this was because as you know Adolf Hitler was born an Austrian and in the Austro-Hungarian Empire he didn't want the Austrian Germans to mingle with the Slavic populations so that Austria would remain German. Of course the feud between Germans (including Austrian Germans) and Slavic people most prominently the Poles had been going on for years - especially during the Partitions of Poland.
It does not matter whether Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany or not it still was Polish territory and there was the "Aryan side" which also included Poles.
I'm well aware that Himmler was very anti-Slavic but he was very very pro-Nordic (despite the fact he resembled nothing of the sort, he had an actual psuedo-Mongoloid look about him but he wasn't mixed but was just German but definitely more Alpine looking than Nordic).
Himmler also included Slavs as white and therefore Aryan he said on the white race "This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race (...) it is only with such a unification of the White race that the Western culture could be saved from the Yellow race (...)" (from the book March of the Titans).
Himmler was also well aware of the Slavic population in the SS and many Nazis had Slavic ancestry and these were left untouched.
Also, I noted before but it got removed, Goebbels also had a Czech girlfriend.
The definition of 'Aryan' was not synonymous with Nordic despite what is said, the Nazis used the term for Indo-Europeans as well, even the Berbers outside of Europe were considered Aryan (primarily descended from Germanic peoples).
The only reason the Nazis hated Slavs was for geographical reasons and political motives not racial ones.
The claim that Russians are of Mongoloid descent is about as true as saying Spaniards are of Moor descent or Germans are of Hun descent, not true.
There is half truth citations and the article bit on Nazism is way way exaggerated.
Call Hitler what you want a bigot, whatever... stay on topic your personal opinions on Adi are not relevant to the topic.-- English Patriot Man ( talk) 20:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Poles were not viewed as Aryans by Nazis The Holocaust Jack Fischel - 1998 Ostensibly a war to redeem lost territory in the east, the Nazi objective of acquiring lebensraum, or living space, was combined with a racial ideology that viewed the Slavic peoples as inferior to the Aryan race.
The aryan side of ghetto was called aryan because Germans lived there not because of Poles.
"The only reason the Nazis hated Slavs was for geographical reasons and political motives not racial ones" Slavs were considered subhumans not real humans by Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiroso ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't say a Holocaust anti-Nazi book is considered certified proof of what you are saying, the exact same way people alter the definitions of words in Mein Kampf and twist what Hitler actually said. Hitler did view Poles as Aryans, he did deem them as inferior to Germanic people there is no doubting that, but many upon many were Germanized. Actually no the "Aryan side" was full of all sorts of Aryans, including Aryans. You need to understand why the Nazis hated Slavs it wasn't because of their racial background but because of politics dating back centuries between the German-Slavic feud and the Judeo-Bolshevism that was present in eastern Europe, the Slavs belonged to them. The Nazis considered a large percentage of Slavs as Aryans, the concept of the Slavic people being "Untermensch" in particular served the Nazis for their political goals, it was mainly used as justification for their expansionist policy and especially their aggression against Poland and the Soviet Union in order to conquer Lebensraum, particularly in Ukraine. Early plans of the German Reich (summarized as Generalplan Ost) envisaged the displacement, enslavement, and elimination of no less than 50 million people who were not considered fit for Germanization from territories it wanted to conquer in Europe, Ukraine's "chornozem" (black earth) soil being a particularly desirable zone for colonization by the "Herrenvolk". All of the hatred towards Slavs was for their political motives not racial it was all about expanding further into the east and creating a big Germany.
Read the Ahnenpass statement it clearly states a Pole or Czech yet earlier on someone mentioned that it was forbidden to go with a Pole or Czech, no it was NOT. Show me evidence for this and the alleged Hungarians being declared Aryans only in 1938.
People here are confusing Aryan with German, Germanic and Nordic.
Saying the Nazis wanted to exterminate Slavs is false.
The Rassenschande did not even forbid sexual relations between Germans and Slavs on the condition these were to be Germanized and on the Reich's side.
Reports of fraternization between Polish women and German soldiers brought about a directive to the press to promulgate that links between Poles and Germans brought about a decline in German blood, and that any connection with Polish extraction was dangerous, and to describe Poles as on the same level as Jews and Gypsies in order to discourage association.
This says nothing about them being non-Aryans again just about the Nazis wanting to maintain German blood, even if someone went other Germanic people it would still have to be reported, even other Germans like Austrian and Sudetens.
Nowhere in Nazi Germany ideologies say anything about Slavs not being Aryans.- English Patriot Man ( talk) 00:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
At the moment the article states "Hitler's conception of the Aryan race explicitly excluded the vast majority of Slavs from being part of the master race".
This is wrong.
No Slavs were ever regarded as part of the master race (herrenvolk) but they were regarded as "Aryan". The small amount of "Slavs" that were to become part of the master race were people that were classified as of Germanic descent but living in Eastern Europe and were to undergo Germanization. Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans and others were not considered to be part of the master race as only Germanic peoples (Germans, Dutch, etc) were to be considered part of the Germanic-Nordic Herrenvolk.
