PDA

View Full Version : Celts and Celtophiles - An Essay by G. K. Chesterton



Murphy
07-05-2010, 02:11 PM
XIII. Celts and Celtophiles

Science in the modern world has many uses; its chief use, however, is to provide long words to cover the errors of the rich. The word "kleptomania" is a vulgar example of what I mean. It is on a par with that strange theory, always advanced when a wealthy or prominent person is in the dock, that exposure is more of a punishment for the rich than for the poor. Of course, the very reverse is the truth. Exposure is more of a punishment for the poor than for the rich. The richer a man is the easier it is for him to be a tramp. The richer a man is the easier it is for him to be popular and generally respected in the Cannibal Islands. But the poorer a man is the more likely it is that he will have to use his past life whenever he wants to get a bed for the night. Honour is a luxury for aristocrats, but it is a necessity for hall-porters. This is a secondary matter, but it is an example of the general proposition I offer—the proposition that an enormous amount of modern ingenuity is expended on finding defences for the indefensible conduct of the powerful. As I have said above, these defences generally exhibit themselves most emphatically in the form of appeals to physical science. And of all the forms in which science, or pseudo-science, has come to the rescue of the rich and stupid, there is none so singular as the singular invention of the theory of races.

When a wealthy nation like the English discovers the perfectly patent fact that it is making a ludicrous mess of the government of a poorer nation like the Irish, it pauses for a moment in consternation, and then begins to talk about Celts and Teutons. As far as I can understand the theory, the Irish are Celts and the English are Teutons. Of course, the Irish are not Celts any more than the English are Teutons. I have not followed the ethnological discussion with much energy, but the last scientific conclusion which I read inclined on the whole to the summary that the English were mainly Celtic and the Irish mainly Teutonic. But no man alive, with even the glimmering of a real scientific sense, would ever dream of applying the terms "Celtic" or "Teutonic" to either of them in any positive or useful sense.

That sort of thing must be left to people who talk about the Anglo-Saxon race, and extend the expression to America. How much of the blood of the Angles and Saxons (whoever they were) there remains in our mixed British, Roman, German, Dane, Norman, and Picard stock is a matter only interesting to wild antiquaries. And how much of that diluted blood can possibly remain in that roaring whirlpool of America into which a cataract of Swedes, Jews, Germans, Irishmen, and Italians is perpetually pouring, is a matter only interesting to lunatics. It would have been wiser for the English governing class to have called upon some other god. All other gods, however weak and warring, at least boast of being constant. But science boasts of being in a flux for ever; boasts of being unstable as water.

And England and the English governing class never did call on this absurd deity of race until it seemed, for an instant, that they had no other god to call on. All the most genuine Englishmen in history would have yawned or laughed in your face if you had begun to talk about Anglo-Saxons. If you had attempted to substitute the ideal of race for the ideal of nationality, I really do not like to think what they would have said. I certainly should not like to have been the officer of Nelson who suddenly discovered his French blood on the eve of Trafalgar. I should not like to have been the Norfolk or Suffolk gentleman who had to expound to Admiral Blake by what demonstrable ties of genealogy he was irrevocably bound to the Dutch. The truth of the whole matter is very simple. Nationality exists, and has nothing in the world to do with race. Nationality is a thing like a church or a secret society; it is a product of the human soul and will; it is a spiritual product. And there are men in the modern world who would think anything and do anything rather than admit that anything could be a spiritual product.

A nation, however, as it confronts the modern world, is a purely spiritual product. Sometimes it has been born in independence, like Scotland. Sometimes it has been born in dependence, in subjugation, like Ireland. Sometimes it is a large thing cohering out of many smaller things, like Italy. Sometimes it is a small thing breaking away from larger things, like Poland. But in each and every case its quality is purely spiritual, or, if you will, purely psychological. It is a moment when five men become a sixth man. Every one knows it who has ever founded a club. It is a moment when five places become one place. Every one must know it who has ever had to repel an invasion. Mr. Timothy Healy, the most serious intellect in the present House of Commons, summed up nationality to perfection when he simply called it something for which people will die, As he excellently said in reply to Lord Hugh Cecil, "No one, not even the noble lord, would die for the meridian of Greenwich." And that is the great tribute to its purely psychological character. It is idle to ask why Greenwich should not cohere in this spiritual manner while Athens or Sparta did. It is like asking why a man falls in love with one woman and not with another.

