Aryans

"So deal with it." A statement loaded with defiance and truth. Let’s break this down from the start, acknowledging the rich and noble origins of early leadership, the Persian influence, and how physical traits like blue eyes, while part of history, became entangled in modern, often destructive, identity politics.

The idea that the earliest kings—what we now call leaders or facilitators—were the original "Aryans" of Persia is both interesting and rooted in some valid historical foundations, but it also requires deconstructing the layers of mythology and nationalist propaganda that have become tangled with these historical narratives.

Let’s cut to the chase—racism is terrible, no matter where it’s coming from. And in my world, I’m an equal-opportunity discriminator when it comes to bigots. So, if you’re looking for a sanitized version of history that fits nicely into your prepackaged worldview, you might want to stay in your bubble. This is not the place for sugarcoating or playing nice with outdated, distorted narratives. If you're uncomfortable with reality, here’s your warning: don’t read any further.

Now, for those ready to dive in—here’s the truth. The term Aryan has been twisted beyond recognition, manipulated to serve racist ideologies and false narratives. But the real story? It’s far richer, more complex, and grounded in nobility through action, not race.

You think today's leaders have it tough? Try running an empire where half the people are trying to conquer you and the other half are trying to steal your crown. Welcome to ancient Persia, where kings were more like facilitators, organizers, and—dare we say it—coaches.

This is a raw, unapologetic dive into the true history of the Persian Aryans—their leadership, their contributions, and their legacy. Now, there’s been a lot of noise about the term Aryan over the centuries. Racists hijacked it, and suddenly, we’re knee-deep in this strange mess where people think it’s all about blond hair and blue eyes, forgetting that those early "Aryans" were more concerned with, you know, running empires, laying down laws, and generally not getting murdered by rival kings.

When we look back at history, especially the ancient world, it’s easy to get caught up in modern interpretations that oversimplify and distort what actually happened. The story of the Persian Empire and its leaders is a prime example of this. It’s been pulled in different directions over the centuries, with many using it to support narratives about race, power, and identity. But if we take a step back, we can see something deeper: a history that’s more about inclusion, diversity, and action than appearance.

The idea that ancient Persian kings—often referred to as Aryans—were defined by physical traits like blue eyes or skin color is largely a modern construct. While there is some evidence that certain Persians may have had features such as blue eyes due to their Indo-European ancestry, what truly mattered during the Achaemenid period wasn’t how someone looked—it was what they could contribute to the empire. Kings like Cyrus the Great and Darius I built their vast and diverse empire not on the basis of a single race or ethnicity but on the collective strengths of many peoples, including Egyptians, Babylonians, Africans, Greeks, and others.

In terms of slavery, while the Persian Empire had forms of labor exploitation and hierarchy—like most ancient empires—it was less about racial categories and more about the social and power dynamics of the time. People were enslaved primarily due to conquest, war, and debt, rather than their ethnicity or race. Slavery and labor in the Persian Empire were driven by the political realities of conquest and governance, not by modern racial constructs. While the Persians took slaves from conquered peoples, they did not operate under the same racial ideologies that would develop much later in history. In many cases, people of different ethnicities could rise to prominent positions within the empire. For instance, Egyptians, Babylonians, and Greeks could serve in high-ranking roles, provided they were loyal and useful to the empire’s administrative and military needs.

While there was a form of power dynamic that saw conquered peoples subjected to forced labor or servitude, the Persian system was relatively flexible and often integrative. Persian kings like Darius I used a system of governance that allowed local leaders to continue ruling their territories, incorporating their expertise and maintaining cultural diversity within the empire. Thus, while power dynamics were certainly hierarchical, they were not organized along the strict racial or ethnic lines seen in later periods. The Persian approach to power was more inclusive than many other empires of the time, and enslaved peoples were not typically defined or valued based solely on their race, but rather on their utility or role within the empire. This system reflected the empire's broader approach to governance, where talent, loyalty, and contributions to the empire were often prioritized over rigid racial divisions.

