Arayanism survives as legitimate scentific theory

I started to think about this reading Turtledove's "In the Presence of Mine Enemies". It is now often overlooked that "Aryanism" (the notion that the spread of an "Aryan" people speaking Proto-IndoEuropean languages throughout central asia, the Indian subcontinent, and Europe) was once a widely (although never universally) accepted explanatory tool for the evolution and development of civilization in these areas. This theory came to be associated with more overtly eugenic and racist movements in the late 19th century - culminating in the racist physical anthropology and crimes of the Nazis, but was in fact an acceptable scientific theory to many mainstream American and European anthropologists, linguists, and archaeologists into the 1920's. It can be argued that universal disgust with the Nazis' use of such theories - more than their disproof on archaeological, historical, or linguistic grounds - is what lead to the sudden and total repudiation of genetic/biological determinsm in anthropology in the early 1940's.

I'm interested in PoD's or time lines which explore what might have been the result to the social sciences and political culture at large if such theories had never been appropriated and used by a group like the Nazis to murder millions and enslave millions more. Did they make the rise of something like "naziism" inevitable? Would they have eventually died a silent, slow death as some of their underpinnings came to be disproved? Would they have remained acceptable - but minority - scientific/historical theories? What might have been the broader effect on issues such as decolonialiization and equal rights in the democracies.
 
zoomar said:
I started to think about this reading Turtledove's "In the Presence of Mine Enemies". It is now often overlooked that "Aryanism" (the notion that the spread of an "Aryan" people speaking Proto-IndoEuropean languages throughout central asia, the Indian subcontinent, and Europe) was once a widely (although never universally) accepted explanatory tool for the evolution and development of civilization in these areas. This theory came to be associated with more overtly eugenic and racist movements in the late 19th century - culminating in the racist physical anthropology and crimes of the Nazis, but was in fact an acceptable scientific theory to many mainstream American and European anthropologists, linguists, and archaeologists into the 1920's. It can be argued that universal disgust with the Nazis' use of such theories - more than their disproof on archaeological, historical, or linguistic grounds - is what lead to the sudden and total repudiation of genetic/biological determinsm in anthropology in the early 1940's.

I'm interested in PoD's or time lines which explore what might have been the result to the social sciences and political culture at large if such theories had never been appropriated and used by a group like the Nazis to murder millions and enslave millions more. Did they make the rise of something like "naziism" inevitable? Would they have eventually died a silent, slow death as some of their underpinnings came to be disproved? Would they have remained acceptable - but minority - scientific/historical theories? What might have been the broader effect on issues such as decolonialiization and equal rights in the democracies.

Well, sad to say, I don't think that such a theory could have survived for long without being used by racists at some point to justify their position. If those racists never get into power and have the ability to put their warped interpretations into practice, then it will be just another scientific theory that has little impact on society as a whole, until archaeology and other evidence finally disproves it. If racists do get into power and use the theory to justify their policies, it need not have been to the extreme degree that it took in Germany. It could be like OTL America, or South Africa, instead...creating apartheid-like systems in various countries.
 
robertp6165 said:
Well, sad to say, I don't think that such a theory could have survived for long without being used by racists at some point to justify their position. If those racists never get into power and have the ability to put their warped interpretations into practice, then it will be just another scientific theory that has little impact on society as a whole, until archaeology and other evidence finally disproves it. If racists do get into power and use the theory to justify their policies, it need not have been to the extreme degree that it took in Germany. It could be like OTL America, or South Africa, instead...creating apartheid-like systems in various countries.
Remember the Nazi's and other racist also twisted theory to suit thier needs. Wile Jews were untermenchen (forgive me spelling) so where the slavic people who be the theory and an indo-european speaking people would have been descended from the Araya.
 
I always found the use of the word 'Aryan' by so many white supremecists as ironic, since it derives from an old Indian word for 'Lord'.... I wonder what those racist groups would say if they realized they were calling themselves Indian royalty...
Anyway, isn't the Aryan theory still around in modified form? I thought it was still considered valid that a group of loosely related peoples speaking related languages went riding out of eastern Europe all the way from India to western Europe.... not so much conquest as just making their influence felt everywhere. Is this no longer considered correct?
 
David Howery said:
I always found the use of the word 'Aryan' by so many white supremecists as ironic, since it derives from an old Indian word for 'Lord'.... I wonder what those racist groups would say if they realized they were calling themselves Indian royalty...
Anyway, isn't the Aryan theory still around in modified form? I thought it was still considered valid that a group of loosely related peoples speaking related languages went riding out of eastern Europe all the way from India to western Europe.... not so much conquest as just making their influence felt everywhere. Is this no longer considered correct?

Well linguistically it is I think insofar as almost everyone from Scotland to India speaks languages derived from Proto-IndoEuropean. I don't know about the whole conquest thing though.
 
I remember reading some books from the Belisarius series, and the Sassanids in it were always harping on about their aryan heritage.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
The Sassanians did use the term Eran Shahr ("Kingdom of Iran") quite often, but they had a rather shallow view of history and their own heritage. There is an ongoing debate concerning their awareness of the Achaemenids - the Classicists seem to think that the Sassanians knew about Cyrus and Darius, based upon the Classical (Greek and Latin) sources. The Iranists (i.e. people who can actually read Middle Persian, one of the most difficult languages in the world to master), disagree.

In the end, the historical awareness of the Sassanians seems to be limited to their mythology. This mythology says nothing about the Achaemenids; their main concern is the line of succession from the Kayanians, the patrons of Zardusht, and ultimately from the sons of Thraetaona / Feridun, who divided the world between them (Airiia, Sairima, and Tura, the Shem, Ham, and Japeth of the Zoroastrians). Airiia is the ancestor of the Iranians, Tura is the ancestor of the Turanians (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and that area) and I'm not sure whom Sairima begat. I think that he later becomes associated with the Turks, but I'm not sure. At any rate, Thraetaona looms much larger than Airiia (there's a cycle of myths about him, including his battle with the dragon, Azhi Dahaka - but almost nothing about Airiia).
 
Top