On Feb 19, 12:25am, Wayne Crotts wrote:
> Mr. Cahill:
> Am I to infer by your statements that Celtic tribes are unique in that
> they have certain characteristics through out history?
YES. !! As does every nation.
> That the
> collective consciousness of the Celtic racial makeup has
> predisposed them to persecution for over 2500 years?
UP TO A POINT. This is not an absolute generalization on my part. The
inference and theory that I was exploring here was that the prejudices spread
during the influences of the Romans were passed on as prejudices to following
I have hesitated drawing exact parallels but examples of persistent persecution
exist in other nations e.g. jews over the past few thousand years. Is there
some inherent characteristic that has made the jews targets of discrimination
> 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?
No! I was demonstrating that the learned behaviour of the successors of the
Roman Empire have ingrained beliefs and prejudices inherited from the early
Romans who had obvious reason to fear the Celts.
> 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?
You seem to be annoyed by my suggestion that there is a "cultural behaviour"
typical of a particular nation. I believe each nation has a typical type of
personality. Hence the ubiquitous "stereotype". Not necessarily a predictor
in the case of each individual but an assessment of a nation as a whole. Just
one of the many differences between cultures that needs to be recognised,
accepted and understood to avoid the uneducated response - prejudice.
> 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.
This sounds like an interesting challenge, worthy of exploring elsewhere, but
not relevant to the discussion topic I opened for debate.
> 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
And not relevant to the current topic.
> 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.
I believe that cultural change is gradual and, where it occurs, it is usually
an EXTERNAL influence. The learned behaviour from generation to generation is
a much more persistant effect than chance changes over time.
Isolated cultures don't automatically progress through change driven from
within. e.g. the polynesian island cultures Fiji, Samoa, did not progress
beyond human sacrifice until the British took over the islands.
Real change from outside influences only takes effect when accompanied by major
> 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.
The point here is that the church was Romanized!! Christianized doesn't
necessarily mean better behaved or civilized. The accounts of the occupation
of Jerusalem in 1099 by the crusades indicate massacres of the cities
inhabitants with piles of heads and hands in the streets and rivers running red
with blood. The authors of these accounts indicated that if the true details
of the attrocities were known they would not be believed.
So much for the acts of a Christian invading army!!!! More annihilation out of
fear and prejudice.
> 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.
I have always regarded the Celts as being many fragmented, diverse tribes
loosely connected by common language, religion and superstitions but with
similar attitudes and beliefs across tribal boundaries.
> 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.
Celtic artifacts have indicated trade with many nations which included the
Etruscans, Greeks and Romans
>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?
Not knowingly. They could not have predicted that the trade links set up by
Rome would be followed up by legions providing protection to the traders which
eventually got involved in local tribal conflicts, which was used to establish
Roman authority surreptitiously.
> Cultural Change is the norm.
I disagree, but if you can show me how this can be predicted or what is normal
about change I would like to take it into account.
In my experience society works to reinforce that which is normal and unchanging
and works to reject that which is different and alien.
> 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.
How was Rome different? You make this claim but don't give an example??
The similarity I base my case on is one of attitude towards the Celts who at
the time of 300 AD were still causing the Romans lots of problems in Gaul.
Does prejudice get passed on from generation to generation ?? ABSOLUTELY.
Prejudice is rooted in the interpretation of differences as something to fear.
The only influence that society has to counteract this is to UNLEARN the
beliefs that cause fear and distrust and prejudice.
Education about cultural differences counteracts prejudice.
There was no such positive influence at work on the Romans or their successors
until very recently. Maybe the European Union (Treaty of Rome after the TRAUMA
of World War II)is the event that breaks this deadlock.
> 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.
>-- End of excerpt from Wayne Crotts
Maybe you haven't looked closely enough. Obvously timelines through history
are connected by events threaded together, not just as random acts. I have
picked one particular thread. This hypothesis I have proposed carries a lot of
weight if you reexamine the facts with the framework I have proposed.
I don't claim it is a proof.
That may be a topic for a very interesting thesis.
I am NOT suggesting that Celts should rise up against the Romans, that would
suggest that we have learned nothing.
My intent from exploring this avenue is to identify the common interests across
Celtic nations and recognize how some of the prejudices and hatreds were
inherited from days gone by.
Let's put those behind us and acknowledge that's it's O.K. to be a barbarian.
And if that generates any negative feeling in you, then you have inherited the
prejudice against the Barbarians from the Romans.
I hope my arguments have encouraged thought and not resentment and more
prejudice. The attempt at looking at the "big picture" from a macro
behavioural psychology point of view has been interesting.
>From the quantity of enlightened comment I doubt if the controversy will end
here. I would be glad to see someone adopt this as a scholarly pursuit in
Histo-Socio-Psychology. Feel free to call it "CAHILL'S HYPOTHESIS"
John P. Cahill