If your slave master wasn't a christian, you wouldn't be a christian.

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet

Why in Ethiopia have they been Christians longer then Europe?

Maybe the tiny little river called the Nile has something to do with that?

Not to be too nit picky or anything, but is English your first language? I charge 4,000 yen an hour. Want to learn?

Anyways. This is an interesting thread. Very interesting.

Originally posted by pieman
this is where things get confusing, always. "celtic" as we understand the term is singly artistic, this is how the nineteenth century historians qualified the peoples of europe.

the scottish and irish languages are both similar but welsh is totally different, yet all three are "celtic". even english is a "celtic language" with a whole heap of latinisation, and language at the time was so regional it soon becomes irrelevant.

the technology changed over time and geography but the people were still called celts.

That's not actually true though, is it? Only some people still got/get called 'celts'. The most recent genetic studies of these Islands show that the supposedly 'celtic' areas aren't really that much different from much of allegedly 'Anglo-Saxon' England. There's no real evidence of mass population displacement for the Anglo-Saxon, Viking or Norman invasions; the rest of the population who came here (whether here is Ireland, England or Wales) following the last great thawing are still here.

Hutton's untangling in his work on the Druids - which is the best work I've read on Druidry - shows how 'art' wasn't really the criteria with which the first Celtic revivalists resorted to. Ultimately, nationalism and politics were the first real issue, with plenty of countries vying for the claim to a Celtic and Druidic legacy. It was this kind of thinking that eventually culminated in the racial idiocy of the Nazis.

I'm not sure about the idea that English is a 'celtic' language either, to be honest. Can you point to anything that supports this?

it just gets down to art eventually.

Which is an issue given that a lot of what is said to be 'celtic' art is often Germanic anyway. I've seen a lot of German designs that are either zoomorphic or have interlacing knot-work seen described as 'celtic' or 'Irish'; I've even seen objects from Sutton Hoo described as 'celtic'.

ultimately, it's how you define yourself if you're going to go down that road.

I can say I'm Jesus but it doesn't mean I am!

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

You also have to remember that most everything we know today about the Druids comes from Roman historians. Of course they were made out to be barbarians because everyone who wasn't Roman was seen as perverse.

The Celts had no written history. Druids wrote nothing down, and all tradition was orally passed on.

Here is an excerpt from wikipedia...

And there lies the rub... it's all right saying 'the Celts' believed this, that or the other (as you've done yourself in this thread) when in reality, we have very little to actually go on. Much of what has been written about Celtic belief - particularly in wicca frenzy following Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the Llewellyn Books explosion - is pretty much rubbish and practically all very speculative.

nonetheless... Christianity is the religion of the those who enslaved a million Celts and destroyed their culture.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


See that's exactly my point.

Many tribes existed within the Celtic Empire. There was no overarching organized government. However, the Druids did play a part in each of these tribes.

One of the issues I have with Romanization of Europe is the loss of all of these tribal beliefs formed organically through millenia.

Germany was the last of the non-governments to be conquered by Cesar.



[edit on 8-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
There's no real evidence of mass population displacement for the Anglo-Saxon, Viking or Norman invasions; the rest of the population who came here (whether here is Ireland, England or Wales) following the last great thawing are still here.

that's what i meant when i said " there is always the argument that this stuff was all ruling elites anyway and the normal people didn't ever vary widely genetically immediately before and after one of these cultural waves."

Ultimately, nationalism and politics were the first real issue, with plenty of countries vying for the claim to a Celtic and Druidic legacy.

my english teacher used to say the same thing about how Yeats' nationalism and revivalism mixed strongly, i've never read hutton but i'll take it as a recommendation. it's an interesting idea.

I'm not sure about the idea that English is a 'celtic' language either, to be honest. Can you point to anything that supports this?

not really, like i said, language was so localised it's irrelevant. if you think that the peoples were the same, the culture was the same and the religion was the same yet england had a unique language stem from the rest of the island, have at it.

all i know is that old english sounds a lot like scottish or irish. a lot closer than welsh anyway.

Which is an issue given that a lot of what is said to be 'celtic' art is often Germanic anyway.

given that the people known as "the celts" were made up of a ton of different tribes and peoples trading goods, services and ideas, it really isn't.
i said it was a catigorisation based on art, or rather where art was found, i didn't say it was a good catigorisation or accurate.

I can say I'm Jesus but it doesn't mean I am!

should your identity be entirely based on your genetic make up then, good stuff, so what were the results of your genetic tests and is that how you define yourself?

[edit on 8/5/09 by pieman]

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
While i agree that the fact that Roman empire adopted Christianity served as a catalyst in its spread in Europe, Middle East and Africa, it happened centuries after Julius Caesar.
.

i think he's right, Constantine adopted christianity after he saw a vision of a cross before a battle. he was emperor from 324-337. his mother even went to israsel looking for remains from Jesus's time. this was well after ol Julius. and if i'm not mistaken the romans were run off by a woman that brought the celtic people togather. by the time of Constanine the roman empire was real small just around the med if i remember right.

It was only the other day that I was wondering how life in Britain would be if it hadn't been for the Romans. The more we learn about Britain BC the more proud I become of what we used to be, and sad at the culture and heritage we've lost and forgotten.

But alas, the Romans represented "progress", and the OP is right, that also means centralised power and technological advances.

Life goes on though, and most of us in the Romanized West have a pretty good quality of life these days, and I can't say that our current rulers are particularly malevolent - just a bit incompetent

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
While i agree that the fact that Roman empire adopted Christianity served as a catalyst in its spread in Europe, Middle East and Africa, it happened centuries after Julius Caesar.
.

i think he's right, Constantine adopted christianity after he saw a vision of a cross before a battle. he was emperor from 324-337. his mother even went to israsel looking for remains from Jesus's time. this was well after ol Julius. and if i'm not mistaken the romans were run off by a woman that brought the celtic people togather. by the time of Constanine the roman empire was real small just around the med if i remember right.

Yeah, Julius eradicated the Celtic beliefs by exterminating the Druids and mapping their Gods to Roman Gods without actually naming their Gods.

Even though the Christianization by the Romans didn't happen til a bit later two facts stand clear.

1. Rome destroyed the original cultural traditions
2. Rome replaced them with their own beliefs.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
1. Rome destroyed the original cultural traditions
2. Rome replaced them with their own beliefs.

try entertaining this idea and seeing if it changes your mind.

in modern japan, many traditional japanese beliefs and practices have changed dramatically since world war two, traditional ideas have been either supplanted by american ideas or modified by them.

is this because america forced it's beliefs on the japanese or is it because the american ideas seemed to be progressive and forward thinking to a large enough proportion of the japanese people to have had an impact?

why would it have been different 1500 years ago?

Originally posted by mattpryor
It was only the other day that I was wondering how life in Britain would be if it hadn't been for the Romans. The more we learn about Britain BC the more proud I become of what we used to be, and sad at the culture and heritage we've lost and forgotten.

But alas, the Romans represented "progress", and the OP is right, that also means centralised power and technological advances.

Life goes on though, and most of us in the Romanized West have a pretty good quality of life these days, and I can't say that our current rulers are particularly malevolent - just a bit incompetent

Yep. I can't complain about the creature comforts, but I find that I'm much more at home living as a nomad in the woods. Not that I shun technology or anything, I just am not designed for such a rigid belief system or government.

Honestly though, I have been doing a lot of research and reading on the Celts and Druids as of late. Not the wicca stuff as one poster commented on, but actual history and legends where they can be found.

What has really amazed me is that I find ever single one of my inclinations described within the Celtic ancestry. The more I read, the more I realize how psychologically and genetically similar I find myself to these people. Most all of my internal conflicts have come from false moralities and ideologies I have accepted from those around me, and the more I read the more I discover I'm not crazy at all, I'm just not down with what was given to me.

Now don't get me wrong, I believe Christianity to be a great Axial religion. I do however detest the Roman perversion of Christianity. But more so I love what I am learning about my ancestors. As I clearly identify with almost everything I have discovered thus far.

As a child in the late 70's and early 80's, I wandered the forests and made up stories of a "Netherwoods" in which there were great deities found in the lakes, woods, hills and plains of my youth. I gave them all names, and fancied myself among them. I wrote a book, now long lost, called Spells, Chants and Incantations. I would speak to the weather, and it would respond. I felt more at home in a hooded robe than in shorts and a t-shirt. I would walk barefoot through the fields and could sense the earth rising up into my body. I wanted to roam like a nomad, instead of sitting still. I wanted to learn all of the plants in the forest and what their uses were. I drilled holes in coins from different countries I had collected and hung them on sacred trees and flung them into sacred bodies of water, creating a system of power of sorts. I would roam this woods with the "Staff of Kepo" and visit the "Netherwoods" in my dreams. The council of Faraka, Taramasee, and Wachachu lived in these Netherwoods and protected the "Red Stone of Power". Only much later in life did I discover the archetypal nature of this Red Stone was actually the Philosophers Stone.

