From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon race.svg

This Racialism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


First attempt[edit]

This is just a first attempt at starting to refute the pseudo-history used by racists. More such things will come if this is ok. Researcher 21:27, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Fine with me. Aren't the Persians Aryan, too? humanUser talk:Human 21:30, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
You know, I don't rightly know. I know they're Indo-European, but that's not actually the same thing. From what I know, the actual word Aryan is only ever found (prior to the 20th century) in the Vedas, but I could be wrong about that. Researcher 21:32, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
Northern Europeans are Aryan, too. These Things 18:18, 15 December 2007 (EST)
No, they're not. Aryans are the Vedic people who settled in India (some say invaded, but current scholarship suggests it was more of a slow settling and intermixing). Any other use of the term is a modern mis-application. Researcher 22:27, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Aryan and Indo-European mean the same thing, it's an ethnic group, it's not by chance the languages form a family of languages, it's obvious that europeans are Indo-Europeans, read my text below to see the scientific proofs, not that I think you will care about scientific proofs with an article like this Lalumierebleue (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


This article is racist against blue-eyed blondes. Gumtrees 21:48, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Please, list for me the exact statements that are racist against blue-eyed blondes? Because, 1) there is no single race of "blue eyed blondes," and 2) this article does not deal with blue-eyed blondes in any way, shape, or form. So, please, tell me what you mean. Researcher 21:42, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
You know, I'm a brown-eyed brunette, and I think this article is racist against brown-eyed brunettes because it doesn't mention the vast cultural contributions of brown-eyed brunettes. --My cat is smarter than Andrew Schafly RA harass stalk 16:17, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Actually, most Aryans are brown-eyed brunettes (well, more like black hair than brown, but you get my point). As another brown-eyed brunette, I understand. Researcher 16:20, 19 December 2007 (EST)
I'm a blue-eyed blond, and I approve of this article. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:19, 22 April 2009 (EDT)