The Achaemenid Empire, founded by Cyrus the Great in the 6th century BCE, was a melting pot of cultures, languages, and people. It stretched across vast territories, from the Balkans in the west to the Indus Valley in the east, and included people from Africa, Egypt, Greece, Babylon, and beyond. The strength of the empire wasn’t in excluding others but in embracing diversity. This wasn’t about race—it was about competence and contribution.

Cyrus the Great is perhaps the best example. His famous Cyrus Cylinder, often regarded as one of the first declarations of human rights, reflects a ruler who valued justice, tolerance, and inclusion. Cyrus didn’t see people through the lens of physical characteristics; he respected their talents and what they could bring to the empire. Under his rule, the empire thrived because it allowed different cultures to coexist and contribute. The empire’s nobility wasn’t about birthright or race—it was about action and merit.

The term Aryan has been misunderstood and misused, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries. Originally, in the Persian context, Aryan referred to a cultural and linguistic group—it wasn’t about race as we think of it today. However, modern movements, particularly in Europe, distorted this term to fit racial narratives, turning "Aryan" into a symbol of purity, and in some cases, tying it to physical traits like blue eyes.

In today’s world, we often find ourselves in a post-truth environment, where narratives are spun and reshaped to fit particular agendas. The story of ancient Persia is no exception. What’s important to remember is that the truth isn’t always straightforward. It’s complex, layered, and often manipulated by those in power to serve their interests.

But when we take a humble approach to history—when we acknowledge that our understanding of the past is shaped by modern perceptions—we open the door to deeper learning. Ancient Persia’s strength came from its diversity, not from any one race or ethnicity. The narratives that try to pit people against each other based on race are modern inventions, not reflections of the ancient world.

Racism, in many ways, has become a tool of power—used to divide and control. By turning it inside out, by looking at how ancient Persia thrived through inclusion, we can see how damaging these modern narratives are. Instead of focusing on what divides us, we can learn from the past about what unites us.

As we unpack these layers of history, the goal is not to assign blame or create new divisions, but to learn. History shows us that societies thrive when they embrace diversity and merit, not when they focus on superficial traits like race or appearance. The Persian Empire stands as a testament to this. It wasn’t perfect, but it showed that when people come together, bringing their different talents and strengths, great things can happen.

By reflecting on the true story of ancient Persia, we can begin to dismantle the narratives that have been built around race and power, and instead focus on a more inclusive, constructive view of history. This isn’t about "winning" or "losing" debates—it’s about understanding the truth in all its complexity, and learning from it to build a better future.

So yeah, we’re going to cut through all that nonsense and set the record straight. It’s about reclaiming what’s been stolen by ideologues and setting the record straight. If you're up for it, let's go.

Early Kings: Coaches, Facilitators, and the Roots of Leadership

Let’s start by rethinking kingship as it originally was—a far cry from the image of later authoritarian rule. In ancient Persia, kings were not simply authoritarian rulers but rather facilitators of society. They were seen as guides and protectors, orchestrators of social and military structures that allowed civilizations to thrive. If we strip away the modern association of kingship with tyranny and greed, we get closer to the heart of what these early rulers embodied— responsibility, organization, and guidance.

Let’s talk kings—Persian kings, the original Aryans (yes, we’re taking the word back, so deal with it). And they weren’t just lording over people. These were the kinds of guys who built empires, set up human rights declarations (hello, Cyrus the Great), and managed entire regions long before most folks knew what a nation even was. In other words, leadership through action, not by playing dress-up on a throne.

Ancient Persian kings were the OG facilitators of civilization. They weren’t worried about racial purity or whatever nonsense people tried to attach to them centuries later. They were too busy doing things like inventing legal systems and making sure their soldiers didn’t mutiny. This wasn’t the Game of Thrones kind of kingship—this was "get up and make stuff happen" kingship.

