Talk:Modern Celts/Archive (Iberia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive (Iberia)

I changed a sentence

In the paragraph:

In neither Galicia nor Asturias has a Celtic language survived, and as such both fall outside of the litmus test used by the Celtic League, and the Celtic Congress. Nevertheless, many organizations organized around Celticity consider that both Galicia and Asturias "can claim a Celtic cultural or historic heritage." [1]. Justification for these claims to Celticity derive from similarities in music, dance, folklore, and culture to the other widely recognized Celtic countries. [2] [3]

I changed the following sentence:

Justification for these claims to Celticity derive from similarities in music, dance, folklore, and culture to the other widely recognized Celtic countries. [4] [5]'

And replaced it by this one:

These claims to Celticity are historically justified and derive not only from a factual long-time tradition of Celtism in these regions but also from the obvious fact that numerous Celtic tribes settled in the Iberian Peninsula (see Celtiberians) and left mark, culturally and genetically. Consequently, similarities in both the cultural (music, dance, folklore) and genetical aspects [6] can be found among the nations of the Northern Spain and other Celtic Nations [7] [8].

I did so because I don't think appropiate to say that justification for these claims to Celticity derive from similarities [...] to other widely regonized Celtic countries. The justification for these claims DO NOT derive from the resemblance of the culture of the Northern Spain with other widely regonised celtic nations, but from historical facts. The fact that these other nations are widely regonised as Celtic is just because mainly they are in the UK (and don't say it's because they have kept a Celtic language, because as everybody knows, many Irish and Scots consider themselves as Celts but they don't even speak Gaelic). I mean, the people in Spain who culturally and genetically bear Celtic heritage DO NOT have to justify their origins to people of other countries who believe themselves to be the true celts; their reality is not in function of the existence of other celtic nations in other parts of the world. They have the right to claim their celtic origins without having to justify it to anyone else. I am not a human being because I look like you, and you are a human being, so I am a human being too; I am a human being because I consider myself a human, and I don't care if I look like you or not, because I know what I am. I guess you got the idea.

Onofre Bouvila 15:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong. The majority of Irish speak some Irish - if only through the school system. However, both countries have had Celtic languages throughout the past millenium. Unlike Galicia. Go back five hundred years, and the majority of Scots spoke Gaelic. Go back two hundred years, and the majority of Irish spoke Gaelic. Go back a thousand years and the Celtiberian languages were dead, if not in a worse state than Gaelic is today.

"the people in Spain who culturally and genetically bear Celtic heritage DO NOT have to justify their origins to people of other countries"

Yes they do. If you're going to claim something, you should be able to back it up. Like if I say I'm Napoleon, I have to have proof that I am.

Oh and by the way, there are no such things as "Celtic genes". The genes predate the Celts, and Celts have lots of different genes. We don't just practice incest. --MacRusgail 16:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You manipulated my sentence. I said "the people in Spain who culturally and genetically bear Celtic heritage DO NOT have to justify their origins to people of other countries + who believe themselves to be the true celts". The problem here is that the are a bunch of people who believe themselves to be "the true celts", and from their typical anglo point of view, they exclude the others who they consider not to be at their "level".

Yeah, if the Galicians claim celtic origin of course they have to "prove" in some way that is so; but this fact is already more than proved. What they do not have to do, is to be constantly justifying their heritage to another group of people who monopolize the term "Celt", like if they were their only heirs. Even people in the United States who has never been in Scotland, for example, who has bever heard a word of Gaelic nor Scots, who knows nothing about his land, can claim to be a "true Celt", and a Galician, who, yeah, does not speak a pure celtic origin, but whose language is the mixture of Latin and the Celtic and other languages that were spoken in his land 1500 years ago, has to be constantly justifying his position?

The world does not work in function of the Anglosphere.

And by the way, with the recent population genetic discoverings, these "true celts" are gonna laugh for a while (in fact, these "super celts" from the islands came from France, from Hispania, etc, so they are just the result of immigrants from these "former celtic nations" from the continental Europe). Onofre Bouvila 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot prove your claims, then you shouldn't make them. This is not a "typical Anglo point of view". The Bretons cannot be called "Anglo" either. I do not consider most of these "Celtic" Americans to be Celtic.

