From: finlay_j@spcvxb.spc.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: What goes around comes around
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:31:25 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


> Would you like to define precisely what you think the difference between
> discussion and arguement is, and the difference between arguement and
> bitter arguement? I would contend that if you're not willing to engage
> in valid arguement about your views, you should refrain from sharing
> them with the world. 

Again, with apologies, I reply to something not directly addressed to me, but 
which nonetheless seems to be speaking directly to me out of my past, and my 
understanding of some of the things that have gone into the making of Irish
consciousness, at least in my lifetime.

There's been a lot of debate in the network lately about the precise meaning
of the word "Celtic," both etymologically and ethnographically. I am not in
any position to respond to people's views on the subject, except to suggest
that the word itself seems to have an association with Romanticism that is
almost impossible to remove. I would not describe myself as a Celt, although
possibly Americans or English people would. I do not think that such a people
as Celts ever existed (though I am quite ignorant of precise archaeological
writing about them). The word, and the idea, seems to conjure up something
else in people's minds--something, perhaps, that is missing from what is
already there, a kind of collective true self to make up for the deficiencies 
of having to act in the waking world as rational and fallible beings.

I remember being struck very much by Bob Quinn's three television films,
"Atlantean," about 8-10 years ago in Ireland. He was purporting to show
(knowingly, with a wonderful gentle wit, travelling the museums of the world 
and talking with learned scholars, and referring to himself (the interviewer) 
as "the Irishman") that Christianity came to Ireland via Morocco or Egypt, and 
that the round towers and intricate designs of Irish Christian manuscripts were 
not a result of the blending of Christian and pagan (Celtic) cultures, but a
carry-over from mosques and Islamic cultures.

Of course, everything that he said could be shot down or disclaimed at a 
moments's notice by a reliable and authoritative expert. But he was not out to 
prove anything. The way that he went about his work, with wonderful lingering
camera shots on Islamic architecture and scrolls and the west of Ireland, 
served to provide a reflection--rather than thesis and rebuttal--on what
we are, the unknown or unrecognized elements that have gone into our making.
His films are still very much in my mind as a kind of commentary on an
Ireland differently considered--thinking that comes out of a wish to not go
down the well-trod paths, not to fight the old fight, but to take a quizzical,
perhaps Joycean, stance on modern Irish consciousness.

Looking at what this poster is saying about making distinctions between
"arguments" and "bitter arguments" and "discussions" I find myself thinking 
about the way that I was brought up, the youngest of a family of eight growing 
up in Bray, Co. Wicklow. The epithet that his way of speaking brings to my mind 
is not "Celtic" at all, but what we used to or still call "west British."

Again, here we can get into a whole matrix of meanings and cultural 
associations. I'm not sure what "west British" means to anyone else; all I 
know is that it seems to apply very well to the kind of childhood I had. The 
poster's demands remind me very much of my father's and my brothers' desires 
that I should be "manly," that I should, perhaps, talk, if at all, about "real 
things," and not talk "rot and rubbish."  Also, I seem to hear in this poster a 
certainty that his way of talking--which seems, in his view, to be above the 
heads of what he calls "net.neophytes" (another neo-Victorian legacy of west
British culture, akin to "children should be seen and not heard"?)--is the only
right way, and anyone who says anything different is simply not on our side,
old boy, dontcha know.

Maybe it's unfair to read my own experience into what he's saying. But it does
seem to me as though it ought to be possible to have a conversation rather
than an argument (how many of us Irish-born posters grew up in
families dominated by garrulous banter?--it DOES seem to be a distinctly Irish
custom, and it CAN become very wearing). It also seems that it ought to be 
possible to offer some reflections on some subject or other without
needing to anticipate an automatic attack, counter-attack, or, as I saw
elsewhere, "an all-out flame war before the issue fizzles out."

(I mean, if we're going to talk about Northern Ireland could we hear less
about the dogmas of politicians and ideologists, who are after all people
who make a living holding stereotypes in place, and more about the differing
experiences of people living in the conflict. I would like to hear some
Northern Protestants talk for a change, perhaps.

>If they're not worth defending, they're not worth posting.

	One is inclined to simply shrug in response and say, "well, Pop,
	it's a point of view, and of course you're entitled to it."

						Jeff Finlay
						St. Peter's College
						Jersey City, USA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic