Talk:Aryan race/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Aryans,Iranians,IndoIranians,Indo Iranian Language, Indo European Language ancestor

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)

Nazi Germany/ Hitler Relationship with Reza Shah

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)

British Raj

The section entitled British Raj has some problems. It starts...

Main article: Indo-Aryan migration

See also: Out of India theory

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, 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:

• No citation for any connection with the British Raj, which is particularly odd, given that it is the title of the section.
• General implication that Indo-Aryan migration migration is a fabrication, when the only source given actually supports the theory.

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)

For the record, I fixed this problem on the 18th of Feb. Yaris678 (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

References

why there is no mention that some brahmins in india belong to aryan race

why there is no mention that some brahmins in india belong to aryan raceRaja.m82 (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia will accept material with solid, reputable references. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is discussed in the section Aryan race#Indo-Aryan migration. It presents a number of studies that have looked into it and come to different conclusions. Is there anything you think is missing? Yaris678 (talk) 10:16, 31 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)

Suggested merge

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 One problem is that the Master race article is poorly referenced. It should be brought up to standards before being merged. BashBrannigan (talk) 20:52, 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)

Oppose Agree with Keraunos. Aryan Race and the Nazi's concept of master race are not synonymous.--Utinomen (talk) 20:44, 2 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)

Social Darwinism

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))

Copyright problem removed

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)

Charles Darwin's use of the term "Aryan"

Shouldn't Charles Darwin's use of the term be mentioned in the article? In "The Descent of Man" Darwin wrote:

"ON THE FORMATION OF THE RACES OF MAN.

In some cases the crossing of distinct races has led to the formation of a new race. The singular fact that the Europeans and Hindoos, who belong to the same Aryan stock, and speak a language fundamentally the same, differ widely in appearance, whilst Europeans differ but little from Jews, who belong to the Semitic stock, and speak quite another language, has been accounted for by Broca (49. 'On Anthropology,' translation, 'Anthropological Review,' Jan. 1868, p. 38.), through certain Aryan branches having been largely crossed by indigenous tribes during their wide diffusion. When two races in close contact cross, the first result is a heterogeneous mixture: thus Mr. Hunter, in describing the Santali or hill- tribes of India, says that hundreds of imperceptible gradations may be traced "from the black, squat tribes of the mountains to the tall olive- coloured Brahman, with his intellectual brow, calm eyes, and high but narrow head"; so that it is necessary in courts of justice to ask the witnesses whether they are Santalis or Hindoos. (50. 'The Annals of Rural Bengal,' 1868, p. 134.)"

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)

Aryan Race - a theosophical definition of the word

Dear admin and friends -

The following are written merely to be of service to the Wikipedia, so it may blossom in its level of truthfulness.

I recognize, that I recently have been posting some messages about changes to this place at the wrong place, namely at user

jpgordon (Josh Gordon's page). Sorry about that. I do hope that this place is the right one?

If so, I have a few questions about the "Aryan race" page.

I understand it, that I without problems can post the above paragraph on Arya or Aryan by Blavatsky in the Theosophy section without anyone necessarily deleting it again, like it happened recently?

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)

Edit request from Atlantean99, 8 June 2011

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)

Yes, this is straight from The Myth of the Twentieth Century. It's related to the Theosophical view. Paul B (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

de Gobineau and Germany

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)

