Talk:Celts (modern)

What Makes A 'Modern Celt'

Is it just language? Gazh 13:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is teanga, dúchas agus cuid de comhstair é. Tuiginn? --sony-youth^pléigh 13:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Béarla only. Oops. Gazh 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Only joking - thought you'd get back quicker. What I said was language, heritage and a bit of shared history. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Something to chew on that has more than just language (from the 1835, so not just a modern thing):

"There is some reason to believe, that the original inhabitants of the British Isles possessed a peculiar and interesting species of music, which being banished from the plains by successive invasions of the Saxons, Danes, and Normans, was preserved with the native race, in the wilds of Ireland and in the mountains of Scotland and Wales. The Irish, the Scottish, and the Welsh music differ indeed from each other, but the difference may be considered as in dialect only, and probably produced by the influence of time, like the different dialects of their common language."

- R. Burns, J. Currie, 1835, The Works of Robert Burns: With an Account of His Life and a Criticism of His Writings

I'm guessing you've never heard NE Folk and Ceilidh music then, it's quite famous; even more so when it's sang to, always in English albeit in NE dialect, the tradition is carried over in NE Football (soccer) also; "Wor me lads, it's good ta see yas gannin, gannin alang ta Roker Park divny hoy it in the wata".

http://www.birchmore.clara.net/html/northumbria.html

Most of the music seems to be Instrumental on the site however. Gazh 09:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I hadn't. A browse around on Google brings up lost of interesting stuff. The first, I had heard before from Origins of the Britons (which I will try and dig up), if I remember it correctly it was just in this exact context that it was mentioned:

Within living memory, shepherds in Cumbria have been recorded as using a counting system which is clearly Brittonic in origin, and children at play use a counting system which is probably derived from it: Gregor, again, quotes from I. and P. Opie (The Times Literary Supplement, 14 July 1979, p. 799), who say that children, counting aloud, use 'twenty' as a unit, and there is some likeness between many of the numerals from 'one' to 'ten' and those of Welsh, he quotes yay, tau, tethea, meatrea, pimp, sethera, lethera, nothera dothera, dick trough sethera (if correspondent with siath) is not optiomally ordered for the correspondences with Welsh, which are un, dau, thre, pedwar, pump, chwech, saith, wyth, naw, deg.

- Donald MacAulay, The Celtic Languages

Tempered with a "bad new" quote:

There is, as Professor Mawer implies, nothing unusual in the survival of pre-English river names in Northumbria. They have survived everywhere, and are nearly always unintelligible.

- Historical Association, History

This is about the 'Celitic nations':

From this account of the congress, you will have realized that language was considered the major criterion of Celticity for the Pan-Celtic Association. Indeed the Cornish Celtic cultural association, Kowetthas Kelto-Kernoweg, was initially refused membership of the Pan-Celtic Association in 1901 on the grounds that Cornish was no longer a living language. However, in the course of the 1904 congress, Cornwall was admitted as a Celtic nation and a sixth stone, representing Cornwall, was added to the 'Logan stone' monument.

Traditional music, costume and 'native sports' were also considered important. Chapman and other have commented on the way in which archaic, previously general cultural features and artefacts, such a bagpipes (one common throughout Europe, but now associated with Scotlande, Britanny, Ireland and Northumbria), have come to be seen as timelessly an dtypically 'Celtic' (Chapman, 1992, pp. 118-19)

- Open University Course Team, Mark Pittaway et al Globalization and Europe

You should start digging more into this. Take a look at Celtic music and [Music of Northumbria]]. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

For your Cumbrian point, i think there is recorded evidence of this or a similar counting technique being used as far down as Whitby (i was down there yesterday enjoying the rain btw) on the Yorkshire east coast.

As for 'digging more into this' I'm not about to, the fact that NE England and Lowlands Scots have an alot of cultural similarities is nothing new in the slightest, and has been looked into many times by numerous people, the evidence is right there to see if anyone wants to see it, but the fact that the people of the region are English and acknowledge that (unlike the people of cornwall) is what goes against us in these instances, maybe we should all lie and denounce England? ..then upon joining the CL suddenly reclaim our Englishness? haha, would be a laugh. Anyway, personally i think the cultural similarities possibly existed before any border was in place and before Scotland and England had it's names. Gazh 07:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Same as what made people "Celts" (or Germanic or any other similar kind of group) historically - language. However that doesnt really serve the great many people who like to think of themselves as being "Celtic" despite having no linguistic or cultural connection so various tenuous and really rather meaningless links such as ancestry or geographical location are claimed as relevant and hence this article. siarach 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

about Criticism of modern Celticism

I am OK with most of the article. I must point out one thing though: everything is said justifies objectively the feeling of common appartenance of the 6 nations sharing Celtic languages, festivals, types of houses, etc.(which culture, by the way, are not protoceltic but a mix of preceltic and celtic), and even with Great Galicia and Asturias, speaking even of genetic. So many discussions are not about a reality which is not contested, but about the name "Celtic" itself. I think that the realty is more important than a word and has not to be considered as a dream as we read often. My point of view has always been that having not found another term easy to use ("romanised- teutonized-celtic-proto-celtic peoples"?...), we will still use the term "Celtic" for a long while. Or have you another term to offer? 86.203.120.212 19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How about 'British' ? ..no chance of that taking off anytime soon though, eh? Gazh 12:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And what would you have done about the Irish, Bretons, Galacians and (non-Cornwallian) English? (The latter of course finding that they were suddenly no longer British and the formers surprised to find that they suddenly were.) --sony-youth^pléigh 12:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I was joking for a kick-off, but: Galacians are arguably not even 'Celtic', the Irish are 'British' just not in it's political entity IMO. And the English lost their language to the germanic invaders, probably forced, due in part to out eastern location. Gazh 12:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Appologies. Took it to be serious. My mistake. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem Sony-youth. Gazh 13:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Link added to ‘Anglo-Celtic’ article

Hello, as it is of relevance, I have added a link to the ‘Anglo-Celtic’ article in the ‘See also’ section. I am not sure how to place it in the box there, so if anyone wants to pop it in there in the 'Related' section, please feel free! I also made the small (but significant to some!) change in the introduction by exchanging 'British Isles' for 'Britain' and 'Ireland'. I hope everyone's cool with this. Kind regards, Pconlon 12:28, 27 June 2007 (GMT)

Hello Pconlon! I'm not too sure if your exchange will be too happily accepted, my understanding is that the term 'British isles' is not too popular within the Irish Republic, and we have a couple of contributers from those parts. Gazh 12:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is completely Original Research

How could one possibly put a figure on the number of "Modern Celts" in any given region when the definition of 'Celt', and who they are in relation to the British Isles, is so much in question?

Let's take Ireland as an example. The article states that Ireland is home to 5,950,100 "Modern Celts". I feel sure that many of the people on the island would not "self-identify" as Celtic, whether Modern or not, and only a small percentage of that population speaks a Celtic language.

I propose that the article be nominated for deletion, and that its contents be 're-thunk', if any of it is to be salvaged.

--82.18.171.97 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've marked it as requiring references - it does - but considering how often these countries are called the Celtic fringe or the Cetic nations, market themselves as Celtic, preserve and exhibit culture called "Celtic" (language, music, dance, art), and considering that the very term Celtic (in its modern sense) was coined to describe them, I don't think its going to be such an arduous task. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree to an extent with the anon poster. This article is an example of what can potentially go wrong when Wikipedia is abused by those with an agenda. While there are some definite tidbits of fact in the article they are far too often used to justify OR and blatant POV. siarach 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparent Demand that England be recognised as a Celtic nation

A number of activists on behalf of other regions/nations have also sought recognition as modern Celts, reflecting the wide diffusion of ancient Celts across Europe. Of these, the following regions are prominent:

Galicia

Asturias

If England is indeed "prominent" in its supposed desire to be recognised as a Celtic nation, as certain users insist it is, then it should be no trouble whatsoever to reference the claim. As it is the determined effort to reinsert England despite a total lack of evidence to support the existence of Anglo-Celtic nationalism on any prominent scale seems to be a pretty straightforward case of POV/OR. siarach 12:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"If you can include the Asturas and Galicia, then England should be included also, as they are all places which have previously have extensive celtic language sand cultures. There ya gan mara.) "

Nonsense. Now i think the claims of Asturias and Galicia are just as ridiculous as those of England but the difference is that the former two actually have a reasonably active and long standing claim to being included which is what justifies their being listed in the disputed section while England does not. As for the historic presence of Celtic language and culture being justification then the entirity of western and central europe as well as various other bits (central Turkey for example) should be included. Regardless, you still havent provided any kind of reference or evidence to justify your repeated addition of England to the list. siarach 12:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, a quick browse is enough to put this to bed. Just search Google Scholar: "Galicia modern Celt" and "Asturias modern Celt" produces plenty of discussion about their inclusion, whereas England modern Celt produces only contrats between England and the modern Celts of "the Celtic fringe" with no-one arguing that England should be included.

