Food for thought

[Maggie]

http://www.chasclifton.com/papers/forreal.html

[skilly-nilly]

I had seen that list before but not the essay that goes with it---thanks for posting it!

I can answer more than half of the questions without any research but without much depth. The test is a great pointer to where one's weak areas are.

I really like the double-edged ax choice posed in the essay---if we use our own (or our preferred) ethnicity then we're not here and if we use here we're appropriating someone else's culture. I get around this by not using culture as the foundation but instead (as implied by the test) using knowledge and understanding as the basis for religion. This comes up for me (and every other 'Celtic' Path-er that doesn't live in GB) because while we have comparable day/night length we Canadians have a wildly different climate.

For example, folk-lore says 'plant potatoes on StPaddy's Day' and reality says 'it's snowing and the ground is frozen like a brick'. Same with the Holiday just past, which I designate as 'The Holiday of Equal Night and Day' because it's just not Spring here.

I don't think that the 2 aspects are mutually exclusive, though. I believe that Earth is an organism and a Goddess, Gaia, and that anyone can Talk to Her anywhere. So when I communicate with Earth from my locale, I'm talking to the same Earth as anywhere. My perception is what differs.

Because of my inculturation, I tend to perceive things in an Irish-Mythos template. As well, I believe in the Timeless Land as not just transcending time but also place. So I can stand in my NA backyard and contact the same Timeless Place that Druids did.

[Maggie]

I had seen that list before but not the essay that goes with it---thanks for posting it!

I can answer more than half of the questions without any research but without much depth. The test is a great pointer to where one's weak areas are.

There are two or three that I couldn't answer on my own but that's because I tend to focus on plants and animals. And because the history of where I live is relatively simple--it was NA hunting grounds, then farmland for centuries, then relatively recently suburbs. <G>

I really like the double-edged ax choice posed in the essay---if we use our own (or our preferred) ethnicity then we're not here and if we use here we're appropriating someone else's culture. I get around this by not using culture as the foundation but instead (as implied by the test) using knowledge and understanding as the basis for religion. This comes up for me (and every other 'Celtic' Path-er that doesn't live in GB) because while we have comparable day/night length we Canadians have a wildly different climate.

I do have a minor quibble with him here, though. Culture to me is how each set of people regards, interacts, and practices in regard to common human events and surroundings--and we can inherit those from ancesters and family culture even if we no longer live in the 'old country'. The idea of basing religious, ritual or any other activity on and in one's surroundings is not culture specific, everyone did it. I don't see any problem in basing my own practice in the landscape here, how I regard my here is different than how the NA who live here regard theirs but my surroundings still speak to me all the same. The 'climatic' adjustments (or any other) that have to made also have a long history--people have been doing that as they move along since the IE diaspora. What is objected to is the taking over of another culture's belief system and specific practices--which is somewhat different than my background and comes from different roots. I recognize similarities but I also recognize they aren't mine.

For example, folk-lore says 'plant potatoes on StPaddy's Day' and reality says 'it's snowing and the ground is frozen like a brick'. Same with the Holiday just past, which I designate as 'The Holiday of Equal Night and Day' because it's just not Spring here.

It is here in Virginia though! :hahugh: In honor of that I brought a bunch of seed packets to the members of my women's group and passed them out. I also stuck sugar peas in the ground, they're cold tolerant AND the soil is now warm enough for them. I do, however, have the same problem with the Feb2--any sheep around here had better be waiting for warmer weather to drop their lambs!

[/quote]I don't think that the 2 aspects are mutually exclusive, though. I believe that Earth is an organism and a Goddess, Gaia, and that anyone can Talk to Her anywhere. So when I communicate with Earth from my locale, I'm talking to the same Earth as anywhere. My perception is what differs.

I don't believe they are mutually exclusive either, although I don't see it quite the same as you do.

[quote]Because of my inculturation, I tend to perceive things in an Irish-Mythos template. As well, I believe in the Timeless Land as not just transcending time but also place. So I can stand in my NA backyard and contact the same Timeless Place that Druids did.

I prefer the celtic way of looking at things, although my experiences lean me toward northern Scotland. I also don't view where I live as NA land particularly--the Land was here before any humans, it's still here, and it will be here should humans disappear from it again. The ways I view it, how I regulate that interaction and mark the seasons is molded by my past and my background--which is not NA but still works for me here without being a "theft" of someone else's culture.

[_Banbha_]

Thanks for posting this article Maggie, it's food for thought indeed. :)

As to the "Where you at?" questions, I was able to answer them all but some not with exact scientific terminology. I do consider myself nature-based have a great interest in what is growing, living and flowing around me.

Living in a protected wetlands area helps because there are always free programs (seminars and nature walks) on the local flora, fuana and the natural history of the area. I'd suggest anyone to call there local, state or federal park for information on free or nominal fee projects like this if they want to learn more about where they live.

I've always found Neo-Pagan, metaphysical books and sources to be more like junk food than the meat of what I practice and believe. I like how Clifton emphasised the debt owed the Transcendentalists in America but I don't think there are many who are really interested in Emerson or Thoreau, and more's the pity.

I don't think he credits culture enough in America. At least where I'm from anyway, perhaps my area is an exception as many "old world" cultures are quite alive here. He veiws "Celtic" culture as something that is from the past and this is not the case. I don't his focus here isn't really on Reconstructionists/Traditionalists. Though certainly, there are plenty of applications for them to be found in the article. And I also agree with skilly-nilly about the transcendence of my Irish belief system transcending both time and place.

I think he raises many of introspective questions about Pagan practice everywhere really, not just NA, that cry to be answered.

[Maggie]

Thanks for posting this article Maggie, it's food for thought indeed. :)

As to the "Where you at?" questions, I was able to answer them all but some not with exact scientific terminology. I do consider myself nature-based have a great interest in what is growing, living and flowing around me.

Some people do, some don't in every day life. It's always amusing to me because my mother has a black thumb and depended on my dad to grow things, and still asks me questions. But that knowledge is no longer a survival skill. She was a nurse--and I couldn't handle the machines and drug doses and usages she did.

Living in a protected wetlands area helps because there are always free programs (seminars and nature walks) on the local flora, fuana and the natural history of the area. I'd suggest anyone to call there local, state or federal park for information on free or nominal fee projects like this if they want to learn more about where they live.

::raising hand:: This is one of my pet peeves. IMO (repeat opinion) this only tends to reinforce the idea (sometimes unconscious) that only "out there matters". That was one thing I really liked about this particular questionaire. It was based on what one could see around them. The birds could be noticed in a city on the way to a bus stop. And the history of an area these days can often be found on a Chamber of Commerce website, allowing attention to be focussed on what may right in front of one's nose. That particular area often seems to be overlooked. That kind of general knowledge was what the ordinary person used to have and I think it's important to start there before moving on.


I don't think he credits culture enough in America. At least where I'm from anyway, perhaps my area is an exception as many "old world" cultures are quite alive here. He veiws "Celtic" culture as something that is from the past and this is not the case. I don't his focus here isn't really on Reconstructionists/Traditionalists. Though certainly, there are plenty of applications for them to be found in the article. And I also agree with skilly-nilly about the transcendence of my Irish belief system transcending both time and place.

It depends on what is meant by the word "culture." In this context I would think he means the totality--the societal unity, the govermental system, the "tribal" mores, etc. There are certainly other cultural influences alive and well in America--but those other cultures are subordinant to whatever American culture is. I didn't realize German food was "ethnic" until I went to college, my family still has the big Christmas celebrations the day before, not the day of, there are bits and pieces of superstition surviving--but our family is American, not German. Brehon law is not the law of the US or even of Ireland and druids no longer hold sway over a now mostly Christian Irish tribe. I think that's what he means.

[_Banbha_]

Some people do, some don't in every day life. It's always amusing to me because my mother has a black thumb and depended on my dad to grow things, and still asks me questions. But that knowledge is no longer a survival skill. She was a nurse--and I couldn't handle the machines and drug doses and usages she did.

People can still love and/or appreciate plants without having skill with them. For me personally it's part of how I'm connected to nature. It's a need I've had since childhood. One of those quirks one is born with that perhaps has little relevance in contemporary society. But 'How we are now' is blink in the eye of time compared to our history on earth.

::raising hand:: This is one of my pet peeves. IMO (repeat opinion) this only tends to reinforce the idea (sometimes unconscious) that only "out there matters". That was one thing I really liked about this particular questionaire. It was based on what one could see around them. The birds could be noticed in a city on the way to a bus stop. And the history of an area these days can often be found on a Chamber of Commerce website, allowing attention to be focussed on what may right in front of one's nose. That particular area often seems to be overlooked. That kind of general knowledge was what the ordinary person used to have and I think it's important to start there before moving on.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. Nothing seconds observation, awareness and being on level that allows for experience of nature no matter where it's found or you find yourself. It is not a external by any means.

Not everyone has the time to spend hours contemplating wild plants, the sun, moonrise and wind, how the land I reside on was formed and what the heck is this rock on a daily basis. Some people need a little assist. I happen too have the time and I see it as a gift. For someone who doesn't, some of the nature walks we have around here in any case, are quite wonderful and you meet people who view things as you do. It's more about sharing I guess. That can be an experience in itself.

But knowing the small and so-called "common" things, like house sparrows or a 'weed,' which might be growing out of a crack in the side walk is valuable. I am not discounting them and the nature that lives in cities. The red tail hawks that nest on 5th Ave in Manhatten is a great favorite of mine of nature making her way through.

It depends on what is meant by the word "culture." In this context I would think he means the totality--the societal unity, the govermental system, the "tribal" mores, etc. There are certainly other cultural influences alive and well in America--but those other cultures are subordinant to whatever American culture is. I didn't realize German food was "ethnic" until I went to college, my family still has the big Christmas celebrations the day before, not the day of, there are bits and pieces of superstition surviving--but our family is American, not German. Brehon law is not the law of the US or even of Ireland and druids no longer hold sway over a now mostly Christian Irish tribe. I think that's what he means.

My point was Clifton was speaking of American culture as monolithe and it is not. I understand he needed to generalize to a degree but I think the fact you were raised in a german infulenced culture as the norm and were not even aware until college it was considered ethnic speaks to that.

I think how 'subordinate' these cultures are to the greater American one is very much relative as to where you are coming from. I can only speak for myself here but I feel like a foreigner in my own country in most places in the US. I've more in common with Ireland and Irish culture on a number of levels. I seem to stand with the Europeans in general on many political issues and how I veiw the US as well.

Also, even were I not Reconstructionist, I do not discount the Irish Catholic tribe, as Clifton does from a neo-Pagan perspective. For me Reconstructionism is not from whole clothe. It is a bit of a misnomer as the culture in Ireland does not in large need to be reconstructed. Preservation might more be the key but words do never suffice in these matters for me. :)

[Maggie]

People can still love and/or appreciate plants without having skill with them. For me personally it's part of how I'm connected to nature. It's a need I've had since childhood. One of those quirks one is born with that perhaps has little relevance in contemporary society. But 'How we are now' is blink in the eye of time compared to our history on earth.

No, there isn't much relevancy in at least modern urban society--and that's what I always say when people bemoan how ignorant those who don't are.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. Nothing seconds observation, awareness and being on level that allows for experience of nature no matter where it's found or you find yourself. It is not a external by any means.

Not everyone has the time to spend hours contemplating wild plants, the sun, moonrise and wind, how the land I reside on was formed and what the heck is this rock on a daily basis. Some people need a little assist. I happen too have the time and I see it as a gift. For someone who doesn't, some of the nature walks we have around here in any case, are quite wonderful and you meet people who view things as you do. It's more about sharing I guess. That can be an experience in itself.

WARNING this answer is based on my experience and people I've come across. I am referring to those people specifically who bemoan being "divorced" from nature and who want to learn to be a druid "right away" by learning how to have a "spiritual connection" but can't because they don't live near a wilderness area. This is a point I've become adament about; that a person who expresses these sentiments needs to sit down and look around them right where they are. And, such knowledge doesn't come instantaneously nor does it require hours a day. It simply requires a desire to learn and persistance.

I've been sharing for years. I majored in botany, raised two children who I dragged through all this, led a Brownie troop through all this, volunteered at a local park for a few years. I get asked quite a few questions by neighbors too. At this time in my life I don't need to work full time, I've been working for seven years now at the local garden center where I answer questions ranging from what to do with a seed to what plant is drought tolerant but takes some shade to what bulbs are hardy and which ones aren't in this zone to advice on which of 15 or more types of tomatoes are good to what plants are deer resistant. My irritation here is reserved for those who want a spiritual connection right now and insist it can only be found in a wilderness area.

But knowing the small and so-called "common" things, like house sparrows or a 'weed,' which might be growing out of a crack in the side walk is valuable. I am not discounting them and the nature that lives in cities. The red tail hawks that nest on 5th Ave in Manhatten is a great favorite of mine of nature making her way through.

Thing is, "weeds" are seldom just weeds. Most species of chickweed are alien to North America, are high in Vitamin C and were often eaten as pot herbs in Europe. I am again talking about where to start for the ordinary person. Those common things are exactly what every ordinary person in much of the world now and in the ancient world knows now and knew then. And a great many of our weeds are intentional imports--tracing them down teaches one both a great deal about human history as well as the plant itself.

My point was Clifton was speaking of American culture as monolithe and it is not. I understand he needed to generalize to a degree but I think the fact you were raised in a german infulenced culture as the norm and were not even aware until college it was considered ethnic speaks to that.

But growing up in a German influenced FAMILY culture did not make me a German in the United States. I ate some foods (I HATE saurkraut, btw), went to a German Lutheran church, learned bits and pieces of German phrases--but I am an American, not German. The church displayed the American flag and the Lutheran flag, not the German.

There is an uberAmerican culture and family cultures to a widely varying degree. My first husband was an Irish-American Catholic, I was the first non-Irish, non-Catholic bride in the family and in fact both of my children have stayed with relatives in Dublin. I can tell you that the people in that family are extremely fond of debate, and that a couple of them even still attend Mass and like Irish music--but they're not Irish. My kids were quite a curiousity to the overseas branch of the family on those visits because while they were Kennedys they were NOT Irish.

I think how 'subordinate' these cultures are to the greater American one is very much relative as to where you are coming from. I can only speak for myself here but I feel like a foreigner in my own country in most places in the US. I've more in common with Ireland and Irish culture on a number of levels. I seem to stand with the Europeans in general on many political issues and how I veiw the US as well.

It actually depends on how one defines "culture" and how the American chooses to regard this country. I don't particularly care for the German 'culture' and it was only reinforced after I spent time in Germany. I felt like a foreigner coming down to the south here after being born and raised in Michigan. I would be called a foreigner outright in New England--many areas there are very tight knit. And have you actually lived in Ireland? My daughter spent six weeks in Ireland with a friend, the two girls did tours using backpacks and youth hostels in between staying with their cousins. She came back (and she is way more liberal than me, mind you,) and told me she liked it there but she couldn't live there.

Also, even were I not Reconstructionist, I do not discount the Irish Catholic tribe, as Clifton does from a neo-Pagan perspective. For me Reconstructionism is not from whole clothe. It is a bit of a misnomer as the culture in Ireland does not in large need to be reconstructed. Preservation might more be the key but words do never suffice in these matters for me. :)


And again, this depends on what you mean by culture. In my opinion the celtic culture is doing just fine in the hands of the ancient celts' descendants. I really don't think the Scots, or the Irish, or the Galacians....need help in preserving their own culture from outsiders. They get to decide what celtic culture is, not me.

I also question what people all too often choose to "preserve." The myths? They're still there. Brehon law? I really do think that over past 2,000 years or so they would have changed with the people, I don't agree with acting as if they can simply be yanked into the present as is. Celtic culture itself made the decision to change. The music? Still there. The "way of looking at the world"? Not sure what needs to be preserved here either--that world view is readily accessible and actually found in quite a few religions. Besides, the celts are--again--looking to its preservation. Nice reading on that subject is an anthology called "Celtic Consciousness." And besides, if the living culture that still exists takes another path is a Reconstructionist actually preserving something or enshrining something that has been discarded and no longer indicative of the culture? The original builders of Stonehenge turned away from it, the druids took it over--and then turned away themselves.



I think that his point is that American culture needs to start looking to itself instead of a nostalgic look back to the 'old country'. Granted, our history is pretty short but there are still possibilities. Try looking at CeiSerith's homepage for his discussion on the subject.

WARNING--I am not a romantic.

Queen Bodeacca (sp) is often held up an example of a celtic "Warrior Queen" and "proof" that women in celtic societies were freer. Actually, after her husband died the Romans reneged on the agreement they had with her tribe and then compounded their error by humiliating her and her daughters with a public whipping. That's when she started the war. I don't recall any story about her ridinng to war before then, nor do I remember hearing that her daughters rode with her. I view her really as in the group with Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great. Strong women but not indicative of women in general of the time. I would say that for Americans now that women like Sojourner Truth, Rosa Parks, Sally Ride, Eleanor Roosevelt, Susan B. Anthony, the women who disguised themselves and fought in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, the first female firefighers, police officers, military officers--even the women who protected those sod houses on the prairie while the men were away are better examples of "Warrior Women" for today's women.

Or take William Wallace, the real Braveheart. He's often held up as an example of the celtic love of freedom. Well, yes and no. He is a good example of the Scot's desire for national freedom against English imperial aggressions but if he had survived he would have been an absolute monarch and that society at that time was not what Americans would call a free society. Robert the Bruce in fact did become the King of Scotland. Heroes of American myths would be those who fought for American ideals.

The branches of a diaspora do trace back to one trunk--but they have gone on and changed to fit new conditions. As much as the Irish of Boston may have treasured the "old country" very few of them seemed to have gone back when the families became prosperous and could afford the return fare...

[Faol-chù]

I've been quite intrigued by this thread. This has raised a lot of points I have pondered in my time studing general "paganism", and Celtic, specifically Gaelic tradition.



WARNING this answer is based on my experience and people I've come across. I am referring to those people specifically who bemoan being "divorced" from nature and who want to learn to be a druid "right away" by learning how to have a "spiritual connection" but can't because they don't live near a wilderness area. This is a point I've become adament about; that a person who expresses these sentiments needs to sit down and look around them right where they are. And, such knowledge doesn't come instantaneously nor does it require hours a day. It simply requires a desire to learn and persistance.

While I certainly agree with your sentiments, I also think it's important to acknowledge that it is a LOT easier to learn something/about something when one is immersed in it.
I also think that if someone truly feels a calling to be a "druid", or whateve other "guru" they wish to be, and think that country living is a requirement for that, that they COULD find a way to do that, if it's truly a desire. (For the record, I do not have a particular affinity for the title of "druid" to which to aspire, for multiple, seemingly conflicted reasons.)
If they can't move TOMORROW, then they can work towards that goal.

I know for a FACT that when one wants something badly enough, they will find a WAY to realize their goal. .. I wanted to learn to speak Gaelic. I wanted to very badly. When I really started checking, I realized that there were exactly two Gaelic groups in my state at the time, and ONE of them was within 45 minutes of my family. Since having a sitter was an issue at the time, this could not have happened any more beautifully. There is absolutely NO other way I could have even thought about attending classes...but this just "fell into my lap."

Interestingly, this is one of the things that I think people are missing when they start talking about "spirituality", in general. Not just "Celtic" spirituality. Everything is connected. An individual can 'stick it out there'. They can assert their will and realize a lot of things...IF they really want them.


I've been sharing for years. I majored in botany, raised two children who I dragged through all this, led a Brownie troop through all this, volunteered at a local park for a few years.

Lol...I homeschool. I also am a (outdoor) plant fanatic. At the moment, a homeschooling neighbor and I have a "Nature Enthusiast Club" we have organized to bring people (homeschooling families) out into the wilderness to learn about what is there...animals, vegetables, nd minerals; general habitat.

Thing is, "weeds" are seldom just weeds. Most species of chickweed are alien to North America, are high in Vitamin C and were often eaten as pot herbs in Europe. I am again talking about where to start for the ordinary person. Those common things are exactly what every ordinary person in much of the world now and in the ancient world knows now and knew then. And a great many of our weeds are intentional imports--tracing them down teaches one both a great deal about human history as well as the plant itself.

How true...I sincerely hope that our little club will serve to 'awaken' people to nature, in general. If they just START observing, they will find that it becomes addictive, and they will start to apply it to their every day (mostly city) lives...:)


And again, this depends on what you mean by culture. In my opinion the celtic culture is doing just fine in the hands of the ancient celts' descendants. I really don't think the Scots, or the Irish, or the Galacians....need help in preserving their own culture from outsiders. They get to decide what celtic culture is, not me.

I agree. I will say, however, that it is appalling to me how people (who have no meaningful link to these cultures) are prepared to exploit these cultures by marketing the outer trappings of them to their own benefit....claiming to have some 'undying love' for them at the same time.

I also question what people all too often choose to "preserve." The myths? They're still there. Brehon law? I really do think that over past 2,000 years or so they would have changed with the people, I don't agree with acting as if they can simply be yanked into the present as is. Celtic culture itself made the decision to change. The music? Still there. The "way of looking at the world"? Not sure what needs to be preserved here either--that world view is readily accessible and actually found in quite a few religions.

Celtic culture made its decision to change its "religion". There are many other aspects of the culture over which they did NOT have control.

In my case I would say that what I wish to "preserve" is the language. It is true in one way that the myths are still there...but what meaning would they have if there was noone who spoke the language of origin so that the full beauty and meaning of what we have in writing can be appreciated.
Also, there are is a full range of "myths" accessible in the extant folklore. There is LOTS of folklore that has not been recorded in writing. This amount is declining as the numbers of speakers decline. If the language is gone, so will be these tales, as well as the ideas they espouse.

That said, I have to take exception to the idea that the Celtic worldview is "readily accessible"...at least to anyone who does not know the language. Yes, there are many ideas that are found in other religions...but the nuances, "double meanings" and many "underlying themes" are absolutely NOT meaningfully understood by comparison with any other culture.
As far as the music goes...again, I take exception that the music will be here forever. The music is the way it is BECAUSE it is derived from a Celtic language. The style of a non-Gaelic speaker is markedly different from that of a Gaelic speaker, because they are able to more readily internalize the rhythms, because they are observable in the speaking of and listening to the language.

Besides, the celts are--again--looking to its preservation. Nice reading on that subject is an anthology called "Celtic Consciousness."

Yep...I own that one...;)

And besides, if the living culture that still exists takes another path is a Reconstructionist actually preserving something or enshrining something that has been discarded and no longer indicative of the culture? The original builders of Stonehenge turned away from it, the druids took it over--and then turned away themselves.

I'd be very interested to know where you get this bit about the druids taking over Stonehenge. (Other than modern day druids.)

I think that his point is that American culture needs to start looking to itself instead of a nostalgic look back to the 'old country'.

I agree with you. At the same time, I have a strong desire to understand the history of the people from whom I come, and whose ideas have difinitively shaped the lives of my ancestors, and eventually my own.


The branches of a diaspora do trace back to one trunk--but they have gone on and changed to fit new conditions. As much as the Irish of Boston may have treasured the "old country" very few of them seemed to have gone back when the families became prosperous and could afford the return fare...

Take note that the diaspora left their homes at a time when their native ways were being eradicated by the English government and culture. They truly felt like prisoners. It seems to me that what they missed back in the "old country" were A) Their kin and clan B)Others who spoke their language (evidenced in countless songs). I think they truly thought that they could build a society THEY WAY THEY WANTED IT, with their own native impulses if they moved themselves and their families to "The New World". Sadly, that did not happen. (Except in the case of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia in Canada.)

Btw--I live in Virginia, too...:)

Le meas,

[Faol-chù]

Brehon law is not the law of the US or even of Ireland and druids no longer hold sway over a now mostly Christian Irish tribe. I think that's what he means.

I must point out, just for general puroposes..."Irish" does not="Gaelic".

Because of this, Irish ALSO, does not="Celtic". The English language is decidedly NOT a "Celtic" language.
Therefore, one cannot use the words "Irish" and "Celtic", or Irish and "Gaelic" interchangeably.
There are marked differences between the ideaologies of the monoglot English speakers, and Celtic language speakers.

Le meas,

[Meadhbh]

Good point Faol-chu. English is a Germanic language and thus people who come from a country or culture that has spoken english for a while is more likely to have a germanic mind set rather than a "celtic" one. I've always found it interesting how you can see the basic outline of a culture by looking at their language and studing it and looking at what they place value on.

[Maggie]

While I certainly agree with your sentiments, I also think it's important to acknowledge that it is a LOT easier to learn something/about something when one is immersed in it.

Of course it is--and in a way that's precisely what I'm talking about. Everyone IS immersed in nature. Once again, I am talking about those who insist it's too hard to be truly spiritual outside of a wilderness. I also see urban to untouched by human footsteps as a continuum of nature. Human dwelling areas are not outside of nature. The first step toward this whole awareness business is to sit down and figure out who your immediate neighbors are. I really don't think any advanced studies are going to achieve that goal if undertaken before learning to observe what's going on in a ten foot circle around yourself. I have a dwarf nectarine in a pot at the bottom of my steps. While sitting on those steps yesterday I noticed something really tiny busily moving up and down the branches to the flowers now out. Turns out to be sugar ants treating themselves to the nectar. It also appears they've set up housekeeping in that pot. My children would have been enchanted, I know adults who would want to know how to kill those bugs on their plants and quite a few pagans who wouldn't realize that this is a really good lesson in how there are whole interconnecting worlds right under our noses because it's "just ants" and certainly not spectacular. And that's what *I* personally want people to see and understand and learn from before demanding spiritual unity in a wild forest or going hogwild in advanced studies. And I have two college degrees in botany, I'm not dissing education.


I also think that if someone truly feels a calling to be a "druid", or whateve other "guru" they wish to be, and think that country living is a requirement for that, that they COULD find a way to do that, if it's truly a desire. (For the record, I do not have a particular affinity for the title of "druid" to which to aspire, for multiple, seemingly conflicted reasons.)
If they can't move TOMORROW, then they can work towards that goal.

I'm not interested in becoming one either. For the record, if someone wants to, go for it. In my personal opinion it's not necessary to live in the country, it's a matter of personal preference.

Interestingly, this is one of the things that I think people are missing when they start talking about "spirituality", in general. Not just "Celtic" spirituality. Everything is connected. An individual can 'stick it out there'. They can assert their will and realize a lot of things...IF they really want them.

I'm not entirely sure if that really is within the ancient celtic ideas. I seem to remember an awful lot of geas, personal fault type disasters...things that don't seem to be amenable to personal will.

I also am a (outdoor) plant fanatic. At the moment, a homeschooling neighbor and I have a "Nature Enthusiast Club" we have organized to bring people (homeschooling families) out into the wilderness to learn about what is there...animals, vegetables, nd minerals; general habitat.

I do indoor too.. My big "victory" this winter was getting one of my moth orchids to rebloom--and my citrus. I am also dancing a dance of victory because I got my Kleim's gardenia through our horrendous cold spell alive. It's not really hardy here but I tend to push the envelope. :hahugh: That crazy person wrapping her bush in a pink pillowcase was me.


How true...I sincerely hope that our little club will serve to 'awaken' people to nature, in general. If they just START observing, they will find that it becomes addictive, and they will start to apply it to their every day (mostly city) lives...:)

That's what I found with the Brownies--my little girls are now adults, and I've heard through my daughter that they still remember the camping trips I took them on. I've been at the garden center long enough to have repeaters now and it's always enjoyable to discuss their gardens with them. There are a few who have been planting their first gardens, I get a good number of first time homeowners!



In my case I would say that what I wish to "preserve" is the language. It is true in one way that the myths are still there...but what meaning would they have if there was noone who spoke the language of origin so that the full beauty and meaning of what we have in writing can be appreciated.


I'm not sure I understand here. The language is still spoken in both Ireland and Scotland, not to mention large groups of speakers in Canada such as found in Nova Scotia. I made a solo trip to Scotland in 1991, just rented a car and drove around in the north west and the signage even then was in both Gaelic and English. The Irish Tourist Board apparently intends to market its maps in Gaelic in the future. Welsh did nearly die out, but it's apparently alive and well these days.

Also, there are is a full range of "myths" accessible in the extant folklore. There is LOTS of folklore that has not been recorded in writing. This amount is declining as the numbers of speakers decline. If the language is gone, so will be these tales, as well as the ideas they espouse.

The native speakers are still around. I understand what you mean here, but I'm abivalent about it. What is spoken now is not what was spoken two thousand years ago--or even necessarily a thousand. Additionally, it's sometimes difficult to get concepts across between two cultures this way because there are always certain concepts that native speakers understand because they've grown up with it but have a hard time explaining. I studied Russian for three years in college and hit several examples of both sides. The Russian for "I am married" for a woman translates literally as "I am behind a man". I don't remember the masculine form offhand but it most assuredly is not "I am behind a woman." That does say something about the mindset of the culture when the terms came into usage. And Russian has verb pairs--what kind of action is accomplished or not determines which word is used. I had a native Russian speaker who was teaching that term and he had a hell of time trying to explain the reasoning behind the usage. Everytime we thought we had it figured out it turned out we didn't, the concept was totatlly alien. But, then again I've got the Flora Celtica and it's quite common to run across the Gaelic terms for certain plants whose modern identification is quite iffy because we simply don't know at this point which ones they meant, the confusion can only increase when talking about abstract concepts. I can understand the why of what you're saying, even the appeal, but I'm not sure it's totally applicable. How can you be sure what you learn a particular phrase or concept translated now meant the same 1000 years ago?

And then there is the time span problem. I studied Latin in junior high and a couple years in high school. It was invaluable for understanding English grammer and vocabulary, it was also interesting to read some of the original Roman documents. But it was also clear that meanings of words can stretch and change over time, that the contempory usage of a word may refer back to the Latin original but contempory usage may not be strictly analogus. What Gaelic words mean now does not automatically hook up with their older original meanings.

That said, I have to take exception to the idea that the Celtic worldview is "readily accessible"...at least to anyone who does not know the language. Yes, there are many ideas that are found in other religions...but the nuances, "double meanings" and many "underlying themes" are absolutely NOT meaningfully understood by comparison with any other culture.
As far as the music goes...again, I take exception that the music will be here forever. The music is the way it is BECAUSE it is derived from a Celtic language. The style of a non-Gaelic speaker is markedly different from that of a Gaelic speaker, because they are able to more readily internalize the rhythms, because they are observable in the speaking of and listening to the language.

Two different concepts here, and I collapsed several into my own statement. I'm actually answering here in between painting the walls and my coat was dry!

First--IMO opinion knowing old Irish is not necessary for understanding the pagan Irish POV. I suspect there are quite a few people living today who don't speak Gaelic at all yet are Scots or Irish or Welsh or Manx who would disagree that they cannot understand their own culture and their underlying themes because they don't speak Welsh or Manx or Gaelic.

Second--the music will live because it is being carried on by contemporary musicians. Music always changes with the times. There are certain characteristics of celtic music and they actually travel quite well. The bagpipes originated in the Middle East. Bluegrass is quite celtic in origin but it's also American. Runrig, Capercaille, Battlefield Band, Silly Wizard, Rare Air, Seven Nations, The Chieftans, Makem, Clancy, The Irish Rovers, Wolfstone, even the Scottish Rogues here have been or still are quite, quite active. And that's the tip of the iceberg. They all have different styles but are quite recognizably celtic. What needs preserving?

Three--all indigenous religions are in some sense nature based, in that they interact, explain, and connect with the natural seasons and events of the world. I meant that the idea of unity of Earth, Sea, and Sky is not automatically unique to celtic peoples, that the basic concept is quite widespread. The "flavor" that is celtic is unique and for quite a few reasons is the one that resonants with me. But an atheist environmentalist is quite capable of understanding and internalizing that basic connection to the natural world. The celtic world view is not totally unique in that respect.

IMO opinion the style of a Gaelic speaker is different because the Gaelic speaker carries his/her own rhythms, concepts and methods of speaking into English, the same way a Swede, an Italian, or a Russian does. The non-native Gaelic speaker is going to use their own patterns in Gaelic and may miss some nuances because they aren't native. See above. I'm quite sure my accent and usage is very apparent to a native speaker of both Spanish and Russian and my Spanish coworkers (even those fluent in English) are not always able to explain something they understand intuitively.


I'd be very interested to know where you get this bit about the druids taking over Stonehenge. (Other than modern day druids.)

Another I was in a hurry. Excavations always seem to be going on at Stonehnge and there have been finds made that indicate different groups of people made use of the place at different times after it was abandoned. Time Team, Meet the Ancestors, and a couple of other programs on BBC International are what I was thinking of. The Druids now at Stonehenge are, I believe, the currently active descendants of the Romantic Revivals.





Certainly. The more I dig in my own background the more I'm surprised. But I try to keep in mind that these ancestors did live in different countries and different times and there are other influences in my live also. I myself do not live in those countries or those times.


[quote]Take note that the diaspora left their homes at a time when their native ways were being eradicated by the English government and culture. They truly felt like prisoners. It seems to me that what they missed back in the "old country" were A) Their kin and clan B)Others who spoke their language (evidenced in countless songs). I think they truly thought that they could build a society THEY WAY THEY WANTED IT, with their own native impulses if they moved themselves and their families to "The New World". Sadly, that did not happen. (Except in the case of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia in Canada.)

Yes, the O'Neills left because of cultural repression in a sense, but the largest part came because they were starving to death during the potato famine and the nearly genocidal policies of the English at that time gave the choice of leave or starve. Yes, they missed their families and their homes--if you want a truly haunting song try and find "Hame, Hame, Hame", which was supposedly written by a transportee after the '45. What do you mean they thought they could build a life the way they wanted it? South Boston today is STILL an enclave and there are large groups elsewhere, my ex's family was in Pittsburgh. They brought their religion, they brought their foods, they brought their families and customs. Since Ireland at the time was totally ruled by England the laws here would not have been that different, in fact less restrictive. They did meet the "No Irish need apply", same as all too many other immigrant groups did. Thing is, moving on is what the celts have been doing since Hallstat and the Irish in America made their own version of American Celtic. Why is not that not seen as valid but instead seen as a loss and somehow not quite 'real celtic'?

Btw--I live in Virginia, too...:)

Le meas,


Falls Church

[Maggie]

I must point out, just for general puroposes..."Irish" does not="Gaelic".

Because of this, Irish ALSO, does not="Celtic". The English language is decidedly NOT a "Celtic" language.
Therefore, one cannot use the words "Irish" and "Celtic", or Irish and "Gaelic" interchangeably.
There are marked differences between the ideaologies of the monoglot English speakers, and Celtic language speakers.

Le meas,

There are different English forms too. Britain has insisted for centuries that we don't speak English "In America, they haven't spoken it for years.".....

I doubt whether the English common in India (where it's the official language) is quite the same as American, Canadian, or Britsh English by now.

Who said English was a celtic language? The closest they come is both are IE.

English has an "ideology"?

I do believe I mentioned previously that "celtic" is an umbrella term for some very different languages and cultures. All too often though, Irish is the best known and in common usage does seem to get taken as the norm, and Irish language and culture taken as the pattern for all others. It is an irritant to me, but probably for different reasons than yours.

[Maggie]

Good point Faol-chu. English is a Germanic language and thus people who come from a country or culture that has spoken english for a while is more likely to have a germanic mind set rather than a "celtic" one. I've always found it interesting how you can see the basic outline of a culture by looking at their language and studing it and looking at what they place value on.


How do you come to this conclusion? Ireland, Scotland and Wales all had language crises that nearly killed their native languages, I believe Cornish IS gone. English certainly has been the majority language in all those countries for "some time". Welsh was revived in fact by academics in the 70's. Do they exhibit a "germanic mind set" these days? My sister was stationed in Germany for a few years and lived in town. Her neighbors quite kindly informed her that the neighborhood washed the steps every Thursday and her husband was "helped" to set out his vegetable garden the "correct" way. I can tell you that my family culture here in the US, however influenced by German culture, was certainly NOT that rigid! For the most part my ancestors have spoken English for at least three generations--and I fail to see this "Germanic mind set". The German Jew married a Scots/English Presbyterian, the Welsh girl married an Englishman, the Swede married a Norwegian girl and my father--he of the german phrases and saurkraut told my grandmother he wasn't going to tell me not to marry an Irish Catholic. And do you really think Italian-Americans who have been here longer than my ancestors are exhibiting a "germanic mind set these days?

You can learn about a culture by studying the language only if it's studied within the context of that culture and in the point of origin.

Yes, English is a Germanic language. It is also an enthusiastic borrower of words and concepts from others. German, on the other hand, simply builds new words IN GERMAN, 'portmanteau" words. The signs in the Frankfurt airport were a hoot and a half, some of them were incredibly huge because the aviation words were built from two, three, or more German words.

What is the "Germanic mindset" in India? Canada? America? Jamaica?

Language reflects the culture and beliefs of its people, it doesn't shape it. It is certainly not a straightjacket one gets stuffed into simply by speaking it for a while.

[Faol-chù]

Of course it is--and in a way that's precisely what I'm talking about. Everyone IS immersed in nature.

While I absolutely understand and agree with your sentiment (again)...I think it needs to be said that a lot of cities exist BECAUSE people have historically wanted to be more "civilized" (Latin 'civitas'), and because people WANTED to deny and/or "lessen" their connection to nature. I think you've got a lot of 'undoing' of more than 2000 years of teachings in front of you if you truly wish to teach people this...;)


I'm not entirely sure if that really is within the ancient celtic ideas. I seem to remember an awful lot of geas, personal fault type disasters...things that don't seem to be amenable to personal will.

This is one of the things that becomes apparent from observation of the language...Personal will DOES enter in...It just isn't apparent from the ancient "evidence" we have.

I do indoor too.. My big "victory" this winter was getting one of my moth orchids to rebloom--and my citrus. I am also dancing a dance of victory because I got my Kleim's gardenia through our horrendous cold spell alive. It's not really hardy here but I tend to push the envelope. :hahugh: That crazy person wrapping her bush in a pink pillowcase was me.

Lolol...:)


I'm not sure I understand here. The language is still spoken in both Ireland and Scotland, not to mention large groups of speakers in Canada such as found in Nova Scotia. I made a solo trip to Scotland in 1991, just rented a car and drove around in the north west and the signage even then was in both Gaelic and English. The Irish Tourist Board apparently intends to market its maps in Gaelic in the future. Welsh did nearly die out, but it's apparently alive and well these days.

Actually, Welsh is probably better off right now than either of the Gaelics...because the Welsh language is a required class in the public school system there (all over Wales). Irish is NOT a required class....and Gaelic is not even offered in public schools (last I heard) in Scotland. (A family can OPT for their child to go to a Gaelic medium school, but it's not offered everywhere.)
The reason the signs are even there in Scotland (and Ireland) are because people are realizing that the language is dying out, and it's sort of like a last ditch sort of thing. There is an entire generation that was deliberately kept from learning Gaelic in Scotland by their parents. As I understand it, it is the same in Ireland. ...and for that matter, there is a similar situation in Nova Scotia.

These languages are alive..but I'd hardly call them "well". They are struggling.


The native speakers are still around. I understand what you mean here, but I'm abivalent about it. What is spoken now is not what was spoken two thousand years ago--or even necessarily a thousand.

Again, as I explained, the Gaelics have not changed NEARLY as much as the English...and 1,000 year old English can still be read and mostly understood.

(I am not specifically interested in "pre-Christian" Gaelic society...but it IS an interest.)

Additionally, it's sometimes difficult to get concepts across between two cultures this way because there are always certain concepts that native speakers understand because they've grown up with it but have a hard time explaining.

Well, if you ask me, this is a really good reason to study the language...If you are actually working to become fluent, eventually you are going to 'get' those things that are difficult to explain, just due to experience.

I'll also suggest here that the concepts in Gaelic which may be difficult to explain to an English-speaker trying to learn the language are not completely "alien"...They are just not what is 'assumed' at first encounter.

How can you be sure what you learn a particular phrase or concept translated now meant the same 1000 years ago?

You can't...just like you can't do that with English...though it IS possible to get a basic understanding...Much more so than you would EVER get trying to have everything translated into English from a quite different language.

And then there is the time span problem. I studied Latin in junior high and a couple years in high school. It was invaluable for understanding English grammer and vocabulary, it was also interesting to read some of the original Roman documents. But it was also clear that meanings of words can stretch and change over time, that the contempory usage of a word may refer back to the Latin original but contempory usage may not be strictly analogus. What Gaelic words mean now does not automatically hook up with their older original meanings.

True...but again, just like translating Old English to Modern English, you can get pretty close...Much closer than trying to translate Old Irish...or even MODERN Irish into English.


First--IMO opinion knowing old Irish is not necessary for understanding the pagan Irish POV. I suspect there are quite a few people living today who don't speak Gaelic at all yet are Scots or Irish or Welsh or Manx who would disagree that they cannot understand their own culture and their underlying themes because they don't speak Welsh or Manx or Gaelic.

You can disagree if you like...I've been working on the language for the last 5 years. I had been working strictly with the archaeology and lore translated into English for 4 years prior to that. I KNOW that I have a more coherent picture for my troubles. There is a LOT that makes a lot more sense....on so many different levels.

Second--the music will live because it is being carried on by contemporary musicians. Music always changes with the times. There are certain characteristics of celtic music and they actually travel quite well. The bagpipes originated in the Middle East. Bluegrass is quite celtic in origin but it's also American.


Bluegrass is not only "Celtic" in origin...It's also German and English, with a smattering of Native American thrown in.


Runrig, Capercaille, Battlefield Band, Silly Wizard, Rare Air, Seven Nations, The Chieftans, Makem, Clancy, The Irish Rovers, Wolfstone, even the Scottish Rogues here have been or still are quite, quite active. And that's the tip of the iceberg. They all have different styles but are quite recognizably celtic. What needs preserving?

All of these are bands that have taken the occasional traditional song and 'moderned it up' to appeal to an English-speaking audience. The stuff you hear at the traditional cèilidhean are very different...and THAT is what needs preserving.

Three--all indigenous religions are in some sense nature based, in that they interact, explain, and connect with the natural seasons and events of the world. I meant that the idea of unity of Earth, Sea, and Sky is not automatically unique to celtic peoples, that the basic concept is quite widespread.

I agree wholeheartedly...


IMO opinion the style of a Gaelic speaker is different because the Gaelic speaker carries his/her own rhythms, concepts and methods of speaking into English, the same way a Swede, an Italian, or a Russian does. The non-native Gaelic speaker is going to use their own patterns in Gaelic and may miss some nuances because they aren't native.

Very true...at least to a degree. People who stay with it and learn the language for more reasons that just "musical", or "for a grade" will eventually understand and take at least some of it on for their own.


The Druids now at Stonehenge are, I believe, the currently active descendants of the Romantic Revivals.

Yes...I must point out, just so it doesn't go unsaid...Any connection the Romantic Revival druids have with the ancient druids is iffy, at best.

The more I dig in my own background the more I'm surprised. But I try to keep in mind that these ancestors did live in different countries and different times and there are other influences in my live also. I myself do not live in those countries or those times.

Very true, and a good thing to keep in mind.


Yes, the O'Neills left because of cultural repression in a sense, but the largest part came because they were starving to death during the potato famine and the nearly genocidal policies of the English at that time gave the choice of leave or starve.

For that matter, the English should shoulder at least SOME of the responsibility for the potato famine, as they pushed these people onto marginal lands, and then dictated which potatoes they could use. (They got the inferior potatoes, in part, so they could grow better in this poor soil, and THOSE are the potatoes that blighted, to begin with.)

Yes, they missed their families and their homes--if you want a truly haunting song try and find "Hame, Hame, Hame", which was supposedly written by a transportee after the '45.

I have heard quite the array of Scottish Gaelic songs which express utter despair at being away from family and home.

What do you mean they thought they could build a life the way they wanted it?

At one time, their were Irish-speaking communities in New York, Maine, and the Midwest. Areas where Irish and Scottish Gaels were settled were written about in letters home to 'the old country', and people deliberately sought those areas out, in an effort to build their own, Gaelic-speaking communities. There even used to be one in North Carolina...but it (for the most part) failed shortly after the Revolutionary War, because most of them moved to Canada after England lost.

Thing is, moving on is what the celts have been doing since Hallstat ...

I absolutely agree with this...


....and the Irish in America made their own version of American Celtic. Why is not that not seen as valid but instead seen as a loss and somehow not quite 'real celtic'?

Some of Nova Scotia MAY be "American Celtic"...Unless they take up a Celtic language, no...there is no way that any other groups could be considered as such.

The mindset IS different.

(Bedford County) :)

Le meas,

[Faol-chù]

You can learn about a culture by studying the language only if it's studied within the context of that culture and in the point of origin.


Yep...It's awfully difficult to study a language if you are not studying using materials from that culture...Books, native speakers, etc.

Learning a foreign language cannot happen in an English-speaking vacuum. If you are going to persue it at all, you are eventually (sooner, rather than later) going to begin such contact.

I'm really not sure about what you mean by "point of origin", though.

Language reflects the culture and beliefs of its people, it doesn't shape it.

It certainly DOES "shape" culture an beliefs, as that is the set of symbols by which "culture and beliefs" are passed.
How else, if not by Language?

Certainly things change somewhat over time...from generation to generation, but ít's NOT passed in a vacuum...It's still subject to the LANGUAGE of that culture.

Le meas,

[Seren_]

Actually, Welsh is probably better off right now than either of the Gaelics...because the Welsh language is a required class in the public school system there (all over Wales). Irish is NOT a required class....and Gaelic is not even offered in public schools (last I heard) in Scotland. (A family can OPT for their child to go to a Gaelic medium school, but it's not offered everywhere.)
The reason the signs are even there in Scotland (and Ireland) are because people are realizing that the language is dying out, and it's sort of like a last ditch sort of thing. There is an entire generation that was deliberately kept from learning Gaelic in Scotland by their parents. As I understand it, it is the same in Ireland. ...and for that matter, there is a similar situation in Nova Scotia.

These languages are alive..but I'd hardly call them "well". They are struggling.

Scots Gaelic is offered in schools in Scotland but it's not a compulsory subject so it tends to only be on the curriculum in Gaelic speaking areas. My nieces have had beginners lessons in it as part of some sort of cultural studies they do (along with Urdu and Japanese and so forth), but they wouldn't be able to study it further unless they choose to do so at university.

While the language is by no means 'well' the tide does seem to be turning, though. Glasgow has its first ever Gaelic speaking secondary school and the language is being viewed less as the preserve of the economically or socially backward, and more as something to be proud of.

[Maggie]

While I absolutely understand and agree with your sentiment (again)...I think it needs to be said that a lot of cities exist BECAUSE people have historically wanted to be more "civilized" (Latin 'civitas'), and because people WANTED to deny and/or "lessen" their connection to nature. I think you've got a lot of 'undoing' of more than 2000 years of teachings in front of you if you truly wish to teach people this...;)[quote]

I don't think I agree with this point. Jarmo dates back seven thousand years, Catal Huyek is I think six thousand. Once people started staying put they clumped up--humans, along with other primates, are tribal. They wanted protection from the elements, from hostiles, to be near sources of supply, to work together in food production, luxury goods, temples all sorts of reasons (specialization and desire for luxury goods started waaaaaaaaaay early too). I don't really think distance from nature--in the sense contemporary society means it.

What I am looking for is the kind of knowledge and awareness that a child of past centuries would have had. That purple berry isn't good to eat, that flower means it's past frost, that bunch of green stuff will help Mommy dye wool, if I follow that bee I could find a hive--heaven! I've read a book on "Animal Magic" and I wonder how many people would recognize some of the animals listed or even realize they've seen a blue jay fly by every day because they're looking at their feet or thinking ahead to a meeting instead of looking around them as they walk to a bus stop. I'd like to see a deliberate attempt to see what they're walking through. It's not 2,000 years I want to get past, it's more like 1 or 2 hundred.


[quote]This is one of the things that becomes apparent from observation of the language...Personal will DOES enter in...It just isn't apparent from the ancient "evidence" we have.

I honestly don't remember enough these days to say anything to this point.



These languages are alive..but I'd hardly call them "well". They are struggling.

Okay, I bought this book a bunch of years ago now, along with others, it was published in 1992. I was making an attempt to learn Scottish Gaelic but life intervened. Aside from personal experiences this is pretty much my source.
The editor is Donald MacCaulay, then Professor of Celtic at Glasgow University, the book is The Celtic Languages, published by the Cambridge University Press.

Caveat: I am not trying to beat you over the head I am explaining what's behind my OPINION. I know no Gaelic speakers myself.

Hallstatt and La Tene are generally held to be the first cultures that can reasonably be identified as 'celtic'. Hallstat was 7th century BCE, La Tene 5th century BCE. They moved to Asia Minor, Rome, the Iberian Penisula, north to the Atlantic Coast and into Ireland and Britain. They were the dominant culture in Britain and Ireland by 3rd century BCE. It is the Roman and Greek writers who mentioned that these people spoke a distinctive language with a range of dialects, number unknown. It died out on the continent by 500 CE.

That is a long time and a very large amount of territory, there had to have been a lot of interchange and change while still remaining celtic. There is, however, no way to really tell how it compares to surviving celtic languages because continental celtic died out. Celtic is IE, but he says that (at the time of his writing) that Celto-Germanic relationships are due more to interlanguage contact rather than a genetic relationship. He also says that existing celtic languages are considered to have archaic features, probably due to its isolation. Which for me is telling--if the existing forms of celtic languages had NOT been isolated from an "innovating center" it's more than likely that they would have borrowed, donated and changed as much as other languages in their IE group so that its uniqueness could be due more to lack of contact than any inherent inability to change due to their unique world view.

The insular celtic languages are even more confusing. The Pictish and Irish survived the Romans more or less intact--but the Irish survivied "intact" after a trek across the entire European continent. Within the Roman sphere of influence the British languages were influenced by the Romans but survived to become Welsh, Cornish and Breton. Pictish was overlaid by the Irish incursion, spreading into a "continuum" that included Irish, Manx and Scottish Gaelic. This is what developed into Manx, Irish, and Scottish of today.

Therefore, after all this verbiage....

IMO, if one must have a pure celtic language, Irish Gaelic seems to be the best bet, bearing in mind that it got to Ireland after travelling across Europe over several centuries. However, again in my opinion, that language speaks only to the culture of the celtic people of Ireland by now. Once those splits occurred and each culture group went off on its own, their separate development and cultures would be reflected in a different variety of the language. Addtionally, IMO language follows culture, not the other way around, and English speaking celts in those societies are just as "celtic" as those there who still speak a form of celtic language. Therefore, any insights, opinions, etc for the ordinary person can be transmitted by English spoken by those people in those societies.

This, however, does not apply for those who are looking to the language for other reasons. It is satisfying to learn the languages for emotional reasons, and if it works for an individual, it works. I just say that's it's not a hard and fast given and gifted translators can do a lot. I hated Beowolf in school but I read the new translation by Seamus Hanny (I think he was the author!) and I could hardly wait to finish a page, he told it magnificently and in a way that I understood the attitudes and actions much, much better.


Again, as I explained, the Gaelics have not changed NEARLY as much as the English...and 1,000 year old English can still be read and mostly understood.

Old English (the language of Beowulf) lasted until the mid 12 century, it's nearly incomprensible. Chaucer wrote in Middle English and both the prounciation, words themselves and usage are difficult to deal with. I've tried and hearing it is even more confusing.

Well, if you ask me, this is a really good reason to study the language...If you are actually working to become fluent, eventually you are going to 'get' those things that are difficult to explain, just due to experience.[quote]

Perhaps. I'm sure the Japanese man that asked me why we "watch" television but "go to a movie" is politely accepting, just as I am about the Russian verb pairs.

[quote]I'll also suggest here that the concepts in Gaelic which may be difficult to explain to an English-speaker trying to learn the language are not completely "alien"...They are just not what is 'assumed' at first encounter.

How so? I did take one adult education class years and years ago in Scottish Gaelic. My one clear memory was that it didn't appear to be much different than learning another but I can't spell worth a darn and it certainly looked like I was in trouble here.




True...but again, just like translating Old English to Modern English, you can get pretty close...Much closer than trying to translate Old Irish...or even MODERN Irish into English.

Maybe, maybe not. I had read Beowulf translations before but I never really understood the attitudes behind the story until that new one came out. And some of those attitudes do not translate well into modern English--different culture again. How I perceive things now in 2007 probably doesn't have much to do with how someone in England about 700 CE did.




You can disagree if you like...I've been working on the language for the last 5 years. I had been working strictly with the archaeology and lore translated into English for 4 years prior to that. I KNOW that I have a more coherent picture for my troubles. There is a LOT that makes a lot more sense....on so many different levels.

I've said all along that this is MY opinon! I do see things differently. I'll mention the music in another post. Something is acting funny and I don't want to lose this one!

[Maggie]

Bluegrass is not only "Celtic" in origin...It's also German and English, with a smattering of Native American thrown in.

Okay, computer seems to be cooperating again.

I looked it up, the sources for bluegrass are generally held to be Scottish, Irish, and continentall Africa--and orginated outside of Kentucky in the Appalachias with the Scots-Irish. Depending on the area, given the usual interaction between contacting neighbors, there may be some German in some melodies. Native American was never mentioned and I'd be rather doubtful of that one. The keys are different, for one thing.


Thing is--where and how does one draw the line between between what is celtic and what is not? My perception of a great deal of literature out there is that 'celtic' is generally held to be synonomus with "Irish celtic" when one looks at the sources, and classical period at that. As I pointed out, the bagpipes are originally a Middle Eastern instrument and yet they are most assuredly celtic now. The music then and the music now would be quite different, but the people are too. The minor key is most often associated with celtic sounding music, and that's common in middle eastern music. Do we consider celtic music derivative? What is 'authentic" celtic music and how does one pick it out?

All of these are bands that have taken the occasional traditional song and 'moderned it up' to appeal to an English-speaking audience. The stuff you hear at the traditional cèilidhean are very different...and THAT is what needs preserving.

Um. The Chieftans in particular have been recording and playing and composing for over forty years now, recording and playing the traditional music that might have been lost. That's been one of their stated purposes, they've discussed it at length in interviews.

And this is another area that YMMV. I view music as organic and living. It too changes with the people just as everything else does. The people playing music now, particularly the celtic bands in celtic countries ARE continuing the same tradition while the music grows with the people. The pipes sing, cry and laugh--but they so just as much in modern group music as they do in "traditional" music--many of which are themselves not older than a century or possibly two. Several of these bands in particular continue the tradtion of putting current events into song, just as the old bards did. There's an Irish group that sings a song about WWI that will break your heart and the music is definitely celtic--but it was written after WWII. Tommy Makem wrote "Four Green Fields" about the division of Ireland. Neither of those are "traditional', both are Irish--and both are contemporary continuations of celtic bardic traditions--as are the others. The Corries in Scotland were famous for singing both traditional--in the traditional Lallans as well as modern English--and some of them had versions older than two hundred years. The Flower of Scotland has become something of an anthem there (right Seren? <G>), once again it's less than fifty years old. And their music is most certainly celtic but it's not the same as 'traditional' or what might have been played and sung back in Hallstatt or in Gaul.


