|
Post by stuart on Oct 6, 2007 3:13:58 GMT -5
This one is stirred by a throwaway remark in the TRL article on the Gonzales gun where he refers to the "Anglo-Celtic" settlements. This one is bit of a peeve as far as I'm concerned.
The "Celtic" identity thing was an entirely artificial construct created as an aspect of Irish nationalism in the mid-19th century and mirroring to a great extent the interest in Scottish Highlanders fostered by Scott and Stewart of Garth. Its a subject in itself, but to my mind applying it retrospectively to the American colonies (and the quite distinct Irish but not conscoiusly "celtic" colonies) is a romantic myth; rather like the "Scotch-Irish" frontiersmen, and quite inappropriate.
Discuss?
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Oct 6, 2007 12:52:06 GMT -5
A couple of decades ago, the American historian Grady McWhiney developed a theory that the majority of Southerners in the 18th and 19th century were "Celts," descended from warlike, pastoral tribes in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. He presented this theory in a number of publications, most prominently his books Attack and Die (with Perry Jamieson), and Cracker Culture. Numerous historians (and others) have picked up on this idea as gospel and used it toward their own ends, while other historians have published well researched rebuttals to McWhiney's arguments. (I haven't read the following article, but "A Rejoinder," by Rowland Berthoff, Journal of Southern History 52, No. 4 (Nov. 1986): 548-50 appears to be one of the most frequently cited.)
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 6, 2007 13:06:18 GMT -5
I'm trying hard to remember who wrote it, (I think it was a guy called Hill) but I did come across a book about 20 years ago entitled Celtic Warfare, which was an appallingly badly researched and written study of the Highland Charge in the 17th and 18th centuries. In an extended postscript it turned out that those thrust of this very dodgy thesis was that it was because American Southerners were overwhelmingly descended from Celts, ie; Highland Scots and Gaelic speaking Irish, that the Confederate armies were so wedded to frontal attacks - Highland charges.
This in itself is utter nonsense of course, but read alongside a modern emphasis on preudo-Highland "gatherings" like Grandfather Mountain I couldn't help but get an uncomfortable feeling that this Celtic business was really an attempt to create an exclusively white "cultural tradition".
Going back to my original post this is also why I have such very strong doubts about the appropriateness of this business of "Anglo-Celtic" settlements.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Oct 6, 2007 13:16:17 GMT -5
The idea of the "Celtic" frontal attack was very much at the center of Attack and Die.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Oct 6, 2007 15:53:10 GMT -5
I don't think there is anyway to avoid an accusation of racism, in this argument not so much white versus black, but an argument when carried to the extreme is equivalent to the Nazi "Master Race" theory.
While in it's simplest form it may only be pride in ones' heritage, the extremist argument is dangerous (BTW, while a typical American Mutt, I'm mostly Scotch-Irish) and distorts history.
I think a more current example can be found in WWII. German Infantry was far superior to American Infantry for almost the whole war. There is a whole subset of historical works that want to attribute this superiority to the Germans being a "superior" military race. What is ignored is as an institution the Germans started with a three year advantage in combat experience, had a more realistic and tougher initial entry training, and had a superior tactical doctrine to their US counterparts. All of which resulted in a qualitative advantage not a racial one.
The Scotch-Irish argument is similarly flawed, generally speaking on the frontier the French and Indian opponents were more often than not tactically superior however, the French and Indians never could match the numbers that would ultimately be brought to bear. For the ACW, the argument is even more flawed. The two great southern armies, Virginia, and Tennessee, one hardly ever lost a battle and the other hardly ever won one. Something besides Race (Leadership?) was involved.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 7, 2007 4:30:04 GMT -5
We had, as I say, a rather one-sided argument over the supposedly superior (and inate) fighting ability of theScotch-Irish frontiersman in another place and I think pretty comprehensively discounted it. What I'm really questioning here is whether in the 1830s those concerned were consciously aware of modern (?) distinctions and labels such as Anglo-Celtic and Scotch-Irish, and except obviously where European immigrants were more or less directly planted (eg: the Irish colony at San Patricio), did such groups actually exist, particularly when even their modern definition is so loose and imprecise.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Oct 7, 2007 9:12:15 GMT -5
In my fair amount of reading of books, newspapers, and manuscript accounts of Texas in the 1830s-1840s, I can't recall many, if any, references to "Celts/Celtic" or even "Anglo" with reference to the settlers. I'd be hard pressed to recall even a reference to "Scotch-Irish" in the literature of the time, with reference to Texans.
YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 7, 2007 9:56:38 GMT -5
That's part of what I'm getting at and the other part is that if, as seems to be the case, they weren't conscious of these stereotypes at the time then its wrong for us to expect them to behave as if they were and to display the characteristics now attributed to them.
That being said, the process may not be entirely a modern one, and I think a lot of the Southern racial mythology during and after the Civil War was starting to be based around those ideas. Sam Watkins for example, albeit writing later, several times referred to his fellow Southerners as being descended from the old Cavaliers in contrast to the Puritans of Massachussetts. I think, in short, that these notions of "Anglo-Celtic" and "Scotch-Irish" racial groupings only started to be invented during the Civil War to inderpin the Secessionist ideology and are totally irrelevant to the Texan Revolution.
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Oct 8, 2007 22:55:30 GMT -5
My American family (my father's side -- my mother's side just came from Italy two generations ago) is from Tennessee. For years I heard stories about my Scotch-Irish ancestors, highland kin, clan tartans, etc. When I started doing real research on them though, I found that more of them originated from England than from Scotland or Ireland -- I even have a few French Huguenots mixed in. And I know, from contact with other genealogists researching Southern families, that my family is pretty typical. I believe the whole Scotch-Irish mythology of the South is just that -- mythology -- and of pretty recent vintage at that; post Civil War. The ironic thing is that, for many Southerners, Scotch-Irish heritage is displayed as a badge of honor and supports (by differentiating Southerners from Northerners by more than just geography) another myth -- that of the noble Lost Cause -- ironic because the mountaineers of East Tennessee, and Western Virginia and the Carolinas (probably the purest examples of Scotch-Irish blood in the South) were overwhelmingly against secession.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 9, 2007 0:27:07 GMT -5
Thanks Bob, that was pretty well the impression I had so its useful to get a close-up picture so to speak.
Another pretty obvious (but curiously overlooked) point which occurs to me on this is the composition of the Alamo garrison. On the one hand the very diversity of the origins of the men who are known to have died there is celebrated; yet on the other this particular mythology holds that they were predominantly Scotch-Irish or Anglo-Celtic (according to taste).
|
|
|
Post by highplainsman on Oct 10, 2007 15:06:52 GMT -5
Been gone awhile and was surprised to find this conversation going on. There seem to be a lot of this in the so called far right, skinheads etc ad nauseum. I can relate to Wolfpacks typical American mutt being on one side Nordic and some Native American and the other Irish, German/Dutch and Native American. So much for myself being ever considered racialy pure! lol!!
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 10, 2007 16:06:53 GMT -5
That's why I started this conversation in the first place. What has surprised me is the readiness with which this Anglo-Celtic and Scotch-Irish nonsense has been rather too casually embraced by what I would otherwise regard as mainstream historians
|
|
|
Post by Don Guillermo on Oct 11, 2007 7:15:32 GMT -5
There’s an analysis on the topic Fate of the Gonzales Cannon on Sons of DeWitt Colony Texas. This month’s feature on Sons…. is The Battle of Gonzales. As a continuous dynamic digital-based work, Sons… welcomes comments and new information for consideration. DG
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Oct 11, 2007 11:05:59 GMT -5
Those are interesting articles on your website, Don Guillermo. I noticed that, unfortunately, there still isn't a link to the Alamo Studies Forum in your links. I'm sure you'll remedy that oversight real soon
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 11, 2007 14:39:50 GMT -5
Yes, I wish there were a link to this Website on Sons of DeWitt Colony Texas site. It is one of the most valuable and interesting sites devoted to this period of history. I hope those who run it and use it will also be made aware of Gary Foreman's efforts to restore the Alamo, spread the word among their readers and ask them to send letters in support of the effort. Frankly, I'm disappointed in the near-total lack of response to several posts I've made on some other history oriented Website.
AW
|
|