>>>/pol/122501720
Here is a debate over the term "Aryan" and how it should be properly used. Which party is in the right here? Surprisingly, instead of the usual shit tier tactic of /pol/ which sees that the non-whites automatically lose, there seems to be a clearly defined divide. One person even said he was convinced and changed his beliefs.
Note: please, mods, don't delete this thread because I am linking to /pol/, the purpose is to better understand the definition of "Aryan" and how it is applied to Germanics/Nordics versus, say, Indo-Iranian peoples. Even I am confused, stumbled upon this thread and wanted some clarification by /his/torians.
All aryans ended mixed, but the guy on the pic is closer to one than some potato headed european.
>>2706859
I see
>>2706644
Aryan is a term from Indo-Iranian, it always and only meant "Indo-Iranian language speaker". The Nazis mistakenly thought it was also applicable to the European branch of the Indo-European languages, but they were wrong and no academic has ever used the term to mean anything but "Indo-Iranian".
>>2706644
>In academic scholarship, the only surviving use of the word "Aryan" among many scholars is that of the term "Indo-Aryan", which indicates "(speakers of) languages descended from Prakrits". Older usage to mean "(speakers of) Indo-Iranian languages" has been superseded among some scholars by the term "Indo-Iranian"; however, "Aryan" is still used to mean "Indo-Iranian" by other scholars such as Josef Wiesehofer and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. The 19th century meaning of "Aryan" as (native speakers of) Indo-European languages" is no longer used by most scholars, but has continued among some scholars such as Colin Renfrew, and among some authors writing for the popular mass market such as H.G. Wells and Poul Anderson.