Whoops, sent the last e-mail before it was finished. Here is the new
and improved version.
Am I to infer by your statements that Celtic tribes are unique in that
they have certain characteristics through out history? That the
collective consciousness of the Celtic racial makeup has
predisposed them to persecution for over 2500 years? Are you
saying that the Celts are so different that any other group that meets
them is predisposed to eliminating them from the face of the earth?
Are you saying that you can define the Celtic racial makeup so
accurately that you can say what is a Celtic behavioristic is versus
say an African-American characteristic?
If that is true, could you define other racial characteristics for me as
well, such as some African ethnic groups, or even the African
American? Perhaps you have stumbled upon something big here.
Don't get me wrong. I would be the first to say different cultures have
their own values and morals. It may be acceptable for a man to beat
his wife in one culture, while in others it is not. Crude example, I
However, I feel you have neglected one small item in this elaborate
theory of Celtic genicide. That is TIME.
Cultures change in the process of time.
The Celts that sacked Rome in the bc period were much different than
the Celts in 1200 ad. For one thing, they had been Christianized.
Celts did not burn English soldiers for human sacrifice as they did
captured Roman soldiers. They also were called Irish by that time
and had entered the iron age.
Also, the Celts were not so united as you make them seem.
Indeed, the Celtic collaborationists helped Rome in more ways than
fighting their fellow Celts.
According to the recently published book *Prehistoric England*
(name of author, other details can be mailed if requested) many of the
Celts just before the Roman invasion by JC, were heavily involved
with trade with Rome. That is at least what the archeological
evidence is pointing to. In fact, the books author, looking at the
sudden resurgence of the hill forts at the time of the Roman invasion
of Britian, suggests that a political faction (possibly the Druids) called
for a break off of Rome. This is particularly persuading considering
the general migration from the hill forts to coastal towns that had been
taken place in the century prior to the Roman invasion. (Even JC's
own writings support this in that he described his victories by the
number of these hill forts he had taken.The coastal towns, seemed
not a problem).
Yet, WHY was this migration to coastal towns taking place?
Because of increased trade and commerce. Trade and commerce
with who? The Romans of course. So, were these Celtic traders
traitors to the Celts?
Cultural Change is the norm.
Even the Romans changed even within the period of their empire.
Rome was very much different in social customs and law in 300ad
than say 44 bc.
All in all, I just can't see a collective consciousness persecution of
the Celts. No, just general famine, pestilence, war, etc.-- what every
culture has to face now and then.
"Still at the end of every hard day
people find some reason to believe."
Bruce Springsteen *Nebraska*
Wayne, 1st door on the left in C.