Hunter Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 The word "Aryan" is coming up frequently in my reading of vintage books. These books are pre-Hitler, and whatever he did with the word. Can anyone link me to some information about what authors meant when they used this word before 1910 in particular, and I guess also into 1922 or whatever year the public domain books end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Hitler didn't exist in a vacuum. His ideas were not entirely unique. The idea that europeans were inherently superior was pretty widely accepted well into the 20th c I think... Yeah, but the Aryans were a group that invaded northern India in sometime BC - so a loong time ago. They came from central Asia, as did the Indo-Europeans that invaded Europe - but they Aryans went to India. They wrote the Vedas, which led to Hinduism (The Vedas are still holy texts for the Hindus, but the religion practiced by the people that wrote them was quite different from modern Hinduism (like there was a bunch of stuff having to do with horses that's long gone). As that article points out, it's even from a Sanskrit word. So, the Aryans were Indian, not European. And well, Indians sure aren't blonde and blue-eyed (although the original Aryans way back were lighter - that's part of the origin of the caste system - the lighter Aryan invaders on top, and the darker people they conquered below them). It's nuts somehow that that term got co-opted to mean something so entirely different Sounds like they started using the term as a synonym for Indo-European or Caucasian, both of which refer to the group that migrated out of central Asia way back when. But then they forgot that the migration went in both directions and actually none of the terms really mean "someone with white skin". Sounds from that Wikipedia article that some of the folks in the 18th and 19th centuries came up with some pretty weird stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommymilkies Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Yeah, but the Aryans were a group that invaded northern India in sometime BC - so a loong time ago. They came from central Asia, as did the Indo-Europeans that invaded Europe - but they Aryans went to India. They wrote the Vedas, which led to Hinduism (The Vedas are still holy texts for the Hindus, but the religion practiced by the people that wrote them was quite different from modern Hinduism (like there was a bunch of stuff having to do with horses that's long gone). As that article points out, it's even from a Sanskrit word. So, the Aryans were Indian, not European. And well, Indians sure aren't blonde and blue-eyed (although the original Aryans way back were lighter - that's part of the origin of the caste system - the lighter Aryan invaders on top, and the darker people they conquered below them). It's nuts somehow that that term got co-opted to mean something so entirely different Sounds like they started using the term as a synonym for Indo-European or Caucasian, both of which refer to the group that migrated out of central Asia way back when. But then they forgot that the migration went in both directions and actually none of the terms really mean "someone with white skin". Sounds from that Wikipedia article that some of the folks in the 18th and 19th centuries came up with some pretty weird stuff. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 I saw the wikipedia article, but wikipedia is not known for it's accuracy. I just want more information before I start making any judgements. I know I don't know enough about the earlier uses of this word to have any opinions, yet. I know this is NOW an emotionally charged word. It gives me a knee jerk reaction. I grew up reading WW2 biographies and learned to hate this word. I want to stop and LISTEN to any information about it's ORIGIN and EARLIER use. Usually I don't care what people do in threads that I start. The threads are usually not for me, but started for group benefit. But right now, I am tired, thin skinned, and very very busy. And I have a question that I really need to learn more about, before I can move on with some work I'm doing. So, can we keep this thread productive, at least until I get the information I'm seeking. And if you do have to attack someone, yes, attack me, rather than each other. Somehow I seem to feel more confident about how I'm supposed to respond to that. I feel like I know the answer key for that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoo Keeper Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Hunter, the use of the term Aryan is one reason why I felt I couldn't use the original Child's History of the World ( by Hillyer, I use an updated version); in today's society, it is waaaay too loaded. Just too much grief and hate attached to that word. I know that pre-WWII it was not so loaded, but it was laying the groundwork for the idea of an elite "white" society that was genetically better than the "darker" people. It had strong ties to the eugenics movement that was very popular among the intelligentsia in many countries, not just Germany. If you research the Eugenics movement, that word will pop up. Hltler just took the use and application of the word to a whole new level. No way I would use a text for younger children with that word, without instructing parents to edit it out, and tell them WHY. The whole paragraph may need editing, not just remove the word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 Years ago I was told to start all research projects with the Columbia Encyclopedia. http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/society/aryan.html Aryan (ârˈēən) [key], [sanskrit, = noble], term formerly used to designate the Indo-European race or language family or its Indo-Iranian subgroup. Originally a group of nomadic tribes, the Aryans were part of a great migratory movement that spread in successive waves from S Russia and Turkistan during the 2d millennium B.C. Throughout Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, literate urban centers fell to their warrior bands. Archaeological evidence corroborates the text of the Veda by placing the invasion of India by the Aryans at c.1500 B.C. They colonized the Punjab region of NW India and absorbed much of the indigenous culture. The resulting Indo-Aryan period saw the flourishing of a pastoral-agricultural economy that utilized bronze objects and horse-drawn chariots. Before the discovery of the Indus valley sites in the 1920s, Hindu culture had been attributed solely to the Aryan invaders. The idealization of conquest pictured in the Vedic hymns was incorporated into Nazi racist literature, in which German descent was supposedly traced back to Aryan forebears. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 Not sure what the bit about attacking people above refers to. Am I missing something here? No one has attacked anyone in this thread. Yet. This is a volatile subject. I'm a bit nervous about starting this thread. I really need more information though, and don't know anywhere else to ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 Hunter, the use of the term Aryan is one reason why I felt I couldn't use the original Child's History of the World ( by Hillyer, I use an updated version); in today's society, it is waaaay too loaded. Just too much grief and hate attached to that word. I know that pre-WWII it was not so loaded, but it was laying the groundwork for the idea of an elite "white" society that was genetically better than the "darker" people. It had strong ties to the eugenics movement that was very popular among the intelligentsia in many countries, not just Germany. If you research the Eugenics movement, that word will pop up. Hltler just took the use and application of the word to a whole new level. No way I would use a text for younger children with that word, without instructing parents to edit it out, and tell them WHY. The whole paragraph may need editing, not just remove the word. This is a loaded word. Before I skip an entire 8 year curriculum that I found last night, over nothing but this word, I just really need to know more about this word. What I want to do is just curl up in a ball and cry. I hate meanness and lies and ideas of superiority, but they seem to be present in all histories, past and present. I feel a responsibility to let this author I'm reading state his case in context of his time, and once i understand that, take the next step of seeing whether his books or any books using the term can be used with modern children. I've seen the term used in other books, too. Like you said, in Hillyer. I need to educate myself on this word, no matter what I do with the information later. It's just too common of a word, to remain uneducated or miseducated about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 Also useful https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Aryan_race.html This is just a copy and paste of wiki, right? I really need the most reputable sources possible, right now. This word–it's a HARD word for me to deal with. I don't like it. Others don't like it. "Facts" are always debatable, but I want to do the best I can with this, and I need sources that people trust. Thank you SO much for the link. I do appreciate it, but wiki and copy and pastes of wiki are not considered citable sources by historians and academia, are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/37468/Aryan Aryan, former name given to a people who were said to speak an archaic Indo-European language and who were thought to have settled in prehistoric times in ancient Iran and the northern Indian subcontinent. The theory of an “Aryan race†appeared in the mid-19th century and remained prevalent until the mid-20th century. According to the hypothesis, these probably light-skinned Aryans were the group who invaded and conquered ancient India from the north and whose literature, religion, and modes of social organization subsequently shaped the course of Indian culture, particularly the Vedic religion that informed and was eventually superseded by Hinduism. However, since the late 20th century, a growing number of scholars have rejected both the Aryan invasion hypothesis and the use of the term Aryan as a racial designation, suggesting that the Sanskrit term arya (“noble†or “distinguishedâ€), the linguistic root of the word, was actually a social rather than an ethnic epithet. Rather, the term is used strictly in a linguistic sense, in recognition of the influence that the language of the ancient northern migrants had on the development of the Indo-European languages of South Asia. In the 19th century the term was used as a synonym for “Indo-European†and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages. It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages, a branch of the larger Indo-European language family. In Europe the notion of white racial superiority emerged in the 1850s, propagated most assiduously by the comte de Gobineau and later by his disciple Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who first used the term “Aryan†for the white race. Members of this so-called race spoke Indo-European languages, were credited with all the progress that benefited humanity, and were purported to be superior to “Semites,†“yellows,†and “blacks.†Believers in Aryanism came to regard the Nordic and Germanic peoples as the purest members of the “race.†This notion, which had been repudiated by anthropologists by the second quarter of the 20th century, was seized upon by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and was made the basis of the German government policy of exterminating Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and other “non-Aryans.