In the mid-nineteenth century, the term Aryan was applied by linguists to the purely theoretic tribe from which all of the speakers of what are today known as the Indo-European languages must have descended. Their assumption, not an unreasonable one, was that, given the migration patterns which can be traced by language, both into Europe and into the Indian subcontinent, such a putative tribe must once have lived in the Central Asian highlands, probably north of the Caucasus range.
The obsessive racists of the nineteenth century, eager to make up a pseudo-science of race, leapt on this, and described the "white race" as Caucasian, stubbornly ignoring that their "racial" cousins, the Hindu, in the subcontinent, can be as "black" as any African. I don't think i need to explain how it is that the term Aryan fell into disrepute. However, prior to Adolf and his goose-stepping murderers, the term Aryan was more common among scientists and historians than Caucasian, because the term could more certainly be applied on a linguistic basis that could the dubious assumption of from whence our ancestors might have orginally derived.
It's all a 'Caucasian Chalk Circle' :wink:
Hey, i look pretty damned Caucasian with my new avatar, eh?
Setanta wrote:In the mid-nineteenth century, the term Aryan was applied by linguists to the purely theoretic tribe from which all of the speakers of what are today known as the Indo-European languages must have descended. Their assumption, not an unreasonable one, was that, given the migration patterns which can be traced by language, both into Europe and into the Indian subcontinent, such a putative tribe must once have lived in the Central Asian highlands, probably north of the Caucasus range.
The obsessive racists of the nineteenth century, eager to make up a pseudo-science of race, leapt on this, and described the "white race" as Caucasian, stubbornly ignoring that their "racial" cousins, the Hindu, in the subcontinent, can be as "black" as any African. I don't think i need to explain how it is that the term Aryan fell into disrepute. However, prior to Adolf and his goose-stepping murderers, the term Aryan was more common among scientists and historians than Caucasian, because the term could more certainly be applied on a linguistic basis that could the dubious assumption of from whence our ancestors might have orginally derived.
...
Are you accusing McGentrix of being Aryan?
...
You could be right, you know.
Walter Hinteler wrote:It's all a 'Caucasian Chalk Circle' :wink:
I love that play.
Read it in German, too, back when I almost kinda could, with a Langenscheidt's and a lot of persistence.
I read the term was invented by an anthropologist based on his understanding that Noah's ark landed in the Caucasus Mts.
Which is odd, considering Noah and family were presumably semitic....
Read it with lot of persistence (but without a Langenscheidt) and ages back (the first).
(Well, we HAD to read it at school - and disliked everything I HAD to do.)
Loved it, since I first saw it on stage (at/with school as well).
Noah's ark was alleged to have landed on Mount Ararat, which is in easter Anatolia . . .
Mount Ararat is located in Eastern Turkey on the borders of Iran, Armenia (formerly U.S.S.R.), and Nachivan. This volcanic mountain rises 5,165 meters or 16,945 feet high above the plains and is the highest location in the ancient kingdom of Urartu, a region which covered thousands of square miles. Ararat is the bastardized name of Urartu from the Hebrew Torah written by Moses (c. 1450 BC) which only included the consonants "rrt". However, the translators of the Bible replaced the "rrt" with the later name, "Ararat."
from NoahsArkSearch-dot-com . . . naw, i ain't gonna post the link, look it up yerselves . . .
Close . . . but no ceegar . . .
No one said that anthropologist was very bright!
Wait... When did McGentrix become an anthropologist?
Let's bring this thread back on topic.
When will the anti-cracker crowd denounce the term "caucasian"?!? Well?!?
Setanta wrote:As you can well imagine that your opinion on any matter is a subject of indifference to me, given the contempt i entertain for based upon your "contributions" to this site.
Your hypocricy reeks in this instance. You disapprove of Joe's suggestion--which i think may have been "tongue-in-cheek"--that soldiers kill the politicians who sent them to war, but you approve of attacking the Iraqi regime by military means, even if it results in the deaths of thousands of innocents--to numbers that dwarf the number who died in New York and Washington on September 11th. And, of course, you're attempting by infernece to connect the Iraqi regime to that event, although you cannot provide a shred of credible evidence that the Iraqis were in any way involved. You don't opposed bloodshed in aid of political process, you're just very selective, in a highly bigoted manner, about who you are willing to see die and who you are not willing to see die.
No surprises here . . . move along folks, nothing to see . . .
Set,
By this statement can we infer that after the US killed 3000 Japanese after Pearl Harbor we should have stopped?
Can we also infer that after the Us killed as many germans as they killed
American sailors,that we should have stopped?
Setanta wrote:The Adirondack Hypocrite wrote:You don't wish to see terrorists brought to justice?
Do you allege that the terrorists responsible for the slaughter of thousands on September 11th were Iraqi? Do you allege that those who committed those acts were in any way supported by Iraqi officials? If so, you are in direct contradiction of the conclusions of the September 11th Commission's report.
We were already going after the terrorists in Afghanistan, because there was credible evidence that they had been sheltered by and aided by the Taliban regime there, and that the headquarters of their organization was there. Then the Idiot in Chief decided to implement the venal and cynical agenda of the PNAC by an invasion of Iraq, based upon specious allegations of weapons of mass destruction, and calculated insinuations of involvement in the September 11th tragedy spread abroad by Cheney in a manner to give the Shrub "deniability,"
As usual, you have only your phoney self-righteousness--you have no case.
Set,
Are you actually going to deny that Iraq helped terrorists?
Has your memory gotten that bad?
Or are you intentionally forgetting the fact that Iraq provided shelter,and medical aid to the cowards that hijacked the Achile Loro,and killed an old man in a wheelchair by throwing him overboard?
Are you actually going to deny that?
mysteryman wrote:
Set,
By this statement can we infer that after the US killed 3000 Japanese after Pearl Harbor we should have stopped?
Can we also infer that after the Us killed as many germans as they killed
American sailors,that we should have stopped?
And Iraq attacked the US when?
parados wrote:mysteryman wrote:
Set,
By this statement can we infer that after the US killed 3000 Japanese after Pearl Harbor we should have stopped?
Can we also infer that after the Us killed as many germans as they killed
American sailors,that we should have stopped?
And Iraq attacked the US when?
When they invaded Kuwait for one.
They attacked,captured,and occupied the US Embassy in Kuwait City.
Under all international agreements on diplomacy,that alone qualifies as an act of war.
Diplomats are considered untouchable and safe from attack,so ANY attack on any countries embassy can be considered an act of war.
mysteryman wrote:ANY attack on any countries embassy can be considered an act of war.
Damn. Really? Well then..... Y'all remember when
the United States waged war on China?
Jeeze, OE, i hope nobody told China . . . there's a helluva lot a them feckers . . .
The Hebrew language at that time didn't have vowels nor spaces between words thus the variations in interpretation of the Bible..