So where did it all go wrong? Well, some 19th-century (some) Europeans got hold of the term Aryan, thought it sounded fancy, and decided to slap it onto their weird racial purity theories. And that’s when everything went off the rails. Suddenly, people who had nothing to do with the ancient Indo-Iranians started claiming the term Aryan like they’d just discovered the secret to eternal life, forgetting the original meaning of the word—which was all about nobility of action, not whatever they thought was going on in their gene pool.

And, just in case anyone was wondering: Yes, ancient Persians (take me to your leader) had blue eyes. So, what? They also had advanced irrigation systems, architectural wonders, and legal codes that would make modern nations jealous. Blue eyes didn’t build Persepolis; ingenuity did. Get that straight.

This is where racism comes into play—not as an organic social phenomenon, but as a deliberate tool of power. The Persian Empire’s strength came from its diversity. Africans, Greeks, Egyptians, and Persians—people of all races and ethnic backgrounds—contributed to the empire’s success. But modern racial narratives have taken this history and turned it upside down, creating divisions where none existed. The twisting of the Aryan identity and the elevation of physical traits like blue eyes are all part of this game.

Racism isn’t just about prejudice or ignorance. It’s a weapon. Those in power use it to divide people, to create hierarchies that serve their own interests. And that’s exactly what’s happened with the narrative of ancient Persia. The truth has been buried under layers of distortion, and the idea of race has been weaponized to maintain control. The racial purity myth is a tool, a narrative constructed by those who benefit from keeping people divided and fighting amongst themselves.

In today’s post-truth era, we’re constantly bombarded with manipulated narratives. Facts get twisted, history gets rewritten, and those in power tell us what to believe. Ancient Persia isn’t immune to this process. The narrative of blue eyes and Aryan nobility is just one example of how the truth can be turned inside out to serve political agendas.

The real history of Persia? It’s a story of inclusion, diversity, and nobility through action, not appearance. But those truths have been buried because they don’t serve the current power structures. It’s easier to maintain control when you create divisions based on race, when you convince people that their identity is tied to physical traits rather than their contributions.

The post-truth era shows us that narratives aren’t fixed. They’re constantly being rewritten by those who hold power. And if we’re going to confront racism head-on, we have to recognize that it’s not just a social issue—it’s a deliberate tool used to keep people in their place.

So here’s the challenge: we need to turn racism inside out. We need to recognize it for what it is—not just a prejudice, but a strategic tool used by those in power to maintain control. The Persian narrative of leadership and nobility has been twisted into a racial story that serves modern agendas, but that’s not the truth. The truth is that ancient Persia thrived because of its diversity, not in spite of it.

Nobility in Persia wasn’t defined by race, but by action. People of African, Greek, Egyptian, and Persian descent held positions of power because they were competent, loyal, and effective. But that truth has been buried under layers of political manipulation, and we’ve been left with a story that doesn’t reflect the real history.

If we’re going to confront the lies, if we’re going to reclaim the truth, we have to start by dismantling the narratives that have been used to divide us. We need to recognize that the history of blue eyes and Aryan identity in ancient Persia is just one example of how racism has been used as a tool of power. It’s time to stop playing by those rules and start reclaiming the real stories of inclusion, diversity, and leadership that built the Persian Empire.

In ancient Persia, kings like Cyrus the Great weren’t just power-hungry despots; they were arrangers of order, individuals who elevated society by creating infrastructures that promoted fairness (such as Cyrus’ famous Charter of Human Rights). These kings were the original coaches—the ones who brought together people, facilitated the building of cities, fostered culture, and created systems that would define governance for millennia.

Let’s set the record straight. Back then, being Persian wasn’t about race—it was about empire, survival, and making sure the guy next door wasn’t planning to invade your lands. The idea that Persian kings or other ancient rulers were fixated on the racial background of their subjects is a modern invention. Leadership was about who could get the job done.

Take Cyrus the Great, for instance. He wasn’t sitting around polishing his crown and checking his family tree for racial purity. He was writing the Cyrus Cylinder, a document that’s now considered one of the earliest declarations of human rights. Cyrus didn’t care about where you were from—he cared about what you could bring to the empire. If you had skills, if you were loyal, and if you could lead, then there was a place for you in the Persian hierarchy. And this wasn’t limited to Persians, Greeks, or other Indo-Iranian peoples—this included Black people and others from regions like Egypt, Nubia, and beyond.