†In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, many white supremacist groups adopted the name Aryan as a label for their ideology. Because of this usage and its association with Nazism, the term has acquired a pejorative meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoo Keeper Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Hunter, I think your approach is reasonable, and I commend you for taking the time to try to educate yourself before making a judgment call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandra Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Hunter, you have probably thought of this already, but another thing to consider is the impact of the eugenics movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I saw the wikipedia article, but wikipedia is not known for it's accuracy. I think distrust of wikipedia is outdated. It reminds me of the old 'don't talk to strangers on the internet & you can't trust anything anyone says online' stuff from 10+ yrs ago. Here is one recent study for ex. Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Wikipedia: A Comparison with Standard Textbooks of Pharmacology "Quantitative analysis revealed that accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia was 99.7%±0.2% when compared to the textbook data." http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0106930 Trust and verify seems like a good approach to this & any other resource. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 Hunter, you have probably thought of this already, but another thing to consider is the impact of the eugenics movement. I am considering everything. I am moving outside the educational community, and am now having meetings with multiple human rights workers to get their perspective on the project I am working on. I believe that no matter what, I can create something that is an improvement on what is already available as an entirely free public domain options. That keeps me moving forward. I have had to stand in the gap since I was a toddler to protect and care for people weaker than me. I didn't do a great job by adult standards but I reduced the pain of those depending on me. I didn't support the head of the baby and I overfed her, but she knew she was loved and safe. I did my best. When she was little she loved me. Now all she sees is what I didn't do "right". I'm still glad I did what I did. I have taken the heat for my substandard attempts to stand in the gap many times. I know I will take the heat for this, too. I'm willing to accept this role. I'm going to do the best that is POSSIBLE. My whole life I have used the scraps in my current environment, to do the POSSIBLE. The POSSIBLE is not always pretty. Triage is ugly, but triage reduces pain and waste as a whole. I am scheduling more meetings. I can't really talk about that yet. I am doing everything that CAN be done, that I know to do. I'm beginning to seek out the advice of some big people with perspectives larger than the educational community. I don't like the phrase about teachers being those that cannot do the real job, but I'm taking this where the real experts on the subject are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 I think distrust of wikipedia is outdated. It reminds me of the old 'don't talk to strangers on the internet & you can't trust anything anyone says online' stuff from 10+ yrs ago. Here is one recent study for ex. Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Wikipedia: A Comparison with Standard Textbooks of Pharmacology "Quantitative analysis revealed that accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia was 99.7%±0.2% when compared to the textbook data." http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0106930 Trust and verify seems like a good approach to this & any other resource. I do not have the option of quoting wikipedia with something this controversial and volatile. I need my sources to stand up to critique. I was hoping someone here could link me to some sources that will be better accepted. I'd like to go beyond hardcopy encyclopedias and read some books. I am no expert on research, but I have been taught to start with hardcopies of the Columbia and Britannica, but that it's necessary to move beyond that to books, person interviews, and other hardcopy sources. Online sources can be used, but there is certain criteria for that. I do not believe that wikipedia is an appropriate source for information on THIS topic and for the audience that will be reading about it in the publication that I am currently writing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Ah, I see what you're saying. I think you might be looking for something more like this then? A 1970 article discussion how these ideas were perceived in mid 19th c.http://ier.sagepub.com/content/7/2/271.extract I think I might have access to that journal if you need it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 Ah, I see what you're saying. I think you might be looking for something more like this then? A 1970 article discussion how these ideas were perceived in mid 19th c. http://ier.sagepub.com/content/7/2/271.extract I think I might have access to that journal if you need it... Thank you!!!! I'll see if I can get access to that through my library. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizItaly Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Just another tidbit on this subject: modern-day Iranians still refer to themselves as "Aryans", but have no racist intentions by their use of the term. They consider it their historical ethnicity. "Arya" is a very common Iranian name for boys. I am Jewish and have never been offended by their use of the term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Just another tidbit on this subject: modern-day Iranians still refer to themselves as "Aryans", but have no racist intentions by their use of the term. They consider it their historical ethnicity. "Arya" is a very common Iranian name for boys. I am Jewish and have never been offended by their use of the term. And there's the huge irony with this term. The Aryans, as used historically (like waaay before the 1800s) are a people from Central Asia, and probably looked a lot like the modern Iranians. And not like Nordic people (which is how Hitler described the Aryans as supposedly looking). As the Wiki page also points out, Hitler tried to differentiate the Jews from "Aryans" as being "Near Eastern". And wait, the Iranians are not in the Near East? Whaaaat??? The 18th/19th century Europeans that came up with this shift in usage really were a bit nuts. The Wiki