Posted 01 February 2007 - 10:46 PM
Posted 29 January 2014 - 02:34 PM
I can't believe this debate is still raging among ARmenians!
Don't you, as Armenians, ALREADY know your identity? Aren't you proud of who you are?
If you're not, then go and join Stormfront or whatever other fake nationalist trash site.
I am proud of my dark haired uncle Nerses who singlehandedly remoulded the musical culture of the country he lived in. He acted like the Komitas of Ethiopia, collected their songs, rearranged them into various forms and orchestrations such as 4 part choirs, jazz groups, and so on. Where were the "blond Aryan'" shits in the meanwhile, eh?
We ARmenians ARE the noble race who, when in another man's country, think of ourselves as guests and honor the traditions of that country and in fact attempt to improve it.
If all some of you know about Armenians are the "gangs in hollywood," and think of us as some inferior "race, then you are pathetic fools, ignoramuses who should be sterilized!
Edited by hagopn, 29 January 2014 - 02:42 PM.
Posted 29 January 2014 - 02:41 PM
We were the only "white" folk in the history of Africa to side on behalf of our host country, work for its interests, completely loyal, completely honest. My grand uncle Kevork also composed the national anthem for Ethiopia. An Armenian, Colonel Boghosian, was Haile Selassie's bodyguard! EThiopians had a traditional bias: Their nobility would request that their children be partly raised by Armenian families in order to be, and this is the truth, civilized! They didn't choose German, English, Italian, or Greek families. They chose Armenian families!
The fact is that all these older traditional cultures with historic memory KNOW that ARmenians are civilized, more so than others. What the hell does it matter what color your eyes and hair are?
Edited by hagopn, 29 January 2014 - 02:43 PM.
Posted 29 January 2014 - 04:24 PM
But those moron Armenians who still make major contributions to the Turkish "culture", I spit on your graves!
Posted 29 January 2014 - 06:28 PM
Let's bury this 19th century pseudo-scientific Aryan and racial non-sense once and for all with a little education in *contemporary* scientific consensus.
I. A Statement from the American Anthropological Associaton on Race
In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.
Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.
From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their status differences.
As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each "race," linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought.
Early in the 19th century the growing fields of science began to reflect the public consciousness about human differences. Differences among the "racial" categories were projected to their greatest extreme when the argument was posed that Africans, Indians, and Europeans were separate species, with Africans the least human and closer taxonomically to apes.
Ultimately "race" as an ideology about human differences was subsequently spread to other areas of the world. It became a strategy for dividing, ranking, and controlling colonized people used by colonial powers everywhere. But it was not limited to the colonial situation. In the latter part of the 19th century it was employed by Europeans to rank one another and to justify social, economic, and political inequalities among their peoples. During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of "race" and "racial" differences and took them to a logical end: the extermination of 11 million people of "inferior races" (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust.
"Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.
At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are.
It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world.
How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society. The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.
[Note: For further information on human biological variations, see the statement prepared and issued by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 1996 (AJPA 101:569-570).]
"Association of race"? This is by far the most ridiculous person to have posted on this forum. Who the hell cares what these politicized pseudo-scientific "organizations" say about race, nationality, heritage? They're patented liars, assimilationists!
While this is going on, the more we learn about genetics, particularly the medical field is getting increasingly specific about what medical treatments to give per racial type.
In other words, the sciences, the real ones, say race exists. The pseudo-sciences, such as the one above, say races are not.
I trust the ones who are less political in nature, but that's just me!
Posted 29 January 2014 - 06:30 PM
In my experience, and those of many I have come to know in life, Anthropologists are usually mentally disturbed marxists. I have literally seen a perfectly normal college kid choose that major and end up a fanatical, bamboozling insane marxist.
Posted 31 January 2014 - 12:34 PM
right, aryan is a set of indo-european related langages, but there is an ethnic group type called "aryan", or so i read. there is not one type of aryan, hitlerian or not, it matters not. point being, if you believe in it good for you, if it gives you a reason to defend your country, or else, it is purely negative.
No, there is no such ethnic group and there never was. Aryan was an Indo-Aryan designation for "noble", today it's a linguistic term for Indo-Aryan languages (not to be confused with Indo-European).
This is so banal: "A language that didn't have any national or tribal origins." Such nonsense. Seriously, cognitive dissonance is the order of the day where Lunar mythology is winning, is the dominant ideology, that of "working in the dark, subversive," an era where the "covert" is the most potent and impacting, an era of KGBs, NKVDs, CIAs, Mossads, Savamas, MYT, MI-5, scaring the crap out of every overt government, having people constantly paranoid about who did what in politics. It is an era where the parasite is touted as a "creator," the banker is considered "a force for progress," which is as absurd as saying "the Sun's rays are shining on us more efficiently and are more affordable since the Fed lowered the interest rates." The Aryan age was a wonder, a miracle in human history that brought about civilization, the era of Maleness, the era of courage, of honesty, of openness.
Yes, actually, there was such an ethnic group, and there is still such an ethnic group.
We are the ARmen, the people who worshipped the Sun, the Solar ideal, the one that says "you cannot hide in darkness" in the spiritual sense, the one that finally abandoned all duplicitous and subversive power politics as personified in the Lunar deities (which is once again a dominant ideology in that region), the one that gave Christianity its first inspiration through Mihrism, the one that is still called by its ancient name, People of the Sun. What the hell is so hard to comprehend about this?
Then there are the hybrid cultures that are still cause for confusion.
For instance, I believe Jacquetta Hawkes and her assertions that the "Hittites invaded India through the Khyber pass," which, the Hatti/Hittites were the Aryans, the Armenians. The only thing I don't agree on is that it was an invasion. There are indications that the Dravidian and the Aryan have been interacting all over the place, the Mittanni kingdom, Sumer, Persian empire in its entire history, all hybrid Aryano-Dravidian cultures, and so on. Genetics is proving this. The Hatamti/Elamites were obviously Dravidian, and by the time the Hakhamanish dynasty had come along, that part of the world was already a mixed culture, as was the entirety of the Indian sub-continent (an apt term, really, that should still be used). But the term "Aryan" did have origins in an ethnic group, definitely.
As to the "Norse mythologers" that sprung up in Germany, they are wrong. It has nothing to do with "blondness", but boldness, vigor, virility, rugged honesty of a set of tribes, probably related in blood at some point, who agreed on a set of principles.
Edited by hagopn, 31 January 2014 - 12:36 PM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users