Celts and Hamitic Origin

[CodeAires]

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but it's something I want to educate people on.

A recent as 2001, a DNA study was conducted in both California and the UK to determine if the vikings had left any imprint on the British population. When they tested the Celts, the results came back virtually negative. Also, when the Celts were compared to the English and other European groups, there wasn't much of a connection. Scientists became confused, and they decided to pursue the Celtic heritage line.

After many tedious hours, they found a connection to the Basques (naitive people of Spain). For years, no one thought that the Basques had any living relatives, but the Celtic populations, especially in Ireland and Wales, were nearly identical to the Basque population. Also, Berber groups from northern Africa (Morrocco and Algeria) were tested, and they matched as well.

It was like tic-tac-toe - three X's make a line. Everything matched up. I find it so strange that all of these years my people were lumped into the "Indo-European" ethnic group. While the Celtic languages are Indo-European (because they were Romanized), the people descended from the Berber tribes of north Africa (Present-Day Morocco and Algeria). It should be divided like this:

HAMITES:

I. Egyptian (mizram): Fellah (North), Coptic (South Egypt, Northern Sudan)
II. Libyan (phut): Berbers (Libya, Morocco and Algeria), Tuaregs (Niger, Mali), Moors (Mauritania, Western Sahara), Kabyles (Algeria, Mali, as far south as Togo and Benin)
A. Euskaric: Basque (Pyranees), Gauchoes (Canary Islands?)
B. Celtiberian: Galician (NW Spain and Portugal)
C. Celtic
1. Goidelic: Irish (Ireland), Scottish (Scotland), Manx (Isle of Man)
2. Brythonnic: Cymric (Wales), Kernow (Cornwall), Breton (NW France)
III. Eastern: Afars (Djibouti), Issas (Eritrea), Gallas (Ethiopia), Somalis (Somalia and Northern Kenya)

It's amazing that it took people so many years to figure out where the Celts really originated. Rome didn't know what to do with them. The early Celts had no writing system and only oral tradition. They had a paganistic religion that was foreign to them, lived in straw huts, impaled heads on sticks, wore little clothing, painted their faces in animal designs, and had barely made it to the Bronze age. As a result, the Romans and later the English saw them as "barbaric" and "backwards", so they were easy to conquer/kill. The Gaulic and Galatian stocks of continental Europe will be forever lost because of this killing. The Hittites and Caananites were also cousin races to the Celts who "dissappeared" sometime during the Classical period and the Middle Ages. They're all descendants of Noah's youngest and "cursed" son, Ham.

Sound familiar? Naitive Americans, numerous African Tribes, polynesians, and Aborigines lived much like the primitive Celtic peoples. The Germanic peoples inherited the killing erge from the Romans, and you can still see it even today. Ever heard of Scottish east Africa? Irish Equitorial Guinea? Breton Guiana? Welsh East Indies? Didn't think so. It was a game by English, French, German, Dutch, Belgian (ALL German), Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian (ALL Roman-descended) to see who could get the most land. Well, fuck that. People deserve to be free, and one day Scotland, ALL of Ireland, Cymru, Kernow, Isle of Man, and Brittany will have the same fate. The UK will break apart the way Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia broke apart, because people need to be independant and free, not puppets to a larger government.

[/history lesson][/rant]

Anyway, check out these links and tell me what you think:

By Language (http://www.britam.org/language.html)

Negro Ancestry? (http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/1372)

Hamitic Stock in the Celtic Nations (http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/britons.html)

If these things are true, Celts are NOT white at all, they're just pale!

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:06 pm
I don't know if this is the right place for this, but it's something I want to educate people on.
Why? Assuming it's true, which I doubt, why does it matter what somebody's genetic descent is?

I doubt you got all this from any scientific source - no modern scientist uses "Hamitic" anymore. That's an obsolete term reflecting the racist concept that Africans are supposedly descendants of the Biblical character Ham, and therefore cursed.

The language group formerly called "Hamitic-Semitic" is now called "Afro-Asiatic".

The Celtic languages are not part of that, but rather the Indo-European language family.

Anyway, my point is you probably got this off some crank website.

As for genes, there are a lot of studies coming out lately about the ancestry of different groups - often with conflicting results.

Here's one recent article on the subject - originally from the New York Times, which usually better science reporting than most. (http://newszine.jou.ufl.edu/index.php?id=1073)

It says:

English, Irish, Scots: they’re all one, genes suggest
....
But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people that have remained in the majority, with only minor additions from later invaders like Celts, Romans, Angles , Saxons, Vikings and Normans.

The implication that the Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh have a great deal in common with each other, at least from the geneticist’s point of view, seems likely to please no one.
....
Oppenheimer said genes “have no bearing on cultural history.” There is no significant genetic difference between the people of Northern Ireland, yet they have been fighting with each other for 400 years, he said.

As for his thesis that the British and Irish are genetically much alike, “It would be wonderful if it improved relations, but I somehow think it won’t.”

Which brings me back to my original point:

Why does it matter?

Moved to Science and Environment, since this has nothing to do with history.

[CodeAires]

I've done enough research on this to know that there are a lot of common threads between Hamitic (or whatever you call it) races like Berbers and Somalis to Basques and Celts in Europe. I'm not going to argue, but I'd at least like for someone to look at what I've found and see that it makes perfect sense.

[Luís Henrique]

If Celts were "Hamitic", why would the word for Ireland (Eire) be the same as Iran, and why would both be the indo-European for "noble", ie, Arian?

Celts are white, which has not prevented them from being severely oppressed in Europe (and that is instructive). And substituting fantasies for facts is not revolutionary or progressive.

Luís Henrique

[RedAnarchist]

Seeing as she used the word Hamitic in her intro, I'm not surprised she's made this thread.

Besides, even if they did find some DNA evidence (although her argument sounds like utter crap) genetics is a very young science and we aren't anywhere near perfecting it yet. Look at last year for example - one month they were saying that the English commited a genocide and wiped out all of the Celts in modern-day England. Another month another study says we are all pretty much the same when it comes to the British Isles populations and that our forebears once lived in Northern Spain.

Personally, I believe that we are all cousins genetically - that is, all of the world's population - and that noone is purebred (and if they were, I would feel very sorry for them - think of all the genetic disadvantages of inbreeding). Splitting us up into Hamites, Semites, Romantics, Slavs etc helps noone but the race supremacists. Yes, there is genetic differences, but they are far more likely to be found within so-called "racial" groups than in between them. So, even though an individual from Spain lives miles away from an individual in Norway, they could be closer to each other genetically than they would be to a Portuguese or Swedish person.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 12:57 am
Personally, I believe that we are all cousins genetically - that is, all of the world's population - and that noone is purebred (and if they were, I would feel very sorry for them - think of all the genetic disadvantages of inbreeding).
Exactly. If there were not extensive interbreeding between the "races", you would not be able to interbreed with Australian Aborigines and Native Americans with the same ease that you interbreed with someone of your own ethnicity. Populations of organisms that don't regularly interbreed with each other lose their ability to do that. Genes have been flowing back and forth between Africa, Eurasia, Australia and the Americas, ensuring our continued unity as a single human race. Everybody has been fucking everybody for the entire history of our species. Isn't it great?

[Idola Mentis]

Uh-huh. Sorry, but genetics and ethnicity just don't work like that. Most human genes are functionally identical. Some variants do the same job, but look a little different. A very few leave visible traces in the phenotype. Invisible and visible "markers" can turn up all over the place, sometimes independently. Maybe an african spread his seed in Gaul after running away from Caesar's Legion. Maybe some of those amusing negro servants of the 19th century got about a little more than their owners gave them credit for. Maybe some basques ran off to Wales. A marker here or there doesn't make you different or tell us much about your cultural heritage.

Bluntly put: With regard to my field, I wouldn't care about your genetics if you had purple skin and feet growing out your bum. When speaking ethnicity, you're pure euro-mongrel all the way trough.

[ExpansiveThought]

I fully concur with statements about a common human heritage. For starters, science has long held that HUMANS evolved from apes. The fact of the matter is that genetic variation is essential to the survival of any species. Otherwise all specimens are prone to disease because different groups have not shared the immunities they have separately evolved. I think that world's governments and scientists are hesitant to publish or even investigate matters of the human genome on the distantly ancestral level because scientific evidence of our common ancestry would challenge the status-quo in obvious ways. Regardless its common knowledge that we are almost 100 genetically identical anyway which heavily butresses the concept of nurture over nature.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:36 pm
I'd at least like for someone to look at what I've found and see that it makes perfect sense.
I'd like for you to answer my question. Why does it matter?


Ever heard of Scottish east Africa? Irish Equitorial Guinea? Breton Guiana? Welsh East Indies? Didn't think so.

What are you talking about? The Scots left Ireland and conquered Scotland from the Picts. Scots are a big part of the English-imposed settlers in northern Ireland. Scots, Welsh, and Irish went all over the world as part of the British Empire. The Scots were especially known for it, both as soldiers and merchants.

The Scots-Irish in America were especially known as aggressive frontier settlers taking land from the Indians.

Enough with this racial crap. Imperialism is not genetic. The same groups of people have been invader or invaded at different times in history, certainly including the Celts.

[CodeAires]

I'm not trying to come off as racist, and I'm NOT racist. Yeesh, to be a free-minded board, you really have to tippy-toe around people's feelings here.

I never said Celts were perfect or without fault, but I do think that they received a lot of crap off of other ethnic groups in Europe firsthand before everyone else experienced it. That's one of the points I was just trying to make. Also, Hamitic, like Semitic and Indo-European, are simply just classifications as to who came from where and how they migrated and how their languages are related.

I already stated that the naitive British and Irish language was Romanized, so that's probably where "Eire" came from.

Apparently, it's okay to talk about other ethnic struggles around the world with sympathy, but talk about Celtic struggles (like an Independant Scotland and Wales) and it's not cool. Those are "white people" and they're "white people problems", so who gives a flying fuck, right?

That's childish. I'm just trying to make a point that Celtic races long had a mistaken identity and it's come out in recent years that they were a member of another family than previously thought. Okay? Got it? Good. I'll shut up and let you rip me to pieces again.

End.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:38 pm
I never said Celts were perfect or without fault, but I do think that they received a lot of crap off of other ethnic groups in Europe firsthand before everyone else experienced it.
1) What does that have to do with race? The reason that Ireland suffered centuries of occupation was not because of "Celtic genes" but because we had the misfortune of being victims of English/British imperialism. Which was the result of geography and economics, not genetics.

2) The Celts, as nebulous a term as you'll find in history, previously existed across most of Europe. You think they just happened to find empty land? Even in Ireland their settlements displaced previous peoples and settlers. So the idea of "the Celts" as a victim group is very much a modern concept.

What is racist is assuming that "race" had anything to do with the above.

[Luís Henrique]

While the Celtic languages are Indo-European (because they were Romanized)
No. Celtic languages are a different branch of Indo-European, quite different from Latin (which is part of the Italic branch). Celts spoke Indo-European languages before they were conquered by Rome.

Luís Henrique

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by CodeAires+--> (CodeAires)Apparently, it's okay to talk about other ethnic struggles around the world with sympathy, but talk about Celtic struggles (like an Independant Scotland and Wales) and it's not cool. Those are "white people" and they're "white people problems", so who gives a flying fuck, right?[/b]

A bunch of white people on a messageboard arent giving the poor white people &#39;sympathy&#39;? >_<


CodeAires
That&#39;s childish. I&#39;m just trying to make a point that Celtic races long had a mistaken identity and it&#39;s come out in recent years that they were a member of another family than previously thought. Okay? Got it? Good. I&#39;ll shut up and let you rip me to pieces again.

As severian has stated several times already, why does it matter? Why should we or anyone care?

[RedCeltic]

What you have said about finding a DNA link between Irish and the Basques is true. I have read that recent findings show that there is some evidence that people in the western part of Ireland may have some relation to the Basques.

However, this isn’t really a big ground breaking discovery that “proves” that all those 19th century racists who argued that he Irish weren’t white are now right. To believe this, you would have to believe the mythology that the Celts came to Ireland in 500 BCE and took the land from the Tutha De Dannen. Which archaeology shows didn’t happen.

What Archaeology does show however, is that many different groups made their way into Ireland at one point or another. Not in massive invasions, but small groups of people. What seems to puzzle archaeologists is how the Irish began to adopt Celtic language and culture.

While claiming that the Irish or Celts as a whole are not white is rubbish, I do think that in a larger sense, study of DNA, more and more shows that ethic identity and the concept of “Race” as a whole is nonsense. I’m quite sure for example, that there are people living in modern day Germany and modern day Switzerland that have ancestors that were termed as Celtic by the Romans. Why? Because in Julius Caesar’s “The Gallic and Civil Wars” he mentioned the Gallic peoples there and fear of the Germanic tribes entering their lands.

But the people the Romans called Celts, were never a homogenous ethic group. Not in the same sense that other groups may have been. Surely not unified by anything other than shared language and culture. The Greeks first used the term Keltoi to classify people who lived by the Danube and Rhone. The Romans changed it to Celae (French to Celtic). As the empire spread, the Romans encountered more people who shared similar language and culture to these people and thus called them Celts.