We need to make sure that readers can note the difference between "Aryan" and "master race" as the Nazis tried to interchange the meaning of Aryan to the master race but all Europeans (including Slavs) were Aryans under the Third Reich although Slavic and Baltic people were destined to be removed their own homelands in Central and Eastern Europe for the Germanic people, but as far as the "master race" concept goes, only the Germanic peoples were accepted and were to be the master race.-- 198.58.112.253 ( talk) 17:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the Wikipedia article on Hindu nationalism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_nationalism) must be added to the ==See also== section of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkhilKumarPal ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
How were Germans that were non-Nordic classified as in relation to the Herrenvolk "master race", seeing as very of the top Nazis themselves with the prominent exception of Heydrich (who was accused of Jewish ancestry though) were far from Nordic, especially Goebbels and Himmler. The pseudo-racial examinations given by racial theorists just divided the German population (including Austrians and the Sudeten-Germans) but never mentioned anything negative about ones who were not Nordic.
What evidence is there to suggest that only Nordic people were to constitute the master race in the Third Reich? Especially seeing as many other Aryans - under the definition of White Europeans - including Baltic peoples, Slavic peoples, Celtic peoples and others also had a fair amount in the populations that were Nordic but were quite clearly not German.-- Windows66 ( talk) 16:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
"Hitler's conception of the Aryan race explicitly excluded the vast majority of Slavs from being part of the master race, regarding Slavs as having dangerous Jewish and Asiatic influences."
Slavs were not excluded from the conception of the Aryan race as Indo-European but were regarded as being excluded from the "Aryan Herrenvolk" "Aryan master race" as this was for the Germans/Germanic people.
Hitler and the wrongly saw the two (Aryan and Herrenvolk) as being the same and thus this led to confusion between the definitions of the two words.-- Windows66 ( talk) 17:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me?
It's not just about Slavs though what about all the other people who were Aryans but did not count as the master race, this information is not included only on Slavs. Missing out on Balts, Celts, Romances and other Europeans.-- Windows66 ( talk) 16:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I've just Googled this "English Patriot Man" and it seems this user is a abusing user/sockpuppet, let me assure you I am not this person nor have any connection with this user of Wikipedia, this can also be confirmed by checking my history and my IP. Please do not accuse me of being someone I am not. I am merely discussing that at the present the article only focuses on the exclusion of Slavs from the master race when in fact it should mention others too such as the ones I have mentioned above. But all of these were still Aryan.-- Windows66 ( talk) 19:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
When the Iceage pushed aboriginal scandinavians south their ill adaption to lower latitudes brougt many cancerous diseases into human genetics.
Tibetians and highland Paupa New Guineans have greater oxegenation systems which increase numerous organ functions and the avegage IQ per capita of Japanese and Northern Indians exceeds that of all other ethnic groups.
An african male is less likely to die of cancer and more likely to die of heart disease.
A white caucasian is more likely to die of cancer and less likely to die of heart disease.
And funnily enough the durex foundation seems to clarify that the ethnic group with the most complaints of a condom slipping off is the Chinese and the ethnic group with the most complaints of condoms spliting is out of Africa, and penis size seems to be possibly the most desirable trait on earth.
Now what is it to Aryanize,,Extending the life faculty?,the Japanese take the gold there,,or mabey maximization of sexual abilitys as well as maximum extension of the life faculty?, seen as that will give you the most pleasurable extended life, which is about the most you can get out of being human in the materialist sense,,oh no, the Afro Japanese man takes gold.
What has an adaptation to absorb optimal amounts of vitamin D got to do with Aryanization and why is this Bonobo Ideology still supported and elaborated upon as some kind of valid debate?--
Prograceman (
talk) 12:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
What does this have to do with the Aryan race?
Please explain MyMoloboaccount.-- Windows66 ( talk) 10:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Aryan race has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Small spelling mistake -- coat > coast
eventually to the west coat of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea
Should read:
eventually to the west coast of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea
Piers.warmers (
talk) 06:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I am having a discussion on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience about whether Aryanism was a "core tenet" of Nazism. I see that here there is a citation tag against a similar assertion. Does anyone have a RS that says Aryanism was essential (or an essential of) Nazism? Myrvin ( talk) 07:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The naming of the article Indigenous Aryans is under discussion, see Talk:Indigenous Aryans -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 02:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Aryan race has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The only known living descendants of the Aryan race are the Goud Saraswat Brahmins of India,they are less than 10 Lakh in number and their language,facial features etc match that of the described Aryans They also migrated from the banks of the river saraswat where the Aryan Race was last seen(and the last place where they were called Aryans) 27.106.28.39 ( talk) 17:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
For what reason do you think the Aryan race pseudo-scientific term, it is quite possible the current race, I do not support the idea of the Nazis about her greatness and superiority over other races but the denial of it as a separate group is unscientific in my opinion enough to look at some of its representatives and you will immediately see they say so racial exterior features. Here's an example.-- 77.51.162.142 ( talk) 17:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't this just an old name for Indo-Europeans? As in, peoples descended from the Proto-Indo-European group and/or speaking Indo-European languages? Just listened to a lecture by Kenneth W. Harl where he basically says so (lamenting that the term had been ruined by fascists, being less clumsy). -- Director ( talk) 14:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Aryans are not land grabbers to come from places such as India, Europe , Middle East extra.., as said. They come from galaxies and it is these people who proposed the theory of Big Bang and many more. Their technology is superior to present day's technology. This can be understood from ancient literature and ancient works and human formations. In India it is supported by sanskrit, vedas and upanishads and religion as Hinduism. Like that in various countries it is supported by various literature , languages and religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.6.60.121 ( talk) 05:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The article states that the use of the term as a synonym for the Indo-European grouping is 'obsolete', but doesn't explain why. Is this mere politics - it's better to avoid the term - or is it because it is inaccurate in some way? Ender's Shadow Snr ( talk) 01:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Aryan race has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Aryan is a Sanskrit--Avestan word for Race. All Aryans originated in Northwestern India and Central Asia. The Jews want to create a confusion and remove the Aryan word and Swastika from our planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.118.130 ( talk) 07:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I want to point out that a line that what was written in this article is factually wrong,and would ask for it's removal. "Nazi Germany's ally the Independent State of Croatia rejected the common conception that Croats were primarily a Slavic people and claimed that Croats were primarily the descendents of the Germanic Goths."This is true,but the following sentence("However the Nazi regime continued to classify Croats as "subhuman" in spite of the alliance.") is not.
There is not a single evidence that Croats were treated in any way similar to other Slavs,as they were not considered Slavs.Many Croat troops were fighting together with German troops on different fronts.In addition,quotes from Hitler himself in "The table talks" confirm this.
"The Croats are certainly more Germanic than Slav. The Esthonians, too, have a lot of Germanic blood.."-Hitler's Table Talk,Martin Bormann,page 8.
"If the Croats were part of the Reich, we'd have them serving as faithful auxiliaries of the German Fuehrer, to police our marshes. Whatever happens, one shouldn't treat them as Italy is doing at present. The Croats are a proud people.They should be bound directly to the Fuehrer by an oath of loyalty. Like that, one could rely upon them absolutely. When I have Kvaternik standing in front of me, I behold the very type of the Croat as I've always known him, unshakeable in his friendships, a man whose oath is eternally binding. "-Hitler's Table Talk,Martin Bormann,page 95."
"The Hungarians are better governed than the Rumanians. What a pity they can't instal Croats instead of Rumanians!"-Hitler's Table Talk,Martin Bormann,page 338
Thank you.
Isyck1337 ( talk) 20:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
In the third paragraph in the 'Nazism' section under the 'Aryanism' heading, there is a contextually questionable sentence that does not seem to serve the purpose of informing the reader about Nazism's views on race. Namely, "This association of Jews with the Armenoid type had been utilized by Zionist Jews who claimed that Jews were a group within that type.[38]" The utilization of Nazi racial ideas by any particular group does not have anything to do with the views themselves, as held and developed by Nazis. To me, this sentence seems to be force-fit as a way to subtly justify Nazi racial categorization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Blanquito ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I think people might misunderstand the views of the national socialists if they read this article.
This stems from the the different understanding of the term "Aryan" at this time. Many scientists used the term only for Nordic peoples, while others seem to define it in as all natives of Europe. It is already written in the article, but would not be read by most readers.
Should we write a part which clearify that the nazis talked about the nordic race or germanic people, when refering to "Aryan"? That were a master race or herrenvolk (translated: lord/master people).
2.150.17.237 ( talk) 13:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Where is the section about Aryanism in Iran? SUMKA was a group devoted to promote Aryan race and still has active members in Iran. The information is missing and must be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.45.55 ( talk) 21:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
It is generally understood, particularly from the source material of Indian mythology, that the Aryans came INTO India, from somewhere else, probably Eastern Europe or the Caucasus region, replacing the aboriginal Dravidian culture. The Aryans did not come FROM India. The Aryan (Indo-European) language was spread into India but did not originate there. It is possible that the Persians are descended from the Aryans (hence the name Iran), but it is more likely that they adopted the Aryan language and idiom, just as the Hindus would much later on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.89.10 ( talk) 21:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course the term was completely caught up in all the racialist ideology of the mid 20th century.
But the article would do well to remember that "race" in 19th-century English just means "ethnic group" or "ethno-linguistic phylum". It was a more innocent time when you could use single-syllable words to refer to intuitive concepts instead of having to rely on eight-syllable mouthfuls meaning exactly the same thing. So while the article should by all means trace the course of the racialist trainwreck, it would do well to remain aware of this. A sentence like
is sadly uninformed. Mueller is not "guilty" of anything, because his usage of "Aryan race" was not in the context of ethnology. The term "race" had a wide application, and Mueller objected to the use of "Aryan" in the context of ethnology, he did not object to using the term race. His own usage of Aryan is, of course, completely within his own prescription on how the term should be used. It is childish to quote 19th century scholars out of context in order to imply they are "guilty" of violating lexical conventions of the 20th century. -- dab (𒁳) 09:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)