"In conclusion, Hitler was a moron, Jesus was a Jew,[4] and unless you are Indian or Iranian, quit calling yourself Aryan!" This is absolutely idiotic. Whoever wrote this is obviously not familiar with the _original_ aryan theory, or the genetics of aryanism. It shows a simplistic understanding (read: ignorance) of very complex subject matter.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Did you _just_ break your fingers or something? Fix it or stop bitching... Neveruse513 16:38, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
Yes. Please "fix" the article. Majintahu (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The other BoN has a point, actually. Few people still understand the whole Aryan/Indo-European business anymore, and sadly some Neo-Nazis still know it better than almost everyone else, also because they are just about the only ones who still care, or dare state the conclusions from the available evidence – all based on known research – openly. Funny enough, the conclusion that both the Aryans (Indo-Iranians) in the Bronze Age and the Proto-Indo-Europeans from whom they were descended were likely fair-haired and fair-eyed (blond/reddish hair, and blue/green eyes) was made long before the Nazis, from descriptions and depictions of ancient people, as well as modern isolated mountain tribes, and is actually supported by modern discoveries (Tarim mummies, Pazyryk mummies, ancient DNA research). 19th century scholars – and even the Nazis, for all of their ideological blinders and conspiracy theories – still had a better understanding than many modern scholars that linguistic and biological ancestors are not the same and just because some ethnic group looks (and genetically is) more Mediterranean or South Asian or whatever says nothing about their linguistic ancestors. That the Nazis did not accept the Indians or gypsies as Aryan was because they considered them too mixed (with pre-Aryan inhabitants of the subcontinent). Think of Latin America as analogy if it helps. India is really mixed, while there must obviously have been foreign, non-Indo-European admixture in Northern Europe, too, the admixture was much slighter because the density of the original population was much lower. The gene pool is very small in parts of Northern Europe. (Presumably, the Nazis accepted Finns and Estonians as Aryan because of their looks, despite their languages – although admittedly, they didn't always have good reasons for not accepting – blond, blue-eyed Slavs or Jews? – or accepting – Japanese?! – people as Aryan.)
That hordes (or at least small tribes/troops) of blond, blue-eyed barbarians (cattle-raising horse-nomads) slowly spread out of the steppes of Bronze Age Ukraine/South Russia and conquered the surrounding areas due to their superior technology (not genetics or intelligence, though), spreading their language in the process (though mixing with the natives everywhere), with their daughter groups spreading even farther until half the planet speaks descendants of their language, is pretty much certain, even if many details will always remain unclear. It's an amazing fact of prehistory though; check "The Horse, the Wheel and Language" by David W. Anthony for the archaeology, "Indo-European Origins: The Anthropological Evidence" by John V. Day for genetics, Don Ringe's series of postings on Language Log for linguistic arguments and Jaakko Häkkinen, who BTW still uses "Aryan" for "Indo-Iranian" (which is more correct than using it for "Indo-European", which ironically Renfrew still did initially), for the important Uralic side.
Just because you accept the Kurgan theory and think that the original Indo-Europeans were (relatively) tall, blond and blue-eyed and that they were nomads with horses/horse-carts (and later, with the Aryans, proper chariots – the tanks of antiquity) and that Northern Europeans have more Indo-European heritage biologically than Indians does not make you a Neo-Nazi. There's a lot of reasons to think that just is the real story, even if it may make PC fans' heads explode to even consider it as a serious possibility – rather than the premise of a Conan-type fantasy world (Robert E. Howard at least was still familiar with ancient history). It's as credible as any reconstruction of prehistoric matters can possibly be. But unless you believe that the Indo-Europeans are a super-human master-race (possibly descended from "Nordic Aliens", although in that case purity should be guaranteed) pre-destined to rule the planet, not just a Bronze Age tribe that got lucky, you don't enter pseudoscientific or nationalist/racist territory at all; leave that to the Anatolia-peddlers à la Quentin Atkinson and the continuity theorists, not to mention nationalists of any affiliation, not the least Hindu. The blond Bronze Age barbarian conquest story as such is an entirely serious and sound hypothesis (or even theory/model), it's just that it has been distorted and spun for ideological purposes, like other hypotheses and insights.
(Fun fact: The use of "Aryan" to mean not only "Indo-Iranian" but also "Indo-European" was due to assumed etymological links to German "Ehre", Irish "Éire", ancient Germanic/Celtic/Greek names in "Ario-", Ancient Greek "aristo-kratía" and the like, which are not accepted anymore - unlike the Iranian cognates "Iran" and "Alan(i)".) -- (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, first off, no one is a hundred percent sure where the blond, blue-eyed Europeans came from, but it seems likely they were already there and assimilated PIE-speakers (ethnically "Old European", to the extent that means anything) along with assuming their languages, then spread westward and northward. And yes, there is blonde hair here and there in Central Asia; that same intermixing may have spread east along with horse-riding PIE speakers. That's largely a genetic question. As for your etymologies, [citation needed] -- "Ireland" in particular is believed to trace back to something resembling *piweriu-, and for the most part, we have no reason to think, linguistic or otherwise, that the European PIE tribes retained the Aryan autonym. (One could argue, based on the widespread use of "Latin" to describe speakers of Romance languages of many ethnic backgrounds, that any IE speaker could qualify as Aryan, but the point is that by historical times, no one but the central Asian Indo-Aryan speakers did. Not even the Anatolians, who probably could have still had trade relationships with the western Iranians and did with the Greeks.) The only sensible answer to all this is to leave the Aryan name to the Indo-Iranian speakers who were the last in