LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L  February 1994

CELTIC-L February 1994

Subject:

Re: Celtic Genicide

From:

John Cahill <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date:

Fri, 18 Feb 1994 01:21:07 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (196 lines)

On Feb 17,  1:04pm, Wayne Crotts wrote:
> Subject: Celtic Genicide
> NOTE:  This is a forwarded message from an associate of mine who I
> knew would be quite interested in such a theory.  This is what she
> had to say in response to the celtic-persecution theory.
> __________________
>
> Well, first off, I would like to know if this fellow could name a few of
> the
> books he read. If I agree or not, it is always nice to hear one's
> sources.
The Celts, Nora Chadwick,
The Celts, T.G.E. Powell
Celtic Heritage, Rees, Alwyn and Brinley
The Gallic War and other Writings,  Julius Caesar
The Complete Works of Tacitus, Translated by Church,Brodribb.
>
> When talking about Celts or Celtic tribes, it is important to define who
> you mean.  There were Celtic tribes ALL over Europe.  Today, we mostly
> think of the Celts in Britain and Ireland; they often had other names on
> the continent.  SO I think some clarity on who this fellow means is
> important.
>
I refer to ALL Celts even though there were many different tribes or regions in
western europe which although were pan-celtic were not united as one Celtic
nation.
 
> I think that saying Julius Caesar "ONLY" "set about the systematic
> occupation
> and dominance of western Europe" because he saw the Celts (and I'm
> assuming
> he means Celts in France and Spain) is far too sweeping.  I have no
> doubt that
> part of the reason Caesar did his conquering was to secure the
> Roman borders.
> But that is certainly not the "ONLY" reason. COnsider those classic
> reasons
> for conquering territory -- land to expand and material resources.  You
> can see that this a more complex issue.
If you examine the strategy Caesar used with the Helvetians it was effectively
one of annihilation.  He himself takes credit for the deaths of over 1,000,000
(mainly Celts, various tribes) during his campaigns.
Compare this with the policy of dominating and taking slaves (who had monetary
value) which Rome took in other parts of the Empire, e.g. the Middle East,
 also Caesars approach in the disputes between Ptolemy and Cleopatra in Egypt
after the defeat of Pompey was one of arranged peace through legal
negotiations, and assimilation with control through Roman representatives.
Whereas the Egyptians inter-faction bickering could easily have been used as
means of having the Egyptians defeat themselves. I propose that Caesar thought
that there was no inherent threat and the Egyptians were "predictable" and
could be assimilated.
The Celts by contrast used unpredictability as a psychological weapon such as
spontaneous suicidal charges in front of opposing armies to take them by
surprise.  This posed a constant threat to the Romans as the Celts were equally
unpredictable as to when they were at peace and when they were going to strike.
>
Consider also, the instances of mass executions by the Romans after their
victories in Gaul, and western Europe under Julius Caesar 1,000,000+, Augustus
Caesar, Paulinus' defeat of Boadicea, 80,000 massacred (Tacitus) indicate that
assimilation was not high on Caesars list.
>
> they allowed the Celts
> a moderate amount of religious freedom.
>
Tacitus' writings refer to the druids inciting of the furies in the celtic
hordes as being intimidating to the disciplined soldiers of the Roman legions.
Suppression of the druids was part of this eradication strategy.  Religious
freedom was only freedom to worship as the Romans did.  "When in Rome ...."
 
>
> To say that the Normans conquered Britain due to being influenced by
> Roman
> dislike of the Celts seems unjustified.
>
I don't believe I said that the Romans Disliked the Celts.  The Romans were
very objective and meticulous about eradicating a threat which had plagued them
for hundreds of years.  Past behaviour is always used as a means of assesing
future risks.  It was logical for the Romans to feel threatened by the Celts.
The Normans brought the same attitudes and system of government and beliefs
inherited from the Romans.  The culture clash with the Celts was inevitable and
a repeat of previous history.
>
> I for one would NEVER minimize the legacy that the Romans
> left
> behind, but I don't think their dislike of the Celts was something that
> influenced William the Conqueror to attack Harold Godwinson; rather,
> it was
> desire for new lands, and to a certain extent, pride over a promise
> presumably
> made by Edward the Confessor (again, here we could start a whole
> new debate).
>
My premise here is that there is a thread of personality and beliefs and
behaviours that is endemic to each race.  The traits and characteristics of
Celts continued to be underlying differences between the disciplined,
regulated, predictable Normans and the unpredictable, superstitious, celts who
resisted any semblance of societal order that didn't fit in with the grand
scheme of things which joined this world to the next as if death didn't exist.
 
