European Misappropriation of Sanskrit led to "Aryan Race" Theory

[Baasha]

According to an eminent scholar and researcher Rajiv Malhotra, European misappropriation of Sanskrit, from the 18th century to present, is the reason the "Aryan Race" theory was created.

In his article here, Mr. Malhotra states that pseudo-scholarship by Christian missionaries from Europe, and now America, have (and are) fueled this "Aryan Race", a completely fallacious term.

Through their so-called scholarship, young impressionable minds have been misled to think that Aryans were an actual race and propounded crackpot theories like the Aryan Invasion Theory which has now been utterly and thoroughly debunked through genetic studies conducted all across India by several disparate scholars from various parts of the world.

If you research the veracity of the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory, you can easily see why it was cooked up to divide and rule India by the British when they invaded and occupied India.

The funny thing is that many white supremacists think of themselves as "Aryan", which is a Sanskrit word that means "noble in character". Such irony is hard to come by. And, of course, Hitler used this fake Aryan Race Theory to promote his hateful ideology and caused the deaths of millions in WWII. The symbol he adopted, the swastika, is also a Sanskrit word and a symbol for auspiciousness in Hinduism and Jainism. It is quite sad that in the west, that symbol is interpreted in the eyes of white supremacists rather than its real meaning and intention. It is quite strange that many westerners still cling on to this falsity by teaching students at school and at university this "Aryan Invasion/Migration" as sacrosanct. Thankfully, a lot of honest scholars are doing serious work to get the lethargic educational institutions to update their textbooks to contain facts rather than blatantly false and highly dubious theories when it comes to the historiography of the subcontinent (India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Afghanistan).

From Wiki:

Derivation of the word “Aryan”
The English word “Aryan” is derived from the Sanskrit word ārya meaning 'noble';[1] it was used initially as a national name to designate the worshippers of the Devas and especially Indra according to Brahmanical principles i.e. practicing the Sanātana Dharma.

Sanatana Dharma is the actual name for Hinduism.

 

[Infohawk]

Most people are already familiar with the fact Hitler and his disciples misappropriated Hindu lore and symbols. What people may not know is that you're a fan of the caste system. And the real irony is that you are your own brand of supremacist.

Here is a nice little example of baasha's extreme bigotry in case anyone doubts me: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31311162&postcount=140

 

[Throckmorton]

We learned about who the real Aryans were in 10th grade World History

 

[DCal430]

We know a significant part of the ancestors of northern india and pakistan are european as their langauges are closely related. Sanskrit it self is closely related to most major langauges spoken in europe. Languages such as Tamil on the other hand are not at all releated to Hindi.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

We know a significant part of the ancestors of northern india and pakistan are european as their langauges are closely related. Sanskrit it self is closely related to most major langauges spoken in europe. Languages such as Tamil on the other hand are not at all releated to Hindi.

-Got that backward, many European languages are derived from Sanskrit, not the other way around. German, in fact, is very closely related.

-As an Indian American myself, let me just say that the whole concept of Caste is a disgusting and thoroughly reprehensible aspect of Indian Culture and that not all Indians adhere to its practice.

 

[DCal430]

-Got that backward, many European languages are derived from Sanskrit, not the other way around. German, in fact, is very closely related.

-As an Indian American myself, let me just say that the whole concept of Caste is a disgusting and thoroughly reprehensible aspect of Indian Culture and that not all Indians adhere to its practice.

Do you think the ancestors of europeans came from india?

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Do you think the ancestors of europeans came from india?

-No, but I think the ancestor of European language came from India. Very different thing.

 

[Baasha]

We learned about who the real Aryans were in 10th grade World History

right, and what you learnt, I presume, is completely wrong in that they said Aryans were a "tribe" of people who were nomadic and came from "central Asia" into Iran and northern-India.

A lot of universities still cling to this archaic, racist, and simply wrong theory of the historiography of India vis-a-vis the Aryans.

 

[Baasha]

Do you think the ancestors of europeans came from india?

If you read this paper by Michel Danino and the works of geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer, of Oxford, there is plenty of genetic evidence to support the theory that from Africa, a single, rapid settlement occurred in South Asia (India) and then a genetic strain went on to Australia and others moved NORTH, eventually moving out of the Indian subcontinent.

Oppenheimer's interesting work is briefly described here: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/science-magazine.php

 

[JEDIYoda]

right, and what you learnt, I presume, is completely wrong in that they said Aryans were a "tribe" of people who were nomadic and came from "central Asia" into Iran and northern-India.

