Talk:Breton people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Breton people is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess. The project aims for no vandalism and no conflict.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents 1 Celtic Bretons 2 Descent 3 Catholicism and related ethnic groups 4 Photos

[edit] Celtic Bretons

The use of Celtic as an ethnic term is incorrect. Celtic pertains to language and family. The people living in Britain at the end of the Roman conquest were referred to as Romano-British due to 400 years of Roman influence on the British life, language and culture. Due to this, even less so the people of the time could be referred to as Celts. Enzedbrit 04:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Descent

The Bretons shared a culture and language very similar with the people of Britain at the time of the Anglo-Saxon advance into that island. The Bretons are not primarily descended from the few people who migrated across to Brittany. There was no great migration. As for the idea that the people came from Cornwall, that is a laugh. Those that did migrate to Brittany would have come from all over south western Britain. Enzedbrit 04:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholicism and related ethnic groups

Even though Catholicism used to be strong in Britanny, it declined considerably. The younger generation goes to Church at great occasions (marriage, baptism...) or "to please grand'ma".

I removed English in the related ethnic group section. There is nothing in the local culture to support this and nobody in Britanny, whether nationalist or not claims a special relationship with England. I added Manx (obvious) and Galician as their claim of being celts is more or less accepted despite their speaking a romance tongue User:Arskoul

Good point regarding Catholicism.

Regarding the English, I'm certainly not going to revert you on it. However, although Bretons might not claim any special affinity with the English, the reverse isn't always true: there are now plenty of English people who consider themselves closer to the Brittonic, pre-Saxon inhabitants of England than to the Saxons. QuartierLatin1968 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting if not strange position you both have. The only links that the Bretons would feel to Scotland or Ireland for example would be through nationalist ideology and that's hardly a credible linkage for a whole people on which to base an identity. The Bretons claim that many of their ancestors came from south west Britain during the time of the Teuton advances into the British isles. Also, that the people of Britain and that part of France were culturally and ethnically related before this time. The Britons of England weren't wiped out; they're still there, although now they speak English and are English. You've both left Scottish and Irish as related peoples. Why them and not English? Because of the Celtic cultural connection? It's not an argument on which to base anything. As for adding Galicians, that's very strange indeed. The links between the 'Celtic peoples' and Galicia are even further removed. The Manx do possess a Celtic tongue, spoken by a few hundred people in a country more strongly influenced by Teuton/Scandinavian culture, but when it comes to Celtic culture, England is far more so in the play than Galicia; England, where traces of Celtic are still even spoken. Enzedbrit 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, first, I am breton and what I state is not a personal opinion but a general consensus. Breton identity is territorial and cultural, while ancestry may play a role at the personal level (mostly if you are of breton origin and live outside the country), most people aggree that it is irrelevant when it comes to define what we bretons are as a collective. Far right extremists may disagree, of course, but they definitely are in the (tiny) minority. Britanny elected a MP born in Togo [[1]] and the main nationalist party has presented arab candidates.

• That’s fine, and I’m not denying or negating that.

So what about the links. Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall and Man Island have a celtic culture so they have strong links with us because culture is what matters. Again, that's not a personal opinion but more or less "accepted facts" in Britanny. As for Galicia, their claims certainly did meet resistance at the beggining, but the fact ist they have gained some acceptance. They are invited, as a country, at the Lorient Interceltic Festival, and they are more or less considered as a kind of "country cousin" even if nobody can tell what our relationship exactly is. You may be sceptical and I certainly was but in matter of identity, it is the general opinion which decides.

• These countries are identified as Celtic countries because of language. Associated culture is thus associated because of the existence of Celtic languages. Nobody is denying here that there are the six Celtic nations. Bretons are not connected to the English because of language but for historical reasons. Most Scots do not speak the Gaelic language. Most Cornish or Welsh do not speak a Brythonic language either. The people of these areas are connected to Brittany in the same way that the English are. For culture, the way of life in Brittany is vastly different to that in Britain. I say Britain, because there is no difference to life in the British isles at relative points of society (farmers to farmers, city dwellers to city dwellers, what’s eaten for breakfast, lunch, dinner, etc.). There is an understanding though of a Celtic identity, but even this has been greatly fostered over the years. I understand that Galicia claims a Celtic heritage, has bagpipes and a tartan, but so has England. My claim isn’t to negate Galicia’s identity, but I don’t think that too much should be made of it. Galicia is a Romanic nation, not Celtic. It speaks a Latin language. If there is a Celtic awareness in Galicia, this will have been especially fostered in recent times and will not doubt gain momentum as people find something new and different with which to associate. For Celtic traditions in England, or rather, traditions that have been attributed to what is Celtic (as in the rest of the Celtic countries), these have always existed. People are now looking beyond the Teutonic language English to find the pre-Anglo-Saxon identity that has always existed. You say England's not Celtic, but if England were broken down into regions as Galicia is of Spain, then some of these regions would be more readily accepted as 'Celtic'. However I do think that too much emphasis is placed on things Celtic, because there was a culture before the Celts and who's to say what parts of our identity are from the Celtic era or the pre-Celtic era, and even post-Celtic? If anything, being Celtic isn't really about culture at all, but about protest.

