This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Manopingo (talk | contribs) at 20:11, 4 March 2007 (→western Scotland). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:11, 4 March 2007 by Manopingo (talk | contribs) (→western Scotland)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Ethnic groups Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Definition of a Gael?
Can anybody come up with one? I would say it is membership of a cultural world and, formerly, of a political world as well. But that is off the top of my head. That way the Muintir Mhic Gearailt in the Fíor-Ghaeltachta in Corca Dhuibhne and the de Búrca of Conamara are included, an important fact considering those of patrilineal Norman stock make up a substantial part of the modern Gaeltachtaí. I was reading a book a while ago and it was dedicated by Gearóid Ó Tuathaigh to the late Liam de Paor praising the latter as a 'Fíor-Ghael'(true Gael). This would indicate he shared the same definition. However at a certain point in our history- Dónall Ó Néill's Remonstrance in 1317 springs to mind- a Gael was one who claimed descent along the patrilineal line to the Milesian invasion of Ireland. So, if your sister married a Mac Gearailt, her children they were no longer Gaeil under Ó Néill's interpretation. In other words, a Gael was defined by blood on the male line by that particular source (and others), although even then this view was nowhere near universal. At any rate, I invariably use the word 'Irish' as it, unfairly or not, still sounds more inclusive and progressive. But I'd still like to know how the rest of you define a Gael, both modern and historical types. El Gringo 02:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- A Gael is a Gaelic speaker. The dichotomy within Gaelic society is quite simple ; Gael = Gaelic speaker, Gall = Non-Gaelic speaker. There are some other aspects which might be taken into account but this is the basis of it. siarach 12:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- If a person learns to speak Gaelic do they become a Gael?
- 84.135.197.243 19:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I will shortly be visiting the United States. I am interested in experiencing the significant population (0.00879%) of this ethno-linguistic group. How do they differ from the rest of the population ethnically and culturally? Where can I find them and how will I recognise them? 84.135.253.189 10:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- According to Misplaced Pages The Scottish people are a nation and an ethnic group indigenous to Scotland. As an ethnic group, Scots are a composition of several groups such as Picts, Gaels, Brythons and others. Are the British also an ethnic group? What about Europeans or Humans?
- Are the Gaels an ethnic group within an ethnic group within an ethnic group ... or is Misplaced Pages just very silly?
- 84.135.254.205 16:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Etymology and first record of the Gaeil
I just noticed this, 'The Gaels, during the beginning of the Christian era (at which time Gaelic people were mostly restricted to Ireland)'. I'm open to correction here but wasn't the very identity, Gaeil, a product of incursions into modern day Wales where the the local inhabitants called the arriving Irish 'Gwyddel', or savages, out of which came geídil and goidel and thus the Goidelic tongues? If it is true that the Gaeil were so called due to their very lack of restriction to Ireland, my second question is: what is the earliest known record of an Irish community being referred to as 'Gaeil'? El Gringo 03:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- The etymology of the name seems to have a Welsh origin but 'identity' is an entirely different matter. siarach 12:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- : I disagree that the origin is Welsh, I think it's an example of a false cognate - 'G-A-L' roots for certain tribes go back to Proto-Celtic. The regions of Galatia and Galicia have been called a testament to that, although I suppose no one has made the argument that "Galilee" was once Celtic. In any event, one would expect the modern word to be something like Gethil if 'Gwyddel' was the origin of the term. But regardless of all this - this is the English language Misplaced Pages, and "Gael" properly means a native{"Celtic"} inhabitant of Ireland, Scotland, or the Isle of Man quite irrespective of the language spoken. Gael is not the equivalent of Gaeilgeoir. - Caoimhin Roibeard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.154.214.131 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
- The "Stair na Gaeilge" (History of Irish) section in my Leaving Cert Irish book gives the 'Gwyddel' explanation, so I'd go so far as to call it the official one, given that it's what's taught to Honours Irish students. Whether or not "Gael" now means the same thing as "Gwyddel" originally did is a different thing. Karlusss 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Iberian origins
The possible Iberian origins of the goidelic Celts in Britain, while an interesting hypothesis, is more based in myth than fact and until conclusive evidence is produced that this is historically accurate should not be stated as anything but myth with possible root in actual events.