also notes that some of them postulated that the "Aryan race" came from Atlantis. Um, ok. (And this is a problem with using history books from back then. In some huge fundamental ways, much of their thinking was just... wrong). I noticed in a PP that someone said that 18th century European philologists tried to trace the word's etymology to the German 'Ehre' (honor) - which is not true, but I bet $$$ is indeed related to the actual root, the Sanskrit word 'arya' (noble, distinguished), as they are both... drum roll... Indo-European languages. These kinds of links are part of how they figured out the ancient Central Asian east/west migrations in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Wikipedia is not more or less reliable than any other encyclopaedia. I was told that by one of my professors who wrote encyclopaedias. SWB uses the term in HoAW. It wouldn't have occurred to me to think that term any more volatile or inappropriate than Babylonian or Assyrian if we're talking about ancient history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 Thats what my high schooler taught me about wiki- go to wiki and use the referenced materials rather than using wiki. :D Sometimes, this is what I do. I don't feel like I have that option this time. I do not like this word! There are others who don't like this word. I'm using an overabundance of caution. I'm following a rigid protocol that I was taught, for doing research of hot topics. I really thought there were going to be people that had already done some research on this topic. I assumed people were going to suggest an even a more rigorous protocol for research for this topic. I really thought I was going to be overwhelmed with rigidness, rather than linked to wikipedia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 And there's the huge irony with this term. The Aryans, as used historically (like waaay before the 1800s) are a people from Central Asia, and probably looked a lot like the modern Iranians. And not like Nordic people (which is how Hitler described the Aryans as supposedly looking). As the Wiki page also points out, Hitler tried to differentiate the Jews from "Aryans" as being "Near Eastern". And wait, the Iranians are not in the Near East? Whaaaat??? The 18th/19th century Europeans that came up with this shift in usage really were a bit nuts. The Wiki also notes that some of them postulated that the "Aryan race" came from Atlantis. Um, ok. (And this is a problem with using history books from back then. In some huge fundamental ways, much of their thinking was just... wrong). I noticed in a PP that someone said that 18th century European philologists tried to trace the word's etymology to the German 'Ehre' (honor) - which is not true, but I bet $$$ is indeed related to the actual root, the Sanskrit word 'arya' (noble, distinguished), as they are both... drum roll... Indo-European languages. These kinds of links are part of how they figured out the ancient Central Asian east/west migrations in the first place. Actually, I think what the philologists were saying was that both words came from the same Indo-European root. Aryan was long used as synonym for Indo-European. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoo Keeper Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 SWB uses the term in HoAW. It wouldn't have occurred to me to think that term any more volatile or inappropriate than Babylonian or Assyrian if we're talking about ancient history. I agree, if you are talking in ancient history terms, Aryan is just those Indus Valley folks...BUT unfortunately, the term just didn't stay there...I wish it had, and not morphed into something so hurtful for so many people. :( I do realize that not ALL usages of Aryan carry that negative baggage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Honestly, Hunter, the problem I would have with an old history text that used a word like Aryan is not the word itself, but that the term was being grossly misused, and that this misuse is a symptom of an extremely Eurocentric view, rife with a huge superiority complex. This was also the time of imperialism. The Europeans were going out of their way to excuse their subjugation of the 'lesser' races all over the world. The texts of that period are not balanced in any, way, shape or form. Every culture writes its own story, and likes to make itself the hero of the story. In your other thread, someone mentioned moving during their childhood and learning about the Civil War in Texas and also somewhere like Minnesota. And when going to one place to the other, the heroes became the villains of the story, and vice versa. And that's in the same country, and the same time! The 'problem' you had with the Wampanoags is that they were telling their story. Which has been rather badly mistold by the other side for ages. They are now telling their side, and making some of the same bias errors. Those were not unbiased scholars, they were telling their side of the story, from their point of view, and making themselves the heroes (correcting many errors of bias in the old story, and making some new ones of their own, although I bet on balance they corrected more than they created). You were in Plymouth after all, that is ground zero for the European conquest of North America. I think the reason people are confused about what your talking about is that no one else has the original tribe that met the Pilgrims living in their town. I live only about 1.5 hours from Plymouth, and the Wampanoag aren't hauling it up here to tell their story. I think what you experienced is pretty unique to Plymouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted November 1, 2014 Author Share Posted November 1, 2014 I know it spread further than Plymouth, because we lived further north for awhile, and I worked in the public schools in a different town than my boys went to school in. So I personally dealt with 3 towns and talked to people in multiple other towns, 2 of which I had nephews attending. I started this thread a lot more general than the Wampanoag. I used that as ONE example, because I and others were being