Eugenics, Race, and The Urantia Book
Return to Table of Contents: click here.
Aryans and Whites
The previous chapter and Appendix 1 show how the authors of The Urantia Book define terms like “Neanderthal” and “Caucasoid” relative to their own presentation of our genetic history. The way they coin terms and redefine existing terms demonstrates their interest in suggesting better ways for us to use our language. With respect to the use of the English language, in the second paragraph of the Forward The Urantia Book states:
It is exceedingly difficult to present enlarged concepts and advanced truth, in our endeavor to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception, when we are restricted to the use of a circumscribed language of the realm. But our mandate admonishes us to make every effort to convey our meanings by using the word symbols of the English tongue. We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning.(1)
With the word Aryan, as with the word eugenics, the authors again call upon us to reclaim the original use of a word before it developed negative connotations.
The first definition of Aryan in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary is: “a member of a people speaking an Indo-European language who spread into northern India in the 2nd millennium bc.” Wikipedia provides this encapsulation of the word’s history (footnotes omitted):
As an adaptation of the Latin Arianus, referring to Iran, ‘Aryan’ has “long been in English language use”. Its history as a loan word began in the late 1700s, when the word was borrowed from Sanskrit arya- to refer to speakers of North Indian languages. When it was determined that Iranian languages — both living and ancient — used a similar term in much the same way (but in the Iranian context as a self-identifier of Iranian peoples), it became apparent that the shared meaning had to derive from the ancestor language of the shared past, and so, by the early 1800s, the word ‘Aryan’ came to refer to the group of languages deriving from that ancestor language, and by extension, the speakers of those languages.
Then, in the 1830s, based on the erroneous theory [emphasis added] that words like “Aryan” could also be found in European languages, the term “Aryan” came to be used as the term for the Indo-European language group, and by extension, the speakers of those languages. In the 19th century, “language” was still considered a property of “ethnicity”, and thus the speakers of the Indo-European languages came to be the so-called “Aryan race”, as contradistinguished from the so-called “Semitic race”. By the late 19th century, the notions of an “Aryan race” became closely linked to Nordicism, which posited Northern European racial superiority over all other peoples (including Indians and Iranians). This “master race” ideal engendered both the “Aryanization” programs of Nazi Germany, in which the classification of people as “Aryan” and “non-Aryan” was most emphatically directed towards the exclusion of Jews. By the end of World War II, the word ‘Aryan’ had become firmly associated with the racial theories and atrocities committed by the Nazi regime.(2)
The Urantia Book provides an explanation of the notable impact the Aryans had on the development of Indian culture, especially in its more northern region. Here is its section on “The Aryan Invasion of India” in its entirety:
The second Andite penetration of India was the Aryan invasion during a period of almost five hundred years in the middle of the third millennium before Christ. This migration marked the terminal exodus of the Andites from their homelands in Turkestan.
The early Aryan centers were scattered over the northern half of India, notably in the northwest. These invaders never completed the conquest of the country and subsequently met their undoing in this neglect since their lesser numbers made them vulnerable to absorption by the Dravidians of the south, who subsequently overran the entire peninsula except the Himalayan provinces.
The Aryans made very little racial impression on India except in the northern provinces. In the Deccan their influence was cultural and religious more than racial. The greater persistence of the so-called Aryan blood in northern India is not only due to their presence in these regions in greater numbers but also because they were reinforced by later conquerors, traders, and missionaries. Right on down to the first century before Christ there was a continuous infiltration of Aryan blood into the Punjab, the last influx being attendant upon the campaigns of the Hellenistic peoples.
On the Gangetic plain Aryan and Dravidian eventually mingled to produce a high culture, and this center was later reinforced by contributions from the northeast, coming from China.
In India many types of social organizations flourished from time to time, from the semidemocratic systems of the Aryans to despotic and monarchial forms of government. But the most characteristic feature of society was the persistence of the great social castes that were instituted by the Aryans in an effort to perpetuate racial identity. This elaborate caste system has been preserved on down to the present time.