I disagree. Evidence here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1256894.stm "The Welsh and Irish Celts have been found to be the genetic blood-brothers of Basques, scientists have revealed. The gene patterns of the three races passed down through the male line are all "strikingly similar", researchers concluded.
Ethnic links: Many races share common bonds
Basques can trace their roots back to the Stone Age and are one of Europe's most distinct people, fiercely proud of their ancestry and traditions.
The research adds to previous studies which have suggested a possible link between the Celts and Basques, dating back tens of thousands of years.
"The project started with our trying to assess whether the Vikings made an important genetic contribution to the population of Orkney," Professor David Goldstein of University College London (UCL) told BBC News.
'Statistically indistinguishable'
He and his colleagues looked at Y-chromosomes, passed from father to son, of Celtic and Norwegian populations. They found them to be quite different.
"But we also noticed that there's something quite striking about the Celtic populations, and that is that there's not a lot of genetic variation on the Y-chromosome," he said. "
The study can't be considered conclusive as is noted by the researchers performing the study. Studies on MtDNA and X-chromosomes have yet to be carried out. Epf 04:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You are all forgetting the fact that the inhabitants of Britain and Ireland were never Celts; they had a culture that was generally Celtic. But it was not a word they ever used for themselves. Fergananim 11:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- They were Celts and this ridiculous point - that they never called themselve Celts - is irrelevant and simply ignorant of the nuances of language. The Persians never called themselves Persians - this word is a Western creation of Greek origin derived from the name of a region within Iran but that doesnt for a second change the fact that the Persians are Persians regardless of the fact they did not historically refer to themselves as such in their own language. You think the Indo-European peoples referred to themselves as 'Indo-Europeans'? Do you think the Neandarthals referred to themselves as Neandarthals? Of course not but this doesnt change the fact that both the Indo-European people and the Neandarthals are referred to by those terms in the English language.
- As for the DNA evidence Epf i read about it at the time but completely forgot about it. Very interesting and very pertinent.An Siarach
- No Celts ever called themselves by that name. Instead, we generally referred to ourselves in reference to our tribes, or families. Hell, "Gael," or whatever the root of that word is, originally meant "outsider," or "foreigner," yet today I'm damned proud to call myself a Gael. Canaen 06:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality of article
This article involves more the lingusitic group of Gaelic speakers and these people are not officially unified in any sense other than language. The article is also largely original research and mostly POV without any valid sources or citations stating the existence of a "Gaelic ethnic group" or people. If it deals with the ancient Gaels, then there is no issue but the current article does not represent that and is referring to groups of people who can currently speak the Gaelic languages. There is already an article on the Gaelic language elsewhere and this article may soon be nominated for deletion if not cleaned up. Epf 04:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is quite untrue im afraid Epf. Your suggestion that there is no gaelic 'unity' (offical or not, whatever you mean by this is unclear ) beyond language or any links between gaels is quite simply ignorant of the reality. As for accusations of POV and 'original research' i notice little in this article which is not historical fact,widely accepted theory or clearly qualified ( as mythological or whatever). An Siarach 09:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Erm ... the article is in an early form, and hasn't had much attention; so people have written about the ancient Gaels, but the modern Gaels are spoken about; if not enough, then the correct status for the article is stub. But the Gaels are an ethnic group, and that is orthodoxy. The article is in no way POV, so I'm removing the tag. - Calgacus 16:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Unverified statement: "large proportions of Gaelic speakers live in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh in Scotland". If we take the Census 2001 as a good indicator, I don't think most people would regard 1.2% and 0.9% respectively as "large" proportions of these cities. Alternatively, this statement might mean that large proportions of Scotland's Gaelic speakers live in Edinburgh and Glasgow. This is much more plausible, with respective proportions of c. 10% and 5%.--Nmcmurdo 19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- It clearly means proportion of Gaelic speakers rather than proportion of city-dwellers in Glasgow and Edinburgh, hence "large proportions of Gaelic speakers live in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh in Scotland". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hehe. It's about as clear as Mel Gibson's driving licence! Can I suggest "although large proportions of Scotland's Gaelic speakers live in the cities of Glasgow (c. 10%) and Edinburgh (c. 5%), as is the case in Galway and Dublin in Ireland." ?
Anglo-Scots/Irish
An alternative, if strictly speaking more ambiguous and less accurate, term is available for tha Anglo-Scottish population - that of 'Lowland Scots' but what possible alternative is there for the Irish? The Anglo-Irish speaking population may well find it offensive to be class as such (though that is what they are ) but how else would one refer to them to distinguish them from the Irish Gaels? I need an answer because having 'Scots' and 'Irish' as related ethnic groups to the Gaels is simply ridiculous and needs to be altered.An Siarach
- It is. Lowland Scot is silly though, since it implies that such a group of people actually exist (which they don't), and moreover, implies that all "Highland Scots" (and Galwegian Scots if these aren't lowland Scots) are Gaels, which they aren't. It'd be fine if we lived in the 18th century, but of course we do not. The only choice is to remove them from the list (as it is at least), or just say Anglo-Scots/Irish; but again, since the links are to "Scottish people" and "Irish people", this has the disadvantage that ethnic-Scots and ethnic-Irish are actually Scottish people and Irish people too. - Calgacus 19:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think the easiest thing to do would simply be to revert the 'related ethnic groups' section simply to those directly related to the Gaels as other sub-groups of the Celtic language family/Celtic civilization ; the Breton French, Cornish English and Welsh. If we take the Anglo Scots and Irish into account because of the Gaelic influences then using the same rationale we should place the Australians, Canadians, Americans,Native Americans (especially in Canada : Bungee Language) New Zealanders, Norwegians, Icelanders etc etc as 'related' ethnic groups as well as they all have varying levels of Gaelic/Celtic influence as well? Where does it end? The simplest thing is simply to stick to those who have a direct relationship as part of the same grouping or family imo. An Siarach
- Oldest sons always prefer primogeniture, don't they?! ;) Or perhaps I'm being cynical. You are correct though, to some extent at least. But there remains the problem that, no matter how ever much language use ought to be prescribed, you yourself once argued on the Scottish Gaelic language talk page that on wiki one has to slavishly reflect popular usage. Moreove, culture is not the same as language, and in both Ireland and Scotland, the principle, and in Scotland (outside Lothian) virtually the only means of language transition was through native Gaelic-speakers simply changing language (rather than immigration) through a process of which you yourself have experience, which I'm sure you'd admit allows their descendents to get classified as slightly closer to current speakers of the language than native American "Indians". - Calgacus 20:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think the easiest thing to do would simply be to revert the 'related ethnic groups' section simply to those directly related to the Gaels as other sub-groups of the Celtic language family/Celtic civilization ; the Breton French, Cornish English and Welsh. If we take the Anglo Scots and Irish into account because of the Gaelic influences then using the same rationale we should place the Australians, Canadians, Americans,Native Americans (especially in Canada : Bungee Language) New Zealanders, Norwegians, Icelanders etc etc as 'related' ethnic groups as well as they all have varying levels of Gaelic/Celtic influence as well? Where does it end? The simplest thing is simply to stick to those who have a direct relationship as part of the same grouping or family imo. An Siarach
You make a totally valid point ( though i most point out that the American "Indians" referred to were as close, if not closer, to being 'Scottish' than many anglicized Scots given that their language was/is a Scottish Gaelic creole, that they were/are directly descended from Scots and that their culture was/is also, consequently, notably Scottish ) but the reason i propose a language qualifier is quite simply that its easier. As i said if we take 'influence' etc into account then where does it end? Its not really the most tangible of criteria/qualifiers while language is fairly easy. Perhaps we could have sub-categories within the 'related ethnicity' section such as Celtic: Breton, Welsh,Cornish and also 'Germanic' or 'Other' and then any people who also have close links or have been notably influenced by the Gaels? An Siarach
- If you put the ethnicity model used for most of the rest of the world on Scotland, then all of this makes sense. But most books on the topic avoid the awkward points that you make, for the obvious reason that this would eliminate most of the authors from Scottishness, of which they are generally immensely proud (as their society, whose structures and identity are of Gaelic origin, has made them out to be). Hence most users, who fall much lower down the intellectual food chain that these authors, will give you grief for your views. But anyways, I don't know how alterable the template is. It's probably best for the minute to delete Scots and Irish from the group, as most Gaels are either Scottish or Irish, and, as you say, keep it linguistic, permitting only the inclusion of the Welsh and Bretons (the modern Cornish are totally English, and have no place there according to the arguments you have outlined). - Calgacus 21:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Tell that to a Roman in Caledonia and hed treat you with the derision you deserve, say it to a twentieth century nazi and he/she would probably agree that the "pure race" theory you propose makes Nazi sense (unless he was aware of the truth about the origines of Scotland's population being Britons and not Gaels, as the Roman would have told you between laughing and having you check out a map of where the Gaels come from in his era, and who lived in Scotland before it came under Irish influence and gained the name and confusion you seem to play on to condemn those you see as beneath you (going by what you have written here)80.192.59.202 04:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Yes i agree with regard to the Cornish and normally wouldnt have placed them there but seeing as Manx was also involved i thought it would be consistent. An Siarach
The Scottish and Irish have been significantly influenced by Gaelic culture and language but you can not compare this influence with that on Canadians, Australians, Americans, etc as they are not ethnic groups in any shape or form and are merely citizens of those countries. I really do debate the Gaels as an existing modern ethnic group and the Gaels of Scotland are different than the Gaels of Ireland in both language and cultural terms. The Gaels of Ireland are very much Irish just as the Gaels of Scotland are Scottish. The Gaelic-speakers do have a linguistic connection with each other but can not be considered a single ethnic entity. I my opinion, as well as many others, they can't even be considered a modern "ethnic group" in its current accepted definition. I mean under the idea of this article, if someone just deicdes to learn a Gaelic language, whether it be Scots Gaelic or Irish, that deems a person a member of some non-existent "Gaelic ethnic group". Both non-Gaelic speaking Irish and Scottish people have a large degree of Gaelic influence in all aspects of their language, culture and origins, especially with the Irish who for example in Ireland have to learn Gaelic in school till a certain grade level. Epf 05:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all the Gaels are an ethnic group. Ties between them are strong with official organizations existing to further and maintain links and there are significant levels of co-operation between them. I recommend you read up on the situation before making these arbitrary, incorrect, changes and statements. Secondly your attitude towards the Gaels as an ethnic group is entirely inconsistent with the attitudes expressed to me regarding ethnicity previously. Thirdly you cannot list "Irish" and "Scottish" peoples here as both terms includes the Gaels. If you wish to signify the influence on Anglo-Irish or Anglo-Scottish culture and peoples you have to qualify the peoples as such although their inclusion, as previously pointed out, means there are numerous others we should include. Are you seriously going to argue that Canada, with its historical population of hundreds of thousands of Gaels and existing population of Gaels, does not merit inclusion ? Similarly parts of the USA, notably the Carolinas, had huge populations of Gaels - are you going to argue that it has not been influenced to any significant degree by them? By restricting the 'related ethnic groups' to those directly related to the Gaels as part of the same greater language family or celtic civilization we avoid these pitfalls. An Siarach
I don't see how my views regarding Gaels disagrees with my previous arguments with you on ethnic groups. I don't see them as a unified ethnic group though and although there are Gaelic speakers in both Scotland and Ireland, the people speak different Gaelic languages and are just as much part of indigenous Scottish and Irish peoples as to their own group of people. Canada and the USA can be said to be countries where Gaelic culture and language may had influence but there is no Canadian or American, etc. ethnic groups and they are not distinct peoples. Pretty muc hevery known ethnic group in the places like Canada and the US has had an impact on the identity there and on all of the citizens. Since the page shows them as a current lingusitic group anyway, I understand that their only "related groups" would be other Celtic speakers, regardless of origins or ethnicity. Epf 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- As An Siarach says, they are an ethnic group. Moreover, even if you could succesfully argue they are not, you could not argue they never were. - Calgacus 16:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I do not believe Epf is arguing that they never existed, but that their existence now is merely of some similar linguistic ties and a few similar cultural traits. If the modern "Gaels" are an existing unified ethnic group then you could say the same for the Frisians, Dutch/Flemish and the English as some "West Germanics" ethnic group, and this is obviously not the case. 69.157.121.76 20:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- The analogy doesn't work at all, saying modern Gaels constitute an existing ethnic group is less of a stretch than saying Norwegians Danes and Swedes constitute an ethnic group. The split between the different Gaelic communities has only really developed since outside domination, prior to that there was a common literary dialect and culture.. and today Gaels still haven't abandoned the idea of a common identity (also, there's nothing too different about their cultures, and the languages form a dialect continuum more than anything, much differant than the "West Germanic" situation).--4.247.140.98 06:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The existence of things such as IonadColmCille, the Sruth na Maoile radio program etc also demonstrate the existing unity between the groups. Worth considering as an example of the perception of 'brotherhood' or the Gaels as a single race is a line from the Runrig song "Fuaim a' Bhlair" :
- Saidhdear mi sa' Fhraing 's sa Ghearmailt
- Saidhdear mi air raointean Chanada
- Saidhdear mi san Spàinn san Eadailt
- Saidhdear mi 'nam aghaidh fhein an Eirinn
Ambiguous phrase
The last sentence in the section "Current Distribution" is extremely vague, it states: "There are between 500-2,000 Canadian Gaels although they are generally of a very advanced age...". What does the author mean here? That the mean age of this population is old? That they have been settled there for a long time now? If so, it should be stated in unambiguous terms.
- I dont see whats ambiguous about it tbh. "they are generally of a very advanced age" seems to refer quite clearly to the fact that the age of the population is old. An Siarach
Qualifications for Famous Gaels
Hi everyone, I though it might be a nice supplement to the article if we were to add a list of famous Gaels. I drafted a preliminary list of about 30 Gaels when, struck down by the weight of the disproportionate number of Irish Gaels I had included, I began frantically supplementing the list with as many famous Scottish Gaels as I could think of off the top of my head(The current list has a head count of around 45 or there abouts). It was only when An Siarach pointed out that including a member of Oi Polloi on the list was a bit silly that I was awakened from this frenzied trance.(: However, this does raise an interesting question regarding the qualifications for the list of Famous Gaels. i.e. what exactly are they? Example A: Seamus Heaney learned Irish during his school years and is a fluent speaker of Gaeilge. Seamus Heaney writes in English. Seamus Heaney has often translated works of Irish literature such as the Buile Shuibhne into English. Does He count as a 'famous gael?' Example B: Liam O'Flaherty was raised in the Aran Islands and spoke Irish as a first language. Like Heaney, Liam O'Flaherty also wrote almost exclusively in English. Does he not count as a 'Famous Gael?' Any opinions on what should be the qualification for inclusion? A generally accepted consensus would be handy before we go on to develop the list. Cheers. Fergus mac Róich 16:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Im not too big a fan of these "Famous X" type lists anyway and i think its especially gonna be troublesome creating/maintaining one for an ethnic group which is so clearly defined on the basis of language. King James IV spoke Gaelic fluently, yet few if any would class him or any of his immediately preceeding monarchs as Gaels. Perhaps the solution would simply to be to keep the list short and very elite - say 5-10 Gaels from the "Middle Gaelic" period when there was a single language from each of Scotland and Ireland and then a further 5-10 speakers of Irish/Scottish Gaelic respectively from more modern times ( this would of course take in a great many possible candidates from the colonial expansion - bear in mind the huge presence of Gaels in Northern America ). Perhaps it might be best to move the section from the article proper to a development user page until a proper criteria for inclusion is decided upon? siarach 17:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Misc Stuff that shouldn't be at the top of the page
What happened here?
Lapsed Pacifist 01:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here's a question for our more learned types. Is there a connection between the English word Gale and Gael? It's not as silly as it sounds, at least not to me at this particular moment! Gael is apparently etymologically rooted in the Old irish, Goidel which itself comes from the Welsh word for the Irish, Gwyddel. Gwyddel in turn derives from the Welsh name for wild, which apparently the Irish raiders were in the 6th century. Any link?
Gee, first I've heard of it! You have the orign of the term right, so, who knows?Fergananim 11:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The List of Gaels
By what justification is Enda Kenny a Gael moreso than anyone else born in Ireland from the beginning of Gaelic culture to now? Karlusss 00:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Ethnic groups|class is Start|importance is High
Hi, I rated this article Start class. The sections it has have been expanded, but it is missing many sections such as language, culture, etc. --Ling.Nut 02:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
western Scotland
I put western Scotland, instead of Scotland in the opening sentence. The Picts inhabited the eastern parts. Manopingo 03:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense ... Gaelic spread to eastern Scotland too. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- What happened to the Picts? Or was it just language shift? Manopingo 20:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)