Quote:
Originally Posted by saxonwold
You misunderstood. The Iranid phenotype is not limited to Iran. This type is distinctive on the Iranian Plateau, it was one of the main racial element in the Persians.
|
No, I did not "misunderstood." Of course "Iranid" phenotype is not limited to Iran, but that mixture with Arabs took place in 6th-7th centuries, during the conquest of Persia, not IRAN. Hence this "Iranid" type post 6-7th century should already include Arab-influenced features. Pre-conquest type should be pure "Persian" and that's why there should be a difference in the look of "Iranids" before 6-7th century and after.
Plus, of course, "greater Persia" included a great deal of people of variety of looks I would think, looking at its territory
at its peak, as much as its successor Iran, that still consists of
different lands and has population that speaks
different languages. The "phenotype" is just a concept - the *mean* look that you see across certain territories, or the areas of the "natural habitats"
Quote:
|
What Hitler thought is irrelevant.
|
Right. And it's particularly irrelevant to my post, since it was not me, but that multifaceted amigo that brought him ( Hitler that is) in conversation.
Quote:
|
He considered Iranians while considered Slavs as "inferiors", Slavs are Whites, aren't they? So why do you consider what he thought?
|
As I've said, I didn't *consider* any of Hitler's thoughts in terms of phenotypes, because Hitler's racial theories were not quite based on "phenotypes," but rather on
Arthur Gobineau's theories.
Of course the Nazi party tweaked his theory to their liking, uniting it with religious beliefs, such as;
" They believed that the different human races were distinct and separate, created as God wanted them, and they regarded these permanent racial characteristics as all important to human culture and destiny. Further, they believed that allowing racial inter-mixing had led to the downfall of civilizations, and was a sin against God’s creation. Thus they considered it of overwhelming importance to preserve their own Nordic/Aryan race, which they regarded as superior and created in “God’s own image”, by preventing inter-breeding with “inferior” races which they regarded as literally “sub-human”, being separate creations.
So, yes, the Nazis wanted to use selective breeding, but not to
create a “master race”, but to
preserve an Aryan master race, preserving the primordial Aryan characteristics which they believed were the
“highest image of God”."
https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011...-to-darwinism/.
So taking in consideration this perspective, "Slavs" were not all the same for them, and therefore just the general definition of "Whites" doesn't quite cut it here.
They saw certain desirable traits of the "master race" in some Poles, hence kidnapping their blond children and placing them in German families, while at the same time considering Russians as a "hopeless case," since the "Aryan race" was already firmly intertwined with "inferior people" there, (and particularly after the destruction of the "upper strata" of Tzarist times from what I remember.)
When it comes to Iran and Hitler's Germany, things are not as easy as it seems as well;
"In the 1930s, Alfred Rosenberg, one of Hitler's philosophers, published "The Myth of the Twentieth Century", a book in which he claimed that the torch of Aryanism had passed from Iranians to Germans. The reason was that Iranians had been "corrupted" by Islam and mixed with "inferior races" such as Arabs, Turks, and Mongols. Thus, in 1936, when the Third Reich wanted to publish its official list of "superior" and "inferior" races, there was some debate regarding the place to be assigned to Iranians. In the end raison d'etat prevailed and Iran was declared an "Aryan nation".
Iran and Germany: A 100-Year Old Love Affair
So same thing as I am pointing at, ( the mixture of original Persians with Arabs and Islamization of the country) hasn't been overlooked by Germans as well, however the very fact that even the name "Iran" is derived from "Aryan" prevailed in this case, apparently. To dig into the issue a bit more, I'd quote these two excerpts from different sources;
# 1
"Yet as the 19th century progressed, linguists discarded the notion that Sanskrit was any older than Latin, Greek, Old Germanic, Old Slavic or any of the other “second-generation” offspring of a “proto-Indo-European” parent language that no longer existed. Looking for the original homeland of this proto-speech, scholars now argued that it must have been somewhere in Northern or Eastern Europe. Adopted by such openly racist proponents of Nordic or European racial superiority as Arthur de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, this belief became the core of racist ideologies that held, first, that the Indo-European-speaking or Aryan peoples of the world represented a higher form of human development than the speakers of other languages, such as Semitic ones, and second,
that the “purest” Aryans were to be found in the blond-haired, blue-eyed inhabitants of Germany and Scandinavia, where the Aryan racial type first hailed from and in which it had remained the least diluted. Joined to the totalitarian politics of the 20th century, such “Aryanism” became part and parcel of Nazi thought, providing a pseudo-scientific basis for a genocidal anti-Semitism."
read more:
How 'Iran' and 'Aryan' Are Connected - Haaretz - Israel News Haaretz.com
and #2
"The irony is that it wasn't Persian nationalists who started this "Iran is Aryan" thing, it was Europeans.
... You have to remember that the West essentially defined itself against the Persians. Between the Greeks and the Romans, it fought Persia for over a thousand years, was in intimate contact with the Iranian peoples, and to a great extent derived its sense of identity from this interaction.
So if you're basically a racist 19th century European looking at the Persian Empire, the first and arguably greatest empire that has ever existed, a civilization that essentially throws the 3Bs in your face (Bigger, Better, and Before you), you have two options;
1) Deny, denigrate, demonize.
2)
Claim Persians were actually blonde, blue eyed "Aryans" who somehow wandered from Europe onto the Iranian plateau. Because god forbid a bunch of Asiatics could beat you at anything.
In the 19th and up to the mid 20th centuries, Germans espoused option 2 when contemplating the Persians."
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Hitler...d-Russians-not
In case # 2 I would argue however, that Persians most likely were not "blonde, blue-eyed Aryans," for a simple reason that blondness is a recessive gene. So if "blond-blue eyed people" did indeed come to the lands of ancient Persia, ( a few sources on ancient Persia indicated of the "new-comers" that moved in the region from..( the direction of Russian plains I believe,) have settled among the locals and brought the new culture with them.
Now Russian plaines were the regular migratory routs for Germanic tribes in earlier history, so if these "newcomers" were of that origin and WERE blond, then most likely the result of their resettlement became yet another version of "Atlantid" look lol, - the darker-looking European type (which by the way still can be seen among Iranians) but not blond-blue-eyed "phenotype."
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
