Jump to content

Talk:Celts (modern)/Archive (other)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Modern celtic art

Hi, I just wrote the Celtic art article which covers the Middle Ages, if anyone has anyting to contribute to Modern celtic art, even a short blurb a sentence or two, that would be helpful. Thanks! Stbalbach 17:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Celtic Nations

Hey all; I created a stub last night of Celtic Nations to fix a link on the Celtic Fusion article (although there's also a link to it on Modern Celts). It's extremely bare-bones, and I'm wondering whether I should just make it link to a section of this article, probably "What are the Celtic Countries?". Or, alternatively, someone could expand the Celtic Nations article so that it's not quite so ridiculously stubbish. What do y'all think? -GlamdringCookies

The colonies in Cape Breton and Chubut can't really be called nations, and "modern" should also appear in the title. --MacRusgail 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Parliament and Assembly

I have replaced the word FORCED with SUPPORTED in the following sentence: "Scottish and Welsh Nationalists have recently supported the institution of the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, which are seen by many as a first step towards eventual independence from the UK" I made this change for 4 reasons:

1. Although Welsh Nationalists (Plaid Cymru) have long supported the establishment of an assembly in Wales, the Scottish Nationalists (SNP) were ambivalent on the issue of a Scottish Parliament - some of them feeling that the Scottish Parliament was a sop that would make independence less likely to occur (subsequent events have proved them justified, at least in the short term). In fact the SNP withdrew from cross-party group (the Scottish Constitutional Convention) which defined the powers and role of the Scottish Parliament. So the SNP certainly didn't force the Scottish Parliament on the UK.

2. The introduction of Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been supported for many decades by the Liberal Democrat Party of the UK (about 20% of the national vote) and since the 1970s have been supported by the Labour Party of the UK (between 35 and 45% of the national vote). This means that there is a vastly wider constituency of support in the UK for devolution than just Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, so there was no need for forcing (though undoubtedly historic pressure from nationalists [note the small n] contributed).

3. Had the Conservatives won the 1997 or subsequent elections, there would be no Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly: they would have refused to be 'forced' just as they did between 1979 to 1997.

4. Both Assembly and Parliament were endorsed in referenda the their respective nations - thus the people of Scotland and Wales could have rejected the proposals.

In general, the sentence as it originally stood overemphasised the role and power played by the Nationalists (not capital N). --Simhedges 16:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Well spotted. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

-I Think that there is a strange offensive opposition to the concept "celtic" when there is no one against "latin"; is it not strange? How many people have seriously studied and compared the celtic cultures to get a real point of view?

kej

It's political. There's also a strange offensive opposition to the concept of "Kurdish", which is also an identity mobilized through political contestation. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 15:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Celtic diaspora

