What is the historical reason for G*rmanics appropriating the term of Aryan from Indo-Iranian peoples?

What is the historical reason for G*rmanics appropriating the term of Aryan from Indo-Iranian peoples?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples
livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-caste-system-origins.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Archaeologist found the Sanskrit word for people first and assumed Aryan was used for all Indo-Europeans.

By doing this they implicitly acknowledged Persian superiority

1. "INDOIRANIAN" IS A LINGUONYM, NOT AN ETHNONYM, CULTURONYM, NOR RACIONYM; IT REFERS TO LANGUAGES BELONGING TO THE IRANIC SUBGROUP OF THE INDOEUROPEAN LANGUAGE GROUP, THUS, "INDOIRANIANS" ARE PEOPLES WHO SPEAK LANGUAGES BELONGING TO THAT LINGUISTIC SUBGROUP; THE TERM HAS NO RACIAL, NOR ETHNIC, CONNOTATIONS.

2. THE ABOVE APPLIES TO THE TERM "GERMANIC".

3. THE TERM "ARYAN" IS OF ARYAN ORIGIN; IT MEANS "NOBLE"; ARYANS WERE A RACE, AND INDIVIDUALS WITH ARYAN GENOTYPE ARE PRESENT IN MANY ETHNICITIES, WORLDWIDE.

This nationality *-censoring fad is in poor taste and is just one of many things reflecting the immaturity of the current userbase.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples

>The term Iran derives directly from Middle Persian Ērān (𐭠𐭩𐭥𐭠𐭭) and Parthian Aryān. The Middle Iranian terms ērān and aryān are oblique plural forms of gentilic ēr- (in Middle Persian) and ary- (in Parthian), both deriving from Old Persian ariya- (𐎠𐎼𐎡𐎹), Avestan airiia- (𐬀𐬌𐬭𐬌𐬌𐬀), and Proto-Iranian arya-.

>Unlike the Sanskrit ā́rya- (Aryan), the Old Iranian term has solely an ethnic meaning. Today, the Old Iranian arya- remains in ethno-linguistic names such as Iran, Alan, Ir, and Iron.

>In royal Old Persian inscriptions, the term arya- appears in three different contexts:

>As the name of the language of the Old Persian version of the inscription of Darius I in the Bistun Inscription.
>As the ethnic background of Darius the Great in inscriptions at Rustam Relief and Susa (Dna, Dse) and the ethnic background of Xerxes I in the inscription from Persepolis (Xph).
>As the definition of the God of Iranians, Ohrmazd, in the Elamite version of the Bistun Inscription.
>Darius and Xerxes describe themselves as "an Achaemenid, a Persian, son of a Persian, and an Aryan, of Aryan stock".

>The trilingual inscription erected by the command of Shapur I gives a more clear description. The languages used are Parthian, Middle Persian, and Greek. In Greek inscription says "ego ... tou Arianon ethnous despotes eimi", which translates to "I am the king of the kingdom (nation) of the Iranians". In Middle Persian, Shapur says "ērānšahr xwadāy hēm" and in Parthian he says "aryānšahr xwadāy ahēm".

>The Avesta clearly uses airiia- as an ethnic name (Videvdat 1; Yasht 13.143–44, etc.), where it appears in expressions such as airyāfi daiŋˊhāvō ("Iranian lands"), airyō šayanəm ("land inhabited by Iranians"), and airyanəm vaējō vaŋhuyāfi dāityayāfi ("Iranian stretch of the good Dāityā").In the late part of the Avesta (Videvdat 1), one of the mentioned homelands was referred to as Airyan'əm Vaējah which approximately means "expanse of the Iranians". The homeland varied in its geographic range, the area around Herat (Pliny's view) and even the entire expanse of the Iranian plateau (Strabo's designation).

>Strabo, in his Geographica, mentions the unity of Medes, Persians, Bactrians and Sogdians:

>''The name of Ariana is further extended to a part of Persia and of Media, as also to the Bactrians and Sogdians on the north; for these speak approximately the same language, with but slight variations. ''—Geography, 15.8

DO YOU HAVE A "POINT"?

yes, it doesn't change the fact that the term Aryan was introduced to europe was based in the sanskrit term, not the farsi term.

They're etymologically cognate, i.e. They're the same fucking word in different languages, moron.

But the word Aryan used in sanskrit doesn't carry an ethnic meaning. It means noble or just.

Because Aryans subjugated India and Hitler was a fanboy.
He was into a lot of esoteric shit btw.

Not true. Only the Aryans could become priests. The Aryans in legend came from outside India and thus they werent Indians. Sanskrit in itself is a foreign language derived from the middle eastern phoenician alphabet, so it definitely points to a specific group of people

because hitler was a known Curry-boo

Literally everyone in india that was from the first two castes was called arya.
more like a lot of intellectual societies in the 19th century were indoboos

>Because Aryans subjugated India
What are vedic aryans then?

I hate it too.

migrants.

What?

tie indo iranians started moving into the subcontinent during the late harappan era. You have things like fire altars at settlements like kalibangan. The consensus now is that instead of an invasion it was a migration over a somewhat longer period of time.

so hitler justified his hate of immigrants by calling his race aryan, which referenced the migrants who overtook india
no wonder the retards love that guy

>Literally everyone in india that was from the first two castes was called arya.
yeah well castes were implemented so that aryans retain their supremacy

>You have things like fire altars at settlements like kalibangan.
Yes. That's because Iranians and Indians share the same common ancestor with the Indo Europeans, whom mixed with the locals of their respective regions from Mesopotamia and the Indus.
Also it's not like the Aryans were the ones to initiate the caste system, it was more by their descendants who would have been a mix and resembled modern Indians
livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-caste-system-origins.html
>Though relationships between people of different social groups was once common, there was a "transformation where most groups now practice endogamy," or marry within their group, said study co-author Priya Moorjani, a geneticist at Harvard University.
>Combining this new genetic information with ancient texts, the results suggest that while class distinctions emerged 3,000 to 3,500 years ago, caste divisions became strict roughly two millennia ago
>Early on, there were distinct classes of people — the priests, the nobility and the common people — but no mention of segregation or occupational restrictions. By about 3,000 years ago, the texts mention a fourth, lowest class: the Sudras. But it wasn't until about 100 B.C. that a holy text called the Manusmruti explicitly forbade intermarriage across castes

Also the Aryans come from modern day Ukraine not Iran lmao

нaйc тpaй, хoхoл

t. Ancient Ukr

those are indo europeans, the indo europeans who migrated to iran called themselves aryans there is a difference

There was an Indo-Iranian presence in Ukraine until the 1st millenium AD.

Cognates do not necessarily hold the same, or even similar, meanings in the languages where they appear.

Thats quite different from saying that they originated in Ukraine. Source?

Ps they originated in southern russian to Iran. The red area on the map of the Kurgan hypothesis.
The Aryans used the chariot to conquer/ the Aryan invasion and the arrival of the chariot in India coincide and this isnt an coincidence.

>they originated in southern russian to Iran
We actually don't know for sure. Linguistic evidence seem to suggest that the original Indo-Europeans came from the steppes, but archeological evidence seem to suggest that they came from Anatolia.

Persians are superior, at least in terms of Islam.
Who's competing, the Arabs?

>but archeological evidence seem to suggest that they came from Anatolia.

They were freeing the blond beast by reclaiming the old noble virtues of the Aryan conquerors.

WE

Traditional Persian sphere was bigger than Iran today, and it does includes the steppes, South Russia, and the lands bordering India

>1.
correct even though those -onym compounds you're using aren't commonly used terms

>2.
correct

>3.
wrong, this is a 20th century misinterpretation. the term Aryan comes from linguistics and it only correctly refers to the indo-iranian languages, i.e. it is a linguistic term equivalent to Indo-Iranian. it is also used in the term Indo-Aryan (a subgroup of indo-iranian) to differentiate between Aryan Indian languages and non-Aryan ones (Dravidian, Austroasiatic etc.)

you mean iranian not persian, they are not equivalent at the point in history you're talking about

Did this liberal just admit immigrants are the same as invaders/conquerors?

I knew it.