If you haven't read him or anything about him, I really don't see how you can say the article gives too much "credit" to him. This article is not about Indo-European studies, Proto-Indo-European or its homeland - it's about race. The homeland of PIE was not something that Gobineau was especially interested in, but race was. The homeland issue only becomes linked to race issue by later writers such as Gustaf Kossinna. Paul B (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not about Indo-European studies? I'm sorry that you have read de Gobineau and are so interested in race. But you've told me all I need to know about him. Kossinna I have just looked at to refresh myself. Wikipedia is failing to adequatly cover the Aryan race in the popular culture of the 19th and early 20th centuries, focusing on these individuals instead. Also the Indo-Europeanists themselves could do with proper coverage, but that would require a lot of effort from a proper scholar. I see no evidence that one has spent a significant amount of time here. Nora lives (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"I'm sorry that you have read de Gobineau and are so interested in race." What kind of idiotic remark is that? This is an article about a racial concept. That's why it is called "Aryan race". You should not be sorry that anyone is interested in anything, and you certainly should not be sorry that someone has read historically important works which had significant role in cultural history. You should read as much as possible. And what, pray, is "the Aryan race in the popular culture of the 19th and early 20th centuries"? Do you actually know anything about it? From your comments, you seem to know next to nothing. So I'm afraid I have no confidence in your capacity to judge who is or is not a proper scholar. As for Gobineau and Kossinna: there is one sentence on Gobineau and Kossinna is barely mentioned, so how on earth is the article "focussing on these individuals"? If anything, there should be more on them. It is also worth noting that it is not Wikipedia policy to concentrate on "popular culture" but on scholarship. Paul B (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Evidently you aren't very familiar with the policy here, and there was never any real scholarship on the Aryan "race". de Gobineau was no scholar as his article says, and Kossinna was incompetent. Coon tried and worshipped his Nordics like the rest. I've read him. These guys were jokes, and were part of the popular culture, still are. I'm sure you've been to the forums. Many of us have. I even learned to measure my own skull, but was never into the Nordic worship thing. Nora lives (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a joke. There is a mass of scholarship on the "Aryan race" concept. It's very widely written about, from Poliakov in the 1970s to Arvidsson recently. Kossinna was anything but incompetent. He was a major scholar in his day. Gobineau was also hugely influential. However, you seem to be confusing the issue here. No-one imagines that the writings of these people are currently WP:RS. That would be absurd. Their scholarship as such is thoroughly obsolete. The scholarship we use is modern commentary on their ideas and context of it. Coon does not have a concept of the "Aryan" race, but he does have concept of the Nordic race, which is a purely biological concept (and again, a now obsolete one). It was the confusion of biological and ethno-linguistic arguments that Max Mueller criticised, as discussed here. Coon is utterly irrelevant to this article. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Modern scholarship on the concept doesn't count. Sure there's tons of that. The closest we get today to what I'm talking about is the Kurgan Hypothesis. We're talking about different things. It's tiring. Nora lives (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It sure is tiring. As I said in my first reply, this is not an article about modern Indo-European studies or about the PIE homeland. We have other articles on those topics, including the Kurgan theory and the Renfrew theory along with others. They each have separate dedicated articles. This is an article on the history of the concept of an "Aryan race". I'm sorry you find that difficult to understand, but it's really not so hard. Historians like Polaikov and Arvidsson are the appropriate WP:RS for discussing this historical concept and its influence. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said that wasn't the case, but it should discuss popular culture, including romanticism, in Germany. Also the concept of the Nordic race is decades older than Coon, and the two had the same meaning. Nordic and Aryan were synonymous for many. You may be more familiar with the modern scholarship than with the early "anthropology". Nora lives (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the history of the concept of the "Nordic race". The overlap of the two concepts is an important historical phase, but it becomes defined in the late 19th century. I'm not sure what aspect of German romanticism you are referring to, but the claim that German is somehow a "pure" descendent of PIE and that the Germans are supposedly a "pure" race was certainly linked to the race-language equation, and can be identified in embryonic form in Romantic era writers such as Herder and Fichte. That could be mentioned, for sure. Paul B (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You're turning out to be well read for someone interested in racial theories, and now I'm liking you a little. The Germanic case system was thought to be degenerate by purists looking at Sanskrit and all, and some still think that way, but it was attributed to mixing with non-IE scum, and some believe it or not still think that way too. It was as much about purification. I don't have any of my sources available for the time being, and nearly all of them that would help here I haven't looked at for years. Thank you for coming up with Herder and Fichte because I am unfamiliar with them. I've only seen the general sequence of events discussed and Indo-Europeanists are very dismissive, so my sources probably haven't given me the most complete picture. Back to Kossinna, I can assure you he is treated with scorn today and I am pretty sure that some of his contemporaries considered him a bit of a twit. I know I've read that but don't remember if they were "in the majority". Nora lives (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not saying all pop stars are fools. The very rare one is pretty clever. Nora lives (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nora lives, can you explain what you mean by "The article as it reads gives a little too much credit to Arthur de Gobineau". I don't understand. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought I did. The caption for the picture, which itself gives him prominence, could be better. Nora lives (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

pictures are often chosen, by what is available in the public domain. You may suggest a different caption, but pictures add to public interest in articles. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism

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)

Requesting the unprotection of the article Aryan Race

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)

Kurds are Aryan

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

Edit request from , 8 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

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) 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)

Okay, problem solved. Now I able to edit this page but before I can not edit. I corrected it. Avanakapti (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Avanakapti

Modern research

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.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io/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

Vinland excluding Quebec and English-language only

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)

Not being respected by white supremacists might be considered a compliment by many. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Also link 46 is dead and 47 is mostly irrelevant. So the two sentences of this paragraph cannot be taken very seriously and should be removed. While I don't know much on neo-nazism, it appears likely that the commenter above is right, in that this whole sub section, on neo-nazism within the framework of the Aryan race, is well below encyclopedic standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.144.212 (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request- add item to notes

