XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sci.math   
   From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid   
      
   On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 09:28:55 -0800, Bobbie Sellers   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 11/11/25 23:43, Thomas Heger wrote:   
      
      
      
   >> 'German' is mainly a language. But it means also a country named    
   >> 'Germany', where the citizens are called 'German'.   
   >>    
   >> These Germans are not what is called a race. This term stems from a    
   >> British named 'Charles Darwin', who actually invented racism.   
      
   This is sane stuff:   
      
   >	Baloney! We had racism long before Charles took his voyage around the   
   >world during which his observations pointed toward his theory of eveloution   
   >by survival.   
      
   This is not:   
      
   >> He wrote a novel, which was called 'On the Origin of Species by Means of    
   >> Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle    
   >> for Life'.   
   >>    
   >> (With 'favoured races' he meant actually the British aristocracy.)   
   >>    
      
   From    
      
   With Murray's persuasion, the title was eventually agreed as On the   
   Origin of Species, with the title page adding by Means of Natural   
   Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for   
   Life. In this extended title (and elsewhere in the book) Darwin used   
   the biological term "races" interchangeably with "varieties", meaning   
   varieties within a species. He used the term broadly, and as well as   
   discussions of "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and   
   "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and   
   plants", there are three instances in the book where the phrase "races   
   of man" is used, referring to races of humans.   
      
   From which it can be seen that "favored races" was /not/ restricted to   
   the British aristocracy.    
      
   This appears to be similar to the "kinds" vs "species" conflict, with   
   "races" replacing "kinds".   
      
      
      
   This is a wise decision:   
      
   >	You are so mislead or misread that I doubt all of your other assertions.   
      
   I missed the misspelling of "Aryan". Thanks for catching it for me   
   here:   
      
   >	You sound crazy to me. Except for  the rejection of the racial identity   
   >of the German people.  Arian is a Christian heresy, Aryan is a family of    
   >languages identified with some of the people speaking one of those tongues.   
   >Hitler thought they were blond and light-skinned but the biggest nation of   
   >Aryans were the Hindus olf India. Black haired and of darker skin than   
   >Europeans generally.   
      
    appears to have   
   the Indo-Aryan languages as a branch of the Indo-Iranian language   
   family in the Indo-European language family.    
      
   I seem to recall "Aryan" being applied to what we now call the   
   Indo-European language family but, as this would 60-70 years ago, that   
   may not actually have been the case. "Aryan" has, of course, fallen   
   out of style thanks to the activities of a certain A. Hitler.   
      
   It appears to still be correct, however, that the name "Iran" is a   
   form of "Aryan".   
   --    
   "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,   
   Who evil spoke of everyone but God,   
   Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)