Enzedbrit, you summarized your recent edits and deletions as: "remove all reference to 'celtic diaspora'. there is no, nor cannot be, such a thing". Could you please explain your rationale. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I second the request for rationale. I see nothing wrong with the concept. Do explain. -GlamdringCookies 03:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I also see nothing wrong with the concept. Unless Enzedbrit shows up soon with a convincing reason to incorporate his perspective into a revision/rewrite, I am strongly leaning towards a revert or similar action. --Kathryn NicDhàna 04:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Enzedbrit has a track record of somewhat distinctive POV when it comes to Celtic topics and this seems to fit right in there with his previous edits. What on earth are the Welsh speakers of Patagonia, the Irish speakers of Newfoundland and the Scottish Gaelic speakers of Nova Scotia but part of a "Celtic Diaspora"? Even if these communities did not/had not existed quite how one might reasonably argue that, for some reason, a 'Celtic Diaspora' could not exist is absolutely anyones guess. Its a straightforward 'revert of POV job' tbh, although out of courtesy il give Enzed a chance to put forward his reasoning before doing so. siarach 07:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, while you may be right, siarach, Enzedbrit's record should be of little relevance in this matter. If he can adequately justify himself, his edits should stay, if not, they should be removed. Our own past experience with him should have no bearing on the end result of this dispute. -GlamdringCookies 12:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody in the Celtic diaspora (I've got Irish, Welsh, and Scottish ancestry), I do find it odd to hear that I do not, nor cannot, exist. Seriously though, the term ‘diaspora’ is used pretty non-controversially here in North America. And I agree with Glamdring, we should judge every dispute on its own merits. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Bloody hell peoples! The WIKIPEDIA article on Diaspora spells out exactly what a diaspora is. That is why it cannot be a diaspora. Plus, people aren't "Celts". There are groups of people who identify with this culture, but relevant discussions should be taken by their ethnic/national groupings, ex. Irish, and not Celtic. The "Celts" were not forced out of their homelands. The closest example would be specific cases, such as talking about the Irish diaspora, known to be so because of the consequences of the famine. Others have tried talking about any migration of people as a 'diaspora'. I used to do the same. This raises eyebrows and causes offence among people that regard their own background as a genuine diaspora. The scattering of people through the result of calamity fits the description, not people who have chosen to migrate in search of a better life in a new colony.
  • And thanks QuartierLatin, that's EXACTLY what I was saying wasn't it. You don't exist. Yup, entirely my point. Applause to you mate. (it's also quite admirable how your family managed to keep English heritage outside its borders, yet be Irish, Scottish and Welsh) Enzedbrit 01:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to add, since many (if not all?) of you are contributors to the same articles as me, you'd be aware that this has been discussed in Scottish people, Cornish people, Celts, and several others, and the agreement has swayed more that the term 'diaspora' shouldn't be simply plucked and used but there are better words to describe this migration, like 'migration'. Enzedbrit 01:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about Enzedbrit ? "The agreement has swayed" ? There hasn't been any consensus at all and in the case of Scottish people, it was decided the section spoke about Scottish emigration as a whole, not just those in the diaspora. Just because not all people who migrated from such countries were forced or induced to leave, does not go to say there wasn't a massive amount of people who were. I can guarantee you right now that hundreds of thousands of Scots who were forced to leave from especially the Scottish Highlands and Ulster to the Americas (and elsewhere) weren't happy to having say goodbye to their homeland. You really need to read into the Highland Clearances and the Scotch-Irish (also see Ulster Scots and Plantation of Ulster). They follow the definition of diaspora just as much as any other group listed on the Diaspora article. Epf 03:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay guys...Enzedbrit, I think you may be right on some level about the Diaspora Wikipedia entry. I didn't read the whole thing, just the opening, and it does make reference to "any people or ethnic population forced or induced to leave their traditional ethnic homelands", and perhaps people of Celtic heritage were not forced to leave. Or maybe they were. I don't know. However, the Wiktionary page for "diaspora" makes no mention of force, defining it as "A dispersion of a group of people from their native land". This seems to apply to the Celtic Diaspora pretty well. However, Epf, it seems to me you're losing your cool a little. But Enzedbrit, your tone (and I've noticed this before) is really disrespectful, and you skirt close to breaking some of the Wikiquette guidelines. I'd advise you to look into that. Finally, if you can accumulate some number of non-wikipedia references which back up your claim that there is no Celtic Diaspora, I, personally, would fully accept such a claim. Citing sources is rather important, especially on Wikipedia. Go find some, but until you do, I say we change the article back to how it was before. -GlamdringCookies 04:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Enzed, I hear your point that individuals aren't Celtic, peoples are. (Now that's one valid POV, but it's a POV that the tens of thousands of US Americans, Australians, and Canadians who identify themselves as being of "Celtic nationality" on their respective census forms wouldn't accept.)
  • But even if we do accept your idea that Irish emigrants are individually not 'Celtic' emigrants, surely collectively the sum of the Irish diaspora, Scottish diaspora, Breton diaspora and so on can be described in shorthand as a 'Celtic diaspora' to precisely the same extent that Ireland, Scotland, Brittany etc can be described as 'Celtic countries'. Let's face it, emigration is a major recurring theme in these places, and the communities spawned from such emigration have kept up various degrees of contact and emotional identification with their ancestral countries.
  • Given that the diaspora article specifically lists the Irish diaspora, Scottish diaspora, and Cornish diaspora, I'm not sure what pointing us to the Wikipedia entry is supposed to prove. If forced emigration is required for an individual to be part of a diaspora, well okay, I for one have a few Scots-Irish ancestors kicked out of their homes without too much gentility; and one of my Welsh ancestors is supposed to have fled from Britain after the Restoration because his father had just been hanged as a regicide. So I still think the term can be justified. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 17:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • PS: Even if a citable source can be found to say "I feel there's no such thing as a Celtic diaspora", we can report it only as the view of one source. (And for the record, my remark that I cannot exist was purely tongue in cheek!)