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)

Alfred Rosenberg

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)

Don't tell me R-41 has deleted that section again on the bizarre grounds that Hitler "rejected" the book, as if Hitler's opinion defines what we should include? Hitler - in private - said it was not official policy. True, of course, but that does not somehow make it non-Nazi (R-41 even tried to remove the Nazism template from the Myth20C article itself!). Rosenberg is overwhemingly identified as the principal Nazi racial theorist. Paul B (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hitler was the supreme leader of the Nazi Party via Fuhrerprincip, his views have a major role. From Fascism, Totalitarianism And Political Religion by historian Roger Griffin: according to Albert Speer, Hitler privately said about Rosenberg that he was "a narrow-minded Baltic German who thinks in horribly complicated terms ... A relapse into medieval notions". More importantly, he was not the principal Nazi racial theorist, influential perhaps, but not the one. Any material on Rosenberg should not exaggerate his significance. Scholarly books on Nazi racial theory such as Studying the Jew: Scholarly Antisemitism in Nazi Germany by Alan E Steinweis, published by Havard University Press, demonstrate that Hans F. K. Günther was a major Nazi racial theorist whose work Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes (1922) was praised by Hitler and utilized by the Nazi regime. Günther's racial theories were utilized by the Nazi regime for its eugenics policy.--R-41 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Gunther eventually joined the Nazi party, yes, but he was a race theorist whose ideas existed independently of the party (and Fischer was much more influential in eugenics). What I meant by Rosenberg being its principal theorist is that he was the one who formulated the party's thinking on the topic and provided the model for its view of race. I know perfectly well what Speer said. Speer was a practical man, Rosenberg was more like a theologian of Nazism. Of course there were all sorts of disputes, personal likes, dislikes, feuds and alliances in Nazism, just as there are in any political movement. But all sources agree that Rosenberg was an important Nazi ideologue/theorist. He represented a strand of thinking in the party. As with other Nazis, Hitler agreed with him sometimes, but not at others. Hitler's distancing himself from Rosenberg's paganism was at least as much political as sincere, though I accept that he had little interest in mysticism and ritual (as a matter fact neither did Rosenberg, much). The point, for this article, is that he was an influential Nazi ideologue of Aryanism. Therefore his ideas should be discussed. They are far more important for the topic than a section on Italian fascism. The fascists only became significantly interested in racial theory via the Nazis. Other pronouncements are just typical of the era. Paul B (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Italian Fascists spoke of a conception of the Aryan race in the ea before the Nazis were a significant influence on their policies. Rosenberg's racial theories can be included. But not assumed to be the dominant influence. As I have said Gunther was a major influence on the party's racial policies. Plus do Rosenberg's racial theories if accepted mean that the Myth of the Twentieth Century with its anti-Christian sentiments should be included? I strongly advise distinguishing between that book that was criticized by Nazis and Rosenberg's racial theories.--R-41 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course they did. So did the British, French and Americans. "Aryan" was a commonplace word (there was even a cowboy film called The Aryan). That does not mean it had any special significance for Italians. Saying that a Nazi book was "criticised by Nazis" is frankly topsy turvy. Of course it had its critcs (no doubt Mein Kampf did too, though rather less vocally). Everything anyone writes within any movement will have critics unless they are forcibly silenced. Paul B (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Why so much focus on that book, why not put down Rosenberg's racial theories as examined through scholarly sources? If they are from the book, say they are from the book. Your dismissal of Italian Fascism's acribing to the Aryan race by comparing it to that of the US, France, etc., does not demonstrate it is insignificant. In fact it demonstrates that more material is needed on views of the Aryan race in such major countries. There is material on US policies on Nordicism on the Nordic race article, the French racial theorist Gobineau's theories on the Aryan race are significant.--R-41 (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes. Obviously all topics should ideally be examined through the best scholarly sources. I don't see anyone arguing otherwise. Nordicism was politically important in the US. In France Aryan theory existed for sure, but was largely marginalised - because of traditions inherited from the revolution and the fact that France was constructed as a trans-ethnic national "idea" (Aryanism and Nordicism did have an imporant role in the rather marginal Breton nationalism though). You can find the word used in many countries, often just as a synonym for "white person" or "gentile". It's a question of deciding when its just that, and when it has more important significance. Paul B (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Nazism's conception of the Aryan race is placed ahead of Italian Fascism's. It is showing that Nazism's conception is more significant.--R-41 (talk) 18:12, 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)

The significance is because the Nazi conception of the Aryan race deeply affected European and world history, as demonstrated with the Nazi conception of Aryan superiority and distinction between Aryans and Jews that had a major role in the ideological conceptions that resulted in the Holocaust.--R-41 (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Should most of Nazism and Italian Fascism content be moved to new article Aryanism?

