Re: AIT

--- In cybalist@..., "Mark DeFillo" <ategnatos@...> wrote:

> You mean "cultural" rather than "ethnic", I think. "Ethnic" is

rather

> abused. An "ethnos" is a people, and while it is not necessarily a

racial

> group,

Yes, I should have said "cultural" but if you are that concerned
about the precise use of terminology then please stop equating "Indo-
European" and "Aryan".

> in IndoEuropean culture, ideally, one does not have noble rank
> unless having noble qualities. The concepts are fundamentally

related, and

> it is a mistake to speculate a chronological development.

One did not need to have noble (2nd sense) qualites to be noble (1st
sense). Nobility was attained through birth and many nobles behaved
in ways that were in no way noble (2nd sense). A family's noble
status was first gained through military exploits.

> >The white supremacists are insane and selectively "connect-the-

dots"

> >with historical evidence to draw just the picture that they want to
> >see and ignore anything that doesn't fit. Unfortunately though it
> >seems that some Indian scholars have adopted the same approach....

[snip

> >and paste]A true historian or scientist is not in the service of
>national,
> >racial or ethnic pride and interests but should be dedicated
>solely to the
> >discovery of the truth.
>
> Indian culture (including Hindutva), and IndoEuropean culture in

general,

> are specifically dedicated to the discovery of Truth. Let us not

forget that

> when AIT was first created, white supremacy was inherent in

European (and

> American) culture, as was Christian-supremacy in the religious

sphere, and

> the notion that European culture in general was based on Roman and

Greek

> civilization. All of which created a picture (preconceived notions)

that

> they selectively "connected-the-dots" in order to fit. Despite

modern

> Marxist, Christian and Muslim propaganda, that kind of attitude is

basically

> foreign to Indian culture and to Hindutva.
>
> >Europeans aren't "real Aryans", except for the Rom and the

Ossetians

> >whose very ethnic self designation "Ir" is a reflex of the name
> >Aryan. The term only legitimately applies to the Indo-Iranians and
> >possibly their (cultural) descendants. Using "Aryan" for "Indo-
> >European" is based on a mistake that has now been corrected and is
> >comparable to the bad habit of calling America's indigenous
> >people "Indians".
>
> Today's traditional IndoEuropeans, both of India and of Europe and

its

> colonies engage in heavy comparative research of their religions

and

> cultures, and recognize their fundamental kinship and indeed unity.

If

> "Aryan" as a cultural term means the cultures of the IndoIranians,

then it

> does indeed apply, at the very least loosely, to Europeans of

IndoEuropean

> origin.

What you have just said is: "if Aryan = IndoIranian and IndoIranian
is a subset of IndoEuropean then Aryan = IndoEuropean". A formal
study of logic may be in order.

> They are one family of cultures, with more similarities than
> differences.

Yes they are and that family is called "Indo-European" not "Aryan".

Aside from that, most European peoples were strongly influenced

> in one way or another by the IndoIranian Scythians, and any such

cultural

> influences are therefore unquestionably "Aryan".

By that logic we could then be called by the name of any group that
ever contributed to our cultural background. That would quickly lead
to confusion!

Even if we ignore all that,

> and we deny any historical accuracy to the practice, it has become

customary

> for traditional IndoEuropeans to use the name... as one example,

there are

> leading Celtic reconstructionalists (formally trained linguists,

BTW) who

> use "Arioi" as an ethnonym for Celts now.

This is a shame but I don't know what I can do about it but to keep
telling them to stop it.

> standard, "Aryan" is widely used by IndoEuropeans from many

branches as a

> self-designation.

I think that all such claims to the name "Aryan" in branches other
than Indo-Iranian have been soundly refuted.

The only reason for linguists to object to this is the

> "politically correct" demonization of the name as used by Europeans

because

> of the atrocities committed by some who acted under it. But this
> demonization is analogous to declaring the crucifix to be a hate

symbol on

> the basis of the Inquisitions, and the conversion by force of large

parts of

> Europe. (Actually, I DO feel the same on seeing crosses, as many

Jews do on

> seeing swastikas...)

The reasons are not for political correctness but for correctness
period.
-David