I suppose this should go off list. Let me know if this is too far afield. ----------------------------------------- Arle writes:
> I'm going to disagree with Jon's dismissal of the Celtic rubric to some > extent. It isn't just a con to sell music. The people who call their music > Celtic do, in general, consider themselves to be "Celtic," whatever that may > mean. ... Whether or not the idea of "Celtic music" has any historical validity (I'm with Jon on thinking that it does not), the point is that today these musics *are* Celtic because their performers and audience believe that they are and they have entered into a community of influence with each other. ... In other words, historical connection is not the only criterion for determining whether something is made "out of nothing." The connections people believe that they have can be a powerful force for change .... Or to turn to something closer to Jon's home, "Celtic" music is just as authentic and real as clan tartans, which were made up to "make money out of nothing." ------------------------------------------ These are good points and well stated. I usually stay out of this kind of discussion, but the meaning of words is especially important to me, so I must respectfully disagree with some of this. I agree that the "Celtic" label isn't simply a con. Most of these people probably really believe themselves to be "Celtic." The problem is that I doubt they have any idea of what the word means, or the historic context of the actual peoples and cultures to which it refers. The term and its romantic accoutrements have been appropriated, just as the image of the "American Indian" was manufactured, mostly from myth, for popular consumption. Added to this difficulty is the fact that the many peoples who were called Celts existed in myriad geographic areas and their culture spanned several millennia. So, I ask, "Which Celts? When? Where?" Just as all "American Indians" were lumped into a homogenized package, Celts are likewise collectivized and pictured as a noble, civilized, mystical - and musical - static monolithic culture. Some of this is probably true. It is also likely true that they practiced human sacrifice, displayed the heads of their enemies, and were conquered by the better organized Romans. How one logically progresses from this to attaching "Celtic-ness" to a slip-jig or a (Greek) bouzouki is beyond me. If we are to communicate, words must have meaning that is based on more than the need for mutual self-validation. While the meanings of words depend to some extent upon consensus, words must also reflect historic, cultural, and physical reality - regardless of what we may believe, or wish to believe. Otherwise, we have nothing but opportunistic equivocation, where things mean whatever we want them to mean, depending on our personal whims. Belief does not, for example, make the world flat, make persons of color inherently inferior, or the deaf insane - to name just a few historic "beliefs." Neither does someone believing him or herself to be "Celtic," make them or their music, Celtic. The term, the implication, and the resultant inference are meaningless - unless enforced through appeal to the kind of un-reason inherent in the Emperor's New Clothes. In other words, if everyone in our tribe believes it, it must be true. I agree that the connections people believe they have can be a powerful force for change. However, is there not a difference between real and imagined connections, between reality and wishful thinking, between authenticity and facade? Is there not a difference in the kind of change based upon accuracy and the kind of change based on delusion? As for the argument that "Celtic" is just as authentic as clan tartans, this is exactly my point. The only authenticity either has is through being repeatedly reinforced by ignorance. What is the point of playing revisionist games of cowboys and "Indians" with history, appropriating what we find emotionally convenient, while pretending to be "authentic?" What is the point of exacerbating mis-information and dis-information simply to establish some romantic exclusive tribe of pseudo-Celts? Why not just refer to the music as where it came from, if this is important? end rant Geoff -------------------------------------------- BTW, I just ran across this book, Oak, the Frame of Civilization William Bryant Logan The author describes early acorn-based economies, some of which were Celtic, and mentions Flag Fen, in England. Main site" http://www.flagfen.com/ See, especially, http://www.flagfen.com/seahenge.htm