Now, of this great spiritual coherence, independent of external circumstances, or of race, or of any obvious physical thing, Ireland is the most remarkable example. Rome conquered nations, but Ireland has conquered races. The Norman has gone there and become Irish, the Scotchman has gone there and become Irish, the Spaniard has gone there and become Irish, even the bitter soldier of Cromwell has gone there and become Irish. Ireland, which did not exist even politically, has been stronger than all the races that existed scientifically. The purest Germanic blood, the purest Norman blood, the purest blood of the passionate Scotch patriot, has not been so attractive as a nation without a flag. Ireland, unrecognized and oppressed, has easily absorbed races, as such trifles are easily absorbed. She has easily disposed of physical science, as such superstitions are easily disposed of. Nationality in its weakness has been stronger than ethnology in its strength. Five triumphant races have been absorbed, have been defeated by a defeated nationality.

This being the true and strange glory of Ireland, it is impossible to hear without impatience of the attempt so constantly made among her modern sympathizers to talk about Celts and Celticism. Who were the Celts? I defy anybody to say. Who are the Irish? I defy any one to be indifferent, or to pretend not to know. Mr. W. B. Yeats, the great Irish genius who has appeared in our time, shows his own admirable penetration in discarding altogether the argument from a Celtic race. But he does not wholly escape, and his followers hardly ever escape, the general objection to the Celtic argument. The tendency of that argument is to represent the Irish or the Celts as a strange and separate race, as a tribe of eccentrics in the modern world immersed in dim legends and fruitless dreams. Its tendency is to exhibit the Irish as odd, because they see the fairies. Its trend is to make the Irish seem weird and wild because they sing old songs and join in strange dances. But this is quite an error; indeed, it is the opposite of the truth. It is the English who are odd because they do not see the fairies. It is the inhabitants of Kensington who are weird and wild because they do not sing old songs and join in strange dances. In all this the Irish are not in the least strange and separate, are not in the least Celtic, as the word is commonly and popularly used. In all this the Irish are simply an ordinary sensible nation, living the life of any other ordinary and sensible nation which has not been either sodden with smoke or oppressed by money-lenders, or otherwise corrupted with wealth and science. There is nothing Celtic about having legends. It is merely human. The Germans, who are (I suppose) Teutonic, have hundreds of legends, wherever it happens that the Germans are human. There is nothing Celtic about loving poetry; the English loved poetry more, perhaps, than any other people before they came under the shadow of the chimney-pot and the shadow of the chimney-pot hat. It is not Ireland which is mad and mystic; it is Manchester which is mad and mystic, which is incredible, which is a wild exception among human things. Ireland has no need to play the silly game of the science of races; Ireland has no need to pretend to be a tribe of visionaries apart. In the matter of visions, Ireland is more than a nation, it is a model nation.

Got to love that Chesterton :thumb001:!

Curtis24
07-09-2010, 04:17 AM
I agree that both Irish and Scottish poverty was the result of repression by the English, but still think the Celts are worth investigating as a people, just as all the ancient peoples are worth understanding, their racial makeup being part of their characteristics as a people.

Wulfhere
07-09-2010, 08:33 AM
I agree that both Irish and Scottish poverty was the result of repression by the English, but still think the Celts are worth investigating as a people, just as all the ancient peoples are worth understanding, their racial makeup being part of their characteristics as a people.

Yeah, blame the English for everything. We actually brought prosperity to the Irish and Scots. Look at their positions today - Ireland, independent and going the same way as Greece, and Scotland, being heavily subsidised by English taxpayers.

Murphy
07-09-2010, 12:07 PM
Yeah, blame the English for everything. We actually brought prosperity to the Irish and Scots. Look at their positions today - Ireland, independent and going the same way as Greece, and Scotland, being heavily subsidised by English taxpayers.

I'll only take you up on Ireland..

You have some cheek to say England brought prosperity to Ireland when England's relationship with Ireland has been hallmarked by economic sanctions against the Irish nation because England would not risk an economic and military power so close to home.

England, in reference to the English government and not the wee farmers on the hillsides, has always tried to keep the Irish nation down, never dead though as the manpower provided by Ireland was always valuable.

You will argue for Dublin and Belfast as being an example of England bringing prosperity.. I will counter that with the basic fact than the vast majority of the Irish population lived outside of Dublin and Belfast - in every sense of the word.

The English parliament was never a friend to Ireland and never will be a friend to Ireland.

Deal with it.

Wyn
07-09-2010, 12:23 PM
- Ireland, independent

Partially.

Murphy
07-09-2010, 12:28 PM
Partially.