Now England... if you mean a rebuildt celtic identity in such regions as Devon or Cumberland, why not, if it gathers a significant following, which it has not so far. As for England proper... I don't remember the point being even raised. It's just "obvious" we are not linked in any meaningful way with it (again general view). Of course the britons of England weren't wiped out but that doesn't matter. The Gauls weren't either and neither were the Helvets or the Galatians. The English culture is not celtic and doesn't claim to be (atleast nobody reasonably meanstream does) therefore the English are not Celt. You may disagree, of course, but that's the general opinion in Britanny. Note, however, that most breton militants don't take too kindly attempts to define celticness on anything amounting to race, that's why claims of austrian or padanian celticness are not very popular at the UDB for instance. I doubt the english claim would be better accepted (again, just an assessment based upon my knowledge of how Bretns define themselves). You say the cultural connection is nothing to base an identity on, that's your right of course, but that's exactly what we base ours on.

--Arskoul 18:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don’t one can say rebuilt at all, regarding the identity in Devon or Cumberland as you say. How is English culture not Celtic and that of Wales, for example, Celtic? Besides the language, what is there? Music? Dance? Mythology? Besides the eisteddfod, what you see in England you also see in Wales. English culture has many facets from the Celtic era, just as Welsh culture from non-Celtic eras. The idea of an “English” or “Welsh” culture too is artificial, because these are terms that have been applied to large areas based purely on modern national boundaries. England, as all of Britain, is composed of many different regions each with its own identity and peculiarities in myth, small customs, dialect, and etcetera. In time, as has been seen in recent years, English Celtic identity will be more and more brought to the fore. Whereas Galicia will find more favour when it trumpets its Celtic identity because it’s smaller, can be seen to be oppressed by a larger Spanish state, shown as a minority, England is a larger country in which is contained the power base for the whole UK (although large parts of England regard themselves as small nations, like Galicia, that see very little of the spoils of London). In this respect, being Celtic as a country or being allowed to embrace a Celtic identity is more about national politics than it is about any actual Celtic history or living remnants from that period.
• I don’t say that the cultural connection is nothing to base an identity on, but rather I say that nationalist ideology. If Bretons were to link to Scotland and not England because of nationalist ideology, that is not something healthy upon which to make a cultural link. Enzedbrit 20:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• What you fail to see is that all of this is irrelevant. I readily admit the notion of Celtic people is a recent one, like all similar concepts all over the world, but that doesn’t mean it is illegitimate or not operative in the world today - or you wouldn’t make that claim about England. The definition is fuzzy, as it should be - we don’t want to exclude that Togolese guy, do we - but it is generally agreed upon that the existence of a Celtic tongue is important. You may disagree, of course, but that’s the majority position and in mater of identity, majority rules.

No, I totally agree. The existence of a Celtic tongue is the foremost criteria for being a "Celtic" country. That is why I find it difficult to accept more agruments now for Galicia.

• I am fully aware that Galicia doesn’t fit well in the picture, but the hard fact is that their claim is somewhat accepted and that translates into actual cultural relationships. I suppose that their basing their claim upon cultural practices rather than upon “ancestry” made it more acceptable than the “Padanian” one. You may not like it, but that’s just a fact of life in today’s Brittany.

Which is why I see a conflict. England has said cultural practices, more in some regions, fewer in others. When looking at that country as a whole, the Celtic element can't be denied.

• As for England, I won’t interfere in the English’s self-definition and if some of you define themselves as “Celts”, that’s their own business. If you say, however, that Bretons are linked to English, I’ll say, as a Breton, that I am sorry but I have never heard of such a link, historical or otherwise. If you say we are linked because of a common ancestry, of a few standing stones, of some folk tradition in your countryside, of the odd loanword or, - God forbid - of neo-druidism, I’ll say, still as a Breton, that all these things certainly exist but are irrelevant. We don’t base our identity on these, and since we are the ones who define what we are and what we are not that pretty much settles the question.