A lot of universities still cling to this archaic, racist, and simply wrong theory of the historiography of India vis-a-vis the Aryans.

So those who disagree with you have to be wrong??? Why?

because two experts min the field of genetics said so??

What about the other side of the story??

 

[JEDIYoda]

If you read this paper by Michel Danino and the works of geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer, of Oxford, there is plenty of genetic evidence to support the theory that from Africa, a single, rapid settlement occurred in South Asia (India) and then a genetic strain went on to Australia and others moved NORTH, eventually moving out of the Indian subcontinent.

So what bout the evidence to contradict what you are espousing??

 

[gdansk]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Aryan

It came first via Latin via Greek, but this applied to Persians. The Nazis didn't invent the term in Europe, but they did hijack it. German linguists had also already recognized that it was related to "honor"... which helps explain their choice in the term "Aryan". It is pretty well known that Sanskrit and most European languages are related through a Proto Indo-European ancestry. Though, how it spread is still up for debate. There are still many theories about how the language group spread. I've never been taught about any single theory being correct, but rather that a number of theories exist. The key differences are the start location (urheimat) and the method of expansion (diffusion vs. invasion). Most of the theories I've heard about are a combination of invasion and diffusion. So I'd say modern education is on top of this, at least at the university level. (I don't recall any high-school text books that discuss the spread of Indo-European languages, at any rate).

The misappropriation of "Aryan" is quite interesting, as the Nazis themselves would often interchange Aryan and Nordic in their own propaganda. It is key to note that "Aryanism" itself was not constructed by Christian missionaries but rather by a series of 19th century "scientific" racial theorists. Its central tenet was the speakers of Indo-European languages were superior to all other groups. This is a horrible justification for Nazism, as Slavs (a much maligned and murdered target of the Nazis) are Indo-European as well. Not only was Nazism a perversion of Aryanism, Aryanism was a failed explanation of the Indo-European language branch as being bound to race rather than a shared heritage (diffusion vs. invasion theories). I'd say Aryanism was an essential part of Hitler's antisemitism. But his hatred of many other groups (namely Gypsies and Slavs) went much deeper than just a single theory.

Additionally a cursory glance over at Wikipedia shows that the Swastika was in use in Europe far before it ever discovered the Indian swastika. In Greek architecture and pottery, Etruscan jewelry, and even on Slavic and Germanic pagan artifacts. To say that somehow India possess this symbol is slightly misleading. Many European, Native American and other cultures also used the swastika which makes its perceived meaning today even more sad. Interesting article...

Edit: It seems there still is a collusion of race and common cultural heritage, the people of India do not have to be "racially" related to the proposed Proto Indo-European culture for it to have spread there. Cultural diffusion, instead of invasive displacement, could easily allow two entirely different "racial" histories to share a common cultural heritage.

 

[Baasha]

We know a significant part of the ancestors of northern india and pakistan are european as their langauges are closely related. Sanskrit it self is closely related to most major langauges spoken in europe. Languages such as Tamil on the other hand are not at all releated to Hindi.

And that is utterly incorrect. As the other poster said, you got it backward. Indo-European languages, the mother of which is Sanskrit, developed in the subcontinent and spread outward; there is tremendous philological evidence for that. The flow of languages and people are interesting to research but there are vested interests on both sides of the debate that have a stranglehold on the field right now.

There is, as I stated earlier, some serious work being done by various scholars around the world to get a better understanding of the historiography of the Indian populace.

In fact, Rajiv Malhotra's other article, describes in detail the fact that this "Aryan-Dravidian" divide, initially linguistically posited, is predicated upon this false and debunked Aryan Invasion Theory. Without an Aryan invasion, there is no need for "Dravidian" identity at all! Modern day Indian politics, especially in south India, is based on this myth that Aryans denote a people, primarily the "evil" (LOL) Brahmins, who, according to this erroneous theory, are Aryans, and the Dravidians as the original inhabitants of the subcontinent.

The scary thing is that at present, there are very devious vested interests, mainly Christian/Jewish fanatics from America, Europe, and Australia, who support this debunked theory to create discord among the Indian populace. According to Rajiv Malhotra, their ultimate aim is to divide India once again and create a separate nation for Dravidians. In fact, Malhotra's other article, describes the diabolical machinations of the Christian evangelists worldwide who are targeting India. It is in their best interest to keep alive this false Aryan Invasion Theory to cleave the Indian ethos and ultimately convert as many Hindus and other Indians to Christianity.

Read more about the Indian Genome Project which thoroughly debunks this silly notion that Indians are varied genetically. Despite such large linguistic variance, Indians, as proven in the genome project, have been found to be predominantly from one genetic strain.

 

[Baasha]

So those who disagree with you have to be wrong??? Why?

because two experts min the field of genetics said so??

What about the other side of the story??

did you even read the article I posted in the OP?

This has nothing to do with "me" per se. There are facts and there are lies that are repeated often enough to make them appear as fact. That is the issue here.

 

[Baasha]

So what bout the evidence to contradict what you are espousing??

First, I am not espousing any "evidence". Evidence cannot be espoused, just presented.

On that note, present me with evidence that "contradicts" that of Oppenheimer et. al.

 

[Baasha]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Aryan

It came first via Latin via Greek, but this applied to Persians. The Nazis didn't invent the term in Europe, but they did hijack it. German linguists had also already recognized that it was related to "honor"... which helps explain their choice in the term "Aryan". It is pretty well known that Sanskrit and most European languages are related through a Proto Indo-European ancestry. Though, how it spread is still up for debate. There are still many theories about how the language group spread. I've never been taught about any single theory being correct, but rather that a number of theories exist. The key differences are the start location (urheimat) and the method of expansion (diffusion vs. invasion). Most of the theories I've heard about are a combination of invasion and diffusion. So I'd say modern education is on top of this, at least at the university level. (I don't recall any high-school text books that discuss the spread of Indo-European languages, at any rate).

The misappropriation of "Aryan" is quite interesting, as the Nazis themselves would often interchange Aryan and Nordic in their own propaganda. It is key to note that "Aryanism" itself was not constructed by Christian missionaries but rather by a series of 19th century "scientific" racial theorists. Its central tenet was the speakers of Indo-European languages were superior to all other groups. This is a horrible justification for Nazism, as Slavs (a much maligned and murdered target of the Nazis) are Indo-European as well. Not only was Nazism a perversion of Aryanism, Aryanism was a failed explanation of the Indo-European language branch as being bound to race rather than a shared heritage (diffusion vs. invasion theories). I'd say Aryanism was an essential part of Hitler's antisemitism. But his hatred of many other groups (namely Gypsies and Slavs) went much deeper than just a single theory.

Additionally a cursory glance over at Wikipedia shows that the Swastika was in use in Europe far before it ever discovered the Indian swastika. In Greek architecture and pottery, Etruscan jewelry, and even on Slavic and Germanic pagan artifacts. To say that somehow India possess this symbol is slightly misleading. Many European, Native American and other cultures also used the swastika which makes its perceived meaning today even more sad. Interesting article...

Edit: It seems there still is a collusion of race and common cultural heritage, the people of India do not have to be "racially" related to the proposed Proto Indo-European culture for it to have spread there. Cultural diffusion, instead of invasive displacement, could easily allow two entirely different "racial" histories to share a common cultural heritage.

The link you posted says this: "Also the name Sanskrit-speaking invaders of India gave themselves in the ancient texts"

Such statements are far from fact. Secondly, it is hilarious you say that the word "Arya" came from Latin. LOL.. Sanskrit is far older than Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. It is unanimously attested to as the oldest 'developed' language of the world. The first literary works of mankind are in Sanskrit, the Rig Veda. Your premise, assumptions, and conjectures in the argument above are based on a foundation that is dubious to begin with. Case in point, Wikipedia is most definitely not a scholarly reference.

 

[gdansk]

The link you posted says this: "Also the name Sanskrit-speaking invaders of India gave themselves in the ancient texts"

Such statements are far from fact. Secondly, it is hilarious you say that the word "Arya" came from Latin. LOL.. Sanskrit is far older than Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. It is unanimously attested to as the oldest 'developed' language of the world. The first literary works of mankind are in Sanskrit, the Rig Veda. Your premise, assumptions, and conjectures in the argument above are based on a foundation that is dubious to begin with.

I'm not disputing its Sanskrit attestation. It existed in Greek texts before any Sanskrit had spread to Europe. So, let me put in perspective: There is the old "Aryan" which approximated the Latin Ariana and Arianus, this dated from around 1600. This word referred to people inhabiting Persia. The second use (directly from Sanskrit) was first attested to in 1851, and refers to the Aryan that you intend (ie the one the Nazis used). Sanskrit, Latin and Greek are all IE languages... anyway. Now the Sanskrit speaking invaders, part is much more interesting. As this is an etymology and not history, it is easy to collude invasion and cultural diffusion especially when there are multiple theories on the matter. Also as a matter of proper debate, please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that the Sanskirt word "arya" comes from Latin, I said that "Aryan" had existed in Europe prior to the Nazi/Aryan Race Theory usage (which was from Sanskrit directly). Although, this earlier word referred to Persians.

 

[DCal430]

Also clearly Arya , doesn't refer to any race, but is a term of respect. I have seen it translated as either noble, honorable,sacred and holy. I have been listening to a lot of Buddhist Sanskrit chanting. The word Arya comes up very often in these. The first word of the heart Sutra for example is Aryavalokitesvara, which roughly translates to "Noble Avalokitesvara".

 

[Baasha]

I'm not disputing its Sanskrit attestation. It existed in Greek texts before any Sanskrit had spread to Europe. So, let me put in perspective: There is the old "Aryan" which approximated the Latin Ariana and Arianus, this dated from around 1600. This word referred to people inhabiting Persia. The second use (directly from Sanskrit) was first attested to in 1851, and refers to the Aryan that you intend (ie the one the Nazis used). Sanskrit, Latin and Greek are all IE languages... anyway. Now the Sanskrit speaking invaders, part is much more interesting. As this is an etymology and not history, it is easy to collude invasion and cultural diffusion especially when there are multiple theories on the matter. Also as a matter of proper debate, please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say arya comes from Latin, I said that "Aryan" had existed in Europe prior to the Nazi/Aryan Race Theory usage (from Sanskrit directly). Although, this earlier word referred to Persians.

The emphasized text is where our views, I presume, diverge. In fact, the Greco-Indian or Indo-Greek relationship is assumed, erroneously, to be nonexistent until much later in the common era. There are many instances in history where Greeks interacted with Indians and some even stayed behind to form a few Greco-Bactrian kingdoms. Remember, ancient India's western "border" so to speak was the Hindu Kush, in the western-most provinces of present-day Afghanistan.

Trade between the two, that is ancient Indian and Greek civilizations, has been established by historians quite uneventfully. Transmission of knowledge is also attested to however the direction of transmission is what creates tension; Takshashila (called Taxila now) in present-day Pakistan was a major center of Hindu-Buddhist learning and scholars from various kingdoms around the world are said to have studied and congregated there.

My take on it is that the flow of information was in both directions but more from India rather than into India. This is due to philological evidence, the history of the ancient Indian kingdoms, and the prevalence of international trade between India, Greece, and the Middle East.

Now, the question is is the word "Arya" only from Sanskrit? That, I do not know but I believe it is given the sheer linguistic might of the language when compared to others. So given that the Indians and Greeks had strong commercial ties, influence of ideas, philosophies, and even language(s) is a plausible conclusion.

As someone said, "The only thing that we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure!"

 

[gdansk]

The emphasized text is where our views, I presume, diverge. In fact, the Greco-Indian or Indo-Greek relationship is assumed, erroneously, to be nonexistent until much later in the common era. There are many instances in history where Greeks interacted with Indians and some even stayed behind to form a few Greco-Bactrian kingdoms. Remember, ancient India's western "border" so to speak was the Hindu Kush, in the western-most provinces of present-day Afghanistan.

Now, the question is is the word "Arya" only from Sanskrit? That, I do not know but I believe it is given the sheer linguistic might of the language when compared to others. So given that the Indians and Greeks had strong commercial ties, influence of ideas, philosophies, and even language(s) is a plausible conclusion.

I'm sure that "arya" itself is descendant from Proto Indo-European. However, now that you mention it... It is very likely the Greeks picked the word up from Persians who used it to refer to themselves and thus called them "Areia". So it is indeed likely that the Greek "Areia" is, too, derived from Sanskrit. But the point is that there are two independent meanings to the word "Aryan" one of which is not directly from Sanskrit and the other that clearly is (the one used by Aryanism). Even if they share a common ancestry in Sanskrit.

In 1700 Europe "Aryan invaders" would refer to Persian invaders. But by 1860, "Aryan invaders" took on an entirely new and racial meaning, fitting with the Aryan Race Theory. This wasn't a recycling of the old word, but rather displacement by a new word... I hope my point is coming clear, but I have to get to bed now.

 

[bfdd]

i'm pretty sure greek and sanskirt are from roughly the same time. neither are the first. also, hebrew isn't even indo-euro.

 

[Throckmorton]

There are only 3 population groups or "races"-- Africans, Eurasians, and East Asians.

Europeans, Arabs, Indians, Persians etc are all Eurasian subgroups. Australian Aborigines are also Eurasians-- their ancestors diverged from the Indians 50,000 years ago.