Even though they say that Celtic language and culture spread into Turkey, the Balkans, Iberia, across Germany, and into the British Isles, there is only evidence of cultural exchange and influence. No evidence that all these people shared the same blood relation.

[CodeAires]

^ Thanks for that info, some of it I knew, some of it I didn&#39;t. I do remember reading once that in Gaelic there are some similar grammatical structure to Berber languages, which is something that made me wonder.



Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:38 pm
I never said Celts were perfect or without fault, but I do think that they received a lot of crap off of other ethnic groups in Europe firsthand before everyone else experienced it.
1) What does that have to do with race? The reason that Ireland suffered centuries of occupation was not because of "Celtic genes" but because we had the misfortune of being victims of English/British imperialism. Which was the result of geography and economics, not genetics.

Part of the reason why they were oppressed under imperialistic rule is because they had a different ethnic origin. Even in early American history, the Irish were portryaed as practically being subhuman gorillas. I&#39;ve seen the comics myself.



2) The Celts, as nebulous a term as you&#39;ll find in history, previously existed across most of Europe. You think they just happened to find empty land? Even in Ireland their settlements displaced previous peoples and settlers. So the idea of "the Celts" as a victim group is very much a modern concept.

What is racist is assuming that "race" had anything to do with the above.

I realize this too, hence the reason why I included the document about the first inhabitants of Ireland possibly being Negro, hence the term "Black Irish". I think it may have just been a general term for races that had a similar language and weren&#39;t Romanic, Hellenic or Germanic. Since there aren&#39;t a lot of accurate records and early Celts didn&#39;t have a writing system, much has been lost to time. However, I still feel that at least the Celts of the Iberian peninsula and the British Isles have African origin. There&#39;s a lot of evidence towards it that makes me think it.

[RedCeltic]

Part of the reason why they were oppressed under imperialistic rule is because they had a different ethnic origin. Even in early American history, the Irish were portryaed as practically being subhuman gorillas. I&#39;ve seen the comics myself.

Actually, a lot of that had to do with the Irish being catholic, poor, and coming over by the thousands. If they were rich like the Germans who came over, the conception of them would have been different. Or if they were Protestants like the Scotch-Irish who came before them.


I realize this too, hence the reason why I included the document about the first inhabitants of Ireland possibly being Negro, hence the term "Black Irish". I think it may have just been a general term for races that had a similar language and weren&#39;t Romanic, Hellenic or Germanic.


“Black Irish” was a term they used to describe people like me. People whose surname is a Gaelic origin, ancestors came from Western Ireland, and have dark brown or black hair. In America, they commonly associated red or blond hair with Irish. So when the people from western Ireland came over, who had little mixing from Viking, Anglo-Saxon, and Norman blood, they called them “Black Irish.” Had nothing to do with Africans.

I don’t know about the Africa link, but they say that everyone can be traced to Africa anyway. That is where they believe humans evolved.

I had seen a program where they were able to take people living in the United kingdom who were of African decent and find out their origins on both the maternal and paternal sides separately by matching it with DNA evidence gathered in different regions. This one guy for example, hadn’t known his paternal side would have turned out to be white. His paternal DNA matches were all over Europe. His Maternal DNA however was fairly isolated to one region in Africa.

I always thought it would be interesting to have this sort of study done. I realize that while on my maternal side, my ethnicity varies, some Irish, Scottish, German and maybe English or Welsh way back there. My paternal side however has been traced through genealogy to Donegal. Since my surname originates there as one of the major Gallic names of the region (Boyle) I’m fairly sure my DNA would link with people there.

So, the linking of DNA of people living there to Iberia and possibly Africa is interesting to me… maybe I’m a distant cousin of the Jamaican guy I work with. (just kidding haha.)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:38 am
Apparently, it&#39;s okay to talk about other ethnic struggles around the world with sympathy, but talk about Celtic struggles (like an Independant Scotland and Wales) and it&#39;s not cool. Those are "white people" and they&#39;re "white people problems", so who gives a flying fuck, right?
No, I&#39;m for all those independence struggles. Why do you feel you have to claim those people aren&#39;t white in order to support that fight against British imperialism?

Again, why does it matter?

And how can you say a group of people have violence in their blood and then turn around and claim not to be racist?

And finally, you&#39;re the only one here who seems to have sensitive feelings. You posted nonsense, I pointed out that it&#39;s nonsense, you got upset.


Part of the reason why they were oppressed under imperialistic rule is because they had a different ethnic origin. Even in early American history, the Irish were portryaed as practically being subhuman gorillas.