I made the mistake one day of showing my mother my fantasy world and she immediately thought something was wrong with me. She being raised as a Nazarene. She forbade me from reading Tolkien or anything of the sort.

Now as I read about the Druids and the Celts and their beliefs of the "Other world" I understand now why I had such natural inclinations. I too am sad that these natural inclinations would be seen as odd by the current Christian world.

At 36, I'm finally beginning to understand who I really am, and how natural my inclinations are, yet how incongruent they are with the beliefs of our culture today. For anyone of Celtic descent who finds Christianity perfect for them, I say good on you. However, for those who find it opposed to their natural inclinations, no matter how much they want to be down... I say, investigate your heritage. There is nothing the matter with you except for the fact that your genetic expression does not fit the traditions which were given to you. Seek those out, learn about them, and embrace who you really are.



[edit on 8-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
1. Rome destroyed the original cultural traditions
2. Rome replaced them with their own beliefs.

try entertaining this idea and seeing if it changes your mind.

in modern japan, many traditional japanese beliefs and practices have changed dramatically since world war two, traditional ideas have been either supplanted by american ideas or modified by them.

is this because america forced it's beliefs on the japanese or is it because the american ideas seemed to be progressive and forward thinking to a large enough proportion of the japanese people to have had an impact?

why would it have been different 1500 years ago?

Something tells me that destroying two full cities of Japanese civilians had more to do with it. That and that children most always accept what is given to them as truth.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


If you're interested you should check out some of the books by the British historian Simon Schama. This one in particular:

Britain: Edge of the World?

Cracking good stuff.

reply to post by pieman


hey Pieman,
I will agree that the Japanese have taken many western concepts and integrated them into their society. They have even perfected some things, such as freedom of speech. However, you will find that Christians are the dismal minority in Japan. 80-90 percent of the people are shinto-buddhists. So, while we pushed our system of governement on them, they were not forced to adopt our religion.

My wife, like many Japanese, owns a bible. However, she says it is a nice collection of western mythology.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

nonetheless... Christianity is the religion of the those who enslaved a million Celts and destroyed their culture.

You talk as if this Iron Age culture was some kind of 'population zero', as if they were the first. What about the people before the celtic technology and language, the people before the various Iron Ages? Such as the culture that created Stone Henge? The Beakers the Wessex people &c? What did the Celts destroy before they had their culture "destroyed"?

As for slavery, it's generally believed that the Celts were no different than other cultures in this sense: they took slaves and were taken slaves themselves. As far as I'm aware, this continued to happen in Ireland long after the Romans had left mainland Britain.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


My wife asked me this same question. My issue is not with the fact that Rome enslaved the Celts. I understand conquering nations tend to do that.

As I described above, it's simply that the world I live in today, and the religion which was given to me is incongruent with my genetic code. It would be like taking a Jew and raising him with Viking beliefs.

Some might believe it wouldn't matter, but for a culture which grew organically from very different roots, it really does. I'm simply shouting it from the rooftops for those who find the same sense of inner conflict with the outer systems...

"If your slave master wasn't a Christian... then YOU wouldn't be a Christian". It's really as simple as that.

Originally posted by pieman
my english teacher used to say the same thing about how Yeats' nationalism and revivalism mixed strongly, i've never read hutton but i'll take it as a recommendation. it's an interesting idea.

I'd recommend practically everything Hutton has ever written. Unfortunately, perhaps one of his most relevant books (to this thread at least) isn't one that I'd recommend too hastily though as history and genetics has moved in the last couple of decades or so. His other book that is relevant to all this, The Druids, which is only a couple of years old, I'd seriously recommend as it covers the Roman writing but really focuses on the various revival periods - which is were, after all, we get 99% of our 'understanding' of Druids from anyway.

I'm not sure about the idea that English is a 'celtic' language either, to be honest. Can you point to anything that supports this?

not really, like i said, language was so localised it's irrelevant. if you think that the peoples were the same, the culture was the same and the religion was the same yet england had a unique language stem from the rest of the island, have at it.

all i know is that old english sounds a lot like scottish or irish. a lot closer than welsh anyway.

I'd suggest that you actually look at some linguistics as I think you're going to be in for a shock. English is accepted as a branch of the Germanic languages by practically all linguists.

