Page 4 of 8 [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,912
Location: temperate zone

24 Feb 2018, 12:02 pm

TwinRuler wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Yes. The word "Iran" is related to the word "Aryan" . The true Aryans in the strict sense are the speakers of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indoeuropean language family - groups that include the Iranians, and most of the ethnic groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, northern India, and Bangladesh, though not southern India (where they speak the totally unrelated Dravidian languages). Though often lighter skinned than Dravidians they are hardly your stereotyped blonde blue eyed ideal of Nazi racial ideology.

Through some complicated convoluted distortion of science the Nazis concocted a racial myth that involved appropriating the word "Aryan", and applying the word to Nordics, and Germans.

A certain macabre irony just now occurred to me.

The Rom people (the Gypsies) had their origins in northern India around a thousand plus years ago, and still speak a northern Indian Indo-Aryan language. They migrated westward via Iran, and the Byzantine Empire into Middle Ages Europe, and became the group we know today as Gypsies.

The Gypsies, like the Jews, were slated for extermination in the death camps. So therefore the one true group of actual "Aryans" in Europe were among the groups slated for death by the Nazis in the name of "Aryan surpremecy".

Still, however one may hate the Germans, or even the Nazis themselves, the idea of the Aryan Master Race is not all that worse or different than the idea of the Jewish Chosen People. Both are racially supremacist beliefs, based upon religious superstition. One based on Hindu superstition, the other based upon Hebrew superstition.


Oh!

Well then that makes Auschwitz okay! :D

Don't know what your point is. No one here on this thread said they "hated the Germans". And speaking of that I hafta to ask this question.

Did you mean to write "hate the Germans, or even the Nazis themselves"? Or is that an ass-backward result of a typo?

Didn't you mean to say "hate the Nazis, or even the Germans as a whole"?

The way you said it is like saying "I not only hate all Americans, but I hate serial killer Ted Bundy".

It makes more sense to say "I not only hate Ted Bundy, I hate all Americans!" because hating an infamous killer is the more expected thing, and hating the whole country the killer came from is the less expected thing. :lol:



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,669

24 Feb 2018, 4:14 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
A hundred million people died because somebody didn't check their facts?


Well, I suspect they would have done what they did, even without the word "Aryan."



naturalplastic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
A hundred million people died because somebody didn't check their facts?


Well, I suspect they would have done what they did, even without the word "Aryan."


Yes. A minor name change to the ideal race of their ideology is all that would be differnet. The ideology itself, and the megadeaths that followed would all have been the same.


My understanding of Nazism is that the concept of "Aryan race" symbolised by the hindu swastika was crucial to the idea of "master race" as the sanskrit translation equates to "noble birth"

Without this crucial reference point the German Nazis would only be drawing on "volk" nationalism like the nationalism followed by Kaiser Wilhelm (remember him) which I suspect would not have been so potent or gencocidal



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,669

24 Feb 2018, 4:17 pm

Going off topic...I'm more interested in the Roman influence on Britain (watching Brittania on Netflix)



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 64,700
Location: Queens, NYC

24 Feb 2018, 4:23 pm

I don't sense that the "Roman influence" trickled very far toward the consciousness of the "regular people" during Roman times.

It did extend to the monasteries a couple of hundred years later, though.

The monasteries, and the clergy in general, were the main agents which kept what is termed "literacy" alive.

Thus, it can be said, that the Roman influence, through the clergy, was considerable later on in British history.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,669

24 Feb 2018, 4:34 pm

Roman influence was "massive"

Prior to Caesar setting foot on the shores of Dover - Britain was virtually a stone age culture

Where do you start? roads, buildings, weaponry, boats, carts, channeled waterways, sanitation, architecture, clothes, language, calendar...could go on

This of course is not suggesting there wasn't an indigenous culture before that still able to express itself through art and spiritual nature/religion and did trade with other cultures but that spiritual connection to land was lost when the Romans imposed their religion



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 64,700
Location: Queens, NYC

24 Feb 2018, 4:36 pm

But all that pretty much went away after the Romans split, wouldn't you say?

At least amongst the "common folk."

Then, the Anglo-Saxons invaded. They were a pagan and non-intellectual people at the outset of their English existence. Some of the kings in Anglo-Saxon England had respect for the "knowledge." But the "common folk" really seemed skeptical of it.

The monasteries were the agents which kept the "knowledge" alive.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 64,700
Location: Queens, NYC

24 Feb 2018, 4:45 pm

I would guess that the Roman influence was great while they were there---but that it dissolved pretty quickly once they left.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,563
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Feb 2018, 5:03 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
A hundred million people died because somebody didn't check their facts?


Well, I suspect they would have done what they did, even without the word "Aryan."



naturalplastic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
A hundred million people died because somebody didn't check their facts?


Well, I suspect they would have done what they did, even without the word "Aryan."


Yes. A minor name change to the ideal race of their ideology is all that would be differnet. The ideology itself, and the megadeaths that followed would all have been the same.


My understanding of Nazism is that the concept of "Aryan race" symbolised by the hindu swastika was crucial to the idea of "master race" as the sanskrit translation equates to "noble birth"

Without this crucial reference point the German Nazis would only be drawing on "volk" nationalism like the nationalism followed by Kaiser Wilhelm (remember him) which I suspect would not have been so potent or gencocidal


I know we're trying to get back to the original idea of the thread, but allow me to just add: Kaiser Wilhelm was himself very Anti-Nazi in his later years in exile, while Hitler despised the Kaiser.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,669

24 Feb 2018, 8:52 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
But all that pretty much went away after the Romans split, wouldn't you say?

