PDA

View Full Version : Irish Reconstructionism.



whitehole
April 26th, 2004, 05:04 PM
A thread to unite the Irish reconstructionists of MW.
Fáilte. Tús maith leath na hoibre!

Fideal
April 27th, 2004, 09:33 AM
hiya :wave:

Nantonos
April 27th, 2004, 11:18 AM
A thread to unite the Irish reconstructionists of MW.
Fáilte. Tús maith leath na hoibre!

Coincidentally, this morning the postman delivered a copy of Koch, John T. The Celtic Heroic Age: literary sources for ancient celtic europe & early ireland & wales (fourth edition, 2003) ISBN 1-891271-09-1.

The 'ancient celtic europe' part is extremely cursory and barely scratches the surface; luckily what I got it for is the Irish and Welsh material which is much more extensive.

I'm just starting on this book today - anyone have opinions on it in terms of general reliability, omissions, unwarranted deductions, etc?

Romani Vixen
April 27th, 2004, 03:31 PM
I havn't heard of it before... anyone willing to give a basic overview for the unknowing? :D

Morag Elasaid Ni Dhomhnaill
April 27th, 2004, 05:28 PM
Basically it focuses on reconstructing the pre-Christian religion of Ireland using archaeology, written lore (of which there is very little, and what they do have was written by outsiders such as Caesar or Christian monks), folklore that has been passed down, as well as comparative religion seeing as there is very little actually known about their religion. Usually there are aspects that recons don't continue to follow such as headhunting and ritual sacrifice which is illegal in this day and age. They also tend to focus on a specific time period, as the deities and practices change over time.

Nantonos
April 27th, 2004, 07:25 PM
I havn't heard of it before... anyone willing to give a basic overview for the unknowing? :D

The book, or the thread topic?

crashtime
April 27th, 2004, 07:30 PM
Is this like Celtic Reconstructionism or are they 2 totally different things? (Like as gods/goddesses are concerned).

I'd love to learn more!

Nantonos
April 27th, 2004, 07:41 PM
Is this like Celtic Reconstructionism or are they 2 totally different things? (Like as gods/goddesses are concerned).

I'd love to learn more!

You are right that it is a little ambiguous, Ireland is a geographic region and does not have a homogeneous language or culture or ethnicity.

In general use, Irish Reconstructionism means Early mediaeval celtic Irish Reconstructionism. So it comes under the wider umbrella of Celtic Reconstructionisms; all IR is CR but not all CR is IR.

crashtime
April 27th, 2004, 07:54 PM
ah..that makes sense.

Flutterby_whispers
April 29th, 2004, 09:26 PM
You are right that it is a little ambiguous, Ireland is a geographic region and does not have a momogeneous language or culture or ethnicity.

Would you mind going into a bit more detail about this?

Nantonos
April 29th, 2004, 09:34 PM
Would you mind going into a bit more detail about this?

Well, an entire country does not have a single belief system, nor do all the people speak the same language nor do they all have the same ethnic makeup. So I was just agreeing with the original poster that the term 'Irish Reconstructionism' was a little vague ulnless one already knew what it was.

I then went on to explain what it usually means in practice.

Flutterby_whispers
April 29th, 2004, 09:39 PM
No country is going to speak one language as a whole or follow a single belief system, but Ireland still has it's own lang. and they are all taught this lang. in school, all of the signs are both in Gaeilge and English and they deff. have a culture of their own. It is that that I was wondering what exactly you meant by it, not so much what IR specifically means, is why I quoted only the last part :)

Nantonos
April 29th, 2004, 10:27 PM
No country is going to speak one language as a whole or follow a single belief system

Glad we are on the same page there.


but Ireland still has it's own lang.

Can you find somewhere I said it didn't?


and they are all taught this lang. in school, all of the signs are both in Gaeilge and English and they deff. have a culture of their own.

Catch a breath, there. Nonono you are missing my point entirely, and arguing instead against a point that I am not making (but it sounds like you have argued against in the past with other people, perhaps).

