Origin of the Aryans
- Thread starter Vega
- Start date
Pakistan doesn't seem to be as well rid of it as would be desired - quite a bit of effort put into finding European scientific discoveries foreshadowed in the Quran, for example, or crediting them to dark-skinned Islamic people.Diamond said:
Light skin and blue eyes and so forth seem to have originated about where Darwinian theory provides likelihood - inland from the ocean's Vitamin D, north of the sun's winter reach, in regions of big game hunting by far-ranging groups of spear and arrow wielders. Calling them "Aryans" doesn't seem to add much in the way of understanding.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Go spam somewhere else white supremacist. If you don't have anything to bring to discussion, go do some research and come back.
As I stated earlier, red hair and light skin are supposed Aryan traits, I never stated anything about blue eyes, this is merely a European supremacist view, from Nazism. Light skin when compared to the people inhabiting southern and southwestern India (where we get the sources to support this theory), not necessarily light compared to Europe.
Furthermore, you define dark-skinned Islamic people as if being of dark skin is an illness. And furthermore most early Islamic people were Caucasian, Arabs, Western Turks, Iranians, Pakistanis, Central Asian, North African, Egyptians, and Afghanis. Dark color is a matter of perspective and is not as universal as Europeans seem to believe. For example most East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Mongolians) are of lighter complexion than even Northern Europeans. Europeans tend to be white of reddish complex, while the people of the Mediterranean and Southwestern Asia are of wheat or olive complexion. The original Israelites were also of wheat complexion and of all likelihood Jesus had curly black hair. Portrayal of Jesus as blond haired and blue-eyed is factually incorrect, as if related to European ideals rather than reality. Superiority of a supposed white or lighter race is a complete myth.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
You mistakenly refer to Aryans as white people, they never were. This is just Nazi propaganda. Aryans were Western Asians, the ancestors of Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghanis.
You seem to be deeply invested, personally, in the origins of red hair and light skin - which are closely associated with eye colors other than dark brown, btw, and have little to do with Aryans, whoever they were and regardless of what some doorknob supposes.diamond said:
Apparently the "complex" you refer to is indeed complex, is alive and well in Pakistan as well as the other areas, and has seriously oblivious representation on the internet.
kmguru
Staff member
That is more likely true. The white people became white by either surviving in a prolonged ice age in caves...or sponaneous genetic loss of melanin. The White Tigers are from the Himalayas...so genetic mutation could be a major factor.
In Sanskrit - Aryan means civilized ones could mean a river civilization rather than hunter-gatherers (like in permafrost area)
So much ignorance. You get white people in the North by living in the north, if you displace all of India and put them in Canada (damn come to think of it that's happening lol), their decedents(and yes we are talking hundreds of years) are going to be nearly as pale skinned as a European and at least as light as the average Native Canadian.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Actually, you know I have just thought about something. Red hair might relate to mehndi, red paste dye used for dying hair and making designs on the hands. Prevalent in South Asia today. What if the Aryans were described as having red hair, because they used mehndi in their hair.
The sources for Aryans having red hair are Hindu scriptures, which also inaccurately portrayed a large Aryan invasion, when scientific studies have shown several migrations which occurred over a long period of time. It depends on whether you give this source credibility or not.
The sources for Aryans having red hair are Hindu scriptures, which also inaccurately portrayed a large Aryan invasion, when scientific studies have shown several migrations which occurred over a long period of time. It depends on whether you give this source credibility or not.
"(and yes we are talking hundreds of years)" I think it takes a lot longer than that for a climate change to change skin color or anything else.
Somebody taught me that even if the gene changes necessary are essentially archived and latent just waiting to be called on genetic changes take a long time. Is there a new new theory?
If you take a North Indian and put them in Canada and they never leave their house because they think it is too cold then they will become almost as light skinned as North Europeans as long as they stay out of the sun.
Then again Krishna is blue. What to do with scripture?
Torchian people in Northwest what is now China apparently sometimes had red hair. and spoke an Indo-European language.
Tocharian mummies http://www.meshrep.com/PicOfDay/mummies/mummies.htm
Hindus do not have any collective or racial memory of Aryas having come from outside India. None of the scriptures has any reference to such an exodus or migration, invasion is a far matter.
In older times, migration of people was there, but from the areas which were overpopulated. The Indo-Gangetic plain is one of the most fertile regions of the world. It could support large populations, some of which might spill over to other areas like Iran. Central Asia or norten regions were not capable of producing large surplus populations.
Rig Veda repeatedly mentions chariots, a wheeled vehicle, suitable for open plains, but singularly unsuitable for transport across the mountain ranges.
