Talk:Gaelic Traditionalism/Archive 2

message: :: I agree that we should focus on the GT article only and leave other articles and their authors to their own devices, as I am not a big fan of pointing fingers back and forth as it serves no purpose. In that light, I want to focus on the issues we have here with this article-
:: 1) Since the GT movement has never written about itself in publications (to my knowledge, I am part of one tuath out of many who are a part of this movement, so I am by no means aware of all of the things said and done by other Traditionalists), nor has anyone written anything about it except in passing, and such being gloss overviews at best, all of which is due to a combination of insular mentality among most Traditionalists and a dislike of public expositions of one's culture and faith for the sake of attention, we need to get some basic idea of what our options are here for references. The challenges to the stated beliefs and practices of our people are rather difficult to cite from external published sources, and I believe Kathleen was bringing up the CR article because it references their own published works. Would that (referencing works published by our our own people) be an acceptable form of reference? Likewise, as mentioned, would referencing the websites of the main GT organizations be a valid form of reference?
:: 2) The neutral point of view tag has been a hotbutton issue amongst many of the contributors to this article because it is seen by them as a slap in the face. However, the core of this article was not originally written for this format, but from a Traditionalist's perspective for a general audience only loosely familiar with Gaelic culture or history. As a result, there are some areas that were not fully tweaked and modified to meet NPOV standards, and we are trying to spot them as we get the chance to go over this and correct them to be more in-line with Wikipedia's format. However, those of us still active in this (as opposed to some of the non-Traditionalist scholars who reviewed and critiqued some of the original data that went into this, since they have no stake in it at this point) are looking at it from the inside out and are likely to miss some things. Could you help us get an idea of what specific areas are still problematic?
:: 3) To say that our people can be prideful, stubborn, and hotheaded at times would be an understatement, and because of a non-stop barrage of vitriolic attacks coming from certain factions elsewhere, some Traditionalists have a tendency to be cranky about insults and attacks (as opposed to valid criticisms), real or percieved, and thus some of the reactions that have been seen here were not in the best of minds. Some of the statements made by MacRusgail and Martin MacGrath are valid, some (mostly from the former) are seen as vitriolic and insulting, as has been mentioned in various places throughout these talk pages. There are many other entries in Wikipedia that have seen the same things happen, from Celtic Christianity to Ásatrú, and I personally believe it is all part of the growing process and will settle out in time. However, harsh things were said on all sides, so it would be best if people on all sides would keep their tempers, personal opinions, and emotions in check and try to deal with this rationally. 
::There are people reading these words right now who have more hatred and vitriolic views in their heart for me and many Traditionalists than I could ever understand, and I do not expect that to ever change. However, they have not been active in the editing or discussion of this article, and are therefore irrelevant except insofar as their attacks elsewhere have contributed to the heated discussions here. To those of my own people who are angry at the perception that the issues brought up here are related to that situation, I ask you, in good faith, to remember that those people have not acted in this article or it's discussion pages, and that there are valid issues of NPOV and formatting to meet Wikipedia standards that will be brought up. Questions about the validity of our way of life or beliefs are irrelevant, and will be made, no matter what, by people who have their own agendas and socio-political or religious views that do not allow for our existence. They have their opinions and are welcome to them, it does not mean we have to recognize such opinions as valid. There are a lot of legitimate issues with this article that need to be addressed, and we should recognize and focus on the legitimate issues and ignore the rhetoric and insults. Can we agree to keep this dispassionate and professional on all sides and focus on the article meeting the standards of Wikipedia and leave the personal disagreements over the subject matter out of it?
:: 4) Regarding the issues of contention- the direct connection that GT sees to the cultural revivals in Ireland and Scotland are not a matter of black-and-white. Our claims and the counterviews are equally based in a perception of the facts and are largely opinion. As such, should it even be an issue as there will be no yes-or-no viewpoint on it, and will be argued till both sides of the issue are blue in our dogmatic faces? Likewise, nationality continues to be brought into the mix as some sort of validation or invalidation, and this begs the question as to whether such should be stricken from the argument as there are plenty of documented sources that show conclusively the existence of a living Gaelic culture in the Americas? Can we agree that the issue of nationality is completely irrelevant and leave it out of these discussions?
:: I am hoping to see this article grow and blossom into something we as Traditionalists can be proud of that also meets the standards of Wikipedia and academia by being as neutral and well-sourced as we can possibly get it. The material presented in this article is not largely my work, as has been stated elsewhere, but the work of MANY Traditionalists and scholars, with the works of external academics and researchers (those found in the references, for example) playing a part in it as that was the research many of us turned to to reclaim our ancestors' way of life. It is the culmination of a great many people's hard work and research, and as such we are all understandably proud of it, but at the same time we have to ensure that it meets the standards set forth in this medium. I think we can get there with a little polishing and helpful suggestions, so this is something I look at as an opportunity. Breandán 01:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1- Gotcha, we'll see what we can dig up. 2- For the most part, the majority of the Traditionalism movement is on the same page, and generally in the same paragraph, but I see your point about needing external reviews or descriptions. We're working on that. 4- Yes, it was a request to leave nationality out of the discussion. As the Gaelic culture long ago expanded outside of the boundaries of the ancestral homelands, attacking the legitimacy of the GT movement based on the nationality of some (though not all by any means) members is a straw-man argument and irrelevant. Breandán 20:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbered questions

message: ::General
:::At the very top of the article is states that GT is about Irish ways, when it is actually about Gaelic ways in general. Those ways, language, customs, lore, beliefs, encompass those found both in Ireland, but also in Gaelic areas of Scotland and the Isles. This needs to be addressed I feel.
::Politics
:::While Gaelic Traditionalist organizations have memberships which cover the entire political spectrum, most tend to be conservative in their political and moral values. Because Gaelic Traditionalism is steeped in culture and not race, racially motivated supremists are not tolerated. Gaelic Traditionalists view fascism, sexism, ageism, racism, and any other form of discrimination to be completely contrary to their love for freedom and equality.
::Some GT, such as ACTG, say that there are pieces that have been lost that have to be brought back with some educated guess work and thus those specific parts of it are a modern cultural religious artifact. Some, such as Clannada, say that Gaelic culture and its traditions are ancient, perfectly preserved intact, in the bardic traditions and folk life ways as cultural customs that have deeply embedded religious elements, which simply need to be re-employed without further evolution or modernization than has been provided within the Gaelic speaking culture already. This can also be a major difference of opinion in the GT community, but it expresses as debate over liturgical frills rather than in-fighting.
::Community
:::There are also differences in approach to building communities within Gaelic Traditionalism. Some seem, as typified by ACTG to be moved back toward an agrarian lifestyle with a common land holding where the majority live. Others, as typified by the Clannada na Gadelica, hold that the local communities should be a part of the broader communities and societies in which they live (much like the Jewish or Korean or any other traditional ethnic community), each with their own house on their own land, but with a common land to act as a cultural center, for religious, educational and other types of meeting purposes at the least. The commonality is that both hold within custom, have a connection to local land, and look to Brehon Law to guide them in their building of social structures that have the precedent of Gaelic Law.
::Tensions Between Gaelic Traditionalists and Nationalists in Ireland and Scotland
:::A note for Nationalists of both the Irish and Scottish persuasions: We are not claiming to be Irish or Scottish. We are claiming to be Gaelic. And that is a matter of culture not nationality or race. To necessarily digress, "Celtic" is a term that defines a culture as being part of the family of "Celtic" cultures. "Gaelic" is one in the family of "Celtic" cultures. The primary defining thing that defines a culture as Gaelic is its language, but that is followed up with other things such as the arts (music, dance, etc)and other cultural elements.  Those statements are academic fact. Also academic is that Ireland and Scotland are nations who contain within their borders other than just Gaelic speaking communities. In Scotland for example, there are the ethnicly Gaelic areas, there is Lalands culture, and more recently Korean and even Muslim ethnic communities. All of those communties are within Scotland and hence Scottish. But only the Gaelic speaking and living areas are Gaelic. Ireland, Scotland, Man and the Isles aren't the only places where Gaelic culture still lives. One of the several areas in which Gaelic culture is alive is Nova Scotia, New Scotland. As a result of the <a href="http://www.clannada.org/highland.php">Clearances</a> and other reasons for immigration, a great number of Gaelic speaking Scots immigrated to what is now Nova Scotia. Thre they created new Gaelic speaking communities. Those communities still exist. One of the Universities in Nova Scotia, St. Xavier, is world reknown for its work at preserving and teaching language and all other aspects of Gaelic culture. The <a href"http://museum.gov.ns.ca/">Nova Scotia Museum</a> keeps track of the health of the Gaelic community of Nova Scotia. One of their publications mentions <a href="http://museum.gov.ns.ca/pubs/Gaelic-Report.pdf">tensions that exist between those Gaels in Ireland and Scotland, and the Gaelic traditionalists here in the New World</a>. "Gaelic traditionalists" are in fact mentioned by name, even if they are concerning the article with those Gaelic traditionalists in Nova Scotia. From Nova Scotia is is a jump across the border into the States where Irish and Scottish, Gaelic speaking peoples also came, and established communities.  These of course have diminished over the ensuing two and a half centuries. But there are still ethnically Gaelic people. We are not talking about Irish or Scottish in the sense of nationality, we are talking Gaelic in the sense of culture. This just the same as in Nova Scotia. We are part of that, even we who are polytheists who look to the lore and perform the customs. It seems to me that as a matter of pure fact it is impossible to deny us. We exist. We exist, in Nova Scotia and in other places whether or not anyone in Ireland or Scotland wants to believe it or not. Though, I can't understand why Irish and Scottish nationalists would want to deny us. It could be in their best interests to embrace us. By embracing us they not only make sure that we stay true to the culture. Furthermore, and to the benefit of the nationalists, by embracing us they could also nurture a source for all sorts of resources which we would willingly give to preserve our shared culture in the Motherlands. Now, I know that Gaels have always been a rather fractuous people. Our inability to see beyond personal disagreement has been the primary tool used by the English and others to wreck havoc and harm on our People. I think that nationalists have been seeing that in their own back yards, but they are still being divisive and fractuous when it comes to Gaels in other parts of the world. When Israel was being formed the Jews in Palestine knew there were cultural and religious Jews in other parts of the world. They recognized those other Jews, drew them close and drew upon the resources of those other Jews to gain what they needed to build Isreal. That is one example. The wheel has been created already, why does the wheel need to be created again just because of erroneous elitest ideals about Gaels in the Motherlands being the only real Gaels?  That we exist is a historic academic fact. By denying us and worse, you are only shooting yourselves in the foot. We do not exist as Irishmen (though there are some of us in Ireland; we do not exist as Scotsmen (though there are some of us in Scotland; we exist, we exist as cultural Gaels. Some of us were brought up in Gaelic culture, some of us were assimilated into Gaelic culture, but we exist.
70.153.139.109 22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Other Considerations For Inclusion]]