As I say to Lazlo below, Galicia's claims are equal to, and sometimes weaker than various other areas of Europe, including Switzerland, Val d'Aoste, Normandy, the Channel Islands, Wallonia, Bohemia etc etc.

Again when will you understand that the genes predate the Celtic culture? What you call "Celtic genes" were in various parts of Europe before Celtic culture and languages arrived here. Possibly as far back as the Ice Age in some cases. --MacRusgail 13:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Iberia

This is my first effort at involvement with Wikipedia. If I did anything improper or crossed any line, I apologize. I want to serve notice that I edited this article to add a paragraph regarding the claims to celticity of both Galicia and Asturias. I noticed that previosuly existing text referenceing these claims has been removed. In re-editing this test, I was careful to provide support for the sentences I added, and to qualify each comment (i.e. I tried to not make sweeping statements). I also tried my best to be balanced and neutral. I felt that my (re)addition of this test is justifiable by the fact that the issue of whether to apply the label "Celtic" to these regions is still in contention, and there are intelligent and educated people who hold positions in support of its inclusion. For example, both regions have provided participants to Celtic-oriented cultural events. A quick search of the internet finds this, this,this and this. While the reference in each of these sites to Galicia and Asturias as "Celtic" doesn't mean that such statements are accurate (after all, just about anyone can put up a site saying anything), and I dont vouch for the accuracy of any of those sites, it does show that the idea that these regions are "Celtic" is not an arbitrary idea. The website of the Celtic league international states that the Laegue "recognises that in Galicia and the Asturies, not only do vestiges of Celtic influence remain, but that some people (still) consider themselves Celts." From website of Celtic League International. To remove the text entirely arbitrarily deletes this legitimate viewpoint. Further, the idea that these regions are connected by a common culture is supported by apparent commonality in genetics. See article. Lastly, the removal of test referencing the claims of Galicia and Asturias to being "modern celt" nations also limts the concept of Celticity to that of a language based litmus test. While that is the test preferred by certain organizations, as is noted in the text of the article, it is arbitrary to see this as the only possible definition for Celticity. My added test retains the paragraphs which affirm that certain important organizations continue to use a language based test, and still affirms that there is some contention as to celticity beyond the "six [main]celtic nations," but allows inquiry into other definitions of what constitutes a "Celtic" culture. -Lazloholifeld

Lazlo, neither the Celtic League nor the Celtic Congress include Asturias and Galicia, so the League is hardly a witness for the case for them!

Secondly, I believe there are no such things as "Celtic genes". The Celtic peoples, and those of G&A include a number of genes of different origins. What are referred to as "Celtic genes" are often in fact, pre-Celtic in age. The Basques apparently share a number of genes, and the so-called "Celtic bloodgroup", but they would deny being Celts to the hilt, since they are pre-Roman in origin.

->(The Celts were a pre - Roman group) <-I did not write this sentence. Please do not put words into my mouth. (MacRusgail)

The main reasons for excluding G&A by their detractors are:

1. The reasons for inclusion - with the exception of music - would lead down the slippery slope of racism.
2. That there are areas, equally, if not more "Celtic" in Europe notably England and France beyond the "Six". If it comes down to it, north and west England are much more "Celtic", perhaps, in terms of music, language, and those dreaded genes. And there are political reasons for some people to keep England and France out.
3. The argument that their languages contain Celtic words is an interesting one, but it should be noted that both English and French, not to mention Lowland Scots, all contain far more Celtic words than Galician and Asturiano.

Their music is the most convincing argument, but Celtic influences are just as apparent in Northumbrian music, or even in the Faroes and Iceland. --MacRusgail 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, your contributions are completely in line of good Wikipedia practice, Lazlo... we just happen to disagree with you! :-) Seriously though, Wikipedia is no real judge of the merits of one claim or another. So it's completely acceptable to report that so-and-so is claiming X, while the other person claims Y. And you're right; it is significant that Galicians and Asturians are making hay with their Celtic heritage (... while the Leonese and Castilians generally aren't). And I've noticed that Breton activists are generally (more) inclined to recognize the Celticness of their Iberian neighbours. But for my own part, I tend to agree with MacRusgail: there are lots of cultural affinities among the peoples of northwestern Europe – Icelanders, Faroese, Basques, English, and plenty of others I wouldn't consider Celtic... Still, that doesn't prove that my POV (point of view) is more valid than that of the Celtic Asturias lobby! QuartierLatin1968 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with respectful debate and disagreement. :))) I understand the points being made in contention with my addition. I think a great degree of the debate involves what factors to consider in categorizing certain cultures as "celtic" while not others. The criteria used in making that categorization is what would lead to inclusion or exclusion for a given culture. I would dispute the statement that "neither the Celtic League nor the Celtic Congress include Asturias and Galicia, so the League is hardly a witness for the case for them!" Actually, as both the League and the Congress use a language based standard for defining Celticity, the exclusion of Galicia and Asturias from both organizations is a strike against them only if one accepts that language based criateria as being the only factor in determining Celticity. The very fact that an important organization which utilizes such a language based criteria is willing to acknowelege that both Galicia and Asturias (which they exclude based solely on language) "can claim a Celtic cultural or historic heritage" or that in both Galicia and Asturias "not only do vestiges of Celtic influence remain, but that some people (still) consider themselves Celts" is excellent testimony to the fact that other criteria exists beyond language and that these two nations are meniotned by name as falling into that non-language category of Celticity. (The first quote comes from the website of the American brach of the League, the second from the website of the international branch of the League.)

Further, regarding my citation of genetics: I really dont think that the citation of genetic studies have to descend into any sort of racism. I repudiate racism. But, racism exists where someone claims that one race is better or superior to another. I definitely dont claim that. My point is simply that there is a common genetic background among peoples of the "Atlantic Ridge" of Eurpoe, which embraces all the main Celtic nations and the contested region of northeastern Spain.

I think the article I cited from the American Journal of Human Genetics is interesting, because it does two things. First, it actually throws some question as the idea that the cultures presently called "Celtic" are actually the same people who are defined as Celtic who once dominated continental Europe. It seems to suggest instead that some form of cultural transfer has occurred which led to the present "Celtic" societies obtaining the traits now considered to be Celtic. This seems to refute (or at least question) some earlier notions that there was an invasion of Celts from the continent onto the Atlantic coastal regions where the modern Celtic nations exist. In other words, to be blunt, the modern Celts may not actually be the same people as the ancient celts. A cultural tranfer may have occurred.

The second thing the article does, is to show that that, whatever name one wishes to call the people presently living on the Atlantic coastal regions of Europe, from Scotland, down to Ireland, down to Wales, down to Cornwall, down to Brittany, and yes, down to galicia and Asturias, they all have a great deal of genetics in common. Call them what you want (Celt, Modern Celt, "People of the Atlantic Facade of eurpoe," etc.), they all are related genetically in a distict way.

These two points are important because I often hear the argument presented that Galicians and Asturians are not really Celts because they are not close enough in relationship with the Celts who once dominated Eurpoe. Well, I would say, neither are Scots, Irish, Welsh, Bretons or any other of the modern Celts. While there appear to be genes passed on from the ancient Celts to many of the populations of Europe, they dont appear to be any more distinct in the "six [main] Celtic nations" than in other cultures. The people Scots, Welsh, Irish, Bretons, et. al. are related to are... Galicians and Asturians! Here is a copy of a short article that gives a brief overview of the findings: Article It was originally in the Sunday Herald, but its now stored away in the "for pay" section of that website's archives. Heres the archive section. And heres a full copy of the study it is referring to: American Journal of Human Genetics Article Theres a link to the same article in PDF format (for easy printing) on the side bar.

I think this is important because of a question I once read in one of these debates about whether Galicia and Asturias are celtic. Someone who was a proponent of these two cultures being Celtic asked "where do you think all the bagpipes [used in Galician and Asturian music] come from?" As silly as that sounds, the idea that there are shared cultural traits, when coupled with the notion that the people of the "six cultures" and those of G & A are all actually genetically related, together make (for me at least) a strong case that all these cultures really do belong in a common cultural category. Call them Celtic, Modern Celtic, or whatever.

Lastly, I would point out that the text as it now exists in the "Modern Celt" article doesnt actually say that Galicia & Asturias are or are not Celtic. It simply notes that "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 regions, Galicia and Asturias are prominent." It then simply presents the argumentation behind that view. Note that it still keeps the "six [main] Celtic cultures" in the prominent place as being the most commonly accepted Celtic cultures, and acknoweledges that G & A lack an existing celtic language. That there are people beyond the "six cultures" that consider themselves Celtic is a statement of fact. I think it is also demonstrable that Galicia and Asturias are "prominent" in asserting that they too are celtic, as the Celtic League (as far as I know) has not singled out any other non-member cultures for specific reference, as it has done with these two. Lastly, a search of the internet will show how much more frequently G & A are listed along with "the six" as celtic cultures, moreso than any other regions of Europe.

Please excuse the long explanation.

-Lazloholifeld

Long, what do you mean? ;)

"[It is] strike against them only if one accepts that language based criateria as being the only factor in determining Celticity."

If you don't go for the language, then what else do you go for? On every other score, including music, there are numerous other areas, as "Celtic" as them, if not more so. England has a much better claim to being a Celtic country than G&A, for the reasons I list above - music (Northumbrian pipes etc), genes (lets steer clear of this, it's a pretty dubious area), language (more Celtic loans in English, dialect and otherwise, than Gallego), placenames (London, Dover, York, Manchester, Carlisle - all Celtic names), legends (King Arthur at Glastonbury, Aquae Sulis at Bath, Boudicca), plus some English do consider themselves Celts, especially in Devon.

"the Celtic League (as far as I know) has not singled out any other non-member cultures for specific reference, as it has done with these two."

That's simple, because folk from these areas are the only ones that have applied to join the Celtic League. When the Cornish wanted to join the Celtic Congress, many moons ago, they had to prove that they could deliver a speech, at length, in their country's Celtic language. They could, and did, although how much of a mockup the modern Cornish language is, is another question. Cornish is a functional Celtic language, of a type which does not exist elsewhere outside "the six".

"I really dont think that the citation of genetic studies have to descend into any sort of racism."

But they do - for the simple reason that there are no such things as Celtic genes!!! The so called modern Celts have a big mix of genes, and if it came down to this, Iceland would be a Celtic nation. Also, if you're a recent immigrant to wherever, does this stop you being a "modern Celt" if you want to be?

"Someone who was a proponent of these two cultures being Celtic asked "where do you think all the bagpipes [used in Galician and Asturian music] come from?"

Bagpipes can be found across Europe, and in the Middle East. The Flemish have them. The Pakistanis have them. The Greeks have them. In fact, I believe that the Roman legions may have used them. The music of North East England is as "Celtic", if not more so, than anything out of Galicia and Asturias. However good their music is.--MacRusgail 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

MacRusgail: I appreciate your views on these matters. The following is meant in a manner of respectful disagreement.

Re: the Celtic League noting the "Celtic culture" of both Galicia and Asturias because "because folk from these areas are the only ones that have applied to join the Celtic League." This makes no sense. Why would the Celtic League go so far as to state that Galicia and Asturias "can claim a Celtic cultural or historic heritage" or that in both Galicia and Asturias "vestiges of Celtic influence remain" just because they petitioned for membership in the League? If there wasn't at the very least a basis for these cultures, on some level, to claim to be Celtic, then the league could just as easily have said "no" to Galicia and Asturias (as it did as to membership) and not have made any mention whatsoever in its websites. There was once a time when both Galicia and Asturias were shown on a map of Celtic regions on the cover or the League's Carn magazine, although that is no longer the case. Again, if there was not at least some basis for these regions to claim, apart from language, a Celtic culture, why go so far as to highlight them on a map with the other Celtic cultures? If Turkey, or Senegal, or Japan decided to petition for membership, but denied, would they too be humored by the League with a mention that while these regions have no Celtic language, that they would still get the honorable mention status of being honorary Celts?

Re: Genes. You are probably correct that there are no genes which have the name "celtic" specifically ascribed to them. But genetic evidence surely can be used to show whether people of different regions interacted in common during extended periods of time. As noted in the above links to genetic studies, there is clear evidence that the people of the six most recognized Celtic regions, and those of Galicia and Asturias, had an extended period of relationship with one another. Genetic evidence should not preclude anyone who is an immigrant to said countries from adopting them as their own, or from feeling in themselves to be part of that society and culture. It may well be that some people use said genetic evidence for racist purposes, but that should not prevent it from being used for legitimate means, such as showing clear links between different societies which were present in a certain region of the world during pre-historic times. As I've noted before, genetic evidence appears to clearly show extended periods of interaction between the "the six" nations and northwestern Spain... a much closer connection than between the "six" and the people known as Celts from the pre-historic La Tiene and Halstat cultures of central Europe. I still say, call all these cultures what one will, they have longstanding links to one another. That should count for something.

Re: Bagpipes. I used the example of of the quote regarding bagpipes to highlight the similarities in culture between "the six" nations and Galicia and Asturias. It isnt just about bagpipes. Spain has had a history of Celtic cultures, see here, and of toponyms derived from Celtic languages, seehere. The tribes of northwestern spain worshiped the same dieties as were sommon in "the six" nations. See here: Astures. But speaking of music, it isnt just that the "six" nations and Galicia and Asturias have bagpipes as a common instrument, or that they have many other instruments in common. Its that the music of the "six" and that of Galicia and Asturias are distinctly similar, in such a way as to imply (as further proven by the genetic evidence) more than just a coincidental relationship. See this review of an asturian music group.It was none other than Alan Heusaff, the first general secretary of the Celtic League, who recognized the difference between the cultures and music of Galicia and Asturias and that of the rest of Spain, and their similarity to that of the other Celtic regions. See here. Perhaps Mr. Heusaff is a good example to follow in bringing these regions with such similar cultures, and strong historical connections together.Lazloholifeld 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to say something, you have to prove it. You cannot do so properly. This is not "Anglo" supremacy (apart from the fact I'm not more "Anglo" than the Galicians are "Gothic" - and the Bretons are definitely not "Anglo"). Look at the facts - The Celtic League turned down Galicia for membership - they didn't admit them into the organisation. They may have said nice things, but Galicia was rejected.

"There was once a time when both Galicia and Asturias were shown on a map of Celtic regions on the cover [of Carn]"

I have magazines from this period. While the Six are coloured in, Galicia and Asturias are shown surrounded by dotted lines - so not the same. As for the genes - these predate the Celts by hundreds, possibly thousands of years. They came in with the megaliths, not with the first speakers of Celtic languages. I still maintain that England, and France have better claims as "Celtic nations" than Galicia and Asturias. And who knows how long Celtic culture lasted in the remoter parts of the Alps? --MacRusgail 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MacRusgail-

First, I made no reference whatsoever to Anglo "supremacy," and I am not writing under any other pseudonym/puppet. You may be confusing my argumentation with that of another writer... who is, in fact, another writer. (Although, I must say, I'm appreciating the input of said other writer in affirming the Celticity of Galicia and Asturias, and the self-determination of those regions to their own self-definition.)

"Look at the facts - The Celtic League turned down Galicia for membership - they didn't admit them into the organisation. They may have said nice things, but Galicia was rejected."

Galicia and Asturias were rejected on the basis of language , which is still just one standard of analysis.

"As for the genes - these predate the Celts by hundreds, possibly thousands of years. They came in with the megaliths, not with the first speakers of Celtic languages."

Read the genetic studies linked above. The Altantic Celts are not so closely related to the continental Celts. They got those languages through a transfer of culture. The same cultural and langauge traits reached northeastern Spain, whose people have clearly had longstanding contacts/interaction/relationship with the people of "the Six" nations. Lazloholifeld 22:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't - I apologise. The "anglo" comment was by Onofre Bouvila above. No, the so called Atlantic/Modern Celts aren't related to the continental ones - but so what? Firstly, we're using it to describe a contemporary grouping, based on the Celtic language group, and secondly, this is not a genetic matter.

However, the Celtic language of Galicia, Lusitania and Asturias died out over a thousand years ago, and I have seen no proof that it lasted any longer, despite claims by someone (which they couldn't back up) that it was there in the 17th century. There is not one single claim that this area has made which cannot be applied to several other areas of Europe. England, Normandy, the Channel Islands, Wallonia, Switzerland etc, all have as good a claim on the basis of music, legends etc.--MacRusgail 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)