history to lay claim to the name before modern times, and use the modern terminology for everyone else. (Not to mention using PC as an argument says more about you than it does about anyone else. Also, "important Uralic side"? There isn't even a consensus on that connection. It seems likely, but it's a huge mistake to factor it in without more convincing evidence.) EVDebs (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Check w:Kurgan hypothesis#Genetics and w:Indo-Iranians#Genetics: the modern genetic evidence, which couldn't be known to the scholars of the late 19th and early 20th century, obviously, strongly indicates that their inference from various strands of evidence was correct. If you don't accept that as decisive support, I don't know what else could convince you. Just think about it: Both the Indo-Europeans and the Indo-Iranians originate from Eastern Europe according to our best supported available theory (the genetic evidence points to the same region as source of significant influx). What do modern Ukrainians and Russians look like? While fair hair and eyes have their highest concentration around the Baltic, they're common well further south, too. So it's only expected that the inhabitants of Bronze Age Eastern Europe were fair too. Especially given the lack of any indication that the genetic makeup of the region has ever radically changed. Like in any good theory, disparate evidence falls in place to form a more complete picture, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Also note that nobody said that the early Indo-Europeans were the only people in Europe who looked like that.
As for "Aryan", my point was exactly that: The self-designation "arya-" is only attested for the Indo-Iranian peoples, no other Indo-European peoples, and we have no real idea what the Proto-Indo-Europeans might have called themselves. (Chance is, simply "the real people" or something like that, because that's what many ethnic groups call themselves, in all their glorious ethnocentrism.) I explicitly said that the etymological connections I gave (such as Éire) are discredited now and that the use of "Aryan" to mean "Indo-European" is completely outdated. On the other hand, using "Aryan" to mean the same as expressed now more often by "Indo-Iranian" is fine, especially since it is more concise and technically correct ("Indo-Iranian" is a term that's a bit awkward, unfortunate, cumbersome and easily misunderstood, as your mix-up of "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-Aryan" demonstrates; also, "Iran" is etymologically identical to "Aryan", after all). You should really brush up on your terminology – reading Wikipedia does help you to get it right: "Indo-Aryan", like "Indic", refers to the Aryan languages of the Indian subcontinent (there are also plenty of non-Indo-European languages in South Asia), and "Indo-Iranian" encompasses Indic as well as Iranian. On Uralic, you may wish to check out p. 7–8: the importance of Uralic is proving that Indo-Iranian was spoken in Eastern Europe and Western Siberia, not further south, and Indo-Iranian is a central weakness of the Anatolian homeland hypothesis.
As for PC, don't be silly: I haven't used it as an argument at all. It's just that the notion of blond, blue-eyed horseback-riding (and later chariot-driving, Aryan-identifying) warriors in the Bronze Age steppes (who were technologically highly advanced compared to contemporary cultures – by 3500 BC, even the Egyptians had no writing and thus no civilisation in the strict sense yet! – they were emphatically not uncivilised barbarians, witness w:Merheleva Ridge, w:Kurgan stelae, w:List of largest cities throughout history; so in this light, the extraordinary influence of the Indo-Europeans on world history is less surprising, and there's no need to invoke some magic "inherent superiority" or higher intelligence, creativity or whatever) is so unpalatable to many that they assume automatically that everyone who entertains it is racist. Regardless of how well-supported by science this notion may be. Hell, even using the terms "Aryan" or "indogermanisch" and defending their use makes a lot of people assume you're a Nazi. Even when you haven't said anything about races or superiority or politics. (I've met people who thought the Tarim and Pazyryk mummies were crazy Neo-Nazi inventions because they just couldn't cope with the idea of "Nordics" existing in ancient East Asia! As if people were tied to their homeland back then – a quite condescending thought. Would have been funny if they had found swastikas tattooed on them, which is a very real possibility.)
That kind of paranoia, and the tendency towards fringe or outright pseudoscience (whenever it supports certain biases; for example, Afrocentrism), symbol/token politics, euphemisms and pointless doctoring with language, is why I'm not a fan of the whole PC thing. Perhaps I shouldn't call it "PC". Perhaps I should simply call it "stupid". Conservative correctness is equally stupid, granted. There are nuts who reflect badly on sane people with the same interests in every area. Even one and the same person can be a source of nuttery and good stuff: Although I acknowledge that her work on the Kurgan theory was solid, Marija Gimbutas was a pioneer of left-wing moonbattery otherwise. Makes you actually embarrassed to identify as leftist. More left-liberal in my case, however. I'm similarly divided on Chomsky, only in a different way: His application of generative syntax (which is fine for formal languages, I guess) on natural languages is pure bullshit, and his influence has set linguistics back a century, but I find myself agreeing with his political views quite a lot. But prehistorical facts and problems shouldn't be mixed with politics and ideology (see GeoCurrents). -- (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, light eyes are still relatively frequent in Iran, to say nothing of the small ethnic groups in Afghanistan such as the w:Kalash people and others – anyone remember w:Sharbat Gula? Googling pictures of Afghan girls is quite instructive. The ancient Persians called themselves arya- too, not only the Indo-Aryans, and the use of this designation in the form of ērān/īrān continued throughout Persian history. The decision to rename Persia as Iran was conceivably not only a conscious nod to this, and a gesture to appease non-Persian minorities (although the name still ignores the significant Turkic minorities), but also a signal to the Germans. I mention this specifically with regard to the comments at the beginning of the page. -- (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