Anyway, Max Muller was bitten by the bible bug, and his aim was to downplay the Vedic civilisation. How he came to conclude that Aryans "invaded" India about 1500 BC? A mystery. Assuming he was correct, the Aryans quickly composed Vedas, Ramayna, Upnishads, Mahabharata etc in a few centuries. In the process they produced a highly developed language like Sanskrit too. Why the other off shoots did not have a developed language? A mystery.
In older times, migration of people was there, but from the areas which were overpopulated. The Indo-Gangetic plain is one of the most fertile regions of the world. It could support large populations, some of which might spill over to other areas like Iran. Central Asia or norten regions were not capable of producing large surplus populations.
Rig Veda repeatedly mentions chariots, a wheeled vehicle, suitable for open plains, but singularly unsuitable for transport across the mountain ranges.
Anyway, Max Muller was bitten by the bible bug, and his aim was to downplay the Vedic civilisation. How he came to conclude that Aryans "invaded" India about 1500 BC? A mystery. Assuming he was correct, the Aryans quickly composed Vedas, Ramayna, Upnishads, Mahabharata etc in a few centuries. In the process they produced a highly developed language like Sanskrit too. Why the other off shoots did not have a developed language? A mystery.
What about Krishna? You perhaps do not know, Brahma is described as yellow.
If Indians are descendents of red haired races [damned quick they lost all vestiges of red hair], then why are dark, black hair and eyes as marks of beauty?
Which and where?
Well said, you beat me to it. I am not aware of Hindu scriptures which say so.
And as you rightly said, most Hindu/Aryan epic gods were clearly documented as being black - Rama, Krishna, Kali... which also means it was not particularly great to be pale skinned.
Most descriptions of beautiful people had a reference to black hair (e.g., neelaveni) and large black eyes.
And the originality of Sanskrit can be felt in the way words are derived from other words. If my memory serves me right, mooshika (mouse) means the one with a moustache, bhrathru (brother) means one who shared a womb, to quote examples. The English equivalents imho, are not derived and hence are more likely to have been taken from Sanskrit or other languages.
Aryans originate in the fertile land Egypt Then they moved into Mesopotamia . The region called Kush is in the lower land by Egypt , but there were region of inhabitants in Mesopotamia called Kushites ,
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The name "Aryan" is seldom used in English anymore. The Nazis appropriated it and gave it a meaning that is not consistent with established facts in linguistics or anthropology. Today the word is almost exclusively used by "white supremacist" racist organizations.
In linguistics you occasionally see the term "Indo-Aryan languages," but in most modern scholarship it has been replaced by "Indo-Iranian." This is the subgroup of the Indo-European family that includes the Persian languages (Farsi, Pashto, Dari, etc.) and the non-Dravidian languages of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc.
The English word "Aryan" is borrowed from the Sanskrit word arya, which has various related meanings such as "noble" and "one who worships Indira." Thus any use of the word to describe an ethnic group that does not include the people of India (including the dark-skinned ones!) is just plain stoopid.
In Farsi, the name Iran means, literally, "the home of the Aryan people." So the Persians must also be logically included in any expansive use of the name.
Old books use the name "Aryans" for the speakers of the original Proto-Indo-European language, but today we just call them "the original Indo-Europeans." We're still arguing over where they lived. Until recently the predominant hypothesis was the Pontic Steppe (the southern part of the region that is on the boundary between European Russia and Asian Siberia), but new evidence suggests that they lived in Anatolia (which is now in Turkey).
In other words, (if you ask me), we don't have a clue.
In linguistics you occasionally see the term "Indo-Aryan languages," but in most modern scholarship it has been replaced by "Indo-Iranian." This is the subgroup of the Indo-European family that includes the Persian languages (Farsi, Pashto, Dari, etc.) and the non-Dravidian languages of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc.
The English word "Aryan" is borrowed from the Sanskrit word arya, which has various related meanings such as "noble" and "one who worships Indira." Thus any use of the word to describe an ethnic group that does not include the people of India (including the dark-skinned ones!) is just plain stoopid.
In Farsi, the name Iran means, literally, "the home of the Aryan people." So the Persians must also be logically included in any expansive use of the name.
Old books use the name "Aryans" for the speakers of the original Proto-Indo-European language, but today we just call them "the original Indo-Europeans." We're still arguing over where they lived. Until recently the predominant hypothesis was the Pontic Steppe (the southern part of the region that is on the boundary between European Russia and Asian Siberia), but new evidence suggests that they lived in Anatolia (which is now in Turkey).
In other words, (if you ask me), we don't have a clue.
Last edited: