>>On Tue, 20 May 1997, Eve Wilkerson wrote:
>>> "Celtic" is a term which is useful for
>>> describing connections between cultures which were once one culture.
I agree, and would add "languages which were once [perhaps?] one
>>I was just reflecting on this statement. Perhaps one could go so
>>far as to add: "...and have shared certain experiences which in
>>part define who they are today."
I don't think I'd go along with this because I don't know what it refers
to. English oppression? That's shared with the people of India to pick
just one example. Living on rocky land raising sheep? Nope, lots of
people have done that in the Balkans. I am not sure whether the
experiences of the Celts as they migrated across Europe, before they
fragmented into groups, define who the Irish and Scots are today.
>>To make a rather trite parallel (for which I may well be punished),
>>the various peoples of the American continent, whose languages and
>>cultures are in many cases far less closely related to each other than
>>are the surviving Celtic languages, are nonetheless collectively known
>>as "American Indians" -- and for largely political reasons, have
>>accepted this label, though there have been attempts to substitute words
>>like "Native Americans" or "First Nations". (The Osage guy I knew in
>>college says he prefers "Injun", with the "j". So much for political
I don't intend to punish you, I just think this paragraph proves the
opposite of what you are trying to prove. "Native Americans" is as
imposed from the outside as "American Indians", it's just an imposition
that the imposer believes is more respectful. Your Osage friend proves
that one for us.
>>The reason for this is that there is no word
>>in any Native language that denotes all the original peoples of America,
>>and obviously, for purposes of collective action, there needs to be.
I don't think this is obvious. They didn't need a word, who are we to
say there must be one.
>>As I understand it, groups like the Celtic League use the word partly
>>in this sense, to denote cultures whose surviving original languages
>>are in the Celtic family
>>, and who have faced the common legacy of
>>encroachment and colonization by speakers of English or French.
As I said above, this includes the residents of India, what used to be
the Congo, Algeria, etc. etc. etc. [it confuses me further to realize
that the Celtic languages are supposed to have descended from a root
that connects them to Sanskrit and Hindi]
>>But back to the Record Category problem -- if you have a record
I agree, 'Celtic' today is useful for record categories especially for
recordings that are 'fusion', new age, etc. AND ARE NOT Irish or Scots
or Breton or whatever. And linguists. I personally avoid recordings
labelled 'Celtic'. The record stores I respect have categories for
Breton, Irish, Scots, etc. The recording you propose is interesting and
I'd love to know how HMT would manage it, they are very good at filing
their stuff in real, meaningful categories. But outside of that it is a
meaningless word to me and I rarely use it.
PS The unfortunate change of the 'Na Connerys' album's name in its
American release really bothered me. 'Na Connery's: The Session' was a
great name. Why on earth saddle it with that awful "Celtic Sessions"
>title????? It's a great record. They are IRISH sessions.