For that matter, the English should shoulder at least SOME of the responsibility for the potato famine, as they pushed these people onto marginal lands, and then dictated which potatoes they could use. (They got the inferior potatoes, in part, so they could grow better in this poor soil, and THOSE are the potatoes that blighted, to begin with.)

Well, yes and no.

http://www.victoryseeds.com/news/irish_famine.html

The biggest problem was monoculture, a new fungus, and poor weather conditions. The lumper didn't taste very good but it was extremely productive and grew in poor soil. That fungus is still around by the way, it's recurrant in the US. The real problems were the governmental policies coupled with prejudice.

At one time, their were Irish-speaking communities in New York, Maine, and the Midwest. Areas where Irish and Scottish Gaels were settled were written about in letters home to 'the old country', and people deliberately sought those areas out, in an effort to build their own, Gaelic-speaking communities. There even used to be one in North Carolina...but it (for the most part) failed shortly after the Revolutionary War, because most of them moved to Canada after England lost.

Yes, immigrants often travel in groups. Thing is--are you equating Gaelic speaking with celtic culture? That in moving to a new country the immigrants are no longer celtic unless they build a community exactly like the old country?

Some of Nova Scotia MAY be "American Celtic"...Unless they take up a Celtic language, no...there is no way that any other groups could be considered as such.

The mindset IS different.

How is the mindset different? I don't understand how Hallstatt celts could travel all the way to Ireland, through the entirety of Europe to the British Isles and yet just a little further to another country and they are no longer "real" celts.

(Bedford County) :)

Another snippet lost due to computer non-cooperation. I was basing my opinion about the viability of celtic languages today on that same book I mentioned.


He says (in 1991) that estimates were a half million "valid" speakers in Ireland, Brittany and Wales. I would guess by now that the numbers are larger in Wales and Ireland at least. He estimates about 80,000 in Scotland, with Scottish Gaels existing in Nova Scotia and that a number of Patagonian Welsh speakers and Cape Breton Gaelic speakers still existed. That, coupled with what I saw myself there led me to consider the languages viable.

[Maggie]

Scots Gaelic is offered in schools in Scotland but it's not a compulsory subject so it tends to only be on the curriculum in Gaelic speaking areas. My nieces have had beginners lessons in it as part of some sort of cultural studies they do (along with Urdu and Japanese and so forth), but they wouldn't be able to study it further unless they choose to do so at university.

While the language is by no means 'well' the tide does seem to be turning, though. Glasgow has its first ever Gaelic speaking secondary school and the language is being viewed less as the preserve of the economically or socially backward, and more as something to be proud of.

Seren, this is an odd question but I've wondered about it ever since I was there. I was advised by a friend (he's a piper, actually) that it would be best to wait until I arrived and change for Scottish bank notes since I was going north and west. I did, but was that really a good suggestion? (back in 1991) I read recently that a BBC presenter actually got hate mail in London for her Dundee accent (in 1982) and I am surprised at how often Monty Python lampooned Scottish stereotypes. Is there really that strong of antipathy between England and Scotland these days?

[Maggie]

Yep...It's awfully difficult to study a language if you are not studying using materials from that culture...Books, native speakers, etc.

Learning a foreign language cannot happen in an English-speaking vacuum. If you are going to persue it at all, you are eventually (sooner, rather than later) going to begin such contact.

I'm really not sure about what you mean by "point of origin", though.

I'm not sure how accurate pictures of a culture are if one studies immigrants who still speak the language, preserve culture in the home and are proud of their heritage--but no longer live in the country of origin. How much of the original "mind set" still prevails when speakers of the language are two or more generations in a new country?


[quote]It certainly DOES "shape" culture an beliefs, as that is the set of symbols by which "culture and beliefs" are passed.
How else, if not by Language?

Certainly things change somewhat over time...from generation to generation, but ít's NOT passed in a vacuum...It's still subject to the LANGUAGE of that culture.

I see it as the other way around, actually. Words are found to describe pre-existing beliefs and cultures. The Russians would not have phrased "I am behind a man" if the belief that a woman stood behind a man when she married, and so deliberately changed the wording for a man to describe his wedded state.

[_Banbha_]

So much interesting conversation since I was last able to reply.


WARNING this answer is based on my experience and people I've come across. I am referring to those people specifically who bemoan being "divorced" from nature and who want to learn to be a druid "right away" by learning how to have a "spiritual connection" but can't because they don't live near a wilderness area. This is a point I've become adament about; that a person who expresses these sentiments needs to sit down and look around them right where they are. And, such knowledge doesn't come instantaneously nor does it require hours a day. It simply requires a desire to learn and persistance.

I myself don't want to be a druid or seek instant gratification and I do very much agree very much with your sentiments here.

Thing is, "weeds" are seldom just weeds. Most species of chickweed are alien to North America, are high in Vitamin C and were often eaten as pot herbs in Europe. I am again talking about where to start for the ordinary person. Those common things are exactly what every ordinary person in much of the world now and in the ancient world knows now and knew then. And a great many of our weeds are intentional imports--tracing them down teaches one both a great deal about human history as well as the plant itself.

Exactly and this is why I put 'weed' in quotes. It is something of negative term and plants considered 'weeds' are undervalued, underappreicated, and often not understood.


But growing up in a German influenced FAMILY culture did not make me a German in the United States. I ate some foods (I HATE saurkraut, btw), went to a German Lutheran church, learned bits and pieces of German phrases--but I am an American, not German. The church displayed the American flag and the Lutheran flag, not the German.

Yes, this was in reply to my opinion of Clifton veiwing American culture as monolithic and for the purposes of the article, I still believe he does. The connection to the culture is also relative to the community. I'm both an Irish and an first generation American citizen from an Irish community in Queens, NY that was/is very much still connected to Ireland. It is not the 'old country' by any means. Many people have been moving back due the economic boom times there.

There is an uberAmerican culture and family cultures to a widely varying degree. My first husband was an Irish-American Catholic, I was the first non-Irish, non-Catholic bride in the family and in fact both of my children have stayed with relatives in Dublin. I can tell you that the people in that family are extremely fond of debate, and that a couple of them even still attend Mass and like Irish music--but they're not Irish. My kids were quite a curiousity to the overseas branch of the family on those visits because while they were Kennedys they were NOT Irish.

I'm sure it was a fun and interesting experience for all! :hahugh:


It actually depends on how one defines "culture" and how the American chooses to regard this country. I don't particularly care for the German 'culture' and it was only reinforced after I spent time in Germany. I felt like a foreigner coming down to the south here after being born and raised in Michigan. I would be called a foreigner outright in New England--many areas there are very tight knit. And have you actually lived in Ireland? My daughter spent six weeks in Ireland with a friend, the two girls did tours using backpacks and youth hostels in between staying with their cousins. She came back (and she is way more liberal than me, mind you,) and told me she liked it there but she couldn't live there.

I've never been to school there but I have lived there seasonally when growing up and I visit often. I hope to have a place of my own there some day not far from my family's property. But not too close either. :hahugh:

And again, this depends on what you mean by culture. In my opinion the celtic culture is doing just fine in the hands of the ancient celts' descendants. I really don't think the Scots, or the Irish, or the Galacians....need help in preserving their own culture from outsiders. They get to decide what celtic culture is, not me.

I wasn't talking about outsiders deciding anything for anyone; but respecting and perserving what is. While "Celtic" culture is very popular in Neo-Paganism, I see a lot of disrespect, mostly through ignorance and misinformation. I don't get too upset by it because there is not much to be done about. People are free to believe what they want. Doesn't mean I have to like the misinformation presented as 'authentic' though.

I also question what people all too often choose to "preserve." The myths? They're still there.

And still not fully understood because there is still much work to be done and myths to be put into context.

Brehon law? I really do think that over past 2,000 years or so they would have changed with the people, I don't agree with acting as if they can simply be yanked into the present as is.

Why do you use the reference 2,000 years? Brehon survived allbeit in an altered state after initial Old English (Norman) invasions but operated in most areas until almost the mid-sevententh century. If you are using 2,000 as the beginning of Christian times, in Ireland it didn't begin until the 5th century and was a process of conversion with many areas retaining older practices much longer and even the more central Christian areas taking on their own flavor with the native traditions.

There has been a call for a revival of some of the laws particuliarly on regards to agraian matters in Ireland and there have been times it has been called as precident. I think that is rare but I don't see why it should always be so. Brehon law was more sophisticated than the English laws that replaced it. I'd hardly see the aspects of Brehon law that still would have modern relevance as being a step backward.

Celtic culture itself made the decision to change.

I have to disagree with you there. Much was lost when the English forced the language, schools, laws, and so much more under their boot.

The music? Still there. The "way of looking at the world"? Not sure what needs to be preserved here either--that world view is readily accessible and actually found in quite a few religions.

Yes, there are simularities in some basic tenents but without the culture than it is not Irish, Welsh, or Scotish, etc. And yes the music is still here and worth preserving as an art.

the celts are--again--looking to its preservation.

Yes, that is what I've been saying and why should they be alone in this if others love the culture or aspects of the culture themselves. There are some in Ireland who would destroy part of our heritage to build a road.

Nice reading on that subject is an anthology called "Celtic Consciousness." And besides, if the living culture that still exists takes another path is a Reconstructionist actually preserving something or enshrining something that has been discarded and no longer indicative of the culture? The original builders of Stonehenge turned away from it, the druids took it over--and then turned away themselves.


I had no idea there were "Celtic" tribes utilizing stonehenge as a site. I also have no idea about the form of druidry of men in white robes walking around stonehenge from the revival groups of yore.

Celtic Reconstructionism from my experience is a practical way of living and being within the Celtic cosomological view. I'd not even define it as my religion. That is too limiting.


I think that his point is that American culture needs to start looking to itself instead of a nostalgic look back to the 'old country'. Granted, our history is pretty short but there are still possibilities. Try looking at CeiSerith's homepage for his discussion on the subject.

Serith's PIE Religion section (http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/pier/index.htm) is one of my favorite sites on the topic. He is an Indo-European Reconstructionist which is really interesting to me. I'm an Irish Recon and my veiws and perspectives are bit different than his; though I do admire his work. :)


WARNING--I am not a romantic.

Queen Bodeacca (sp) is often held up an example of a celtic "Warrior Queen" and "proof" that women in celtic societies were freer. Actually, after her husband died the Romans reneged on the agreement they had with her tribe and then compounded their error by humiliating her and her daughters with a public whipping. That's when she started the war. I don't recall any story about her ridinng to war before then, nor do I remember hearing that her daughters rode with her. I view her really as in the group with Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great. Strong women but not indicative of women in general of the time. I would say that for Americans now that women like Sojourner Truth, Rosa Parks, Sally Ride, Eleanor Roosevelt, Susan B. Anthony, the women who disguised themselves and fought in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, the first female firefighers, police officers, military officers--even the women who protected those sod houses on the prairie while the men were away are better examples of "Warrior Women" for today's women.

