John Hooker wrote:
> Simon James wrote:
>
> > Demonstrating that all ethnic and national identities are
> > constructed, often very recently, are not 'natural', and are rarely
> > as ancient as they represent themselves to be, is a fundamental step
> > forward in undermining cultural chauvinisms.
>
> This is the crux of the matter. I maintain that all cultures have the
> right to define themselves as they see fit. The part of the UN
> genocide convention that I believe relates to this is Article 2b:
>
> Article II. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the
> following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,
> a national, ethnical, racial or religious group... b) Causing serious
> bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
[etc.]
John,
The [alleged] fact that some people attack Celticity for nefarious
reasons
is no justification for censorship of serious scholarly work. The UN
charter which is so central to your argument was surely not intended to
allow any group to create and live out its own fantasies about its
identity, no matter how ill-founded or dangerous. On this argument, it
would have been genocide to question Nazi German race theory in the
1930s.
If you read the basis of my arguments, you will find that I do
indeed
accept as a fundamental tenet that *all* groups largely create their own
identities. But this does not make them sancrosanct or inevitably false
-
or inevitably true. It certainly does not mean that no-one else can have
an opinion on the subject.
All such identities depend on the definition of who is inside, and
who
is outside. Celtic identity therefore is not only about the Celts, it
depends on the definition of the non-Celt, and in Britain that involves
people like me directly. We become categorised as the Other, relatively
recent arrivals as 'Germanic English'. I claim the right to scrutinise
the
basis of all these categories, which impinge on my own identity.
> Here in Canada, we boast of a cultural mosaic. Even the problems
> between the English and the French here reside mainly in the minds of
> just a few.
Likewise with the 'problems' between Celt and non-Celt, also in the
minds
of a few; which is why I have actually had very few difficulties
discussing these ideas calmly with Irish, Scottish, or Welsh people. The
vociferously hostile few tend not to be Celts themselves!
> We all try to work it out. What might seem chauvinism to
> you is pride to another. We must learn to not only tolerate our
> differences, but to rejoice in them.
Chauvinism is inherently aggressive. It precludes toleration and
celebration of others' identities.
> An historic view of our own
> ethnicity is essential in our perception of ourselves as complete
> individuals.
Of course it is! It is what multiculturalism is all about. But such
created histories are always partisan, and regularly used *against*
others, not for mutual celebration.
> > The purpose of my book is to generate discussion and debate in both
> > directions across the public/academic divide, by challenging
> > widely-held assumptions (which are not certain knowledge) about a
> > Celtic insular past.
>
> I have wanted to discuss these subjects for three years now. Only now
> have you offered to bring this to an international public forum. This
> is the great value of the Internet, of discussion lists such as these.
> I have given all manner of data from my own research. Few have offered
> discussion about the real subject, most have become hung up on
> semantics, or on the odd throwaway line -- it is frustrating.
John, my (ageing) website has been up that long, and I have now produced
the book which deals directly with just about everything you want to
discuss. Knee-deep in exam papers, I have not got time to repeat all its
arguments on the net.
> We should not spin this out to discussions of Serbs and Albanians.
> Everyone involved in that situation is a victim -- even NATO and
> Milosevich. Filip is ten years old and lives in Belgrade.
[etc.]
I agree we do not need to digress into the Balkans; it was just an
illustration. You are not the only person who has been in e-mail contact
with people in Serbia; many of us have too. But your example helps to
underline my case; that unchallenged, ethnic/national claims based on
self-generated group histories can have dire consequences for everyone.
> It is important to see the the real lives involved. The books
> dehumanize, and reduce everything to labels.
The point of my book *is* to generate human contact, direct discussion,
across academic and ethnic or national boundaries. Among others I have
addressed the London Welsh Club, I've just been invited to speak at the
London Irish Arts Centre, and have had approaches about visits to the
Isle
of Man and Dublin, and so on. The volume is intended to contribute to
the
process of redefining our identities in these islands, and renegotiating
the relationships between them, which is currently underway with the new
parliament in Scotland, and the assemblies in Wales and (we hope)
Northern
Ireland. It is precisely about challenging the unthinking use of labels
in
these matters.
As for the more detailed stuff you ask about the Iron Age, most of
it
is covered, directly or indirectly, in the book!
Yours back to the exam scripts,
Simon
--
Committed to excellence in corporate sloganization
Dr. Simon James, Department of Archaeology, University of Durham
South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, United Kingdom
Web page URL: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~drk0stj/
tel. +44 (0)191 374 1128 fax. +44 (0)191 374 3619
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