The last few edits that persistently added England to the list sound like nothing more than "Its not fair! I want to be a Celt too!" This is really rediculous stuff and the editor behind it should simiply desist. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Im holding back from reverting atm purely because this is exactly the kind situation that busybody admins love as an excuse to throw ridiculous 3RR warnings around blindly. The inclusion of England is not defensible. If it was then those who insist on including it would be capable of providing some evidence. They cannot and this almost fanatical demand that England be considered Celtic is, in my experience, restricted to Wikipedia and within wikipedia only to two users that i can think of. siarach 13:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I will not claim the previous edits, as i will always use my log-in, so if you were attempting to pin that on me Sony you are mistaken.

Also have a look on your talkpage, you did not reply to my post a while back.

As for your google search, you know fine well that England is still regarded by the masses as Anglo-Saxon, something which we can soon put to bed from new research. A Celtic-England is something that the hierachy have wanted to hush away for a longtime, however redent findings are suggesting that we a much more alike that previously believed, like it or not boys - myself and many like me are a taste of the future. Bitter isn't it? Gazh 13:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on you talk page. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Gazh your argument is both irrelevant and self-defeating. What is at issue is whether or not there is an active demand in England to be recognised as a Celtic nation. You admit that there is not. Why there isnt and whether or not there should be and whether or not any potential claims would be legitimate are neither here nor there as all that is important is the presence of an active support or claim to be considered Celtic and this simply does not exist. As for anyone being "bitter" its a label more appropriate for yourself. I couldnt care less if the English were to suddenly imagine themselves to be Celtic. DNA findings are interesting but totally irrelevant - they do not make you anything other than what you are. Possibly having Celtic ancestors 1500 years back doesnt make you Celtic anymore than it makes the French Gauls, the Spanish and Portugese Celtiberians etc etc. The issue is whether or not there is an existing demand to be recognised as such - which is what is required to justify your demand that England be included on a list of nations which actively claim the right to be recognised as Celtic - and this demand does not exist as you yourself admit. siarach 13:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not saying that. But whatever, you will eventually remove it so you may as well do it now. Why do you remove us from the population list aswell? you will try to take it eventually. Remove it, i am beyond giving a toss anymore. Gazh 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Gazh, look here. Lord Loxley 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As an Englishman I find this whole debate insane. It is true that recent genetic studies show that the English aren't genetically all that different from the Welsh and that Celtic languages were spoken in England. What I don't get is why people think that this means that we are Celts. The vast majority of English people rightly or wrongly identify Englishness as being of mixed heritage (including Celtic) or identify it with the Anglo-Saxons. Nowhere but in Cornwall would you find many people who considered themselves to be "Celtic" (if one excludes those of Irish / Scots / Welsh descent). I really don't wish to be labelled as Celtic not because there is anything wrong with "Celticness" but because that's not our identity. You might as well label us as being "Roman".GordyB 21:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Celts in UK Politics

The Prime Minister of the UK is a Scot. The leader of the Liberal Democrats is a Scot. The leader of the Tories is English by birth but has a Scottish father. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Scot.

[Also both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster are Celts; neither of the two CofE Archbishops is English; and none of the managers of the top four teams in the English Premiership are English]. Millbanks 22:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler was an Austrian, Stalin was a Georgian, Napoleon was a Corsican and Franco was a Galician. And? Brown is just a climber, he's no more interested in his native country than any of these people were.

NB: The CofE is not established in any of the Celtic countries except Cornwall.

--MacRusgail 15:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a point for you to put to Gordon Brown. I couldn't possibly comment on it. I'm from Ireland, so it's hardly a big issue for me, but I gather that a large number of English people would like Scotland to be independent.

Re your NB, well that's an odd comment. Of course it's not! Why on earth should the Church of ENGLAND be the established church in Scotland, for example? As you know, the (established) Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, not Anglican. The (Anglican) Scottish Episcopal Church is not established. Neither are its two sister churches, the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales. Whether the fact that they're Anglican (rather than "Roman", or Presbyterian for that matter) makes them any less "Celtic" is arguable. Millbanks 22:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If the English people push us, many of us will be pulling... Many of the managers in the English premiership are foreigners. --MacRusgail 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, being from Ireland I'm to some extent "off line" in this discussion, but it seems to me that many English people feel as you do, that it would be better for the two nations to go their separate own ways. I say "many" because I'm not sure if that's the majority view in England or Scotland. Only a referendum would establish that. Perhaps I should say, referendums (or referenda), but you can be quite sure that no-one will ask the English what they think. This is not a place to give "POV", but it does seem that since Ireland has benefitted enormously from independence, so would Scotland. Whether England would is debatable, but I'm not sure that's not relevant to this discussion page. Millbanks 08:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to say the majority of under 30's in England would be in support of ending the act of Union, ofcourse i cannot source that as a fact. It is the opinion of myself that in order for the British countries (and Ireland) to more forward in identifing a 'common union' (or at least a aknowledgement of our similarities) we need to be seperate, it is only then that the non-English countries can put to bed alot of the negatives they have because of the union. I ofcourse could be wrong and they could cling to the 'historical atrocities' for hundreds of years? Something similar to the slavery issues of America's past. I'm not saying that those things are unimportant at all, but i think you will be able to understand what i mean. 82.22.131.140 12:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally off topic and let's not allow this to fall into discussion, but I could go along with what 82.22.131.140 just said. The North will be a long-standing issue in Ireland, but England/UK have fairly much washed their hands clean of it (in terms of responsibility and interest, in a postive way) and I for one am feeling OK about the British govt. (and people's) attitude towards it. An independent Scotland would shake a lot into the mix though. What would you be left with? The United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland? That's not going to last for too long! More power to the Scots but I'd like to see N.I. standing on firmer ground (and more pleasant towards - and integrated/cooperative with - the South) before throwing dice on the break-up of the UK. I do agree that, in the long term, it is the way forward and would lead to a happier relationships all round, including the Republic. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox and essentialism

I have two comments, partly in response to the anonymous suggestion that this page be scrapped as Original Research.

1. Wikipedia article names are case-sensitive except for the first letter of an article. When I penned the first draft of this article – a few years ago now, I think – I never intended to create a flashy new ethnonym, the "Modern Celt". I wrote that draft because the article on Celts was preoccupied with the ancient Celts, and I was interested in the post-18th century application of the term. Ancient people calling themselves Celtae/Κελτοι were exclusively continental; modern people calling themselves Celts are predominantly insular; there's also a temporal difference of a millennium or more – so these are really discrete categories. If it would avoid confusion, I'd suggest a move to Celts (modern).
2. The {{ethnic group}} infobox is really inappropriate for this page, because 'modern Celts' is not the name of an ethnic group; it's an umbrella term for several ethnic groups. As this talk page and its archives can attest, there's little agreement as to which ethnic groups count as Celtic.

I agree with Siarach that this article has partly fallen prey to POV-pushers who seem to want to use the article as a platform for publicizing various claims to 'Celticity'. On the other hand, I suppose that both sympathetic and critical attitudes towards Celtomanie must be described here.

We must be vigilant in keeping this and related articles on topic and avoid duplication. Celtic nations, Celts, and Pan-Celticism contain huge amounts of duplicated material. Let's divide the labour between these various articles, and use the {{main}} template and the briefest of introductory paragraphs to link to pages that deal with specialized topics in full. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with regards to the ethnic group infobox being totally inapropriate to this article. siarach 08:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I also fully agree, but would go further: I'd propose a merger of this article and the Celtic nations one. Having the two apart somehow invents some modern "ethnicity". (As for the infobox, that box is the source of no end of trouble anywhere that I've come across it. I don't know how, but I feel it needs a serious reworking across all articles, but certainly is not relevent here.) --sony-youth^pléigh 09:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)