This is the Wiki definition of diaspora: "The term diaspora (Ancient Greek διασπορά, "a scattering or sowing of seeds") is used (without capitalization) to refer to any people or ethnic population forced or induced to leave their traditional ethnic homelands; being dispersed throughout other parts of the world, and the ensuing developments in their dispersal and culture." [emphasis mine] Due to the Clearances, the Irish who were kidnapped and enslaved in the Carribean alongside the members of the African diaspora, and our ancestors who were given the "choice" of starvation in Ireland or the Coffin Ships, I think it is clear there is such a thing as a Celtic Diaspora. More relevant to Wikipedia, the fact is that many people use the term "Celtic diaspora" and this deserves to be documented. While "Irish diaspora" and "Scottish diaspora" are certainly more specific, the fact is this is an article on Celts, so it is appropriate to use this generalization ("Celtic") in this article. The celtoskeptic position is given its own section in this article, so that base is already covered without chipping away at this in an effort to advance the celtoskeptic POV. I see Enzedbrit's anti-"diaspora" edits as an attempt to further POV, not advance this article. Therefore I think they should be reverted. If someone doesn't get to it before me, I'll try to take care of it later tonight or tomorrow. --Kathryn NicDhàna 01:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (Who also, apparently, does not exist.)

I have once again removed reference to Diaspora. Rather than revert them because you are countering as you say 'my POV', it seems more in spite. If you want to redefine the term diaspora, then do it on the diaspora page, make it credible and then come back and rewrite history that way, that there is a Celtic diaspora, such as people who move 5 minutes down the road from Wrecsam to Liverpool for a better paid job, because that really doesn't weaken the definition or emotion behind a 'diaspora' at all. Now, who are these people that use the term 'Celtic diaspora'? Were all the Scots removed from their homes in the clearances 'Celts'? Were all the Irish for that matter? Reading the definition of diaspora on Wikipedia and in academia, it also appears that a diaspora occurs over a relatively short period of time, not something drip fed. My 'anti-Diaspora' edits are such because nowhere have I ever seen diaspora to mean what is purely and simply a migration, for if that were the case, then there are thousands of cases of diaspora, as everyone who leaves their country is in a diaspora. We have a Cornish diaspora as over several centuries, several thousand Cornishmen left Cornwall and their descendants are now, what, a quarter million? Okay, then we have a Yorkshire diaspora. A Geordie diaspora. Heck, why not an English diaspora with migration to the colonies? Let's not forget the Polish diaspora in Britain since their EU expansion. There is an elderly British diasora living on the Costa del Sol, forced to Spain because of the oppressive weather of the UK. There, that's a justification. So, let's just be happy-go-lucky and add whatever we feel to this article, the diaspora article, any article. You really must be new age Kathryn NicDhana, because it seems anything goes with you.
And Quartier Latin, apart from on this page, when have we had conflict?? Enzedbrit 13:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You are assuming a great deal, here, Enzedbrit. My edits were not in "spite", but because I, and others on this page and in the greater Modern Celtic communities, disagree with you. I do not know you; and you obviously do not know me. You are the one who has thrown bizarre, ad hominem insults at editors on this article simply for disagreeing with you (yes, I consider new age/newage an insult). The fact is, the term "Celtic diaspora" is in use, and is not out of line in a Wikipedia article. You may not like the fact that this term is in use out there, but this article is not the appropriate place to fight for redefining it. --Kathryn NicDhàna 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Enzedbrit, you make an interesting point. The definition I perceive of diaspora, however, does include any people who have come from another place, presuming they retain a strong cultural identity with the historic people of that place. As far as I have seen on the Wiktionary and Wikipedia pages about diaspora, this definition fits (Granted, I'm sure I haven't scoured the Diaspora page as much as you). All that said, you are out of line. See civility, and "No Personal Attacks" for more info. In searching the guidelines section for things that Enzedbrit was skirting if not violating, however, I encountered the verifiability page, which says quite clearly: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Therefore, it is beholden of those in this dispute advocating for the inclusion of "Celtic Diaspora" to find reputable sources for it and cite them, not of Enzedbrit to find them. So, if you think "diaspora" does apply in this instance, go out and find a good source. Meet you back here in five... -GlamdringCookies 00:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
And those are from just the first handful of pages of Google search results. --Kathryn NicDhàna 01:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • From http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/2002/54.html The term ‘British diaspora’ in the title is problematic and its use sums up one of the main problems with the book. The term ‘diaspora’ is now applied to many migrations and histories of exile, although it is perhaps most commonly associated with the long wanderings of the Jewish people in Europe and the dislocation of Africans sold into slavery in the Americas. As such it implies a set of characteristics that mark out a sense of imposed loss, of oppression, of powerlessness in the face of overwhelming populations and systemic hatred.
  • From http://www.tamilnation.org/diaspora/articles/diaspora.pdf#search=%22diaspora%20definition%22 a good article that shows 'diaspora' to be a term of more wealth than purely a movement.
  • Again, I say that I once thought diaspora to be a movement of people, but that is TOO simplistic. Change it to what you like - you will anyway. I'm not re-inventing definitions, I'm sticking to them. These reverts will help to redefine 'diaspora', weaken it to any migration, making the term largely redundant. That's a shame. Pity you all can't see that. Enzedbrit 02:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This accumulation of sources is great. Do we just base the ultimate outcome of the article upon whoever is more diligent and gets more links? Or what? Perhaps a blurb articulating our debate here? I think there should be a template to include in articles about points that really are of little significance and won't matter to the layman, but have been hotly debated on the discussion page of the article. Seriously, though, I think a blurb stating both sides of our debate is the only way to end this. It would be great if we could resolve it one way or the other, but it doesn't look like either side is going to give in. Leaving it to whoever has more or "better" sources is just preposterous, and totally not a good basis for encyclopedic inclusion. -GlamdringCookies 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought your request for reliable sources was a serious one. That is why I chose mainstream sources that show the term/concept "Celtic diaspora" is widely used in academia. As can be seen by those sources, by websearches, and this talk page, I don't think it's an equal-sided argument at all. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I was serious. The burden of proof lay on the side of inclusion of the term, and I think, unless NZ has any serious objections to Kathryn's sources, the debate is over. -GlamdringCookies 06:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Independence

I don't like the reference to independence from England. The four parts of the UK are not controlled by England. If Scotland or Wales get independent it'll be from the UK not England. To say that the Scottish parliament could mean independence from England implies that England controls Scotlnand and it doesnt. The UK is the nation state and it is from the UK that Scotland will get its independence HillaryMawdesley 07:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The UK was created (de jure) by the union of England and Scotland and if they decide to part there will be no UK and we will revert back to the states of England and Scotland. England would thus become free of Scotland too.
The above does not apply to Wales.
The fact that the English are a large majority in the Westminster parliament which has absolute sovereignty in the state means that England does actually control the rest, though that is beside the point here. Gagonis 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I find this highly disputable. England does control Scotland and Wales. Scottish and Welsh individuals are high up in British politics, but the fact is that in the past, English MPs have voted down proposals supported by a majority of Scottish or Welsh MPs - such as the one to prevent Treweryn from being flooded, or home rule bills. British broadcasting is also controlled from London. The Scots don't even have their own television station, not a proper one anyway. The majority of programming is created in England. English has dominated Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and Lallans to the point to which they are in danger. It wasn't like that when these places were effectively annexed (or conquered in the case of Wales). It seems that you aren't allowed to call these "acts of union" annexations - but if Saddam Hussein, Hitler or Stalin had pulled off similar tricks, they would be called that. --

MacRusgail 18:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, the current British Prime Minister, Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer are all Scots by birth, and the Chancellor, will, it seems, be the next Prime Minister. He certainly doesn't want independence for Scotland, though I gather that quite a few English people, possibly the majority, do. Millbanks 11:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair calls himself an Englishman. Gordon Brown is ironing out his accent to sound English, as we speak. They're all out of touch with what's actually happening in Scotland. Hitler was an Austrian, but that didn't mean that Austria ran the Third Reich. The House of Commons has an inbuilt majority that can prevent any Scottish or Welsh bills getting through, and it's used that on many an occasion. As Wellington said of his Irish birth, "Not everything that's born in a stable is a horse." --MacRusgail 11:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You make some fair points. Yes, I've heard T. Blair call himself an Englishman, "and also a Scot". From what I can gather he was born and educated in Scotland, but had an English father and Irish mother. If he were American, he'd probably claim to be Irish. As for Wellington, well, according to some versions, that was said of him when he said he was Irish.

The undertone to your reply is perhaps not as cruel as "Quisling", but, "what a party of rogues in a nation", though Gordon Brown and John Reid seem competent hard working men. At this stage, however, I should say that I am writing from Ireland, so it's not my direct concern, but perhaps it's not surprising that I support Scottish independence, preferably as a vigorous European nation within the Euro-zone, free from the baleful influence of Little Englanders. But that's a POV, so doubtless I'll get flack and perhaps even a reprimand.

Returning to "Celticity", which is what we're supposed to be talking about, I once heard a radio phone-in to the then leader of the SNP, Bill Wilson. A guy with an English accent said to Mr Wilson that he thought the Celts were a superior race, citing the Celtic surnames of Kinnock, Roberts (M Thatcher's maiden name), and, wait for it, Wilson (!). The SNP leader roundly put him in his place, saying that the Scots were by no mean purely Celtic. Indeed, a Danish friend commented to me that the lowland Scots dialect had various words in common with Danish. Of course, it could be that Vikings forced their language on the Lowland Scots; has anyone done a PhD thesis on that yet? Millbanks 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Very nice post Millbanks, impartial and fair with your comments i see. Come and join us in 2007 and you will see us 'English' arn't as baleful as in 1763, when ofcourse all English were rich land-owners attempting to destroy our neighbours, aye? Bollocks mate. Gazh 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't understand what you're going on about. Are you being sarcastic, perhaps? I gather that the English are very good at that Millbanks 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What i mean is, your views are racist and blinkered, see my sarcasm for more info on that. Britain should no longer exist, i am English and i'm proud of that - the British (referring to all non-english) are a bane on the English, always trying to worm opportunities to put us down and knock us from pillar to post while we stand still and take it for no reason other than just being 'English'. Fact is you don't even understand what English is, English is not the invader - it is simply the new name for he people that were always there. Gazh 08:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm being racist, let alone blinkered. You have as much reason to be proud of being English as MacRusgail has of being a Celt. But your last sentence is arguable to put it mildly. Until the fifth century, England did not exist. Then came the Anglo Saxon invasion and as a result of that, England came into being. Millbanks 08:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that this shows a misuse of the word 'Celt' but of course that term is completely subjective. However, one can easily be English and a Celt - the two terms are in no way mutually exclusive. The ancestors of the English people have always existed in Britain; the English identity was borne of Teutonic invasion. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes were invaders but were small in number and the English today are not Anglo-Saxons. Britain has been around long before England existed and will be around long after it's gone. Enzedbrit 09:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

PS As for "Bollocks mate", when I was in Australia, I was told that one thing the Poms (English) were good at was being rude. Whether you're proud or ashamed of that is up to you. But having lived in England, certainly I think my Aussie friend had a point. In my experience, people don't speak like that in Ireland or Australia. Millbanks 08:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Poms is applied to all British people but its use can vary and none of this matters because it's an insult anyway. As for being 'rude', it's more like 'whinging', based on many factors including the involvement of Britons in the trade unions and the quintessential moaning about how Australia's not as good as England, very funny considering the whinging that Australians do in the UK about the beer, the weather, the crowds, when all you'll hear of Britons in Australia is how lovely it is, how warm and sunny, the nice people, etc. As to Millbanks's experiences to support English-bashing, I think unfortunately that he/she's jaded. Enzedbrit 09:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unfortunate that Gazza wishes to put the population of Celts in England first. As a proud Englishman, he'll be viewed as the embodiment of English people, more justification for petty, unconstructive comments. The order was fine the way it was. Enzedbrit 09:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've listed them in alphabetical order (I promise I'm not a Breton radical). Hopefully this will prevent further discussion on the matter of which should come first. garik 10:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your 'Little Englanders' comment was offensive and some would certainly find it racist, as for blinkered - that probably comes from the centuries of English bashing your forefathers drummed through their sons and daughters that we are bad people. Millbanks, i ask you, why is a 'Little Englander' Baleful? - or do you mean the hierarchy that many moons ago quartered up a kingdom and took land because they won battles, just as the Scots and Welsh had done in lands not their own. I am from the North-east of England, a land that was raped, pillaged and robbed not just by our 'own' but also by the Scots, Vikings - you name it, being 'English' so to speak (and yes i know england did not always exist) meant we were on the 'Eastern' front, we were the barracks of Britain against Europe, so please forgive us if we suffered some penetration, but we were also fighting battles to the North and West.

NZB, you're a canny lad - but please don't tell tales on me, it wasn't a secret. Gazh 10:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As a proud Northumbrian, perhaps you'd like to take the reins on defending the Northumbrian kilt and pipes?! Enzedbrit 23:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
NZBrit, unfortunately i have no interest in the Nothumbrian tartan so i can't help you there - but i think we have a bit of stern denial from MacRusty, he's a canny fella but can be a bit of a militant at times.
Going back to my 'get rid of Britain' bit, i take it back - although i think we should all have our own governments (with our own taxes paying for our own needs) i think the people of Britain and Ireland spend to much time finding reasons why they are different from the English instead of recognising that we are alot more alike than any place away from these islands. I recently had a bit of an argument with an American claiming to be Irish (he actually used the words celt for himself, and anglo-saxon for me) through a great-grandparent, when i pointed out that i was probably more 'Celt' than him, he swiftly disappeared. Gazh 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Time for an archive

This talk page is getting too long. Can the older messages be put into an archive please. --MacRusgail 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gildas

Gildas was a sixth century Celtic monk. One of his themes was that the Anglo-Saxons drove the Britons out of England and into Wales. Although he is one of very few sources of that era, his words were for a long time taken as gospel. Now it seems (from DNA tests) that he could well have been wrong. The native Celtic people just remained, particularly in southern England, but "adapted", including adopting the English (well old English) language. However, I realise that this concept might be uncomfortable and even confusing, going as it does against stereotypes and folklore. Millbanks 11:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He was wrong to an extent. These lands were indeed taken by brutal and bloody conquest, but were not settled by the Anglo-Saxons so much as assimilated by them. Much like Africa, which has a lot of English speakers (of some level), but in which most of the English speakers are of native stock. But I don't call this "adaption" at all - any more than people who were thrashed for speaking Welsh or Gaelic at school adapted by speaking English. They were forced into it by violence - choice came later.
Actually it isn't uncomfortable at all for Celtic nationalists. Plaid Cymru leader Gwynfor Evans in Land of My Fathers, his history of Wales describes how most of the English are of Germanic culture but not of Germanic stock. --MacRusgail 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please an you explain "Germanic culture"? I've heard so many ethnic clichés, not least during my four years in Australia, that I sometimes get confused. Mind you, I once heard a Scot, whose husband was English, saying she'd never met a modest Englishman. She added that she still loved him!

By the way, as a "Celtic Nationalist", do you regard the Ulster Scots as Celts? Millbanks 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Millbanks 20:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your questions -
a) Ulster Scots - yes. Although you don't hear much of it, some of them were Irish speakers into the 19th century. The history of that area is complicated.
b) I say "Germanic" because German is the wrong term. The major formative influences on English culture include the Anglo-Saxons (from Angeln and Sachsen), the Norse, and the Normans, all of which were either speakers of Germanic languages, and/or came from that background. The other major influence is from the Latin cultures, via the French and the Normans. Latin and Germanic culture is a bigger influence on English culture than Celtic IMHO.
The key, as Evans says is that the Welsh were often descended from people in Wales since time immemorial, as with the people in Hampshire etc. Althouh this is not to say that there wasn't mixing from an early point. Cornwall has been visited periodically from North African since the Phoenecian period, over two thousand years ago, and the Romans had an extremely multi-ethnic force over with them. Some think that certain areas became Teutonicised while the Romans were occupying what became England.
England is not evenly Celtic. I think as I say above, some areas of England, e.g. the north west, and Devon, Welsh marches etc, are far more Celtic than say, Rutland, Kent or Essex.--MacRusgail 21:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


You're telling me it's complicated [Ulster Scots history]! But perhaps in these (hopefully) happier days, at this very moment, Big Ian ("the Doc") is sitting down with his Deputy, and confiding to him, "well, we're both Celtic nationalists, aren't we, Martin?" (OK, probably he isn't, but it's a cheering thought all the same). Millbanks 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I find it very satisfying that recent research indicates that the English are of largely Celtic descent. After the millions of words spouted by the English about the racial inferiority of Celts, it seems they themselves must be almost as inferior as the rest of us. Presumably they will now have to prostrate themselves in the dust every time they meet a German. [unsigned comment]

No, it doesn't prove that at all. It proves that most English people are of indigenous descent, i.e. so old it goes back to a time when Celts didn't even exist. You'd probably find the Germans have a large amount of pre-German ancestry in them, but they are German because of their language, culture and attitudes.--MacRusgail 20:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of modern Celticism

In the middle of the fourth paragraph of this section, there is a stray [5] which does not fit in the numbering sequence for the other footnotes for that section. Is there something wrong with the numbering of the footnotes throughout the article, and if so, how can it be fixed? ---Cathal 02:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem: the footnotes are fine. You're confusing footnotes with external links (which is the form all the other references take in that section). garik 09:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celts_(modern)/Archive_(other)&oldid=468865431"