____no5 said:
The modren historical science started from Germany, and as a result we had this hypothesis of Aryan tribe, from a comparison of languages and holy books,
I'm sorry I have to say this, but this quote clearly shows that you have no clue what you are talking about.
While it is correct that Historism as a scholarly subject originated in Germany in the first half of the 19th century, this particular branch of historical science has very little to do with history as it is researched and written today. Although historians like Johann Gustav Droysen, Leopold von Ranke or Theodor Mommsen are still considered the godfathers of modern history, the methods and presentation of their works are bitterly antiquated. The absolute focus on individuals and events is something that has been out of practice even in Germany for more than half a century now, and new methods mostly from French and British historiography to form a symbiosis that is known as "Cultural History": Structural and social history, as practiced by the French
Annales and at the British universities, like Cambridge or Oxford (don't believe me? Check out any random "Cambridge History of..." or "Oxford History of..." volumes).
So, claiming the German historiography of the 19th century is "modern" is simply wrong.
Next, if the hypothesis of the "aryan race" has an academic background, it is nothing that comes from history (as an academic subject), but from severely twisted forms of anthropology, ethnology, sociology and even politology. While I am the first to admit that these sciences are interwined with history more often than not, during the time nazi ideology came into existence, they were practiced sepparately. An anthropologist or a sociologist would have kept distance from a historian, and vice versa.
However, most evidence that was provided to prove this idea was either pseudo-scientific, or did not have an academic base to begin with. From the beginning on, the arguments which the defenders of such ideas used were more spiritual and esoteric than anything else. Of course they used mostly ancient mythology as a background, but this does not have anything to do with history. When history as a subject was utilised, it was usually bent out of shape, twisted and distorted beyond recognition, with uncomfortable facts simply left out and not mentioned (or, sometimes, their evidence destroyed). This was certainly not in the sense of those who founded historism, because their declared goal was to "show things as they really happened" (actual quote from Leopold von Ranke).
but I am not sure if we have a single glass or a chair or whatever from this "tribe"
Of course not, since it never existed.
. As I explained I wasn't talking about people, like the Americans say ' the average Joe'. You forgot China and Iran, and people in the US certainly know more than countries you listed, and if the majority doesn't then that's just sad, and shows just what a good job CNN and others have done to keep Americans obedient. And the uncaring of Americans is one of the world's major problems. You don't care that you are producing the biggest amount of pollution, and don't give a damn about Kyoto agreement. It's 'we're the best, and fuck the rest' kind of attitude right? 