Or take William Wallace, the real Braveheart. He's often held up as an example of the celtic love of freedom. Well, yes and no. He is a good example of the Scot's desire for national freedom against English imperial aggressions but if he had survived he would have been an absolute monarch and that society at that time was not what Americans would call a free society. Robert the Bruce in fact did become the King of Scotland. Heroes of American myths would be those who fought for American ideals.

Okay, I don't disagree and am not much of a romantic myself, not about history, in any case. I have to say there were other indications that women fought and had more rights in "Celtic" societies. Your comments on Boudicca remind me of Hutton for some reason. Those American women you mention are all wonderful and heroic. I don't value my ancestral heroines less or find them less relevant.

There is more I'd like to reply too but it's getting late and I'll have to finish next time. :)

[Faol-chù]

Scots Gaelic is offered in schools in Scotland but it's not a compulsory subject so it tends to only be on the curriculum in Gaelic speaking areas. My nieces have had beginners lessons in it as part of some sort of cultural studies they do (along with Urdu and Japanese and so forth), but they wouldn't be able to study it further unless they choose to do so at university.

While the language is by no means 'well' the tide does seem to be turning, though. Glasgow has its first ever Gaelic speaking secondary school and the language is being viewed less as the preserve of the economically or socially backward, and more as something to be proud of.


Thanks, Seren, for that info...I had heard that there was a push for more opportunity to learn Gaelic in the schools. The fact that so many other languages were offered, yet Gaelic was not, was one of the things that utterly baffled a lot of folks. At least the are learning it as a "foreign language"...though I still can't say I completely understand that. :hahugh:

Le meas,

[Faol-chù]

While I absolutely understand and agree with your sentiment (again)...I think it needs to be said that a lot of cities exist BECAUSE people have historically wanted to be more "civilized" (Latin 'civitas'), and because people WANTED to deny and/or "lessen" their connection to nature. I think you've got a lot of 'undoing' of more than 2000 years of teachings in front of you if you truly wish to teach people this...;)

I don't think I agree with this point. Jarmo dates back seven thousand years, Catal Huyek is I think six thousand. Once people started staying put they clumped up--humans, along with other primates, are tribal. They wanted protection from the elements, from hostiles, to be near sources of supply, to work together in food production, luxury goods, temples all sorts of reasons (specialization and desire for luxury goods started waaaaaaaaaay early too). I don't really think distance from nature--in the sense contemporary society means it.

Actually, I purposely referenced Latin 'civitas'. A 'tribal' model is not necessarily the same as a 'city-state' model. The whole purpose of those huge, elaborate buildings is to demonstrate man's (a particular man's or a particular groups') dominance over nature...and to distance humans from things dealing with nature, like farming. Yes SOMEBODY has to do it, but that's those 'uncivilized pagans' who do that. (There's that language thing again!).

What I am looking for is the kind of knowledge and awareness that a child of past centuries would have had. That purple berry isn't good to eat, that flower means it's past frost, that bunch of green stuff will help Mommy dye wool, if I follow that bee I could find a hive--heaven! I've read a book on "Animal Magic" and I wonder how many people would recognize some of the animals listed or even realize they've seen a blue jay fly by every day because they're looking at their feet or thinking ahead to a meeting instead of looking around them as they walk to a bus stop. I'd like to see a deliberate attempt to see what they're walking through. It's not 2,000 years I want to get past, it's more like 1 or 2 hundred.


This is the thing...Even in America, while 'city' kids *probably* had a *better* understanding of such things, from what I've studied, such understandings still were not all that great.

Heck, even the colony at Jamestown nearly failed because very few of the people had the knowledge or inclination to farm. (And this went BEYOND a simple lack of understanding of native plant life!)


Hallstatt and La Tene are generally held to be the first cultures that can reasonably be identified as 'celtic'. Hallstat was 7th century BCE, La Tene 5th century BCE. They moved to Asia Minor, Rome, the Iberian Penisula, north to the Atlantic Coast and into Ireland and Britain. They were the dominant culture in Britain and Ireland by 3rd century BCE. It is the Roman and Greek writers who mentioned that these people spoke a distinctive language with a range of dialects, number unknown. It died out on the continent by 500 CE.
That is a long time and a very large amount of territory, there had to have been a lot of interchange and change while still remaining celtic. There is, however, no way to really tell how it compares to surviving celtic languages because continental celtic died out.


Celtic is IE, but he says that (at the time of his writing) that Celto-Germanic relationships are due more to interlanguage contact rather than a genetic relationship. He also says that existing celtic languages are considered to have archaic features, probably due to its isolation. Which for me is telling--if the existing forms of celtic languages had NOT been isolated from an "innovating center" it's more than likely that they would have borrowed, donated and changed as much as other languages in their IE group so that its uniqueness could be due more to lack of contact than any inherent inability to change due to their unique world view.

Firstly, archaeologist Barry Cunliffe, and others have posited that Celtic languages spread initially more by the passing of ideas and the words used to relay them than by mass migration. Just so we are clear here. Also, the Germanic language group is not nearly as old as the Celtic language group. Perhaps that accounts for some of its perceived 'archaicness'.

I am sure that the languages in Britain and Ireland WERE slower to take on ideas from other places, just because of geography and logistics....at least as far as the Romans and Greeks were concerned.
HOWEVER, these insular people were apparently not THAT isolated from the rest of Western Europe. There is a lovely book by Dr. Barry Cunliffe, called Facing the Ocean, which outlines the archaeology and strongly suggests that there was much sea traffic which served as a vehicle for the transport of ideas and material goods. While these people could certainly "pick and choose" what they wanted to adopt, they were by no means completely "isolated".
I also never suggested an "inability" for their worldview to change. Obviously, it's changed to some degree...But again, there have always been a depth of ideas these peope had to draw from that went well back into the reaches of time.


The insular celtic languages are even more confusing. The Pictish and Irish survived the Romans more or less intact--but the Irish survivied "intact" after a trek across the entire European continent.

Every Irishman certainly did not 'trek' across the European continent. The culture of origin still remained, still with its Bardic schools (and, to a point with its Filidh). The culture still remained there, along with the lore, and the morals espoused by it.
For that matter, the Scottish Gaelic culture operated out of these same schools, same lore. The Scottish Gaelic language and the Irish language were considered to BE the same language for a very long time...both by the people OF these communities, and even by the English.
Even to this day, if an Irishman speaks his Irish in front of a Scottish Gael, or vice-versa, they will clearly understand most of what is said. Scottish Gaelic is not that different from the Irish, and, for that matter, in some ways, the modern Scottish Gaelic is believed to be more *like* the Old Irish than the Modern Irish is currently.


Once those splits occurred and each culture group went off on its own, their separate development and cultures would be reflected in a different variety of the language.

As always where dialects are concerned...but the core worldview is still consistent.


Addtionally, IMO language follows culture, not the other way around, and English speaking celts in those societies are just as "celtic" as those there who still speak a form of celtic language. Therefore, any insights, opinions, etc for the ordinary person can be transmitted by English spoken by those people in those societies.

Sorry...Nope...The language truly IS the breaking point. It truly baffles me how you can make such an assertion, given your limited experience with the language. I can try to explain this to you all day long, but unless you've experienced it, you are not going to see it. If a person has NO working knowledge of the Gaelic, or familiarity with the vast array of stories as told by that culture in their language, then, no, their understanding will NOT be the same...At least not without a lot of 'back' explanation. And even then, it's missing something.

I hated Beowolf in school but I read the new translation by Seamus Hanny (I think he was the author!) and I could hardly wait to finish a page, he told it magnificently and in a way that I understood the attitudes and actions much, much better.

Lolol...It should be noted here, that if it iwas Seamus Heaney who wrote this newest Beowulf, that he is an Irish-speaking Irishman...:)



How so? I did take one adult education class years and years ago in Scottish Gaelic. My one clear memory was that it didn't appear to be much different than learning another but I can't spell worth a darn and it certainly looked like I was in trouble here.

Learning the mechanics of the language is NOT that difficult. (Not as difficult as some factions would like to put it off to be.)

But I'm not talking about "mechanics", I'm talking about thought patterns...and you are only going to get scant experience with that in a year of Gaelic.


Le meas,

[Faol-chù]

I looked it up, the sources for bluegrass are generally held to be Scottish, Irish, and continentall Africa--and orginated outside of Kentucky in the Appalachias with the Scots-Irish. Depending on the area, given the usual interaction between contacting neighbors, there may be some German in some melodies. Native American was never mentioned and I'd be rather doubtful of that one. The keys are different, for one thing.

I forgot about Africa...Yes, Africa has definitely been an influence, as well. And I said that the music was INFLUENCED somewhat by Native American, I didn't say it *was* Native American. It's core *is* European. (For that matter, African music has different 'keys' as well.) The Scots-Irish in the Appalachians did NOT isolate themselves from others who lived there...mostly because they did not settle there as 'groups', they trickled in, right along with other immigrants. Yes, there IS 'German' influence in this music...There is also a very marked English influence. "Bluegrass" is actually derived from folk music that a man happened to witness during a visit to the Appalachian region. He recognized some of the songs as BEING Englsh folk songs, as well as Scottish and Irish.

And for that matter, the Scots-Irish spoke ENGLISH, not Gaelic, and had not spoken Gaelic for some generations, and thus were taking direction (moral, social, political, etc.) from English-speakers. While there are SOME tunes that (mostly) have crossed from Gaelic into English, there are really not ALL that many. In the late 1800's (Romantic Revival era) it became popular take a lot of the **tunes** and put English words to them. That doesn't even take into account the things that were changed just BECAUSE they needed to use English rhythms to go with the English language they were using to sing.

The thing is, upon doing this (and even before it was done in a widespread manner) the words to the songs turned out to be quite different. The sentiment of the song is different (even though it's often supposed to be about the same thing), composed for a different reason (amusement, rather than other social functions), and is sung in a much different setting from what it would have been done in a Gaelic society in its native toungue.

There *is* a marked difference between the Scottish Gaelic music, and the music found in non-Gaelic areas in Scotland.
Other than a couple of pockets of Gaelic-speakers, there were relative few and scattered Gaelic-speakers who came to the Appalachians. They were quickly absorbed into the mostly-English-speaking population.


Thing is--where and how does one draw the line between between what is celtic and what is not?

If they are from a community speaks a 'Celtic' language and they speak it, as well, they are "Celtic". If they don't, they they aren't.

Note that before Edward Lhuyd, the inhabitants of Britain and Ireland were not even thought of to be "Celtic". Words used by Classical soruces from which the word "Celt" are derived were used to refer to people on the mainland ...and it was NOT until Edward Lhuyd's use to the term to acknowledge the relationship between the early languages of Britain, Ireland, and Gaul, among others.

The word "Celt" is NOT about 'genetic lineage'. It was originally linguistic term that has been used 500 different ways until it has become nearly meaningless.

My perception of a great deal of literature out there is that 'celtic' is generally held to be synonomus with "Irish celtic" when one looks at the sources, and classical period at that.

I'm not sure what you mean by your reference to "the classical period"...But I can, perhaps, shed some light on the uninformed equation of "Irish Celtic" literature to "Celtic Literature"...

The Irish Gaelic monks have received (and probably rightfully so) a lot of credit for writing down observations of the world during the time when Rome fell and tried to recollect itself. During that time, Rome was unable to keep records, and the literate Irish did so. In Western Europe, Irish monks were the first to start recording in writing the remnants of their traditions. What we have of those now *is* more complete from an earlier stage than any other culture in Western Europe.


As I pointed out, the bagpipes are originally a Middle Eastern instrument and yet they are most assuredly celtic now. The music then and the music now would be quite different, but the people are too. The minor key is most often associated with celtic sounding music, and that's common in middle eastern music.

Firstly, I just have to say that, along with the Gaelic language, I play the fiddle, and I study native Gaelic music (Irish and Scottish). I have found the minor key to be quite RARE in the music I've experienced.

Also...YES, the bagpipes are considered to be "Celtic" now...WHEN they are playing music that is decidedly derived from a Celtic culture. Some Celtic cultures ADOPTED the bagpipes and used them in a way that was unique to those cultures. Outside of that, NO, bagpipes are NOT 'Celtic'.

As 'unromantic' as you keep saying that you are, most of your peeves seem to be about things that appear to be "grey areas" due to "Romaniticism" of Celtic culture.

Do we consider celtic music derivative?

"Derivative" of what?


What is 'authentic" celtic music and how does one pick it out?

Celtic music is music that comes from the tradition of a culture that speaks a Celtic language. Listen to the native tunes, given in a native atmosphere, to a native-language speaking audience, and you will eventually hear the differences...Both between Cetic/non-Celtic, and between the various Celtic cultures, themselves. For that matter, there are differences between style in the Gaelic areas in Scotland (between each other, as well) and Scottish Gaelic Tradition in Nova Scotia...Even though they are overwhelmingly similar, there are distinct differences.
If you throw a completely different language into the mix, though, and different cultural assumptions, everything changes.

Um. The Chieftans in particular have been recording and playing and composing for over forty years now, recording and playing the traditional music that might have been lost. That's been one of their stated purposes, they've discussed it at length in interviews.

While I, personally, have no qualms with the Chieftains, I have to say that, while the songs are definitely old songs from the tradition, they are--AGAIN, played differently (and for a different purpose--maybe BECAUSE of the different purpose) than they would have ever been played to a native audience.
(I wonder how much money they've made off of the deal, and how much of it they've passed back to the Gaelic communities from whom this music is derived?)

And this is another area that YMMV. I view music as organic and living. It too changes with the people just as everything else does.

And I do not disagree with you...:)

The Corries in Scotland were famous for singing both traditional--in the traditional Lallans as well as modern English--and some of them had versions older than two hundred years. The Flower of Scotland has become something of an anthem there (right Seren? <G>), once again it's less than fifty years old. And their music is most certainly celtic but it's not the same as 'traditional' or what might have been played and sung back in Hallstatt or in Gaul.

No...It's NOT "Celtic". Lallans is not, and never was a Celtic language.

And certainly, modern Gaelic music (and probably not even ANCIENT Gaelic music) is not what might have been played or sung in Hallstatt or Gaul.


Well, yes and no.

http://www.victoryseeds.com/news/irish_famine.html

The biggest problem was monoculture, a new fungus, and poor weather conditions. The lumper didn't taste very good but it was extremely productive and grew in poor soil. That fungus is still around by the way, it's recurrant in the US. The real problems were the governmental policies coupled with prejudice.

The "monoculture" (overuse of one particular crop) was, again, due to being pushed onto marginal lands. There are only so many things one can grow in a small space in poor soil that will amply feed a relative many people.

It is interesting to note that most Gaelic communities in Scotland AND Ireland resisted the potato for as long as they could. (They tended to see it as being 'pushed' upon them by English imperialists. After the social atrocities administered by the English government, however, it came to the point where they were left with little choice.

Yes, immigrants often travel in groups. Thing is--are you equating Gaelic speaking with celtic culture? That in moving to a new country the immigrants are no longer celtic unless they build a community exactly like the old country?

They are, but unless their descendants are raised in an environment that promotes Gaelic attitudes (via the language), they cease to be so.

How is the mindset different?

You know... I used to try to actually explain this to people. Fact is, you have to actually be interested enough in it to learn enough of it to observe it for yourself before you can meaningfully comprehend it.

I don't understand how Hallstatt celts could travel all the way to Ireland, through the entirety of Europe to the British Isles and yet just a little further to another country and they are no longer "real" celts.


I think I've explained BOTH the phenomenon of a distinct LACK of evidence of mass migration, as well as the fact that it is BY THE LANGUAGE that ideas about worldview were transmitted.


He says (in 1991) that estimates were a half million "valid" speakers in Ireland, Brittany and Wales. I would guess by now that the numbers are larger in Wales and Ireland at least. He estimates about 80,000 in Scotland, with Scottish Gaels existing in Nova Scotia and that a number of Patagonian Welsh speakers and Cape Breton Gaelic speakers still existed. That, coupled with what I saw myself there led me to consider the languages viable.

Just FYI...Just since 1991 (16 years), a lot of the older generation has died out. The vast majority of speakers AT THIS POINT are children, and people who have learned the language as adults (because they were discouraged from doing so as children).

Le meas,

[Faol-chù]

Yep...It's awfully difficult to study a language if you are not studying using materials from that culture...Books, native speakers, etc.

Learning a foreign language cannot happen in an English-speaking vacuum. If you are going to persue it at all, you are eventually (sooner, rather than later) going to begin such contact.

I'm really not sure about what you mean by "point of origin", though.

I'm not sure how accurate pictures of a culture are if one studies immigrants who still speak the language, preserve culture in the home and are proud of their heritage--but no longer live in the country of origin. How much of the original "mind set" still prevails when speakers of the language are two or more generations in a new country?

Who says ANYBODY is just studying "immigrants who still speak the language, preserve culture in their home and are proud of their heritage--but no longer live in the country of origin."

Modern day learners of Scottish Gaelic (and I can imagine Irish Gaelic or Welsh, as well) listen to radio programs and recordings by native Gaels ABOUT their culture. They read materials that were written by native speakers LIVING IN THEIR OWN CULTURE OF ORIGIN, as well. In addition, there are quite a few Gaelic-speakers who LIVE IN THEIR CULTURE OF ORIGIN who are quite willing to come visit with people who are making an effort to learn the language. They are quite hospitable, as well, and often offer a place to stay, should anyone want to come visit their native area.

There is no reason, in this day and age, that people should not have contact with native speakers living in their Celtic language-speaking community.

[_Banbha_]

Faol-chù answered all of points about the migration of culture and language as opposed to people (as in 'invasions,' etc.) so I'm not going to be redundant on that. I second the recommendation the Barry Cunliff book as well. :cheers:

Yes, the O'Neills left because of cultural repression in a sense, but the largest part came because they were starving to death during the potato famine and the nearly genocidal policies of the English at that time gave the choice of leave or starve. Yes, they missed their families and their homes--if you want a truly haunting song try and find "Hame, Hame, Hame", which was supposedly written by a transportee after the '45. What do you mean they thought they could build a life the way they wanted it? South Boston today is STILL an enclave and there are large groups elsewhere, my ex's family was in Pittsburgh. They brought their religion, they brought their foods, they brought their families and customs. Since Ireland at the time was totally ruled by England the laws here would not have been that different, in fact less restrictive. They did meet the "No Irish need apply", same as all too many other immigrant groups did. Thing is, moving on is what the celts have been doing since Hallstat and the Irish in America made their own version of American Celtic. Why is not that not seen as valid but instead seen as a loss and somehow not quite 'real celtic'?

It's not invalid because of it's differences. I was getting the impression you thought it might be from some of your posts so I'm a bit confused.


I do believe I mentioned previously that "celtic" is an umbrella term for some very different languages and cultures. All too often though, Irish is the best known and in common usage does seem to get taken as the norm, and Irish language and culture taken as the pattern for all others. It is an irritant to me, but probably for different reasons than yours.

Well, only by those unschooled in the various culture's and languages, but I do get what your saying and see how it's annoying. I think Irish has the numbers and surviving literature and lore at higher volumes. So popular culture latches on to that and of course a lot of unfair and/or inaccurate assumptions are then made. Never a good thing.


I looked it up, the sources for bluegrass are generally held to be Scottish, Irish, and continentall Africa--and orginated outside of Kentucky in the Appalachias with the Scots-Irish. Depending on the area, given the usual interaction between contacting neighbors, there may be some German in some melodies. Native American was never mentioned and I'd be rather doubtful of that one. The keys are different, for one thing.

I saw a wonderful documentry that had traditional Celtic music scholars studying some old blue grass to find a lyrics and patterns that had been perserved in the safety and isolation of Appalachian Scotch-Irish commuinties than Ireland during all the upheval of famine and occupation. I wish I could reference it for you.


Thing is--where and how does one draw the line between between what is celtic and what is not? My perception of a great deal of literature out there is that 'celtic' is generally held to be synonomus with "Irish celtic" when one looks at the sources, and classical period at that. As I pointed out, the bagpipes are originally a Middle Eastern instrument and yet they are most assuredly celtic now. The music then and the music now would be quite different, but the people are too. The minor key is most often associated with celtic sounding music, and that's common in middle eastern music. Do we consider celtic music derivative? What is 'authentic" celtic music and how does one pick it out?

I go with what's traditional. :hahugh: I am not trained in music so the particuliars of the mechanics are not something I know beyond being an being appreciative listener and reader about the subject.

Turlough O'Carolan (http://www.contemplator.com/carolan/index.html)
Ancient Anonymous Airs (http://pybertra.club.fr/ceol/tunes.htm)
Traditional Irish Music (http://www.standingstones.com/tmirel.html)

Um. The Chieftans in particular have been recording and playing and composing for over forty years now, recording and playing the traditional music that might have been lost. That's been one of their stated purposes, they've discussed it at length in interviews.

Yes, I agree with you about the chieftains and find also love more contemporary folk lyrist's like Tommy Makem.

And their music is most certainly celtic but it's not the same as 'traditional' or what might have been played and sung back in Hallstatt or in Gaul.

"as traditional"? I'm not sure I get what you are saying here. As far as Ireland, well they had a culture and traditions before the arrival of "Celtic" culture and perhaps that flavors the particuliar culture as it would separatelty in Wales, Scotaland, Brittany, et al. That does not make it any less traditional but more so. And I have to say, do we know the songs of Hallstatt? How then can we compare?

[Seren_]

Seren, this is an odd question but I've wondered about it ever since I was there. I was advised by a friend (he's a piper, actually) that it would be best to wait until I arrived and change for Scottish bank notes since I was going north and west. I did, but was that really a good suggestion? (back in 1991) I read recently that a BBC presenter actually got hate mail in London for her Dundee accent (in 1982) and I am surprised at how often Monty Python lampooned Scottish stereotypes. Is there really that strong of antipathy between England and Scotland these days?

Well....Yes and no. English