In fact, it's so German it's raised a few problems for linguists and historians as it seems to have been adopted almost tooquickly as if it was already being spoken prior to the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. It's been speculated that some of the 'celtic' tribes that had their origins in on the continental mainland actually spoke a German rather that 'celtic' languages which would have been a proto-English.

Regarding the difference between Welsh and Irish/Scottish, this tends to be explained by the differences between the 'q celts' and the latter 'p celts'; waves of languages arriving here at different times.

Which is an issue given that a lot of what is said to be 'celtic' art is often Germanic anyway.

given that the people known as "the celts" were made up of a ton of different tribes and peoples trading goods, services and ideas, it really isn't.

It's not a problem for me, but it is for many of those who like to paint this romantic idea of a celtic race set apart from everything else and unsullied by the nasty Anglo-Saxons and Vikings &c.

should your identity be entirely based on your genetic make up then, good stuff, so what were the results of your genetic tests and is that how you define yourself?

Again, it's not that much of an issue for me, rather something that seems to be an issue for people claiming to having 'celtic' blood coursing through their veins.

Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

If you're interested you should check out some of the books by the British historian Simon Schama. This one in particular:

Britain: Edge of the World?

Cracking good stuff.

Awesome... I'll check it out.

Right now I'm reading The Celts: Uncovering the Mythic and Historic Origins of Western Culture

It's quite a good read as well... a bit confusing at first with all the different peoples from Cimbri to Cimmerians to Celtiberians, but overall quite an intriguing book.



[edit on 8-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

My wife asked me this same question. My issue is not with the fact that Rome enslaved the Celts. I understand conquering nations tend to do that.

As I described above, it's simply that the world I live in today, and the religion which was given to me is incongruent with my genetic code. It would be like taking a Jew and raising him with Viking beliefs.

But that doesn't actually make any sense. I can appreciate you finding resonance in particular ideals, themes or a period of history - I think most people do this, and even someone who 'favours' the now, are perhaps as guilty of it as someone who favours a period in the past - but ultimately you're riding a wave of romanticism.

You're talking about 'celts' as if they are some population zero and they are your roots as if that's where your genetics are and are, somehow, traced back to. Did your genes suddenly appear during some 'celtic age'? No, they date back far beyond that with people that had previously been part of bronze age communities. What happened before the iron ages and what's happened afterwards are as much a part of you as this 'inner celt' you seem to be finding within yourself. You're just being very selective as to how you see yourself.

I find the idea of a religion being 'incongruent with genetics' bizarre and a little disturbing to be honest, as not only does it follow the same type of thinking as racists and the like, that this is how a particular 'race' should be/feel/think/respond and I see enough of this in the Asatru community, but I also very much doubt that there's anything scientific to back this up. Instead it owes much more to your romanticisation of what is nothing more than an iron age community.

Another issue is that if this is a 'genetic thing', how do you know which tribe your particular ancestors belonged to? This is a serious issue as, as you've pointed out yourself, there was no real unified 'celtic' organisation with many, many tribes and many, many deities.

Of course the other big problem is that the beliefs you claim resonate with you on a genetic level, in reality you actually know very little about as - as have you've pointed out - relies on second-hand evidence; whether it's Roman-period writings and artefacts or 'after-the-fact' Christian writings, which include the earliest known sources for much of what is claimed to be authentically 'celtic' in terms of mythological story.

Since you are delving into this Druidism I thought I would point this out.
Their religions are the ones that got the God of the Old Testament so ticked off he exiled the Israelites of the day into slavery. About halfway 3/4 of the way through the booklet I'm linking to tells you where they went. Your Cimmerians were actually Jewish once a long time ago.