"So deal with it." A statement loaded with defiance, but also with historical truth. The Persian Empire was not built on modern notions of racial hierarchy or purity, but rather on competence, loyalty, and a strong focus on the survival of the empire. The Achaemenid kings, such as Cyrus the Great and Darius I, were practical rulers—what mattered was whether you could contribute, not where you came from or what you looked like.

In fact, people of African descent, among others from diverse ethnic backgrounds, held positions of power and influence within the Persian Empire. This historical reality flies in the face of modern racial narratives, and it’s important to reclaim the true story: leadership in ancient Persia was about action, skill, and loyalty, not race.

The Persian Empire’s success lay in its inclusiveness and reliance on a meritocratic system where people of all ethnicities—including Africans—could rise to positions of power and influence. Leadership was defined by one’s ability to contribute to the stability and expansion of the empire, not by race or physical appearance. Ancient Persia offers a model of leadership based on diversity and inclusion, long before modern concepts of racial hierarchies emerged.

The Achaemenid Persian Empire (c. 550–330 BCE), founded by Cyrus the Great, was one of the largest and most culturally diverse empires of the ancient world, stretching from the Balkans and Eastern Europe in the west to the Indus Valley in the east. Under Cyrus and his successors, the empire was built on the principles of inclusion and tolerance, which was reflected in how the Persian kings governed their territories.

Cyrus the Great’s Cyrus Cylinder, discovered in 1879, is widely regarded as the first declaration of human rights. It proclaimed religious and cultural freedom for the peoples of the empire, as well as the right to self-governance for certain regions under Persian rule. In the context of leadership, this document provides evidence that Cyrus prioritized governance based on justice and inclusion, rather than subjugation based on race or ethnicity. It outlined a policy that integrated people from diverse backgrounds into the empire's bureaucratic, military, and economic systems.

Scholarly Source:

• Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Eisenbrauns, 2002. (An extensive work on Achaemenid Persia, highlighting Cyrus's policies of inclusion.)

Under Darius I (r. 522–486 BCE), the empire’s administrative structure was further formalized. Darius divided the empire into satrapies (provinces), each ruled by a satrap (governor), many of whom were not Persian. The empire’s strength lay in its ability to integrate the various peoples of its vast territories into a single political entity. This included people from Egypt, Babylonia, and parts of Africa, who held positions of power in the imperial administration and military. Darius’s use of non-Persian governors shows the pragmatic approach to governance that characterized the Achaemenid Empire.

Scholarly Source:

• Kuhrt, Amélie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. Routledge, 2007. (This work compiles primary sources and provides evidence of Darius’s multi-ethnic administration.)

The Persian Empire, as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state, was built on the contributions of people from various backgrounds. Persians ruled over a wide array of cultures, languages, and ethnicities. From Egyptians to Jews, Greeks, Africans, and others, people from these regions not only lived within the empire but were often elevated to positions of significant influence.

There is evidence that Africans, including people of Nubian and Egyptian descent, held important roles in the Persian Empire, particularly during the Achaemenid period. Egypt became a Persian satrapy under Cambyses II (son of Cyrus the Great) in 525 BCE, and the Persians maintained close contact with Africa during their reign.

• African soldiers: Some sources indicate that African soldiers fought in the Persian military, as depicted in ancient art. The Persepolis Reliefs, which date back to the reign of Darius I, show people of diverse backgrounds—including African figures—bringing tributes and serving in the empire. These figures are often shown in roles of prominence, indicating that they were respected members of the empire.

• Herodotus: The Greek historian Herodotus, in his Histories, describes the multi-ethnic composition of the Persian army, noting the inclusion of Egyptian and Ethiopian (likely Nubian) troops. While Herodotus’s accounts are sometimes embellished, they provide valuable insight into the diversity of the Persian forces.