I'm sorry for being annoying but your article is rather untrue, if you're trying to refute arguments from white supremacists you're not doing good job at it. You can do some research about the Aryans on the internet and you'll see that you're mistaken, but I'll save your time and explain myself why you're mistaken. Race is a rather ethereal subject regarding the human being, but the main point about the Aryans is the culture, actually the definition of ethnicity is, race (genealogy) + common culture (cultural heritage), covering the biological and socio-cultural factors of a given group respectively. The Aryans are a wide ethno-linguistic group whose culture originated in the russian asian pontic-caspian steppes around Kazakhstan and Ukraine, and then migrated to the west, migrated/invaded europe and the middle east and north india, they're the original carriers of the nordic traits, fair skin and eyes, and blond hair, a mutation due to lack of vitamin D and environmental adaptation (, that the neanderthals had suffered millennia before the homo sapiens. before the aryan invasion all peoples that lived in europe were from the mediterranen type, dark eyed, haired and skined like the (non-Aryan) peoples of middle east, because they migrated directly from southern lands in Eurasia to settle in Europe, while the Aryans spent thousand of years in a more cold weather region with less arrey of sun light, the main reason for that the persians and indians are darker than the europeans is because they intermarried the native populations, just like the celts who settled in iberia intermarried with the native iberian tribes and became the celtiberians, that's why they have dark eyes and hair and olive skin while the gaul celts are blondes. In northern India the Aryans created a system of castes, a political system in which they were always the high castes and the conquered native dravian tribes were always the low castes, thus keeping the political rule over them, that's why in India there's caucasoid and australoid poeple, the former are descendent from the vedas, the word aryan itself means noble/high is sanskrit, buddhism originated as a protest against this system of castes and preached that all men were equal and such, it originated near India and expanded to the near east (remember that the Buddha isn't a deity, he's a man that reached nirvana and is a role model for other buddhists, there was more than one Buddha) but everything in buddhism come from brahmanism, the religion of the Vedas (Aryans), the sanskrit language is the oldest know Indo-european language and alphabet, and influenced many languages in the east like the tibetan alphabet. The swastika is a symbol of good luck that means the sun, it's a symbol of the sun, and evolution, this conception of the evolution of spirit is present in all the Aryan cultures, the germanic, baltic and slavic peoples also have the swastika, the sun cross and the anglo-saxon fylfot, or the slavic Kolovrat for example:

