Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00672)

"Steve Stubbs " wrote:
> 
> > There are no "sub-races" alive that are inferior to the Aryans.
> 
> I don't disagree with what you are saying from the absolute
> standpoint, but I wonder if this is an accurate interpretation of
> speifically Blavatsky.

The sub-races are sub-races of the Aryan race, not races in and of
themselves. And they do not refer to what is commonly called "races",
which, of course, has turned out to be a purely superficial designation.
The terms "root race" and "sub race" were an invention of Sinnett for
things for which there were no terms in English, and there has been an
unfortunate confusion with what is commonly called "races" ever since.

> First
> > of all, ALL human beings alive today are Aryans.
> 
> Doesn't "Aryan" mean you are descended from the people who spoke the
> Indo-European language in ancient times and invaded India and
> Europe? English is an "Aryan" language, whereas Henbrew is Semitic.
> There are in addition the Turanian, Akkadian, etc. If you are
> arguing that long intermarriage has mooted the whole question of race
> you are probably correct.

"Aryan" is Sanskrit for "noble". A group of conquerers in India took on
the TITLE of Aryans, and a bunch of linguist/anthropologists in the
early 19th centuries posited that similarities in language implied
similarities in ancestry. Blavatsky's use of the term Aryan was as I
described: naming the race after the earliest primary civilization.

Bart