Printable View
This is total nonsense. Seriously, Baran, if you’re that desperate to find a reason to get angry, there are legitimate issues in the world you can focus on. For my part, I have spent time in the Republic and in the North. During my youth, I attended more NORAID fundraisers than I care to remember. If I don't have an issue with it, neither should you. Let it go already. There’s no “cause” for anger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baran
-Quinn
I'm not convinced about Baran, and I'm still waiting for an answer..........Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinn
MacShreik, I guess you must be pretty much a "dull normal" if you really live in Scotland and didn't know you were in the "British Islands". Guess you need a history lesson about the Druids, Celts, and Saxons.
These are your words, fuckbrained troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by yourdaddy
"on the Celtic island called England."
Now where do you mention "British Islands" (not the correct name either, but whatever,) you slimy little cunt? Run along and get your dinner, your mummy's calling you.
Maybe he said it because he is richer ... jealous?Quote:
Originally Posted by yourdaddy
Sheesh. Tell it to the Beaker People. There's better topics for this forum!
(FYI: the so-called Beaker People, who built the second phase of Stonehenge, migrated to Albion (to use one of the older names for those islands) ca. 2500 BCE -- that's over 4500 years ago -- long before the Celts migrated there ca. 500 - 600 BCE, the Romans in the first century CE, the Angles.)
Not sure who you're informing, but there is some issue about whether the Celts actually did migrate in great numbers into the British Isles. Many writers think that what happened was that the indigenous British tribes became Celticised--in other words it was a cultural rather than ethnic colonisation. The Romans state that the Gauls were tall and very fair, often redheaded, but that many of the British Celtic tribes were short and swarthy, giving some weight to this. This is very different from the Anglo-Saxon colonisation of what is now England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecstatic
Certainly the move from Stone Age culture through to Iron Age was very rapid in Britain, because the Iron Age held on so long. My own view is that a Celtic cultural elite moved in and by virtue of their greatly advanced technology, took over. This is similar to what happened when the Normans arrived some (considerable) time later-- Not many Normans actually came, but they changed the culture radically, particularly in England, obviously.
Certainly round here there are plenty of short dark Picts, that don't look anything like "tall fair Celts."
Him and I exchanged emails on our differing political views while I was a member, and he never kicked me off. Must be you dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by yourdaddy
Well, part of my point is that there really is no one left who can truly be called "indigenous" in the British Isles: the Beaker People (who predate the Celts by 2000 years) were also invaders, and displaced those who inhabited the area before them. The British Isles have been, fairly accurately, described as the most-conquered land in the world, by successive waves of invaders over 1000s of years. The "Scots" who forced Hadrian to build his wall weren't Scots at all, but Picts (as you imply, Mac); the Scots as such invaded the Kilmartin Glen in the 5th century CE after Rome pulled out (same as the Angles and Saxons in the southeast of what would be England), and by the 8th century had subsumed the Pictish culture (which was, to that point, much more extensive and had the most sophisticated stone masons in the world at the time).
There's a lot of speculation about the historical circumstances, as you say. I think the Celts invaded in significant numbers, but did meld with the native population rather than simply displace it. The Celts had the most extensive and advanced culture in northern and western Europe when Rome was just emerging, but for all their advanced technology (evident in weaponry and agriculture, for instance) they never had the central power structure of Rome, and never developed the cohesive literary and legal systems of Rome, who conquered them and left far more elaborate records in their wake.
Yes I think all that is true. People (not you) often take the view that the Celts were somewhat uncultured because they did not have a written tradition, as did the Romans, or for that matter the Scandics. But in fact their oral tradition was very, very sophisticated, and the idea of the "college" that we take for granted now is actually Celtic-- all of their professionals underwent a training of 19 years, and they had doctors and lawyers, bards, musicians, you name it. They simply believed that the process of memorising information preserved it and made it more truly learned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecstatic
Some writers, for example Vincenot, think that many of the colleges in France simply changed their religion and became monasteries when Christianity took over!
Colleges of music on the ancient Celtic model persisted in Scotland until the destruction of the clans after Culloden. The school of piping on Skye is the best known, but as late as the 16th cntury there were colleges of harping and singing-- indeed Welsh and Irish harpers were sent to Scotland to study.
Anyway, best get back to posting porn........ 8)