I agree, I wasn't disputing that there were real people who self-identified with the term, I was contesting your correction that "Aryan" solely refers to these people. You might counter that the overloaded meaning is invalid for whatever reason, but (1) meanings of the propriety of words are boring and subjective and (2) I'm only saying there exists an overloaded meaning, not that everyone will find it valid nor that it excludes the validity of other meanings.

As an aside, I recently discovered (from my new Iranian neighbors) that the term "Aryan" is cognate with "Iran" the country. "Iran" in Persian means something like "Land of the Aryans", and that in 1935 the government of Iran asked its diplomatic partners to refer to it as Iran instead of Persia because of the popularity of Aryan racial ideologies.

Ah gotcha, yeah, the notion of the 'Aryans' as the ancestors of Europe was a common misconception of early European archaeology even when it didn't have the racist propaganda connections.

> They weren't blue eyed blonde-haired, that's for sure

ok but the world-wide "suppress melanin/blue eyes" gene emerged in that same part of the world (north of the Black Sea) some 10,000 years ago, so it seems that the Aryans could have been as blue eyed as anybody.

https://web.archive.org/web/20091101055254/http://www.telegr...

well, possibly, but as they are probably the ancestors of many North Indian, Iranian, and Afghanistani peoples that gene didn't stay dominant for their line. (Though I guess it shows up in that region now and again).

And they certainly weren't the 'Aryan ideal' as pictured in racist propaganda.