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)

I haven't had time to engage with this over the past few day. However, Arianism is a christian heresy - nothing whatever to do with Aryanism apart for the similarity of the word, so I'm not sure what you are getting at with that point. Any article should of course have a section on the Nazis. IMO, there is no good reason to have muich on Italian fascists. Of course if things get overweighted it'as possible to create a spin-off article, maybe on Nazi-Fascist debates about race. An article already exists on Racial policy of Nazi Germany, which is where detailed discussion of Aryanist and Nordicist ideas of the Nazis should go, along with the evolution of their policies. Paul B (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That might be acceptable, but given that it is based on the conception of the Aryan race it may be advisable to keep it here and not risk creating a POV-fork.--R-41 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-racist usage.

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

It isn't a fact. Paul B (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

well, it is. "Wikipedia user Kyan777 is under the impression that the 'Aryan race' originated near the Indus River." It just isn't a notable fact, seeing we aren't "Kyan777-pedia". --dab (𒁳) 07:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, paging through the wonderful charts in the later volumes of A Study Of History (Vol. I-VI) state that the arya was part of the Babylonic civilization, neo-babylonian universal state, and consisted of the "vedic", "hittite", and Zoroastrainism. Babylon consisted of Eurasian Nomads (aryans), Kassites, Hittites, Eurasian Nomads (Scyths), Medes, AND Persians. Aryan ethnicity and history should not be confused with any of these ethic cultures: Sienpi, Insular Celts, continental Teutons, Tartars, Torgut calmucks, scandinavians, continental saxons, wends, lithuanians, magyars, bosniaks, franks, serbs, albanians, rumeliot greeks, etc etc etc blah. Assirting Iraq as the source for the Aryans is probably accurate as their homeland is listed on the tigris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.94.146 (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

The Aryan racial theories of the Nazis were central to the horror of the Holocaust and to not include it would be blatantly biased. The article on black people doesn't include material on black crime for the same reason white crime is not mentioned in the White people article. You'll also note that the White people article makes no mention of Nazis.BashBrannigan (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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)  

First, 70.36.157.32 , please sign all your posts with four tildes. This article is more than just about "the" Aryan Race. It is about the origin, definition and use of the term Aryan Race. The Nazi usage can not be left out. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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

My previous response applies equally to the above. I won't continue to reply unless you have something new or relevant to say. Again, please sign your post with four tildes: (~). BashBrannigan (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

I already stated, but will repeat it once more, that the article is not just about "the" Aryan race, but about the origin, definition and use of the term Aryan race. Nazi usage must be included. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to assume that there is some actual group of people called "Aryans" who are being misrepresented in some way. But that's nonsense. The term Aryan is not used in the same way as "White" or "Black". You never see the word "Aryan" put on a form for racial identification. There is no actual "Aryan people", so this whole argument is nonsensical. In fact you make one of the most basic of errors when you say "Aryan is a RACE of people: blond, blue eyed, fair skinned". Nope, that's the Nordic race. But you wont find that on any official documents either, since its an intellectually obsolete concept. Paul B (talk) 11:40, 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)

That's fascinating... Please provide sources. 02:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please find all my papers - this will be of interest in IE linguistics/ those interested in the Aryan problem

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

sujayrao2012@gmail.com

182.72.239.115 (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Population genetics Synth

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)

Mein Kampf Slavs Aryans

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)

Hitler regarded Slavs as an inferior race in Mein Kampf and saying that the only reason that Russia became a state was because of Germanic elements in Russia and not because of Slavic elements and calls them an "inferior race", here is the quote from Mein Kampf where it says this:

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.