treated like we were making things up, and I was asked for an example. I could say more about the Wampanoag, but really, I'm bored with talking about them. I started this thread asking about chronological snobbery, even though I didn't know the name of what I was asking about.I don't have time or interest to tell my life story, but I have been schooled overseas as well as in the USA. I hold citizenship in 3 countries and since leaving Plymouth, I have lived in major Northeastern cities. I know all about conflicting accounts of history and am not judging all areas of the USA and the WORLD by what happens in little Plymouth. That was ONE example.The point of this thread was disregarding such a large body of literature, and I was asking if that had ever been done before, by anyone other than a culture that is now talked negatively about. EDIT: OOPS, this is the Arayan thread not the chronological snobbery thread. Sorry for getting them mixed up. I didn't realize what thread I was in when I was responding to information mentioned from that thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 I can look up the bibliography in HoAW later, if that'll help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 the Wampanoag. I used that as ONE example, because I and others were being treated like we were making things up, and I was asked for an example. I could say more about the Wampanoag, but really, I'm bored with talking about them. I started this thread asking about chronological snobbery, even though I didn't know the name of what I was asking about. I know it was just an example. :) My point is that a good history text is not just one group telling their side of the story, making themselves the good guys and the other side the bad guys. That's what the old texts pretty much all do. That's what the Wampanoag are doing - and I think that's why you're having such a negative reaction. But that doesn't make those old Europeans über alles texts any better or more accurate than they were before... A good history text tries its best to come from a detached position, and does not make heroes or villains of either side, but tries to hew as close to the facts as they can. There will always be some bias, of course. The thing is, the old texts weren't even trying not to have bias, they were actively writing hero-making stories, and the heroes were always from one culture. And sorry I've conflated your two threads. :) I've been reading them both, and the topics merged in my head... I did start out my pp talking about Aryans, but then I continued on... ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/37468/Aryan Aryan, former name given to a people who were said to speak an archaic Indo-European language and who were thought to have settled in prehistoric times in ancient Iran and the northern Indian subcontinent. The theory of an “Aryan race†appeared in the mid-19th century and remained prevalent until the mid-20th century. According to the hypothesis, these probably light-skinned Aryans were the group who invaded and conquered ancient India from the north and whose literature, religion, and modes of social organization subsequently shaped the course of Indian culture, particularly the Vedic religion that informed and was eventually superseded by Hinduism. However, since the late 20th century, a growing number of scholars have rejected both the Aryan invasion hypothesis and the use of the term Aryan as a racial designation, suggesting that the Sanskrit term arya (“noble†or “distinguishedâ€), the linguistic root of the word, was actually a social rather than an ethnic epithet. Rather, the term is used strictly in a linguistic sense, in recognition of the influence that the language of the ancient northern migrants had on the development of the Indo-European languages of South Asia. In the 19th century the term was used as a synonym for “Indo-European†and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages. It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages, a branch of the larger Indo-European language family. In Europe the notion of white racial superiority emerged in the 1850s, propagated most assiduously by the comte de Gobineau and later by his disciple Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who first used the term “Aryan†for the white race. Members of this so-called race spoke Indo-European languages, were credited with all the progress that benefited humanity, and were purported to be superior to “Semites,†“yellows,†and “blacks.†Believers in Aryanism came to regard the Nordic and Germanic peoples as the purest members of the “race.†This notion, which had been repudiated by anthropologists by the second quarter of the 20th century, was seized upon by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and was made the basis of the German government policy of exterminating Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and other “non-Aryans.†In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, many white supremacist groups adopted the name Aryan as a label for their ideology. Because of this usage and its association with Nazism, the term has acquired a pejorative meaning. This to me seems like an excellent explanation of "Aryan.". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Hunter, I am so sorry if I said anything to offend; I was just surprised because my personal experience has been so different. Will edit my post in the other thread to reflect that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted November 1, 2014 Author Share Posted November 1, 2014 Hunter, I am so sorry if I said anything to offend; I was just surprised because my personal experience has been so different. Will edit my post in the other thread to reflect that. I remember nothing that offended me from you. But there are so many posts, I'm a bit lost by this point. I've had some more phonecalls/meetings and more are scheduled. I think I pretty know where I stand at this point, already, though. I don't have time yet to share as I'm trying to install a new OS on my laptop. :) I'll be back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.