Firstly, you are talking of modern day Ireland, now, while reconstructionism, clearly, is talking about the past otherwise it wouldn't need reconstructing would it?

So, looking at Ireland as a whole over the entirety of history, there have been people speaking

- a poorly preserved language derived from Common Celtic
- Old Irish
- Modern Irish
- Norse
- Norman French
- Middle English
- Modern English

and if you look at a census you wil lfind a small numberof people speaking a large number of other languages. So, there is no one historical language, agreed? So 'reconstructionism' needs to pick one and I explained which one.

Similarly for religion. There would be people following assorted Norse religions, for example, around Dublin in the 900-1200s. And that religion, although practiced in Ireland in history, is not part of what is generally meant by Irish Reconstructionism.

Clearer now?

Flutterby_whispers
April 29th, 2004, 10:43 PM
I'm sorry I honestly wasn't trying to argue with you, so I applogize if I have made you mad. That is why I was asking, what you meant by it as I wasn't understanding you :) And in re-reading what you wrote, I see that what you were actually saying is that Ireland doesn't have a one lang, culture or ethnicity. I took that as you saying it doesn't have a lang. or culture or ethnicity. So my bad, and I applogize.


(but it sounds like you have argued against in the past with other people, perhaps).

No, I've not.

Nantonos
April 29th, 2004, 10:51 PM
I'm sorry I honestly wasn't trying to argue with you, so I applogize if I have made you mad.

Arguing with me is perfectly fine, especialy if i am wrong and you can convince me :) And I was not mad at you.


That is why I was asking, what you meant by it as I wasn't understanding you :) And in re-reading what you wrote, I see that what you were actually saying is that Ireland doesn't have a one lang, culture or ethnicity. I took that as you saying it doesn't have a lang. or culture or ethnicity. So my bad, and I applogize.

I realised thats what you thought I was saying. I was greatly concerned that you had misread what i was saying and lumped me in with some line of argument that says 'the Irish have no culture' or 'there is no such language as Irish' and I was anxious to dispel such a notion as quickly as possible.

No need to apologize, but accepted all the same.

Flutterby_whispers
April 29th, 2004, 10:58 PM
I realised thats what you thought I was saying. I was greatly concerned that you had misread what i was saying and lumped me in with some line of argument that says 'the Irish have no culture' or 'there is no such language as Irish' and I was anxious to dispel such a notion as quickly as possible.

well that's what I thought you were saying when I first read your sentence, and was shocked, yet I wanted to make sure I was understanding you right. And after going for a jog, comming back to the puter and re-reading I realised my mistake.

I need a nice big bottle of mead, what a hell of a day it's been :ugh:

Flutterby_whispers
May 1st, 2004, 04:59 PM
Has anyone read the book:

The Irish Celtic Magical Tradition ~ Ancient wisdom of the battle of Moytura by Steve Blamires

And if so what are your thoughts on it? I posted the same question on the books bb but so far no one's bitten :)

Nantonos
May 1st, 2004, 07:38 PM
Has anyone read the book:
The Irish Celtic Magical Tradition ~ Ancient wisdom of the battle of Moytura by Steve Blamires


Sorry, no. All I know of Steve Blamires is that he runs a CR group called Clan Dalriada at Brodick on the Isle of Arran, Scotland. They used to have a we site but it is all 404 now. They used to put out a quarterly magazine called Seanchas. ~file ends ~

skilly-nilly
May 5th, 2004, 11:15 AM
No country is going to speak one language as a whole or follow a single belief system, but Ireland still has it's own lang. and they are all taught this lang. in school, all of the signs are both in Gaeilge and English and they deff. have a culture of their own. It is that that I was wondering what exactly you meant by it, not so much what IR specifically means, is why I quoted only the last part :)

I can see that you and Nantonos clarified what youse were both saying, so I won't comment on that, but your post started up a connected train of thought in my own head that I did want to comment on.

It's important to pay attention to the history that makes modern things the way they are, and to define what era you are talking about when you discuss history. In various times, Irish speakers were classed as peasants, discrimiated against, outlawed......as in all invaded nations, Irish was the language of subversion, and one that (in the pre-modern times) the native people used to plot against and mock the oppressors. Irish Gaelic was spoken only in secret and defiance.

It was not until the formation of the Irish Republic that there was any political value in speaking Irish Gaelic. Gaeltacht (Irish speaking areas) were preserved and supported (my cousins were paid a special subsidy to house summer students in their bi-lingual households), Gaelic fluency was made a pre-requisite to getting a gov't job, Gaelic creative expressions are subsidized (there is a whole punk-in-Gaelic movement that utilizes this).

So I would not say, "Ireland still has it's own lang." I would say,

"Triumphantly, Stubbornly, Blazingly, no amount of supression wiped out Gaelic!!"

In my opinion defiance, obstinacy, argumentativeness, and over-the-top emotionalism are necessary parts of Irish Re-constructionism.
Just my POV, skilly-nilly

Morag Elasaid Ni Dhomhnaill
May 5th, 2004, 12:31 PM
Sorry, no. All I know of Steve Blamires is that he runs a CR group called Clan Dalriada at Brodick on the Isle of Arran, Scotland. They used to have a we site but it is all 404 now. They used to put out a quarterly magazine called Seanchas. ~file ends ~

I used to think that too Nantonos. However, they merely moved. Here's the new Dalriada page: http://www.dalriada.co.uk/ :smile:

Nantonos
May 5th, 2004, 01:59 PM
It's important to pay attention to the history that makes modern things the way they are, and to define what era you are talking about when you discuss history

Sometimes I feel like a broken record for saying that so often. I heartily agree.


In various times, Irish speakers were classed as peasants, discrimiated against, outlawed......as in all invaded nations, Irish was the language of subversion, and one that (in the pre-modern times) the native people used to plot against and mock the oppressors. Irish Gaelic was spoken only in secret and defiance.

Yes - and and you say, this happens all over. In Britain too, the wearing of the kilt was forbidden by law (until king George decided to wear one in 1840, turning it from illegal symbol of armed resistance to desirable fashion statement), the speaking of Scottish Gaelic was forbiddden and until fairly recently. Now there is a University on Lewis that teaches entirely in the language. Although official support can have odd consequences - when I visited Harris (a fair few years ago) all the maps had English place names (only) and all the road signs had Scottish Gaelic place names (only).

Speaking of Scots was forbidden with punishment in schools and still is discouraged. The language is worse off than Scottish Gaelic and does not get funding support. (If anything, official recognition of Scottish Gaelic has harmed Scots).

My grandmother in law speaks some Scots, but only when she is tired or with family - if questioned on it she shuts up and says that it shouldn't be spoken in front of children because they need to learn to 'speak properly'. Scots stil suffers from being labelled a dialect, or 'poor English', which is only true in the sense that Norwegian is 'poor Sweedish' or Dutch is 'poor German'.Most foolk don't speak Scots, in fact, but speak English witha Scots accent and a number of Scots words and with some Scots gramatical usage.

There is a similar story to the use of Welsh, but I don't know it enough to tell it.

And British of course is pretty much gone forever since about the 8th century.


So I would not say, "Ireland still has it's own lang." I would say,

"Triumphantly, Stubbornly, Blazingly, no amount of supression wiped out Gaelic!!"

It is pretty amazing, and hopeful, that languages can survive and bounce back in such circumstances.

Morag Elasaid Ni Dhomhnaill
May 5th, 2004, 02:22 PM
I'm glad you brought up Scots, Nantonos. That is something I only recently realized was a seperate language. Amusingly enough, I first came across mention of it on a website dedicated to Gaidhlige. They pointed out exactly what you did, that as a language it's in a worse place than Gaidhlige and now that so much attention and funding has been directed at reviving Gaidhlige that same attention and money should in turn be directed to saving Scots. I'm thinking that once I've tackled the monster that is Gaidhlige, I'll be turning my own attention to learning Scots.

The one thing that I've always thought was funny, was that here in the states, whenever you watch a program in which the Scottish people are interviewed, subtitles are always used. This goes for those who speak English with a Scottish accent and those who speak Scots itself. I always thought it was odd, because no matter what language was being spoken I could understand what they were saying clearly. I remember asking my mother numerous times why they put the subtitles up.

skilly-nilly
May 6th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Once, I worked in a library; a job that fostered good chat.

On the Public Broadcasting System channel of the tv one evening 'Juno and the Paycock' was broadcast, and the next day all of the librarians were complaining that they couldn't understand the dialogue. I was astonished, because the actors only sounded like my grandmother (West of Ireland) and were perfectly comprehensible to me.......I have to admit, though, that the movie that has Brad Pitt as a Traveler I find hard to understand.

Once (still at the library), a discussion of the Troubles was started (not by me) and someone, knowing my ethnicity (my sister calls us ethmics), asked my opinion. Not realizing, through plain ignorance, how volitile the subject is. Unless I am called by gease to correct some inaccurate fact I sometimes try to side-step that discussion.

------although I was at a dinner-before-the-play with a group once, and one play-goer was telling about her recent trip to Ireland. She had hired a car tour of Derry, and said, "Can you believe it? They have wall murals for people who starved themselves to death in prison (frisson of disgust)." I happened to be sitting across the table from her, leaned over and said, "There are people who respect Bobby Sands and the 10 Dead Guys." in a tone that got the subject changed at the speed of light.------

At that time, however, I made a calm and generalized statement that you couldn't take the Troubles as starting from nothing in the 1960's, but had to allow for centuries of previous history. One of the other librarians (relieved at not having to deal with a shrieking Fenian in the library stacks) agreed, saying "I don't know too much about Irish history, but when you look at their world-wide policies the British have a lot to answer for."

In the years since, I have treasured that comment. I know and can speak to my ethnic history, but I also realize that everyone is equally guilty. I feel strongly about the discrimination and ethnic cleansing practiced on my people, and tend to join with the Scots, the Welsh, the Indians, the Zimbobwayians(sorry about the spelling), the South Africians, and others in demonizing the Brits. But I also realize that every ethnic group has some terrible holocostal story---the Armenians, the Rom, the Sioux, the Cherokee, the Protestants, the Catholics.......

I think ethnic preservation is a universal good, in its purest form, transcending bigotry by celebrating differences. Or by keeping them strictly private. If some group wants to hold a prayer meeting for Bush, or some other group wants to erect and dance a May-pole both should be able to freely express their beliefs and practices. On the other hand, I think Orange Marchers should march only in their own neighborhoods.

Consideration for all?, skilly-nilly

Morag Elasaid Ni Dhomhnaill
May 6th, 2004, 11:19 AM
Unfortnately, most people aren't considerate of other cultures and people. If it's not something they are used to and makes sense to them in their very narrow world-view they tend to deride and ridicule it.

And people don't always understand how strongly others feel on certain subjects when it comes to their culture. I know my husband and I have been going rounds on some things relating to our son and what should happen to him if (gods forfend) anything were to happen to the two of us. He is very set on the fact that someone in his family raise our son. But if that were to happen he would be raised Catholic. And while I have no problems with Catholics myself (though it is very difficult for me to enter a Catholic church, it has been known to give me hives in the past - and have in fact noticed the same discomfort in my son), that is something that I can not allow to happen. You see my great-grandmother essentially placed a gease on my family that none shall be raised or ever be Catholic and my husband can not or will not understand what that means to me.

I dont think she realized quite that was what she was doing, but it is a long standing tradition in my family that it is not something to be trifled with. And in fact when my son was baptized, I think I gave everyone in my family a collective heart-attack. However, it was made quite clear to my in-laws that he was being baptized merely for their sake, and not because he was going to be raised in the Catholic Church. It has caused some hard feelings, but it is something I won't budge on, because of the gease. DH unfortunately doesn't get this, that I don't want my son left to someone who will raise him Catholic. (Granted I think that with the gease in place, he probably would turn away from the Church anyway of his own accord, but I don't see the point in making that necessary.) I've tried to educate DH on gease and I think it makes a little more sense to him what they are, but he still doesn't seem to get that it's not something to be triffled with or that I'm willing to mess with.

Iris
May 6th, 2004, 11:40 AM
Does dating an Irishman count? :lol:

The Dagda
December 16th, 2005, 02:18 AM
not to get s h i t t y or anythin, but whats written in books is not necesarily, fact. its a bit disconcerting, reading certain slants on what irish ppl etc are or were in the past, slanted views on things, formed from what was written in a book. ireland has had a pretty stable ethnic/genetic (whatever way you want to call it) population pretty much since pre-christian times.geneticly (dont know if its a good or bad thing) but we have one of the least diverse genetic pools in the world. Vikings? norse? a handfull of settlers doesnt influence a population that much, and we refer to the area around dublin as the pale. places in the north of england, like northumbria etc, were drastically changed by norse influences, but the same cannot be said for anywhere except in the pale in ireland. half the historic documents, detailing viking attacks etc in ireland were faked, the local irish taoiseach needed a few bob to bail out his cattle, so he burned the local monastery to the ground and withdrew some cash, like early medieval cash machine! then blame it on the vikings.......
what else, romans..... never made it this far...... scots? oh wait the scots came from here......emmmm, welsh?? apart from patrick, himself a fictional character based around paladius, none o those boys ever did much, normans? again the whole franco/norse connection doesnt wash, there were a handfull of families, a ruling class, and very much limited as to the effect of their rule (as they became more irish than the irish themselves (dont ya know).
brits? well, the only plantation dat really lasted was in ulster, and we r still fighting that one out arent we?

bye the bye, irish never died out, just to let ya in on that secret. so yes, we do have our own language, (and its not reconstructed) its just evolved. ya know, it didnt stop with the thumb! the thing a lot of books cant, and rarely will mention (esp from enlgish sources) is that there were always large tracts of the west (ie connaught etc) dat the brits never had any real controll over, thats why today most of us learn connaught irish in school, not a whole load of different dialects. true, again, a small ruling class spoke old english, hell they also spoke latin, french, etc, dats just education, but, well most of us just spoke irish, the early dubs, might have spoken norse for bout 5 minutes, until they got their arses kicked by good old brian. (also there are only 3 main dialects of irish, and they dont differ very much)

seriously, no offence or anything, but who is to comment on my culture, in anytime frame, from any aspect, without living in it. again all i will say is that it still lives, and undergoes evolution. its when it remains stagnant, that something is dead. on the whole though, i would suggest it hasnt changed as much as some would have you believe, very little... thats what happens from being a slave nation for about 700 years though, you dont get much in the way of cultural scholarships. what have you left? your culture, and thats what you viruently hold on to!!

and no im not miss-reading your points, i understand the other slant which you backtracked to, but clarity is important, and if you say things like that without being clear from a1, then ull get flack. take it from my point of view, you and i are both pagans, obviously you are somewhat of an authority in your field, and i am from a very different discipline, but what if i said ....oh, reconstructionalists, have no real language, therefore they highjack mine, they have no real culture of their own, therefore they highjack mine, they have no real ethnic ties (or just roots to the soil), therefore they claim to be part of mine cause sum1 7 generations back had o' in their name, what would you think? you would be insulted. but i dont really know enough bout you or your path to make those asumptions, therefore i dont. see where im goin here????

anyway if you do, you do, if you dont, well you dont. and thats just the way its meant to be i guess,

faighimis dochas on firinne, ach anois, deanfaimid breaga chun dochas a fhail.
cabhraiodh si, nuair a bhiomar ag eisteacht lei, ach anois, taimid dall.

oiche mhaith.

Seren_
December 16th, 2005, 07:00 AM
not to get s h i t t y or anythin, but whats written in books is not necesarily, fact.

Indeed. Anything that focuses on history uses materials that are inevitably biased, and the person interpreting that history will also make their interpretations according to their own biases. It's the same with archaeology, linguistics, and indeed politics.


what else, romans..... never made it this far...... scots? oh wait the scots came from here......emmmm, welsh??

I don't think anyone is disputing that Ireland is more culturally conservative than some of it's neighbours, but culture changes through time even without invading influences (as you've said). Change is still change, no matter where it comes from or what prompts it. And to be fair, a large portion of English, Americans, Australians and New Zealanders also originally come from Ireland, just like the Scots.


bye the bye, irish never died out, just to let ya in on that secret. so yes, we do have our own language, (and its not reconstructed) its just evolved.

Neither was this being disputed in the thread.:huh:


....oh, reconstructionalists, have no real language, therefore they highjack mine, they have no real culture of their own, therefore they highjack mine, they have no real ethnic ties (or just roots to the soil), therefore they claim to be part of mine cause sum1 7 generations back had o' in their name, what would you think? you would be insulted. but i dont really know enough bout you or your path to make those asumptions, therefore i dont. see where im goin here????

Claiming to be an Irish Recon is not the same thing as claiming to be Irish, to be fair. Both are entirely different identities, just like a Kemetic Recon does not claim to be an ancient (or modern) Egyptian themselves. A person's cultural heritage may prompt interest in that culture, but I don't think I've seen many recons make such claims as you state. The ones that do have usually been brought up in a very Irish oriented family, speaking Irish etc, just not living in Ireland...and that's a whole different argument.

ap Dafydd
December 16th, 2005, 08:53 AM
Coincidentally, this morning the postman delivered a copy of Koch, John T. The Celtic Heroic Age: literary sources for ancient celtic europe & early ireland & wales (fourth edition, 2003) ISBN 1-891271-09-1.

The 'ancient celtic europe' part is extremely cursory and barely scratches the surface; luckily what I got it for is the Irish and Welsh material which is much more extensive.

I'm just starting on this book today - anyone have opinions on it in terms of general reliability, omissions, unwarranted deductions, etc?

I was impressed with his work on the Book of Aneirin (the Gododdin reworked back into Old Welsh), which I've commended on a number of occasions to people. I've seen Celtic Heroic Age (which I think is an earlier work) but basically thought of it as a source book for translations of the Irish and Welsh material.

What other stuff do you think should have been in the European section? IIRC, it was from the Chaumelieres and Larzac inscriptions in the book.

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

Nantonos
December 16th, 2005, 01:34 PM
I was impressed with his work on the Book of Aneirin (the Gododdin reworked back into Old Welsh), which I've commended on a number of occasions to people. I've seen Celtic Heroic Age (which I think is an earlier work) but basically thought of it as a source book for translations of the Irish and Welsh material.

That it is. It claims on the cover to also do Continental material, but its extremely sketchy.


What other stuff do you think should have been in the European section? IIRC, it was from the Chaumelieres and Larzac inscriptions in the book.

The book has 438 pages. Part 1 is the Continental Celts, Part 2 is Irish and Part 3 is Brythonic. In each section, there are both native language and foreign (eg Latin) sources.

Now, Section 1 is only 50 pages long and the part on native language sources is only 4 pages and covers the two inscriptions you mentioned. The other 46 pages are Greek and Latin authors.

The Dagda
January 1st, 2006, 02:30 AM
Claiming to be an Irish Recon is not the same thing as claiming to be Irish, to be fair. Both are entirely different identities, just like a Kemetic Recon does not claim to be an ancient (or modern) Egyptian themselves. A person's cultural heritage may prompt interest in that culture, but I don't think I've seen many recons make such claims as you state. The ones that do have usually been brought up in a very Irish oriented family, speaking Irish etc, just not living in Ireland...and that's a whole different argument.


in fairness, seren, i totaly support your particular quest for truth, rather than what others tell you is the truth. with respect, i was using that as an example of how certain ppl would feel if their particular culture was being opened to everyones particular interpretation, when a very real interpretation of all the old knowledge is there for the taking. i would also suggest that there are many, even on this website that claim their interpretation as "gospel", (from an 1840's english lords record no doubt) and in general, those are the ppl who have no experience of living with the ppl who never lost the faith. i cannot speak for my whole community, but (from witnessing it with my own eyes here on mw) when i see (for example) ppl worshipping the morrigan as a some sort of benevolent goddess, i shudder to think. did anyone ever think of educating these ppl, as to the true nature of these deities? obviously not, because if anyone did, ppl at random wouldn't want to just worship the morrigan for no apparent reason, they would be scared s h i t less to even mention her name.