--R-41 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Saying they are inferior is not the same as saying they are non-Aryan. R-41, I must say, you are filling a whole spate of articles with seriously confused and half-digested ideas. This whole long quotation says absolutely nothing about Slavs being non-Aryan. Paul B (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The quotation says they are part of an "inferior race", are you suggesting that Hitler is saying that Russians are Aryans and that Aryans are an inferior race? Why do I need to prove the common known fact that Nazis called Slavs "untermenschen" ("subhumans"). Are you denying that the Nazis called Slavs "subhuman"? Well then read any reliable source that mentions the history of Nazi Germany and you will find repeatedly find that the Nazis regarded Slavs as "subhuman". Here are such sources, here [2], here [3], and here [4]. Are you saying that the Nazis called people that they identified as Aryans, "subhuman"? If so, you need very, very strong evidence to back up such unconventional and controversial claims.--R-41 (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

For God's sake. Do you even know what the word Aryan means???? The area outside the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw was called the "Aryan district". You could get "Aryan papers" to show you were a Pole, for example. Poles are Slavs. Polish is a Slavic language. You are confusing Nordic with Aryan identity, or at least you appear to be. It's perfectly consistent for Nazis to believe that Poles, Russians and other Slavs are Aryan while also identifying them as racially inferior to Germans. Of course they can also spout stuff about Mongoloid / Asian influence etc etc, but that's a separate issue; there were endless variations on racial models which regularly mutated for ideological reasons. Paul B (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your rhetoric here is on the verge of genocide denial. The Slavs were called untermenchen, untermenschen means "subhuman" in English, "subhuman" means less than human. You have presented no evidence from any reliable source of the Nazis calling people they identified as Aryans as being subhumans. The Nazis initiated mass persecution of Slavs. If you are not aware of this, or are denying this, you are not competent to edit such material here. Read material on Nazism's untermenschen policy if you are unaware of this, or if you are aware of this stop denying these well-known Nazi policies towards Slavs.--R-41 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

On the verge of genocide denial? How dare you? Your stupidity is mind-boggling. I probably know more about Nazi racial policy than you ever will, but let that pass. We all know how many millions of Slavs died because of the Nazis, but only an ingnoramus thinks that that has anything to do with denying that they were Aryans. Read a book. Paul B (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

To PaulB, how dare me say that your rhetoric is on the verge of genocide denial? How dare me? The Nazis treated Slavs as slaves, Hitler called them slaves, he said that because they were subhuman that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to them. So yes, ignoring all of this and denying that they were called subhuman and saying that the Nazis considered Slavs as Aryan, does indeed sound on the verge of genocide denial, if I was mistaken, so be it. The Nazis' interpretation of who was part of the Aryan race is not about what your interpretation of the Aryan race is. And you refusing to acknowledge that the Nazis called Slavs undermenschen, and accusing me of "stupidity" and an "ingnoramus" is a direct violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. As for English Patriot Man, what did the Nazis do when they went into Czechoslovakia and Poland, they sought to expel Slavic inhabitants to make way for Germanic settlers, those who were deemed "Aryan enough" were allowed to be Germanized, those "purely" Slavs were not allowed to be Germanized. The Nazis called Slavs untermenschen, subhuman, either present strong evidence from reliable sources that demonstrates that the Nazis considered people they regarded as Slavic as Aryan, or cease pushing this.--R-41 (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we all know this. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NOT BEING ARYANS. Only a complete cretin thinks that it is genocide denial to agree that they were responsible for the deaths of millions of Slavs just because Slavs were also categorised as Aryan. You seem to think that the Nazis only killed "non Aryans". You are wrong, wrong, wrong. There is overwhelming evidence of this. You are not even listening. I know that I am sound very angry. I am very very angry at your disgusting allegations. We should be able to talk about historical issues without having to suffer such outrageous and spurious allegations. Your deletion of material on Rosenberg is even more monumentally stupid. He was one of main Nazi ideologues, with senior positions in the government. Just because Hitler disd not agree with eveything he said does not mean his ideas are not part of Nazi ideology (the same is true of Himmler). He represented one faction within it in some respects, and was a mainstream Nazi in others. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And I am extremely angry with you lashing out at me for your failure or refusal to comprehend that the Nazis killed Slavs because they were regarded as non-Aryan degenerate subhumans. I will not be pushed and shoved on this matter, the Nazis' intentions were obvious, the historical record is available, the Nazis viewed the Eastern Front as part of a racial war by Aryans against "subhuman" Slavs. To deny this is extreme revisionism.--R-41 (talk) 20:16, 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)

