> From: David Nicholas Harley [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>
> Indeed you didn't, but the discussion of "Celts" moves easily into such
> notions, as when Lowland Scots such as Edinburgh lawyers proudly refer to
> their "Celtic heritage", in presumed contrast to people a few miles to the
> south. Mythologizing the past is a dangerous game and it is all too easy
> for historians to aid and abet such activities.
>
But jumping to conclusions about a person's opinion only further
obfuscates matters.
> Romance languages are the creoles and pidgins spoken by the descendants of
> people from the lands of the Western Roman Empire, and by people colonized
> by such people. Does that make Argentinians and Brazilians "Romans"? The
> English language has had a similar worldwide spread, among a wide variety
> of peoples, but only in Quebec, for example, would a Polish-American be
> called "Anglais". The use of the word "Celt" has many implications that
> have nothing to do with historical linguistics, relating to the invention
> of a race and the myths of romantic nationalism.
>
There are many misuses of any term. One misuse is to attribute such
notions to someone who uses a term only to refer to the people whose culutre
and language belonged to the same group. Conversation is most productive, in
my opinion, when people listen without attributing opinions that were not
actually implied or expressed.
Francine Nicholson
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|