You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Bool2k ago

Very well thought out and put together. Loved every bit of what you wrote.

One thing though which is often not mentioned is that Cyrus the Great was not the first to mention the Aryans. By the time Cyrus the Great established the Persian Empire, those lands were already devout followers of Zoroaster. What we call "Shah Goshtasb" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayanian_dynasty was the one who first followed Zoroastrianism belief in a monotheistic deity, rejecting idols and statues, and "false gods" (these same false gods are also mentioned in the Bible as well).

Ancient Zoroastrians were in a perpetual war with the non-Aryans who they considered their enemy in a "holy war."

What should also be mentioned is that modern Iranians are not necessarily all descendants of the original Aryans of ancient Persia. Even though all Iranians proudly claim themselves as Persian, it's the equivalent of a nigger-spic mongrel claiming they're American and thus take pride in being early settlers. Only 3 cities in modern Iran are relatively genetically pure, those cities are primarily Zoroastrian. The rest of Iran is an amalgamation mongrelization of modern Turks, Arabs, Indians, and Semites.

Skin color also does not necessarily bestow Aryan blood. Tan people had higher fitness in more hotter climates and thus Aryans in Persia / parts of modern Iran may be mudslime-ish, but once migrated to parts of Europe, were later selected for fairer skin as fairer skin does better in colder climates.

Ischyros ago

Indo-Aryans were almost certainly Middle Easterners since the beginning. The first known Aryan group were the Mitanni who probably hailed from around Lake Urmia in modern northwest Iran. Certainly they were of a lighter Middle Eastern type, but they were not Europeans. It's unlikely that modern Iranians, that is, ethnic Persians, look much different from ancient Persians. Especially the ethnic Persians of northwest Iran and Azerbaijan probably represent the closest match to ancient Persians. Not only were the Mitanni mentioned in connection to the Lake Urmia area, but Assyrian sources from the 9th century BC also refer to early Persians (Parsuwaš) as hailing from that region.

So in a racial sense, ethnic Persians/Azeris today living near the southwestern coast of the Caspian sea are likely to be the best match for the ancient Persians. Ultimately, however, Indo-Aryan usually represents a linguistic classification. For example, Caucasoid-Australoid hybrid Indians of South Asia are Aryans in that they speak an Indo-Aryan language whereas a blond Scandinavian is most certainly not an Aryan. I understand that people in the 20th century had a poorer understanding of ancient peoples, their migrations, languages and racial qualities, but we should know better today than to throw around words like "Aryan" so recklessly. Europeans are neither Indo-Aryans by language or by ethnicity. Europeans are Europeans.

Bool2k ago

Oh, one thing to mention. Both Hitler and the Persians believed in Aryan being in a sense "spiritual," as in, it wasn't just strictly blood. The term Aryan just translated to noble roughly, or "enlightened." I always understood that more so as "human" or "not spic, jew, nigger, mongrel amalgamation."

In a sense, Europeans are Aryans and aren't. They are in a spiritual sense considering they're human and not so in blood.