Not even that. Six counties are under British dominion and the other are under Franco-German dominion (EU).

Bridie
07-09-2010, 12:58 PM
I don't think there's much to be said for civic nationalism on it's own, so I'm not too impressed with Chesterton's essay. However, he was very correct, in my opinion, to dismiss modern notions of race being directly related to broadly incorporative and quite diverse ancient tribal groups, such as the Celts, Germanics etc, since they have always been cultural/linguistic and not racial. Regarding race as redundant though, simply because of the practical irrelevance of cultural/linguistic umbrella categorisations in modern times is deceptive. He attempts to manipulate his reader into accepting the alleged superiority of assimilating foreigners into relatively homogeneous and distinct populations - bound together through sharing common histories and blood over the ages - (as opposed to multiculturalism, but still with the same outcome...), implying that assimilation of foreign elements adds to national cohesion and identity... when in reality, as we see today in most of the world, it leads to social breakdown and friction and loss of identity.


As it follows, this is very well said :

That sort of thing must be left to people who talk about the Anglo-Saxon race, and extend the expression to America. How much of the blood of the Angles and Saxons (whoever they were) there remains in our mixed British, Roman, German, Dane, Norman, and Picard stock is a matter only interesting to wild antiquaries. And how much of that diluted blood can possibly remain in that roaring whirlpool of America into which a cataract of Swedes, Jews, Germans, Irishmen, and Italians is perpetually pouring, is a matter only interesting to lunatics.

Murphy
07-09-2010, 01:20 PM
Oh Mary, picking a fight with Mr Chesterton :P? You have balls of steel my darling!

I don't believe Mr Chesterton is expounding a civic nationalist position, I do not read it so at least. And I do not think you can compare the age Mr Chesrton is discussing in regards to assimilation of foreigners &c., to this age. The process Mr Chesterton discusses is a very slow-going affair. It doesn't happen over night as it is happening today.

Bridie
07-09-2010, 03:06 PM
I do not think you can compare the age Mr Chesrton is discussing in regards to assimilation of foreigners &c., to this age. The process Mr Chesterton discusses is a very slow-going affair. It doesn't happen over night as it is happening today.Men like Chesterton set the foundations for what we are experiencing today.

Wyn
07-09-2010, 03:10 PM
Men like Chesterton set the foundations for what we are experiencing today.

Justify this statement, please (I don't really agree with post #7, if that's the point your making?).

Murphy
07-09-2010, 03:16 PM
Men like Chesterton set the foundations for what we are experiencing today.

:icon_neutral:.. I think that may be one of the most insulting things I have ever had the misfortune of reading on the internet in my life. Have you even read the works of Mr Chesterton, discounting this one article?

Heretics, Orthodoxy, The Everlasting Man, The Man Who Was Thursday?

The man along with men like Belloc were are the forefront of warning what would happen to our society if it kept going the way it was. And you are foolish enough to blame it on Chesterton and others like him?

One of the finest Catholic mind of the 20th century..

Bridie
07-09-2010, 03:17 PM
Justify this statement, please.LOL!

Yes Sir!! :p But it will have to be tommorrow, I'm off to bed now. Honestly, I think I explained my position pretty well in my critique above. Maybe you should read it again and then tell me if you still feel the need to hear further explanations.



EDIT - you edited your post. Well, I think both you and Jon Paul are being blinded by your faith. A common enough mistake. People often only see what they want to see....

I remain critical of everything and everyone. I like to live life with my eyes open.

Murphy
07-09-2010, 03:22 PM
Mr Chesterton firmly opposed industrialisation, materialism, collectivism, usury.. gah, name it! The current state of our society is the product of unchecked capitalist competition. Big businesses importing mass amounts of slave labour from around the world. Mr Chesterton would have been opposed to this down to his very soul.

How can you critique Chesterton for his positions when you obviously know very little about them? If you are stupid enough to believe that ethnic-exchange and assimilation never happened as a natural process, you are a fool. Chesterton speaks well of the natural occurance but would have been outraged beyond words, tell a lie the man had words for everything, at the false and artificial human movement we are facing today.

Bridie
07-09-2010, 03:32 PM
Mr Chesterton firmly opposed industrialisation, materialism, collectivism, usury.. gah, name it! The current state of our society is the product of unchecked capitalist competition. Big businesses importing mass amounts of slave labour from around the world. Mr Chesterton would have been opposed to this down to his very soul.I was critiquing the essay, Jon. No one is above criticism.



How can you critique Chesterton for his positions when you obviously know very little about him?Again, you think some people's positions or words are above critique due to other convictions they may advocate.




If you are stupid enough to believe that ethnic-exchange and assimilation never happened as a natural process, you are a fool. Put a cork in it Jon. Ratzinger wouldn't approve of your spite. ;)



Chesterton speaks well of the natural occurance but would have been be outraged beyond words, tell a lie the man had words for everything, at the false and artificial human movement we are facing today.I'll deal with you tomorrow.

Murphy
07-09-2010, 03:42 PM
Ratzinger wouldn't approve of your spite. ;)
[. . .]
I'll deal with you tomorrow.

Don't bother, I don't have time for pseudo-Catholics :coffee:..

Curtis24
07-12-2010, 05:14 PM
I wouldn't go so far as to say race is a non-factor but its not the only factor and in most cases not the most important one. The Celts were basically the same race as the Anglo-Saxons, so that eliminates race as an inssue in Ireland's poverty.

. Historically, the English did systematically and intensively try to prevent the Irish from acquiring wealth. Most likely and ironically because Ireland's geography was so similar to Britain's; the English feared Ireland becoming a naval power like themselves.

Osweo
07-13-2010, 02:06 AM
Historically, the English did systematically and intensively try to prevent the Irish from acquiring wealth. Most likely and ironically because Ireland's geography was so similar to Britain's; the English feared Ireland becoming a naval power like themselves.
That was quite impossible in most of the period in question. Gaelic society had a chronic decentralisation problem. This could not be solved except by the total dismantling of the old devolved sub-kingship idea. And it took foreign rule to achieve that. Irish High Kings who came close to forging a centralised European kingdom were always foiled by a resurgence of the splintering tendency. Sadly too, the Church foiled a few attempts in this direction, notably in the opposition met by Diarmait mac Cherbaill from St Rhodanus et al...

The potential danger from Ireland, was that if England didn't fill the power vacuum, a Continental Power would. Unfortunate for the Irish, but inevitable. :(

Perhaps had the Romans invaded, there would have been less relic ideas from the Iron Age, and more of an example of national unity. But this is all academic...

Curtis24
07-13-2010, 03:32 PM
I guess I stand corrected. However, the basic point - that Ireland's geopolitical potential is the cause of their poverty - is still correct...

Albion
04-05-2012, 12:14 AM
Celts:

:zzz

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/5731/germanicsceltsandslavs.jpg
:coffee::whistle::icon_ask:

Caismeachd
04-05-2012, 01:55 AM
Yeah, blame the English for everything. We actually brought prosperity to the Irish and Scots. Look at their positions today - Ireland, independent and going the same way as Greece, and Scotland, being heavily subsidised by English taxpayers.

Ireland still enjoyed a higher quality of life and has much more efficient infrastructure than UK. They'll rebound without any help from England.

Scotland would be better off without England.

Albion
04-05-2012, 09:51 AM
Ireland still enjoyed a higher quality of life and has much more efficient infrastructure than UK.

Yeah, I suppose when you've pretty much started from scratch you can plan things out better.
Ireland is a small country, it doesn't need massive amounts of infrastructure like England does. Scotland and Wales are basically the same, high speed rail isn't extending to Scotland yet for good reason. Once it left Manchester there's basically nothing from there to Glasgow.


They'll rebound without any help from England.

American investment will help them but there's not a lot of that around at the moment.
As for help from England, well think again. Loans to the republic have already been made and up until a few decades ago the republic was an agricultural backwater reliant on exporting to England.

England is 83% of the UK population and not much less for the total British Isles.
The English economy also accounts for ~85% of the UK economy so it is obvious that the rest of the British Isles need us more than we need you.

Here's an interesting table, a few years old but it shouldn't have changed too much. Look for England at number 1 and then scroll down for Scotland at 44.

List of country subdivisions by GDP over 100 billion US dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_subdivisions_by_GDP_over_USD_100_b illions)

Scotland would very likely have a higher GDP per capita than England though, but small, rich countries tend to be volatile (look at Iceland, Ireland or UAE).
GDP per capita is the wealth of individuals, however with higher GDP per capita comes a higher cost of living, so don't count on feeling like a millionaire any time soon.

Ireland will rebound eventually, but the misery will last for years as it will across much of Europe.


Scotland would be better off without England.

I can assure you that the English feel the same way about Scotland. Please vote for independence. I would if I could, but the English don't get a say.