in that vein, i would encourage ppl to actually research any deity they caim to be "drawn" to, and perhaps to consult with sumone who knows better than sum1 who preaches the decrees of obod r an other org (just as dismal) as gospel.
i am one of those who adheres to the intrensic truth which is held in every story of my ancient fathers, i do not, spread mistruths.
i do not offer interpretations, as they are for the listener ,only, to make.
with my path, everyone takes one story, and one alone. they try to understand it fully, but never to explain it. they hold it in keeping. they are the gaurdians of that truth. not an half assed interpreter.
religion, celtic, jewish, hindu... whatever, is not a means to force your opinions on ppl, it is a way of slowly spreading the common truth, and how to cope with it.

.........and i will not apologise for making this clear to any pretender.

ce he an dia, ata ag cur siad faoin dumas breige?

blackroseivy
January 9th, 2006, 12:42 PM
Well, I feel like no matter how much research I do, I am still woefully inadequate... I don't even speak Modern Irish, let alone Ancient, much as I wish this was possible. & all the details I couldn't possibly get correct if I tried... When it comes right down to it, it seems like nobody knows anything about anything, not really - it all is vagueness & guess-work. So, I pick out what I can that is as genuine as little fact can possibly back it up to being. I can't live my life in this way anyway - I can't participate in any groups, either! So, maybe I should just give it up as a bad job already!!! :(

Nantonos
January 9th, 2006, 01:02 PM
Well, I feel like no matter how much research I do, I am still woefully inadequate... I don't even speak Modern Irish, let alone Ancient, much as I wish this was possible. & all the details I couldn't possibly get correct if I tried... When it comes right down to it, it seems like nobody knows anything about anything, not really - it all is vagueness & guess-work.

Its incorrect to say that no-one knows anything.

But you shouldn't get discouraged, either.


So, I pick out what I can that is as genuine as little fact can possibly back it up to being. I can't live my life in this way anyway - I can't participate in any groups, either! So, maybe I should just give it up as a bad job already!!! :(

That sounds like quite a strong reaction to being asked what period interests you. You mentioned Irish, so presumably that is the geographical location that interests you.

blackroseivy
January 9th, 2006, 04:46 PM
Oh, that wasn't a "reaction" to anything in particular - I'm just feeling particularly discouraged today!! :( Not sure if I wanna be Irish or British at this point - I am very drawn to Sulis of Bath, but at the same time very drawn to Irishness, & I think Brighid, if anyone... I'm just facing a kind of identity crisis here, don't mind me! :p

Nantonos
January 9th, 2006, 08:43 PM
You must spread some Karma throughout the Community before touching $userinfo[username]'s again.
:abadpoker:
Remember the original meaning of "British" was a Celtic designation, before it got hijacked to describe the country formed by the hostile takeover of Scotland (er, 'North Britain') by England (never called 'South Britain').

Sulis is interesting, I agree and Bath has an interesting feel to it. And if you are interested in Brigid, then also check into Brigantia.

Morr
January 10th, 2006, 12:34 PM
Well, I feel like no matter how much research I do, I am still woefully inadequate... I don't even speak Modern Irish, let alone Ancient, much as I wish this was possible. & all the details I couldn't possibly get correct if I tried... When it comes right down to it, it seems like nobody knows anything about anything, not really - it all is vagueness & guess-work. So, I pick out what I can that is as genuine as little fact can possibly back it up to being. I can't live my life in this way anyway - I can't participate in any groups, either! So, maybe I should just give it up as a bad job already!!! :(


I dont speak Gaelic.
And my ancestors come from a totally different part of the world.
I know that I am not the "best" at living in an Irish Recon. way of living, but I try as much as I can. Sometimes life gets in the way. But if your heart tells you to explore this path -- Go ahead and explore it bit by bit. Its a way of life, yes, but its also about faith and outlook and thirst for knowlege.