Of the four great castes, all but the first were established in the futile effort to prevent racial amalgamation of the Aryan conquerors with their inferior subjects. But the premier caste, the teacher-priests, stems from the Sethites; the Brahmans of the twentieth century after Christ are the lineal cultural descendants of the priests of the second garden, albeit their teachings differ greatly from those of their illustrious predecessors.
When the Aryans entered India, they brought with them their concepts of Deity as they had been preserved in the lingering traditions of the religion of the second garden. But the Brahman priests were never able to withstand the pagan momentum built up by the sudden contact with the inferior religions of the Deccan after the racial obliteration of the Aryans. Thus the vast majority of the population fell into the bondage of the enslaving superstitions of inferior religions; and so it was that India failed to produce the high civilization which had been foreshadowed in earlier times.
The spiritual awakening of the sixth century before Christ did not persist in India, having died out even before the Mohammedan invasion. But someday a greater Gautama may arise to lead all India in the search for the living God, and then the world will observe the fruition of the cultural potentialities of a versatile people so long comatose under the benumbing influence of an unprogressing spiritual vision.
Culture does rest on a biologic foundation, but caste alone could not perpetuate the Aryan culture, for religion, true religion, is the indispensable source of that higher energy which drives men to establish a superior civilization based on human brotherhood.(3)
The section starts in harmony with the original definition; Aryan refers to the migrations of a people from Iran to northern India “during a period of almost five hundred years in the middle of the third millennium before Christ.” In recounting the major events in India’s history, the authors attribute the origin of the caste system to the Aryans and note how this was insufficient to protect them from “racial obliteration.” The last sentence of the section emphasizes the overarching truth that the authors wish to convey. Notwithstanding the interrelationship that necessarily exists between genetics and civilization, enduring civilization requires true religion, relationships founded upon the truth of spiritual equality—human brotherhood.
The Urantia Book describes the Aryans as the originators of the spiritually untenable caste system. Though contradicting the view that the Aryan race led directly to the Germans or any other group of northern Europeans, the authors do support referring to the Aryans as a race. However, the way the authors use of the terms race, man, and people reveals that they do not precisely define these terms. (For instance, the Aryan race is not included as part of the general classification of the original Urantia “races”: the Andonites, the six Sangiks, the Nodites, and the Adamites.)
Using the term Aryan has become a cultural taboo. We allowed a word to devolve. Wikipedia summaries it this way:
The use of “Aryan” as a synonym for “Indo-European” or to a lesser extent for “Indo-Iranian”, is regarded today by many as obsolete and politically incorrect, but may still occasionally appear in material based on older scholarship, or written by persons accustomed to older usage, such as in a 1989 article in Scientific American by Colin Renfrew in which he uses the word “Aryan” in its traditional meaning as a synonym for “Indo-European”.(4)
The term Aryan originates from the Sanskrit word arya, attested in the ancient texts of Hinduism such as the Rigveda. Arya in Sanskrit holds the meaning civilized or simply referring to an individual of higher consciousness.
In the 18th century, the most ancient known Indo-European languages were those of the Indo-Iranians’ ancestors. The word Aryan was adopted to refer not only to the Indo-Iranian people, but also to native Indo-European speakers as a whole, including the Albanians, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Latins, and Germans. It was soon recognised that Balts, Celts, and Slavs also belonged to the same group. It was argued that all of these languages originated from a common root—now known as Proto-Indo-European—spoken by an ancient people who must have been the original ancestors of the European, Iranian, and Indo-Aryan peoples. The ethnic group composed of the Proto-Indo-Europeans and their modern descendants was termed the Aryans.(5)
The Urantia Book offers a solution to the ambiguity problem by introducing the term Andite, which is a handy term not only for referencing “Proto-Indo-Euopean” linguistic similarities but also a specific aspect of our genetic history. This is an example of where the authors had to coin a new term because their explanation of this ancestry involves the integration of a cosmology that is unique to The Urantia Book. The Adam and Eve Report offers support for this connection between genetics and linguistics.
By way of further distinguishing the Aryans from other groups, The Urantia Book specifies when the Hellenes have been confused with the Aryans. The next two quotes both reference “Salem teachers.” The Urantia Book says that the Salem teachers were missionaries (of Melchizadek) who spread across the world from Jerusalem, teaching the monotheistic doctrines that were locally championed by Abraham among the Jews.
The early influence of the Salem teachers was nearly destroyed by the so-called Aryan invasion from southern Europe and the East. These Hellenic invaders brought along with them anthropomorphic God concepts similar to those which their Aryan fellows had carried to India.(6)
The Urantia Book defines the Aryans as a particular branch of the Andite migrations and uses the word over thirty times. Here is the only quote in the book where the words “Aryan race” appear together:
As the Salem missionaries penetrated southward into the Dravidian Deccan, they encountered an increasing caste system, the scheme of the Aryans to prevent loss of racial identity in the face of a rising tide of the secondary Sangik peoples. Since the Brahman priest caste was the very essence of this system, this social order greatly retarded the progress of the Salem teachers. This caste system failed to save the Aryan race, but it did succeed in perpetuating the Brahmans, who, in turn, have maintained their religious hegemony in India to the present time.(7)
In the one instance where the words “Aryan race” are used together, it is within the context of depicting the end of the race. Using “Aryan race” in this manner, of course, reinforces the other reference to their “racial obliteration.” Additionally, the authors provided an underlying truth to explain why the culture that they started became an impediment to the spread of a monotheistic theology by the Salem teachers.
In contrast to “Aryan race,” The Urantia Book does not encourage using “Nordic race” as a designation. “Nordic” is used ten times; the two times that “Nordic race” appears, it is preceded by “so-called.” Additionally, the authors provide some insights into why Germany has two distinct racial groups.
The primitive culture of Europe, which was encountered by the invading Nordics, was that of the retrograding Danubians blended with the blue man. The Nordic-Danish and the Danubian-Andonite cultures met and mingled on the Rhine as is witnessed by the existence of two racial groups in Germany today.(8)
Similar to the explanation about the Aryans, The Urantia Book dedicates a whole section to this topic, titled “The Three White Races.”
It would seem that the authors do not favor using the term white and are only doing so because they are not allowed to coin a new term when one with “more or less distortion of meaning” already exists. Throughout the entire text (not including titles and headings), the authors use “white races” eighteen times. And even the plural is twice preceded by “so-called.”
They use “white race” nine times. Twice “white race” is preceded by “so-called.” In one instance “white race” is put in quotation marks and preceded by “amalgamated”; in another instance it is preceded by “mixed.” On one occasion the singular is used in a sentence discussing “branches” of the race. On two other occasions when “white race” is used, it appears in “The Three White Races” section.
In another instance the singular is more generalized to both genetics and culture:
Social evolution of the co-operative order was initiated by the Dalamatia teachers, and for three hundred thousand years mankind was nurtured in the idea of group activities. The blue man most of all profited by these early social teachings, the red man to some extent, and the black man least of all. In more recent times the yellow race and the white race have presented the most advanced social development on Urantia.(9)
In a manner paralleling the criticism of Aryans regarding both theology and civilization, the authors of The Urantia Book also take the time to point out problems associated with the “white races.”
As the original teachings of Jesus penetrated the Occident, they became Occidentalized, and as they became Occidentalized, they began to lose their potentially universal appeal to all races and kinds of men. Christianity, today, has become a religion well adapted to the social, economic, and political mores of the white races. It has long since ceased to be the religion of Jesus, although it still valiantly portrays a beautiful religion about Jesus to such individuals as sincerely seek to follow in the way of its teaching. It has glorified Jesus as the Christ, the Messianic anointed one from God, but has largely forgotten the Master's personal gospel: the Fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of all men.(10)
Here are the pertinent parts of the section titled “The Three White Races”:
The racial blends in Europe toward the close of the Andite migrations became generalized into the three white races as follows:
1. The northern white race. This so-called Nordic race consisted primarily of the blue man plus the Andite but also contained a considerable amount of Andonite blood, together with smaller amounts of the red and yellow Sangik. . . . But the largest inheritance was from the blue man. The typical early Nordic was long-headed, tall, and blond. But long ago this race became thoroughly mixed with all of the branches of the white peoples.
. . .
2. The central white race. While this group includes strains of blue, yellow, and Andite, it is predominantly Andonite. These people are broad-headed, swarthy, and stocky. They are driven like a wedge between the Nordic and Mediterranean races, with the broad base resting in Asia and the apex penetrating eastern France.
By 2500 B.C. the westward thrust of the Andonites reached Europe. And this overrunning of all Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and the Danube basin by the barbarians of the hills of Turkestan constituted the most serious and lasting of all cultural setbacks up to that time. These invaders definitely Andonized the character of the central European races, which have ever since remained characteristically Alpine.
3. The southern white race. This brunet Mediterranean race consisted of a blend of the Andite and the blue man, with a smaller Andonite strain than in the north. This group also absorbed a considerable amount of secondary Sangik blood through the Saharans. In later times this southern division of the white race was infused by strong Andite elements from the eastern Mediterranean.
The Mediterranean coastlands did not, however, become permeated by the Andites until the times of the great nomadic invasions of 2500 B.C. . . .
These racial mixtures laid the foundations for the southern European race, the most highly mixed of all. And since these days this race has undergone still further admixture, notably with the blue-yellow-Andite peoples of Arabia. This Mediterranean race is, in fact, so freely admixed with the surrounding peoples as to be virtually indiscernible as a separate type, but in general its members are short, long-headed, and brunet.
In the north the Andites, through warfare and marriage, obliterated the blue men, but in the south they survived in greater numbers. The Basques and the Berbers represent the survival of two branches of this race, but even these peoples have been thoroughly admixed with the Saharans.
This was the picture of race mixture presented in central Europe about 3000 B.C.
But it is a fallacy to presume to classify the white peoples as Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean. There has been altogether too much blending to permit such a grouping. At one time there was a fairly well-defined division of the white race into such classes, but widespread intermingling has since occurred, and it is no longer possible to identify these distinctions with any clarity. Even in 3000 B.C. the ancient social groups were no more of one race than are the present inhabitants of North America.(11)
This general description of the white races, of course, compliments the explanation provided about skeletal types, particularly Caucasoid.
By way of additional instruction, both in terms of the use of language and the history of humanity, The Urantia Book states:
These early Andites were not Aryan; they were pre-Aryan. They were not white; they were pre-white. They were neither an Occidental nor an Oriental people. But it is Andite inheritance that gives to the polyglot mixture of the so-called white races that generalized homogeneity which has been called Caucasoid.(12)
The European researches and explorations of the Old Stone Age have largely to do with unearthing the tools, bones, and artcraft of these ancient blue men, for they persisted in Europe until recent times. The so-called white races of Urantia are the descendants of these blue men as they were first modified by slight mixture with yellow and red, and as they were later greatly upstepped by assimilating the greater portion of the violet race.(13)
The Urantia Book identifies many of the problems involved with trying to define terms like Caucasoid and white. The authors use the term “white races” far more often than they use the term “white race,” consistent with their varied description of Caucasoid. In contrast, with the term “Aryan” the authors choose the original (unbigoted) definition.
1) Urantia Book 0:0.2
3) Urantia Book 79:4.1
6) Urantia Book 98:1.2
7) Urantia Book 94:2.1
8) Urantia Book 80:9.3
9) Urantia Book 68.0.3
10) Urantia Book 98:7.11
11) Urantia Book 80:9.1
12) Urantia Book 78:4.4
13) Urantia Book 64:6.24
Table of Contents
Part I: Framing the Conversation
1) Purpose and Parameters
2) Setting the Standard
4) Human Rights
Part II: Racial History, Eugenics, and Civilization
5) History and Destiny
6) The Value of Variety and Racial Vitality
7) Cultural Progress, Overpopulation, and Subnormal Human Beings
8) Modern Peoples and Slavery
Part III: Hindsight, Insight, and Foresight
9) Skull Shapes and Skeletal Types
10) Aryans and Whites
11) Differences Between the Colored Races
12) Racial Blending
13) Eugenics, Race, and Morality
Appendix 1: Urantia Book-based Taxonomy
Back to Top