You&#39;ve got cause and effect backwards. Because they were oppressed, they were portrayed as inferior - to justify that oppression.

Oppression and exploitation are economic, not genetic. Then racism and all kinds of excuses are invented - to justify whatever&#39;s profitable.

[CodeAires]

Sorry if I&#39;m spazzing. I&#39;m still green here.

RedCeltic, thanks for the insight. I was a little confused on some things. I still think it is possible that the Irish and Welsh especially have African roots, but only more research will tell...I&#39;ll see what I can dig up :D

[chebol]

This is why I gave up on academia and settled for going back to get a law degree and overthrowing capitalism - it&#39;s easier than trying to flush out all the crap that people have had poured into their heads regarding the Celts. And bang goes 15 years of hard study and work. And it was worth it. A short answer (relatively) is all I can manage.

1. The term "celtic" has next to nothing of any real relevance to do with &#39;race&#39;. It is a term to describe the groups of people speaking celtic languages of the Indo-European family who share, in addition to language, a degree of cultural affinity.

2. The vast reems of bullshit that have been spewed out over the past four centuries by (mostly) British antiquarians and quacks regarding the &#39;hamitic&#39; or what have you origin of the celts is a pathetic expression of a desire to "find" a connection to ancient Judea and Israel. Not content with "and did those feet..." these nutters decided that the Celts were in fact one of the lost tribes of Israel (and then some English supremacists decided that the Saxons were too, just to stay even. The theory has been expanded - the American Indians are as well.)

3. It is true. There is a genetic affinity between the people of the atlantic coast of europe. Why? Because the rest of Europe has gradually been settled and taken over by often technologically more advanced peoples moving westwards.

4. Some of those on the atlantic fringe are described as "celtic", mostly because they live in an area where in the past few centuries, a celtic language was spoken, however, this is misleading. "Celtic" culture, as we know it, began in the alpine area of Europe in the mid-second century BCE - the "Hallstadt" phase. It spread out, mostly through trade and economic influence, but also by migration and occasionally conquest, until, at it&#39;s height, a collection of cultures, societies and languages vaguely definable as &#39;celtic&#39; had spread from Turkey ("turkish celts" - the Galatians) to Spain (spanish celts) and Ireland (the irish).

5. As these cultures waned, others took over, as did other languages. Most of the ancestors of the people currently living in the Alps are descended from people who were living in the Alps then. They generally have no (last time I checked - actually, I don&#39;t even know if they can be arsed with stupid genetic profiling and the quasi-science used by racialised quacks - after all, they had their fill of it in the 40s) "hamitic genes".

6. By contrast, the people on the coastal areas, who have also maintained a long connection with each other by ship, even when they couldn&#39;t by land, are equally likely to share common characteristics with people who lived in the same areas millenia ago. The fact that some of these areas are very isolated means that there is even less likelihood of large scale genetic change, and they likely represent the descendents of an earlier stage of migration into western europe than the dominant mob (or more likely - most of europe has become so intermixed that it doesn&#39;t matter, while the isolation of these communities provides something of an anomaly).

7. As an aside, the basques appear to represnt a pre-Ice Age people, based on an analysis of an enzyme unique to their isolated comunities.

8. Severian asks - "Why does it matter?". It matters because over the past couple of centuries in particular, reactionary quacks have been setting out to use race, culture and language for distinctly political ends, and the danger of equating culture and genes was seen in its use as a justification for the genocide, not only in the C20, but particularly in the British Empire, that accompanied the rapacious exploitation of the world under the various imperialist powers.*

The same risks (and politics) lie behind these kind of claims, although often more obscured and even unconscious. It is just one more method of obscuring the reality of social and cultural evolution by pointing to genes, or religion, or though or what have you, as being somehow definitive and predictive of behaviour, thought, and being.

No offence to CodeAires, but it is absolute and utter bullshit, and my advice would be to study the various conventional theories on the &#39;origins of the celts&#39; (many of which take up and debunk the precursors of the &#39;hamitic celts&#39; theorists) before swallowing this gibberish.


PS and please let&#39;s not go the turgid next step and start talking about wicca.

PPS and what do you mean RC, are you trying to say that Nuada Airgetlamh never existed, and there never was a migration from Troy by Brutus (hence "Britain")? Ridiculous&#33; Next you&#39;ll be saying that the TDD weren&#39;t actually from Athens, and that the Cimmerii weren&#39;t Welsh, even though their names look the same&#33; I never heard such nonsense in all my days. What would St Brendan say?

* "Great Britain" is just one of these &#39;facts&#39;. The creation of this term was part of a political effort to unite and coopt the people&#39;s of the british isles in a joint effort to exploit the rest of the world. It was used to great effect in the myth of Prince Madoc, last prince of Wales, who supposedly sailed off to America 8 hundred years ago. Many welsh were daft enough to believe the stories of "welsh-speaking indians" in the Americas, and went over there to find them. They never did, of course, but the presence of the Welsh (both real and imagined) was of great usefulness to Britain in order to lay claim to the territory, and then eventually to forcefully "defend" it from the French.

[Reuben]

this is a waste of bandwidth.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:05 pm
I do remember reading once that in Gaelic there are some similar grammatical structure to Berber languages, which is something that made me wonder.
All languages share similar grammatical structures, but this is not enough to relate them. For instance:

Portuguese has genders, masculine and feminine. Arab has genders, masculine and feminine. Dutch has genders, common and neutral. To which language is Portuguese closely related, Dutch or Arab? Or, perhaps, should we conclude Portuguese inherited its genders from Arab, during the Arab ocupation of Iberia?

Italian has no declinations. English has no declinations. Germans has declinations. Latin has declinations. Did Italian evolve from English, and German from Latin?

Castillian put its adjectives after its nouns. English puts them before, and so does Japanese. Is English closer to Japanese than to Castillian?

Out from the real historical context, those similarities are meaningless.

Luís Henrique

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 04:19 am
PPS and what do you mean RC, are you trying to say that Nuada Airgetlamh never existed, and there never was a migration from Troy by Brutus (hence "Britain")? Ridiculous&#33; Next you&#39;ll be saying that the TDD weren&#39;t actually from Athens, and that the Cimmerii weren&#39;t Welsh, even though their names look the same&#33; I never heard such nonsense in all my days. What would St Brendan say?


I had to read your whole post twice after seeing this paragraph because the whole thing you are serious, but come the PPS; you are obviously tongue in cheek.

Anyway, yeah you are right, there is a considerable amount of Bullshit written about the Celts. I liked that you pointed out about the 19th century myth about the “lost tribe of Israel” and how various groups including the Irish and the Native Americans had been subjects of this ridiculous fantasy. Some 19th century “archaeologists” attempting to prove this myth had even resorted to using dynamite to “excavate” part of the hill of Tara to find evidence that the Irish were in fact Jews. And sadly, in the US we still have the cult known as the Church of Latter day Saints (Mormons) who still believe the Native Americans were the “lost tribe of Israel.”

As I had stated earlier, and you seem to have supported the argument, that not only were the Celts ever an ethnic group or “race” but the whole notion of “race” is quite archaic in thinking because it alludes to some notion that there could be a level of “purity” of race.

Prior to any groundbreaking discoveries over the last few decades in DNA research, Archaeology has been able to show evidence of early migrational patterns that seem to indicate that humanity spread out of Africa, as opposed to different “races” developing independently. DNA seems to have supported this notion. Therefore, not only do I not doubt that the Irish would have had African ancestors, but so would the English, Germans, Russians, etc.

P.S. Since you said:


PS and please let&#39;s not go the turgid next step and start talking about wicca.

I feel compelled to mention that I practiced Wicca in he ‘80s and ‘90s and found it deeply rewarding, in that…on many a moon light night, I found myself in a smoke filled living room surrounded by naked hippy chicks.

Seriously, it’s good for sewing the seeds of religious rebellion for some people who just can’t let go of religion right away. Other than that, It’s totally worthless Victorian occultist crap made up by Gerald Gardner in he ‘50s. He ripped a lot of the stuff off of his friend Alistair Crowley, but none of it at all has to do with Celtic religious practice.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:42 pm
I still think it is possible that the Irish and Welsh especially have African roots, but only more research will tell...I&#39;ll see what I can dig up :D
Erm, there&#39;s no evidence of that. The Celts are closely related linguistically and genetically (fair skin, rare intolerences to iron which they share with the nordic people) to other indo-europeans, including far flung indo-euro&#39;s like the Hindus. They share some rare blood types with the Basque people for example, which suggests they intermarried with the pre-Celtic natives of Western Europe.

No evidence of the African connection a chara&#33;

[TC]

this sort of crap should really be posted on stormfront or the phora not here.

[Idola Mentis]

Repeat: Genes don&#39;t work like that. If you go back 5000 years or so, *Everyone* is related to everyone else.