What I'm saying is that the links between the Bretons and the English are no different to the rest of the British.

• Note we, as a people, hold no grudge against England - at the present time at least - and neither do I as an individual. Your claim won’t be considered outrageous , more probably outlandish if not downright weird. We’ll have no problem, however, with your doing them as long as you don’t try to interfere with our own identity, which you do by linking us with England.

Why would the Bretons have a grudge agains the English (and not against Welsh or Scots)? Where would there be bad blood between England and Brittany? I can't recall ever hearing anything bad spoken of the Bretons, and I can assure you that many people in England know that there is a difference between France and Brittany.

• As for the - quite accepted in mean stream opinion - links with Ireland and Scotland being unhealthy… well, I suppose we are unhealthy.

--Arskoul 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are deliberately distorting what I have said. I am saying that if you are basing these links on nationalist tendancies then that is unhealthy. Don't forget, in the case of Scotland, that their Brythonic identity went the way of England's and was greatly reduced, and that the Gaelic traditions of Scotland are being fostered now in a way that England's Brythonic traditions are being fostered. I fail to see how a link can be embraced to Scotland yet denied to England. Not all Scots would see themselves as 'Celtic', even if they didn't know the definition of Celtic. If being Celtic really is a way to snub England and France, then that's a whole other matter. I don't believe it is. I believe that identity from the Celtic period should really be embraced and remembered so that we do not distort future history, and if that means Breton people understanding that there is a wealth of it in England, then that shouldn't be a problem or a sore spot. I'm from Cumbria. I speak with reason and passion on this. Enzedbrit 21:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My question is for Enzedbrit. When you ask how people can deny England's Celtic roots (I'm paraphrasing) or say that the modern national identities are just artificial constructs, are you speaking for yourself or describing a sourceable POV? Because we can debate these questions indefinitely – I have my own opinions on these matters, and strong ones too – but for the purpose of Wikipedia, we should get citable evidence for Celtic England. Saying that "English Celtic identity will be more and more brought to the fore" suggests to me as though you're trying to spread your own idea here. A good idea it might be, but Wikipedia's supposed to report upon POVs that are already well established. Please be assured that I'm not trying to accuse you of doing anything unethical or anything like that, just asking for clarification. QuartierLatin1968 19:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I have developed my views on this through reading, as one can only do, about the past. I think another claim for POV is the idea that England isn't Celtic and would like to see citations where a weaker claim to Celtic identity in England can be proven. It's only natural, isn't it?, that England has seen a greater awareness of its Celtic past in recent years, with all that has happened elsewhere in the UK. A lot of it is 'new age'. I've seen Celtic patterns used on logos for organisations and in popular culture (Northumbrian tourist board), in gift shops and on shirts (Shropshire and Avebury in Wiltshire), the festivals which still exist (Cumbria), massive efforts (Rheged), and an awareness among the people (from North East England speaking about their Celtic ancestors, presumably meaning ancient Britons). I approached this history thinking that I was an Anglo-Saxon because I was from England, even though I know that my family come from all over Britian and that my mam's dad was Welsh speaking. Now I'm getting so frustrated with what I see as a deliberate attempt to really remove England from the equation and foster a new mind-set among the Celtic nations (and to include Galicia in this no doubt) which is artificial and nationalist, rather than really endeavouring to tell the truth about Celtic language, culture and tradition. Enzedbrit 21:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

We can certainly debate whose photos would be best for this article. A lot of other articles on ethnic groups are illustrated with famous members of those groups, so I thought why not. I picked René Laennec, Jacques Cartier, and Anne de Bretagne to give some regional, linguistic, professional, and gender variety:

1. Laennec – a scientist, male, a (second-language) Breton-speaker born in Quimper
2. Cartier – a sailor, male, a Malouin (an important region because of its distinctive character)
3. Anne – a stateswoman, female, born in Nantes.

As for the ethnic identity of these people – okay, Anne spent most of her life incarnating in her own person the autonomy of the Duchy of Brittany. Laennec, well he's from Quimper and at least cared enough about lower Brittany to learn the language and use it. And Cartier is one of the most illustrious representatives of Malouins as a sub-group of Bretons (traditionally known for their maritime orientation). Anne, by the way, is maybe the most famous Breton in history, alongside Bertrand du Guesclin (but none of our photos of the latter look very good). QuartierLatin1968 23:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)