You asked for a quote from Mein Kampf. Why would he call Aryan peoples an "inferior race"? The Aryan race was called the "master race". You took material about the Ahnenpaß from the Wikipedia article. You have failed to recognize that the Nazis changed stances on Aryans several times. By the late 1930s and 1940s no German was permitted to marry a Czech or a Pole whom were regarded as untermenschen. In 1938 Hungarians were considered Aryan, in 1940 Hitler declared that Hungarians were not Aryan. Here is Heinrich Himmler on what was to be done with the Poles: "All Polish specialists will be exploited in our military-industrial complex. Later, all Poles will disappear from this world. It is imperative that the great German nation considers the elimination of all Polish people as its chief task"--R-41 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Slavs are Aryan is part of the very definition of the word. The idea that they were an inferior sort of Aryan is well established in the literature long before the Nazis. Charles Morris wrote "Such are the conditions which probably existed in the primitive Aryan home. The ancient Slavs were not distinguished for bravery. Their military achievements were, as Gibbon remarks, those of spies and stragglers rather than those of warriors". He argues that Russian Slavs have mingled with the "Mongolian type", thus weaking their ancient Aryan identity. This was also a common view in Nazi Germany, but it has to be set against the bureaucratic use of the word Aryan to mean essentially "non-Jew" (hence the use of "Aryan district" etc). See the many books on life in the Warsaw ghetto (Polish-Jewish Relations During the Second World War; Eve Nussbaum, Daily life during the Holocaust etc) Kaplan notes "Since the Jewish quarter was established, Jewish Warsaw has become a city unto itself, with characteristics quite different from those of Aryan Warsaw. Anyone passing from the Jewish district to the Aryan district gets the impression of having entered a new city with a different appearance and a different way of life." Hans Gunther says that Nordic Slavs were replaced by "inferior" East Baltic ones (Racial Elements p. 112) Part of the problem is that a lot of populist and generalist books about the Nazis use the word Aryan is a very loose and rather code-ilke way (you get it in general encyclopedias) that does not correspond to actual Nazi official usage or the complexities of their idelogical positions. Paul B (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"You asked for a quote from Mein Kampf. Why would he call Aryan peoples an 'inferior race'? The Aryan race was called the 'master race'." The quote said nothing about Aryans. The "master race" is a shifting concept which oscillated between the terms 'Nordic' and 'Germanic'. The term 'Aryan' principally means non-Jewish (Aryan/Semitic opposition) but could include the concept of Caucasian/Mongoloid opposition, which also mapped onto the lingusitic criteria that originated the Aryan concept. In modern English we now happen to associate the word Aryan with the Nazi racial ideal, but that's a product of lingusitic evolution, not how the word was actually used at the time. Paul B (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Whose Warsaw was it? It was not Poland's, Poland was dismantled in 1939, it was a German territory within a Greater Germany that was to be colonized by Germans. You keep importing what the definition by the Nazis should be, but that's not what it is. The Nazis' conception was their conception, and their theories were pseudoscientific, but they were their theories. Hitler was above all a bigot, and as supreme ruler of the Nazi state he had the final say. Hitler sparred with many figures over things - he rejected army plans and demanded his own plans be put in place for instance, he did the same on race. He was an adamantly anti-Slavic bigot, he declared Slavs as subhumans meaning they were not fully human, meaning they could be used as slave labour or exterminated. The onus is on you who to present strong evidence that Slavs who were called "subhuman", "slaves", "degenerate", "inferior race", fit into the Nazi conception of the Aryan race.--R-41 (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You really do take the biscuit. When faced with this degree of sheer obtuseness, it is difficult to know how to respond. The Nazis used 'Aryan' in most offical contexts to mean non-Jewish. The "Aryan district" of Warsaw was the area outside the Jewish ghetto where the Slavic POLES LIVED. Geddit? You keep repeating over and over that he decared Slavs "sub-humans" (which is only partially true) as if somehow this is the same thing as saying non-ASryan. It isn't. How many times does one have to repeat that? You are assuming that Aryan is the same as "ideal". It isn't. Paul B (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop screaming at me with caps, do you seriously expect me to dignify that kind of treatment with a response.--R-41 (talk) 02:33, 14 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)

To the two other users here, read Samiroso's comment above.--R-41 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's easy to find comments like Fischel's. That's because 'Aryan' is used as short-hand code by such writers. It's just inaccurate, as is Samiroso's false claim that the "aryan side of ghetto was called aryan because Germans lived there not because of Poles". See the links below. Overwhlmingly, Jews 'passed' as Aryans by pretending to be Polish. Paul B (talk) 12:26, 14 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)

This is a waste of everyone's time to go on any further. Everyone is angry with each other, nothing will be achieved. The Nazis treated most Slavs like dirt as subhumans and slaves unworthy of coverage under the Geneva Conventions. Bottom line: the Nazis promoted anti-Slavic propaganda such as with Goebbels calling Slavs "filth", Hitler called Slavs "untermenschen" and a "slave race", Himmler stating that "all Poles will disappear from this world" and calling for the "elimination of all Polish people", the Nazis pursued mass exterminations, persecutions, and deportations of Slavs, certain Slavs were exempted because they had Aryan characteristics, end of story.--R-41 (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, English Patriot Man added two reasonable reliable references to be considered. That is better.--R-41 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

May I ask... setting aside, interpretation, logic, analysis, etc... is there, or is there not a specific reference in which the Nazis explicitly said they regarded Slavs as Aryan or non-Aryan? BashBrannigan (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends what you mean. The terms "Aryan papers" and "Aryan districts" were used within Nazi legalese to refer to non-Jews in territories they controlled. if you had "Aryan papers" that meant you were designated as non-Jewish. There was a big underground market in them [5]. That included Slavs, most notably Poles [6] [7]. Nazi racial theorists sometimes used the term Aryan in its literal sense (ie Indo-European), which certainly included Slavs, since Slavic is an "Aryan" language. At other times this was mixed with ideas about racial degeneration etc etc which involved all sorts of convoluted pseudo-historical arguments. I know of no evidence that Nazis made any official declaration about the Aryanness of Slavs as a whole. That they considered them racially inferior to Germans there is, of course, no doubt. Unfortunately R-41 is so obsessed with telling us that most Nazis despised Slavs, which is not in dispute, that he seems to forget that we are on the Aryan race page, not the anti-Slavism page. Paul B (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I should add that it is certainly worth exploring this argument about the way that the racialising of the 'Aryan' concept led to anomalies such as this, which long predated the Nazis, as I said earlier (An article from 1910: "Except for the dispute as to whether the Slavs are Aryan or not, the only important non-Aryan component of our white population is Jewish."). Paul B (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat barely worth the discussion, as it is a stupid topic, but I agree with EPM's objections to the way the article is presented. Germany's "racial policy" was not static. Being a kind of schizophrenic party with , both, no policy and all policies, their racial ideology changed to meet their political aspirations. Firstly, German racialists, whose theories the Nazi's drew upon, viewed Slavs as Aryans. Moreover, they did not view "Slavs" as a discreet, homogeneous race. Eg already back then they saw the Serbs and Croats as "Dinaric", who they saw as the most intelligent and physically gifted race, after the Nordics. In fact, they favoured the Serbs over the Croats becuase, simply, the Serbs were more powerful and useful, and were initialy German allies. It is only after the popular revolt in Belgrade against German alliance did they begin to favour the Croats, and confabulated ideas of a Gothic origin, etc. Similarly with other Slavs. The German scientists could not escape the fact that Czechs had all the 'hallmarks' of Aryan peoples barely distinguishable from Germans. They hated the Russians the most, mostly becuase of their links to Communism, Zionism and the obvious 'otherness' (orientalism) of their country. The political context has to be elaborated upon. Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Slavs and the master race

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)

Hindu nationalism

I think the Wikipedia article on Hindu nationalism (en.wiki.x.io/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)

Non-Nordic Germans

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)

Slight change of words as people may misinterpreted the words Aryan and master race as the same

"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)

Ah, it's our old friend English Patriot Man. I agree with the central point that Slavs were legally 'Aryan', but Aryan was not a clearly defined concept. Paul B (talk) 17:52, 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)

Page contrived towards Nordic hypothesis, Why?

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)

And why would anyone make anything meaningful out of this drivel? Paul B (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Just another sock. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Poles manual laborers untermenschen

What does this have to do with the Aryan race?

Please explain MyMoloboaccount.--Windows66 (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2014

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)

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 06:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Aryanism and Nazism

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)

This appears in Longerich 2010, on page 30. The part that needs a citation is the final sentence of the paragraph. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. I don't know if the editor on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience will be impressed. Myrvin (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"Indigenous Aryans"

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2015

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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:16, 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)

I'm afraid your comments are too confusing to respond to meaningfully. Paul B (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Relation to Proto-Indo-Europeans

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)

Race is not connected with language, so there can not be Indo-European race. Cathry (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you replied if you didn't understand my post... Harl says "Aryans" was an old-timey term for Proto-Indo-Europeans. A real, historical people of the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, and by extension those peoples who were considered descended from the Proto-Indo-Europeans after the Indo-European migrations. He says the term was introduced by some British anthropologist working in India in the 1800s, that he used a Sanskrit term because Sanskrit is the oldest known Indo-European language, etc.. -- Director (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There is article Aryan. Cathry (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My point is that we ought to clarify that the term "Aryan race" was used pre-WWII to refer to "Indo-Europeans". -- Director (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

it is already clarified here Cathry (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Also it was never primarily used in that sense. It was used generally specifically about the European branch of the indo-european languages and the family was also called indo-aryan. But the racial sense first introduced by Gobineau was entirely unrelated to language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan refers to a subgroup of the IE languages. I think the problem here is the opening sentence, which asserts that Aryan was essentially a synonym for "European", which is rather misleading. Paul B (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You are of course right. I thought Schleicher used indo-aryan to mean the entire family. But of course it was only the indic languages he was referring to - then the racial sense was always entirely disconnected from the language family sense since Gobineau referred principally to Europeans.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup. From what I gathered there were no such distinctions at that time with regard to this term. It simply referred to the language, the group who spoke the language, and the peoples (thought to have) descended from them in some degree (Celts, Slavs, Germanics, Greeks, Albanians, Hittites, Persians, Medes, etc., etc.). Harl mentions Sir William Jones as the person who established the term in that sense (with a mind to the concept that Indo-European groups, "Aryans", invaded/conquered the Indus Valley at around 1500 BC, established themselves as the ruling caste, and thereby introduced their language to the subcontinent).

Not to ramble, "Aryans" or "Aryan race" seem to have been the established scientific terms for the Proto-Indo-Europeans of the Pontic-Caspian Steppes, and their perceived descendant peoples (their language of course therefore being the "Aryan" language). And that this was introduced by Sir William Jones. It may be necessary to clarify that, is my point. Does this chime with anyone else's research?

With regard to the Nazis and their ilk, their ideas of superiority revolved not so much on whether someone was an "Aryan" as such, but around whether he was a "pure" Aryan. The idea was that the "Nordic race" subgroup was a sample of "pure" Indo-European genetic stock, by virtue of being far removed from other groups (in Scandinavia essentially), and hence somehow constituting the "master race". That's when they weren't talking about Atlantis or whatnot.. -- Director (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to any reliable sources here? Do you have citations for those? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I got this from a lecture by Harl (on Eurasian steppe civilizations), and was just surprised that it wasn't mentioned here on Wiki. I'm not insisting on any changes, I'm merely asking.. For all I know Harl may be talking out of his backside. -- Director (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Aryans and their origin

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)

Why has the useage been abandoned?

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)

At one point scholars thought that Sanskrit and Avestan were the mothertongues from which all the other IE languages sprung and since they called them selves Arya people thought that was a good term for the entire family - realizing that Sanskrit and Avestan were simply one branch and did not represent the mothertongue more than any other language group that idea made less sense. And simultaneously the term had been rendered useless through its use by the Nazi ideology which had taken over most of the connotations of the term. Post-1945 it sounded very different to say that X group is aryan and Y group is not than it did in the 1920s.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2016

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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The statement in question is properly sourced (see WP:TRUTH). The source you provide is a primary source of quotes attributed to Hitler. Secondary sources are preferred and any changes made due to conflicting sources would need to be discussed and a consensus reached. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

On the removal of a potentially propagandistic sentence. (Edit request)

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)

Possible misunderstanding about the views of the Nazis

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)

I would also like to point out that the first source in this article actually states that Aryan were a term used for nordic people. Merriam webster dictonary states that Aryan were a term used for indo-europeans, the hypotetically people in question in india who spoke an indo-european language, nordic people/race, in the case of the nazis, caucasians with nordic characteristics and indo-iranians. Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Aryan

This makes in probable that the term was used for different thing in different circles. But the people who inspired Hitler did use the term for nordic. Look up Chamberland, who he writes about in mein kampf. Hitler do also state that Aryan had become a synonym for indo-German in his book. 37.253.213.243 (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Aryanism in Iran

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)

Aryans from where

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)

"Aryan" here means "Indo-European". You mean "Indo-Aryan". The confusion is understandable, because ideology has messed up the terminology beyond redemption. The "Indo-" is tagged on both for disambiguation from Iranian, and from "Aryan"-used-for-Indo-European. The article you are looking for is Indo-Aryans, and specifically Indo-Aryan migration theory. --dab (𒁳) 09:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Aryan here does not mean "indo-European" which is an ethno-linguistic category, but refers to an outdated racial category in physical anthropology (that was never very well defined to begin with). But yes it does seem that the ip poster means to refer to the proto-indo-aryan/proto-Indic speech community.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"Race" lexeme

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

" Even Max Mueller, a linguist who wrote in 1888 that 'an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar,' was on occasion guilty of using the term 'Aryan race.'"

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)

He was guilty of violating his own advice on correct usage, which is what the sentence points out. he wanted to reserve the term Aryan for a linguistic category, but he had of course already been beaten to the racial usage by Arthur de Gobineau whose ideas were not formulated in some kind of naive innocence in a world where racial categories were neutral facts.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)