Israel’s Migrations

What happened to the Israelites who were taken captive by the Assyrians? The Bible tells us that they were settled near the River Gozan and in the cities of the Medes. Gozan was a tributary of the northern Euphrates River. The cities of the Medes were in the area just south of Armenia, between the Black and Caspian Seas.
The apocryphal book of 2 Esdras, written a century or so prior to the time of Christ, records the tradition that had been preserved among the Jews. "Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land… and he [Shalmaneser] carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land. But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt… And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow passages of the river" (13:40–43).
To say that the migrating Israelites followed the "narrow passages of the river" simply means that they went northward through the narrow mountain passes of the headwaters of the Euphrates. This took them north of the Caucasus Mountains and on to the northern shore of the Black Sea. This is exactly where history places the Cimmerians, who later traveled up the Danube and Rhine River basins into northwestern Europe.
Lempriere’s Classical Dictionary locates the Cimmerii "near the Palus Maeotis" (p. 149). Palus Maeotis was the name the ancient Greeks gave to the large lake at the northern tip of the Black Sea, now called the Sea of Azov. From this area some of the Cimmerians migrated directly up the river system into northwestern Europe, while others invaded Asia Minor, and after being pushed out also went up into northern Europe.
Regarding the Cimmerii-Israelites’ entrance into northwestern Europe, M. Guizot in The History of France from Earliest Times to 1848 states: "From the seventh to the fourth century B.C., a new population spread over Gaul, not at once, but by a series of invasions, of which the two principal took place at the two extremes of that epoch. They called themselves Kymrians or Kimrians… the name of a people whom the Greeks placed on the western bank of the Black Sea and in the Cimmerian peninsula, called to this day Crimea" (p. 16). Called Gauls or Celts by the Romans, these people spread through what is modern France and into the British Isles.


Seems the God of the Jews was still chasing after them. Just found a different form to do it. And he was still mad they were praticing the pagan religions that set him off in the first place.

www.tomorrowsworld.org...



[edit on 9-5-2009 by ntech]

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

My wife asked me this same question. My issue is not with the fact that Rome enslaved the Celts. I understand conquering nations tend to do that.

As I described above, it's simply that the world I live in today, and the religion which was given to me is incongruent with my genetic code. It would be like taking a Jew and raising him with Viking beliefs.

But that doesn't actually make any sense. I can appreciate you finding resonance in particular ideals, themes or a period of history - I think most people do this, and even someone who 'favours' the now, are perhaps as guilty of it as someone who favours a period in the past - but ultimately you're riding a wave of romanticism.

I can understand how it might sound as such, but a romanticism would carry with it a desire.

What you need to understand is that what is happening within me right now is not a desire for something else, merely an awakening to the fact that Christianity came to my ancestors through their conquerors.

The Celtic history merely is a contributing factor to this. The real romantic relationship I am having right now is with my beliefs. They are now free of the tyranny of a belief system which just does not belong to my people.

You're talking about 'celts' as if they are some population zero and they are your roots as if that's where your genetics are and are, somehow, traced back to. Did your genes suddenly appear during some 'celtic age'? No, they date back far beyond that with people that had previously been part of bronze age communities. What happened before the iron ages and what's happened afterwards are as much a part of you as this 'inner celt' you seem to be finding within yourself. You're just being very selective as to how you see yourself.

Once again, you would be right if I was desiring some sort of "replacement" religion. I'm experiencing and celebrating the removal of a the false religion handed to my people by their conquerors.

The only selectivity I'm exhibiting is in selecting no longer to assume a faith which was given to my ancestors by their captors.

I find the idea of a religion being 'incongruent with genetics' bizarre and a little disturbing to be honest, as not only does it follow the same type of thinking as racists and the like, that this is how a particular 'race' should be/feel/think/respond and I see enough of this in the Asatru community, but I also very much doubt that there's anything scientific to back this up.

Asatru? I'll look into that...

To be honest it seems rather natural to me. Racists would assume one race and set of characteristics is better than another. You can clearly identify those characteristics both physically and psychologically which generally typify peoples without being a racist.

Instead it owes much more to your romanticisation of what is nothing more than an iron age community.

Once again, this is not a romanticisation of a peoples as much as it is an identification that those peoples were given yet another ancient tradition which did not have anything to do with them.

Another issue is that if this is a 'genetic thing', how do you know which tribe your particular ancestors belonged to? This is a serious issue as, as you've pointed out yourself, there was no real unified 'celtic' organisation with many, many tribes and many, many deities.

Once again, specifics do not matter. The only thing that matters is that my peoples of Northern Europe had their religion replaced with one which did not originate from their own psyches and environmental situation.

Of course the other big problem is that the beliefs you claim resonate with you on a genetic level, in reality you actually know very little about as - as have you've pointed out - relies on second-hand evidence; whether it's Roman-period writings and artefacts or 'after-the-fact' Christian writings, which include the earliest known sources for much of what is claimed to be authentically 'celtic' in terms of mythological story.

True, which is why those are only the contributing factors as to my new found liberation. One thing that is not in dispute, is that Christianity did not originate from the tribes of Northern Europe.