The triskelion, very common among celtic peoples is also a form of swastika.

All european languages belong to the indo-european group, in other words, Aryan, unless basque which is a remainder of the pre-Aryan peoples that lived in Europe before the aryan invasion, basically the Aryans divided in two groups the Indo-Europeans whom are the european peoples and the Indo-Aryans who settled in the middle east, Persians, Vedas, and some middle eastern peoples such as the famous Kalash of Pakistan, the Hunza, the Nuristani of Kafiristan, the Kurds, Pashtuns... there are still a lot of blonde aryans in that region

These are some links that explain better about the Aryans

So white/european people may indeed call themselves Aryan. You can choose not to believe in this hypothesis of course, but all the scientific proofs point to it, and the kurgan hypothesis is widely accepted in the scientific sphere. Lalumierebleue (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, did you just use Stormfront to prove your point??? Are you fucking kidding me? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

My point is already proven. What's the matter with stormfront? did you actually click the link? the political views of a person don't change their ability to think, the posters provide sources of scientific researches, links to other sites which their argumentation is based on, the text is scientifically based not just the opinion of someone, I can't figure out if your comment is implying that my text is biased because one of the links if from stormfront but if it's so, then your comment was actually quite biased. Read the freaking text and you will se that what I wrote is true, the evidences are all here, scientific evidences, if you're trying to counterattack this argument bring another rational argument. Lalumierebleue (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Did the racist have a few valid points?[edit]

So, what the BoN said was clearly vandalism and very Natzi-ish but I'd like to put it here on the talk page so we can look at it for anything we might want to add to the article. I'm no expert of course but I took an interest in the history of the western steppes a year or so ago and I think SOME of what the racist said might have historical merit. Maybe it isn't relevant to the article though.

"You liberals, are morons, not Hitler. You think you're very intelligent, but in fact you're so blinded by multi cultural arrogance you cannot see the forest for the trees. Evidence the Aryans were in fact definitely, Nordic: The closest still existent people to the ancient Indian branch of the Aryan, is the Red Kaffirs or Nuristanis still living in extreme isolation in Afghanistan, They are the people who Rudyard Kipling wrote the poem, "man who would be King", about, the obviously white men, living in Afghanistan, go ahead and do a Google image search, or talk to a us soldier stationed in Nuristan during the Afghan war. They almost universally have fair skin, and blue eyes, as well as blondism rates, higher then modern swedes. Their cousins on the Pakistan side of the border, the kalesh, share the physical traits, but differ by maintaining an actual Aryan religion, prior-to-mixture with native dravidian culture like their southern cousins resulting in Hinduism. Differences include fire worship, a chief sky God, like Dyeus Pater (Zeus Jupiter) and lacking in reincarnation. These people's features are so striking that they claim descent from Alexander the Great mimicking their Uzbek neighbors claims of genghis khan descent. additionally while having some genetic relationships with Pashtun,Iranians, and Northern Hindustanis, their closest genetic cousins are western Europeans and west Eurasians.Next the hindustanis themselves, genetic testing reveals, while there is little mitochondrial contribution to the Indian subcontinent. several hundred generations back there is a sizeable, patrilenial west European genetic influx, going along with a almost entirely male break off of the central Eurasian Aryan tribal Nation(Russia, northern Caucasus, black sea region) conquering the black skinned dravidians, enslaving the males, taking possession of the females and thus eventually losing physical characteristics separate from the conquered people. Whats most remarkable is it is only the highest castes who experienced this influx. the lower the caste, the less Eurasian genetic contribution, with the dravidian untouchables having little to nothing. next the indo Aryan cousins, the Tocharians, in the tarim basin,in China, bordering India,Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Tocharians are presented in Chinese artworks, as blond and red headed, even back as far as 7thcentury b.c. As well as the tarim basin tocharian mummies found in China, roughly 2,000 of them. All having Nordic features, and many, blond and red hair,what is also very striking is the presence of tartan kilts, unheard of outside of later Era Celtic populations, but these Tocharians are wearing tartan kilts, prior to the earliest known European populations, although easily explained by better preservation of the tocharian mummies, but always revealing the obvious similarities and extreme closeness culturally linguistically and physically by the world conquering Aryan traveller peoples. I expect when these fully truthful changes are noticed, instead of fact checking and realizing your arrogant stupidity and commitment to a nonsensical ideology of equality, which is contrary to the evidence of everything, everywhere of value, originating in some form or fashion with the white race. also finally accept, much like other tribal populations over the years, the modern white race originated as an extremely closenit group of tribes, who then spread out, conquered many different regions, bringing with them, their language,culture and religion. the native populations of Europe much like Etruscan,sami, or lamps, we're dark skinned, dark haired, the uniquely "European" features of blond hair and blue eyes, originate with the Eurasian Aryans, not the other way around. The reason these features stayed so strong in Nordic,Celtic and Slavic populations, but especially Nordic, is simply testament, to mostly pure, Aryan blood,the reason these traits have disappeared from other Aryan descended populations except for hold outs like the Nuristanis, is necessary mixture due to a complete lack of Aryan females,in the case of the indo Aryans. Eventually being subsumed into their clients like the Tocharians, conquest by dark skinned peoples in the case of the Afghans,Iranians, and Hittittes, and way too many non-white slaves being present in the case of the Spanish colonies, and to a lesser extent Southern Europe. Now go ahead and erase the truth you living liberals"

Most of the Aryans=Nordic stuff looks like crap to me. The part about some lighter skinned groups living in Afghanistan sounds plausible (them having lighter skin not nessisarily the claim about their descent). The bit about the genetics of modern Indians sounds about right (if rudely phrased) and even agrees to an extent with the Aryan article, but the comment about the lower castes being Dravidian seems wrong. I've never heard of the Tocharins (they might be real, idk) and the claims made about them sound farfetched. The last third I'll discard offhand. Maybe something should be added to the article about how the Aryans might have had lighter pigmentation? Sort of a stopped clock moment for Hitler perhaps (although I don't like saying hitler was right about anything)? Lighter pigmentation seems plausible based on the Aryans relation with the Alans, the Scythians, the Sarmatians, the Nuristani, ect. What do the rest of you think? SolPyre (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC) I would like to add that I don't think the lighter pigmentation of european peoples comes from the Aryans, I totally agree with the article about europeans being a very mixed genetic pot. SolPyre (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That should be TochariansWikipedia. And it's certainly true that the remains of ancient European-looking people (the Tarim mummiesWikipedia) have been found in China. Which goes to show that people have always travelled and mingled and none of us are really "pure". Spud (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Lots of Indian pagan propaganda[edit]

This article is loaded with disinformation coming from White supremacists and Indian pagans. The first sentence "The term Aryan comes from the Hindu Vedas" is a lie that Indian Pagans like to regurgitate to justify misappropriating the word. The self-designation predates the Rig Veda by a long shot. The second part of the first sentence "in which it describes the "noble one" and may in fact be a derivative of the name used by the Proto-Indo-Europeans for themselves" is a lie that White supremacists like to regurgitate to justify misappropriating the word. Early translators misunderstood what Aryan meant, they assumed it meant "noble" because of Aryan royal inscriptions. The Proto-Indo-European language is a (bad) theory, it's not an actual language, there is no evidence that it existed, the "reconstructed" words are mere guesses off of a guesswork method called comparative. Only a loony would say it's a fact that this self-designation is derived from the self-designation of speakers of an imaginary language. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

what on earth are you talking about? Ioe bidome (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Multiple independent lines of evidence all confirm the existence of both a Proto-Indo-European people and language. What alternative hypothesis can you propose to account for these independent lines of evidence in such a way that makes it more pleasing to Occam than, say, the hypothesis that a people who spoke a language ancestral to the Indo-European languages existed? Carthage (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
He also never exactly said where the term "aryan" came from if it somehow predates the Vedas yet Proto-Indo-European doesn't exist. Is the term a loanword? From where? Also, most linguists argue that this term and its use as a self-designation is exclusive to Indo-Iranian Ioe bidome (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
We don't really know what the PIE called themselves IIRC. Arya has a root in Proto-Indo-European, obviously, but semantic shift is a thing. Also, if "Aryan" is exclusively a Vedic phenomeon, then explain the literal name of the country Iran, which, you know, is literally cognate with/to "aryan". Carthage (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)