This is aimed at kids but gets the point across
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z2dr4wx

kraftiekortie wrote:
Then, the Anglo-Saxons invaded. They were a pagan and non-intellectual people at the outset of their English existence. Some of the kings in Anglo-Saxon England had respect for the "knowledge." But the "common folk" really seemed skeptical of it.The monasteries were the agents which kept the "knowledge" alive.

Some element of truth here given it ushered the era called the dark ages but remember the Anglo-Saxons were "invited" by Romanised Celts to subdue pagain celtic tribes. They too were likely Romanised and even though the dark ages supposedly saw stagnation they consolidated and absorbed Roman culture over time. The big influence was christianity which saw the rule of law and ethics (judeo-christian). The early Anglo-Saxons were mercanaries and not too much unlike their cousins the vikings who came later. So this process had to take time.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,669

24 Feb 2018, 8:55 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I know we're trying to get back to the original idea of the thread, but allow me to just add: Kaiser Wilhelm was himself very Anti-Nazi in his later years in exile, while Hitler despised the Kaiser.

Yes i know! but Kaiser Wilhelm was still a nationalist, if you take away the racial ideology you simply have empire building with German branding...Hitler tricked the German people by offering them a chance to have a second opportunity to rebuild the empire the Kaiser tried to build back in 1914



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 64,700
Location: Queens, NYC

24 Feb 2018, 9:37 pm

The leaders might have been Romanized—but the common folk weren’t.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,563
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Feb 2018, 11:59 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I know we're trying to get back to the original idea of the thread, but allow me to just add: Kaiser Wilhelm was himself very Anti-Nazi in his later years in exile, while Hitler despised the Kaiser.

Yes i know! but Kaiser Wilhelm was still a nationalist, if you take away the racial ideology you simply have empire building with German branding...Hitler tricked the German people by offering them a chance to have a second opportunity to rebuild the empire the Kaiser tried to build back in 1914


Yes, of course. But my point was that Wilhelm was hardly the monster that Hitler was. In fact, while he had been suspicious of Hitler from the beginning, he became very Anti-Nazi following reports of Kristallnacht.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,669

25 Feb 2018, 4:03 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
The leaders might have been Romanized—but the common folk weren’t.

The common folk began speaking a latinised form of Anglo-Saxon thanks to Romanised christianity
By the time of Chaucer in the 1300 in a period over 300 yrs English language become completely unintelligible to German



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,669

25 Feb 2018, 4:06 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I know we're trying to get back to the original idea of the thread, but allow me to just add: Kaiser Wilhelm was himself very Anti-Nazi in his later years in exile, while Hitler despised the Kaiser.

Yes i know! but Kaiser Wilhelm was still a nationalist, if you take away the racial ideology you simply have empire building with German branding...Hitler tricked the German people by offering them a chance to have a second opportunity to rebuild the empire the Kaiser tried to build back in 1914


Yes, of course. But my point was that Wilhelm was hardly the monster that Hitler was. In fact, while he had been suspicious of Hitler from the beginning, he became very Anti-Nazi following reports of Kristallnacht.

True although his cousin Edward seemed to be enamoured with Nazism



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,912
Location: temperate zone

25 Feb 2018, 6:13 am

cyberdad wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
The leaders might have been Romanized—but the common folk weren’t.

The common folk began speaking a latinised form of Anglo-Saxon thanks to Romanised christianity
By the time of Chaucer in the 1300 in a period over 300 yrs English language become completely unintelligible to German


Nothing to do with the Roman occupation of Britain.

Not trying to take sides between you and them about the overall influence of the 400 years of occupation of Britain, but one thing is clear. The occupation left virtually no direct linguistic legacy.

The problem is that the folks who were occupied by Rome were largely kicked out of the parts of Britain now called "England" by the Anglo Saxons who were barbarians from outside of the roman empire. So English was not invented by the British subjects of Rome but by these outsiders who came in as Rome left.



The Romans ruled all of Europe south of the Danube, and west of the Rhine, and the ruled what is now England and Wales (but not Scotland and Ireland).

The Romanized subjects took to speaking Latin in the mainland provinces and Latin based Romance languages took root in what is now France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy where Latin based languages are still the living languages. But for some reason no Romance language took root in Britain. And that's true of both groups of British folks: those descended from the Germanic invaders (the English) and those descended from the refugees who fled the Germanic invaders (the Celtic Welsh, Cornish, Manx, and the Breton of France). Niether group speaks a Romance language today.

Centuries after the Romans left, and after the Anglo Saxon migrated in... Britain was invaded again... by the Vikings from Norway and Denmark. The Vikings were a different branch of the same Germanic family as the Anglo Saxons. So that caused a melding of the two types of Germanic languages that caused English to change a lot from its north German/Netherlands roots. And then in 1066 England was conquered again... by the Norman French and the official language of England became French (though only the Aristocray spoke French most of the time).

HERE is when the Latin influence came into English. Indirectly by way of French (though monastaries had kept Latin going as in all of Christian Europe, but that Latin was for the learned, not for the common man).

The main latin influence was indirect by way of the living Romance language of the French rulers of Chaucer's own time, not as a legacy of the earlier Roman occupation of Britain.

The overlay of French upon the Germanic native language combined with the fact that the native Germanic language was itself already a bastard hybrid within the Germanic family caused English to have become quite different from mainland German by Chaucer's time.