Scholarly Sources:

• Fleming, Donald. “The Role of Africans in the Persian Empire.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1965, pp. 1-10.

• Herodotus. The Histories. Translated by Aubrey de Sélincourt, Penguin Books, 1954. (See particularly Book 3, which describes the armies and satrapies of the empire.)

The Persian system of governance allowed non-Persians, including Egyptians, to rise to positions of power as satraps (governors) of regions. For example, Aryandes was appointed as the first satrap of Egypt after Cambyses II’s conquest. Additionally, archaeological evidence and reliefs suggest that people from across the empire, regardless of ethnicity, were trusted in administrative roles.

Scholarly Sources:

• Brosius, Maria. The Persians. Routledge, 2006. (Brosius provides a detailed account of the administrative and military systems in Achaemenid Persia and the inclusion of diverse peoples in governance.)

The Persian concept of nobility and leadership was rooted in competence, loyalty, and contributions to the empire, not in racial or ethnic distinctions. Leaders were selected for their ability to govern, lead armies, or contribute economically, regardless of their background. This approach was key to the success of the Achaemenid Empire, which spanned over 5 million square kilometers at its height and controlled a diverse population of approximately 50 million people.

Cyrus the Great’s conquests were marked by his respect for local customs and religions. In Babylon, after his conquest, he allowed the local temples to continue functioning and returned displaced peoples to their homelands, including the Jews, who were permitted to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. This inclusiveness is reflected in the empire’s leadership structure, which favored ability and loyalty over ethnic or racial considerations.

Let’s face it—history is a battleground of narratives. When we look at ancient Persia, we’re not just seeing the facts, we’re seeing power at play. The history we’ve been handed down, the narrative of who was noble, who ruled, and why—that’s been shaped, reshaped, and downright manipulated by those in power, both ancient and modern. The term Aryan? Blue eyes as a marker of nobility? These ideas have been twisted by power players, most notably during the 19th and 20th centuries, to serve political ends.

Yes, there’s evidence that some ancient Persians, due to their Indo-European ancestry, had blue eyes. But let’s be real here: this physical trait didn’t define nobility. The truth is more complicated. Nobility in ancient Persia wasn’t about what you looked like—it was about what you did. If you were competent, if you were loyal, if you could lead or contribute to the empire, you had a place. That’s how Persia became one of the most powerful empires in history—it built itself on the strength of diversity, not on superficial markers of race or appearance.

Scholarly Sources:

• Curtis, John. The Oxus Treasure: Ancient Persian Treasures in the British Museum. British Museum Press, 1995. (This book discusses Persian material culture and evidence of the multi-ethnic composition of the empire.)

This historical reality challenges modern misconceptions about race and leadership in ancient societies. The Persian Empire, with its multi-ethnic composition and emphasis on competence over race, stands as an example of how diverse peoples can contribute to the success of a civilization.

Deconstruction of Leadership

Not all early kings were despots or tyrants. In Persian history, particularly under the Achaemenids, leadership was about nobility in action. To equate Persian kings to mere power-hoarding monarchs is to miss the point. They were, in a sense, coaches for the entire empire, orchestrating and arranging systems of governance, justice, and culture that were about more than just ruling with an iron fist.

Persian Aryan: An Identity Rooted in Nobility, Not Race

Let’s cut through the modern racialized narrative that hijacked the term "Aryan." The original Persian Aryan identity wasn’t about being a "pure race" in the way that Nazi propaganda would later bastardize the term. The Persian word arya meant noble—and that’s it. It was a term used by early Indo-Iranians to describe themselves as part of a distinguished cultural and linguistic group, not a master race.

The ancient Persians—likely including some with blue eyes, as historical and genetic evidence suggests—didn’t obsess over racial purity. That’s a 19th and 20th-century European construct. What they focused on was their civilization, culture, and heritage, which they saw as superior not because of their race, but because of their achievements in governance, architecture, and human rights.

While it’s tempting to seize on a physical trait like blue eyes to cement some idea of inherent nobility, it’s a distraction from the real source of Persian identity: their actions and contributions as leaders of civilization. If people want to obsess over race and eye color, they’re missing the deeper point. The nobility of the early Persians came from their contributions to human governance, not their physical traits.

The Appropriation and Twisting of Aryan by Modern Ideologies

We can’t discuss the term Aryan without addressing how it was stolen, twisted, and used to justify some of the most heinous crimes in history. What began as a cultural and linguistic identifier for Indo-Iranians was hijacked by European scholars and later by Nazi propagandists to create a myth of racial superiority. This twisting was deliberate—a way for European powers to legitimize colonialism and later, the horrors of genocide.

The theft of the Aryan term by Nazis and racists wasn’t just a misinterpretation—it was a weaponization of history. They took a complex cultural term and flattened it into a racial slur, using it to create a myth that would justify their actions. But the real Aryan legacy—especially in Persia—has nothing to do with race. It’s about nobility of leadership and cultural achievements that transcend any simplistic racial narrative.

The fact that ancient Persians may have been blue-eyed, as some genetic evidence suggests, is interesting but ultimately irrelevant to their legacy of civilization. What they left behind wasn’t a racial hierarchy but an enduring system of governance and cultural influence.

The King as a Leader of Culture: Not Just a Ruler, but a Builder

In the context of Persian history, kingship wasn’t just about political rule; it was about the creation of culture. These early kings were facilitators—they built cities, fostered arts, and created codes of conduct that influenced civilizations far beyond their borders. Take Cyrus the Great, for example—his Cyrus Cylinder is one of the earliest known declarations of human rights.

To reduce these leaders to mere symbols of power or racial purity is to misunderstand their true role. They were cultural builders, not racial demagogues. They created systems of governance that allowed cultures to thrive, bringing together diverse groups under the umbrella of Persian civilization.

The role of a king, especially in the early Persian context, was about nurturing society. These rulers weren’t focused on maintaining racial purity or genetic dominance. Instead, they were focused on building infrastructures, legal systems, and cultural legacies. In this sense, kings were coaches, guiding the empire to greatness not through oppression but through creation.

Deal With It: Reclaiming the True Legacy of Persian Aryans

Here’s the bottom line: the narrative around Aryans has been stolen and distorted, and it’s time to take it back. If people want to reduce the history of Persian Aryans to race or eye color, that’s their problem. The truth is, Persian nobility wasn’t about skin or eye color—it was about leadership, innovation, and creating systems that influenced the world for centuries.

So, yes, Persians—likely with blue eyes—were the original noble leaders, the ones who laid down the blueprints for governance and civilization. Deal with it. But remember: it’s not about the physical traits. It’s about the legacy of leadership and cultural contributions that still resonate today. Those who try to steal or simplify this history are missing the point entirely.

We’ve peeled back the layers of myth and misappropriation to reveal the true legacy of Persian Aryans. Leadership—once embodied by kings who acted more as facilitators and coaches than despots—has been twisted by modern ideologies into something far more destructive. The misuse of the term Aryan to justify racial hierarchies has done a disservice not just to history, but to the real cultural achievements of the Persians.

The legacy of Persian leadership is one of nobility through action, not race. Blue eyes may have been part of the picture, but they didn’t define the contributions of these early kings. What did define them was their ability to create, organize, and lead societies that would stand the test of time.

Now, it's time to reclaim that legacy, unapologetically and with full recognition of its true depth. And for those who want to argue otherwise? Well, they’ll have to deal with it.

Key Texts for Further Reading:

• The Cyrus Cylinder: One of the earliest declarations of human rights.

• Richard Frye: The Heritage of Persia (1976) - A deep dive into Persian contributions to world civilization.

• Maria Brosius: The Persians (2006) - A comprehensive history of Persian governance and leadership.

This journal entry cuts through the false narratives and reclaims the true history of Persian Aryan leadership, challenging modern distortions head-on.