>
> The acclimation of Normans to Saxons took a long time, but it is
> generally
> agreed that by the time of Henry II and Becket, the Normans and
> Saxons were
> beginning to think of themselves more as "English" than as seperate
> entities.
>
> My point in this tangent is simply this:  the Normans had things on
> their
> mind other than "let's get rid of those nasty Celts like the Romans
> want
> us to do."
>
I don't believe it was a consciuos act at this point.  The stage was set before
Caesar.  The Normans were unconsciuos pawns following through the same pattern
of behaviour.  Their actions were predictable and inevitable because of the
clashes of beliefs and philosophies of the competing cultures.
> As far as Pope Gregory, the same principle holds true.  Perhaps
> keeping those
> randy Irish out of trouble was a MINOR factor in ceding Ireland to
> England,
> but my opinion is he did this to consolidate Catholic lands in Britain.
> And one conglomerate (England/Ireland) was a lot less troublesome
> than
> two.   (as an aside, if this is the same Gregory who had so much
> trouble
> at Canossa and with the Holy Roman Emperor, he probably didn't
> think about
> far away Britain overmuch.)
>
> Northern Ireland vs the Scots -- this is far too complicated an issue to
> resolve in a mere paragraph, but here's what happened:  the English
> crown
> (this case, Elizabeth I in the very late 1500's and shortly before she
> died
> in 1603; and James I as well) gave lands in northern Ireland to their
> good
> Protestant subjects.  It didn't matter that those lands for the most part
> already belonged to Irish people; they had to move out/off and make
> way for
> the new landlords, period.
The GIVING of the land was the problem here with the obvious different values
placed on the rights of crown subjects versus the rabble Irish.  Still no
attempt at assimilation.  The Irish Celts were brushed aside as part of the
expansionism of the Crown.  The Scottish Celts were again opportunistic pawns
in this scheme.  The logic used at the time was to "civilize" the North and
establish a linen industry to raise the economic standing of Northern Ireland
thus raise more taxes and "plant" loyal subjects with allegiance to the crown.
The intransigence of both groups of Celts was beyond the comprehension of the
classically schooled English ascendent aristocracy.  The social structures here
were based on (1) the Roman system of values in London, England relying on
objectivity and predictability and (2) the peasant Celts in Northern Ireland
and Scotland with social systems based on Clans and traditions, and superstions
more abstract and emotional.  Were the Celts less rational? perhaps.  But it's
difficult to be objective and see the economic long term value of something if
it means being thrown off your land to give it to someone else who has some
valuable skills and allegiances.
>
> I hardly think Elizabeth would have considered herself a "Roman"
> successor,
> considering that her father Henry VIII broke rather violently to marry
> her mother, Ann Boleyn, and begin the Church of England.  Indeed,
> this set the
> precedent of the British monarch being the head of the COE
> thenceforth.
>
> I think the northern Irish that were kicked off their lands were
> protesting
> merely for that reason, and those transplanted English/Scots fought
> back to
> retain those same lands.  Sorry, nothing to do with Rome at all!
I think you missed the point here.  The important issue is  Why was this done
by
Queen Elizabeth??  Perhaps due to an economic lobby in the English equivalent
of the Senate?
A Celtic queen would never have taken action like this.
>
CONCLUSION: The clash of cultures, beliefs , personalities and different
psychological foundations of the Romans and Celts continued throughout history
and have resulted in systematic erosion of the Celts and the celtic way of
life.
I am not trying to incite any kind of rebellion here but recognizing what has
gone before is reason enough for Celts to understand where we are today.
 
SUGGESTION:  Celts should recognize the strengths and values and talents that
are common across todays country boundaries.
Celtic ties should transcend problems caused by disputes over who owns what and
who was here first?
 
Hope this clarification helps.  Does anyone agree or have an alternative view?
Do you think that these events I have tied together in one unifying theory are
really all totally separate stochastic events?  Are the parallels I have drawn
really coincidence?  or misinterpretation?
 
John P. Cahill

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2019
December 2018
September 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
August 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
February 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager