Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 January 29

= January 29 =

Differences definition civic nationalism liberal socialism social liberalism left-wing nationalism
Is there a website that shows the definition and examples of the following terms: civic nationalism, liberal nationalism, liberal socialism, social liberalism, left-wing nationalism, socialist nationalism, nationalist socialism? I am trying to figure out the differences between these terms. Donmust90 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, there's Civic nationalism, Liberal nationalism, Liberal socialism, Social liberalism, Left-wing nationalism, Socialist nationalism, Nationalist socialism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And Nationalist liberalism. --Lambiam 10:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused about the origins of Celts. It really shouldn't be so difficult, and it probably isn't.
I find the historical information about Celts confusing and vague... Their origins are at times disputed, I know.

Anyway, I've always thought that Celts originated from the British Isles and migrated to mainland Europe (and I still do), but that's the confusing part, because articles and whatnot often suggest that the first signs of Celts were on mainland Europe, If the Celts originated from mainland, then who originates from the British isles ?? It's not like the island was originally empty...

Also, the Celts are tied to the Gauls, right? The Gaulish language, as far as I can tell, is actually a Celtic sub-language, branching out of it. So, I reckon the Celts migrated first to mainland, from Britain and mingled with the germanic tribes, although many obviously stayed behind. Then, eventually, the Roman Empire came to Britain and basked in the sun for a bit, before it fell. In the ashes of the fallen empire came the Angles and the Saxons (and Goths? Gutes? Jeats? Geats?), giving rise to the so-called Anglo-saxons. Again, what about the Celts?? Why are these new people now in Britain called Anglo-saxons and not Anglo-saxon-Celts? because the Celts were already there, and will inevitably have mingled and mated with the Saxon/Anglian immigrants. Their blood must be in the mix every bit as much.

Of course, go far enough back in time (we all stem from Africa), before there even were Saxons and Celts and Gauls, and someone will inevitably have migrated to the British isles in the first place, which then gave rise to the Celts, yes ??

84.208.131.242 (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I assume you read the article on Celts? The available information is indeed vague and sometimes contradictory, but largely because there is very little to go on in terms of writing from most of those ancient cultures. The only Celtic languages continuously spoken until today are some of the insular varieties, so the available knowledge is very biased toward those. It is generally agreed that Celtic language developed in Central Europe before spreading across the continent and to the isles. Linguistic study of the Celtic languages lead to the conclusion that Celtic and Germanic languages descended from a common ancestral language (some form of Indo-European), but that neither descended from the other. (Though, of course, migration of language doesn't have to track migration of people.) It is also generally agreed that the insular Celtic languages were brought to the isles by Continental Celts, after which the insular and continental languages developed on their separate ways. But again, Gaulic and Welsh, for example, would thus be a descendants of a more ancient Celtic language, rather than either being derived from the other. It is disputed whether all of the insular languages radiated from a single language brought over from the continent, or whether different waves of continental migrants brought different varieties of Celtic with them. As for why the British are referred to as Anglo-Saxon and not something else, well, that term was popularized before a modern understanding of... anything, and indeed seems quite arbitrary. Concept of culture often follows concepts of language - where Celtic languages ceased to be spoken, it may have been treated as if the Celtic culture was simply gone (in fact, possibly the reason they're even "Anglo"-Saxons and not just Saxons was just to distinguish them from other Saxons). Furthermore, there was then as now a possibility of stigma on speaking the indigenous "peasant language" and associating with that culture, as opposed to the invaders' "noble language". Finally, your point about how far back we can go with this is well made. When we talk about appearance and migration of ancient cultures we are usually following either the development of distinct languages or the development of cultures that are distinct in the artifacts they leave behind. Thus, a culture can be "created" by the appearance of something unique and distinguishing, while of course we all know there is a continuous line of people and culture going back to Africa. On top of this, as you also allude to, migrations into settled areas typically mix with rather than replace local peoples. Even the Celts were not the first people to inhabit the British Isles, but arrived and mixed with cultures that had already been there for thousands of years. Even the "original" proto-Celtic culture of Central Europe was probably a mixture of Indo-European migrants and Old European inhabitants that were already there. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * See also the articles Prehistoric Britain and Insular Celts, in particular the section on the Celtic settlement of Britain and Ireland. Rather in general, when people from area A invade area B, replacing its language and culture, what happens to the original population of B? Do they disappear (genocide), or do they mix with the invading minority, only adopting their language and culture? In many cases (e.g. the Turkic tribes invading Anatolia) the evidence of genetic studies favours adoption over genocide. It is not unlikely the same was the case for successive waves of migration to Britain (which was not an island but connected to mainland Europe until about 11,000 BCE). --Lambiam 09:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh, I never knew that prehistoric people may have got to Britain on foot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See also Doggerland... AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks guys, for your time. It's funny how a single question just branches out and becomes 3 more, then another 10, and so forth, and you end up spending the next hours devouring articles in search of answers. Eventually, you're reading about something entirely different than what you started with. 84.208.131.242 (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Also known as the Wikipedia rabbit hole. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I should have known... Wikipedia rabbit hole. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the Celts 2: Electric Boogaloo
(Prompted by the above question). As mentioned by Someguy1221 above, I've always understood that the Celts originated somewhere in central Europe (associated with the Hallstat and La Tène cultures), with some alternative theories placing the origins further west (Gaul/Spain). A few years ago, I was browsing a pop-history book on world history (unfortunately I can't remember the name of the book), and saw a claim that I have never seen before or since: namely that the Celts may have originated somewhere around the Caspian Sea. Does anyone have any idea what this could be referring to? Is this some new (or fringe) theory I haven't heard before? Maybe taking the Irish and Scottish legend of Scythian ancestry literally? A major misunderstanding of the Kurgan Hypothesis? Something else? Iapetus (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Gerhard Herm and others have published theories that early Celtic society mingled significantly with ancient Scythians migrating west from Asia. This is sometimes used as the basis for claiming the Celts have two simultaneous origins. I haven't read deeply into this, so I have no idea how many experts take this seriously, only that some non-experts talk about it and point to some loanwords and broad cultural similarities. Also possible you read something written by someone who catastrophically confused proto-celts and prot-indo-europeans. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem with questions of this nature is that there is a presumption that cultural concepts (be it race, ethnicity, culture, or whatever grouping you wish to deal with) is somehow a fixed and unchanging thing, that once a culture is determined to have been defined, it becomes a permanent, fixed, and unchanging thing for all time. Culture is the sort of thing that is shifting, changing, mixing, continuously.  The longer the time frame we are talking about, the less meaningful our discussions of "where did this culture come from" become.  All non-African cultures are descendants of the  first group of people to move out of Africa, but at what point does meaningful discussions of cultural evolution devolve into reductio ad absurdum-levels of meaninglessness when we try to say that the Scottish are Scythians (even if we presume the theory to have a basis in fact).  That's only marginally less silly than saying the Scottish are Africans, which is literally 100% true, and yet literally 100% useless in understanding modern Scottish culture or Scottish history or Scottish culture at almost any point in history when Scottish people were a meaningful thing.  -- Jayron 32 16:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know that defining such groups is tricky, and so determining their origins is even more so, and especially so in the case of the "Celts" (became there are a lot of conflicting ideas about what a "Celt" actually is). But it seems that there is enough overlap between the mainstream definitions and theories that they can reasonably point to "somewhere around central Europe (or maybe a bit further west) round abouts the Iron Age (or possibly a bit earlier)".  Whereas the "Caspian Sea" origin is so removed from that that it is presumably either based on a radically different definition of "Celt", or based on radically different evidence (or interpretation), or is comes from doing something weird or careless (taking legends at face value, confusing proto-celts and prot-indo-europeans, etc).  I was just wondering if anyone had heard this theory anywhere else, and so had an idea of how it was derived. Iapetus (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That was also my point. -- Jayron 32 13:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Experts writing about the subject for expert audiences will often provide some very operational definitions for what they're talking about, or simply talk about specific aspects of cultures themselves. For example referring to something like, "the people who bury their dead with boat-shaped axes". Talking about where that culture "arose" then becomes talking about where that tradition appeared. And as the tradition was adopted or abandoned in different regions, asking whether the people who practiced it died, moved, or just stopped doing that. Proposing that the Celts partially originated near the Caspian sea is thus asking whether certain distinguishing features found in proto-Celtic archaeological sites were first developed by Scythians on the steppe and then brought to Central Europe, and/or whether the genetic makeup of the inhabitants of those ancient settlements contained significant recent contribution from Sycthia. So, absolutely, asking "where did the Celts originate?" is not something that could ever have a single clear answer. But, it is still possible to ask very specific and answerable questions. And then misspeak with broad language, and then have popular impressions go somewhere crazy with it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Bible, Deuteronomy 5:9 "unto the third and fourth generation".
What does "for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" King James version mean? Sometimes the 1st to 3rd generations, sometimes the 1st to 4th, always up to the 4th, or something else? -- Jeandré, 2020-01-29t08:01z
 * To me it seems clear that he means unto the (third and the) fourth, i.e. always up to the fourth (the redundant "third" just being there for added emphasis to the threat: not just the third but even the fourth).--Shantavira|feed me 08:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Tyndale actually put the word "even" in there, and this survived to some contemporary versions. Young translated the Hebrew as, "...fathers on children, and on a third, and on a fourth," Young puts the word "generation" in there himself as clarification. So basically same answer as Shantavira - it's for emphasis, listing every generation. "You, your children, your children's children, and their children too!" Someguy1221 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "...for three months!" Adam Bishop (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "We will raise your planet's temperature by one million degrees a day&hellip;for five days". --Trovatore (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny, that 75% of the items on that disambiguation page for Lrrr have to do with what's going on in outer space! ---Sluzzelin talk  23:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In theory, this jealous God might have decided to spare the third generation from their wrath, strafing only the children and the fourth generation. The Hebrew text translates literally to "upon the sons and upon the thirds and upon the fourths of the haters"; no "unto".  --Lambiam 09:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That word "upon" is a bit clearer than "unto", which might be misinterpreted as "up to but not including". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

, sorry for late reply. Variations of this verse occur four times in the Bible, notably in both instances of the Ten Commandments. Classic Jewish sources go to town on this verse for many reasons, but particularly because on face value it appears to contradict the basic Jewish approach to reward and punishment. Lots of different wording to pick from but I think that of Chizkuni states it clearest:
 * G-d explains that He must demonstrate that He cannot simply “forget” the sins of the fathers, even if He delayed punishment for good reasons. This statement does not mean that the children will be taken to task for their father’s sins, seeing that the principle of each person is executed on account of his own sins not because of the sins of his fathers. (Kings II 14,6) This attribute of G-d must be understood as follows: when a person sins, G-d is apt to delay punishment to give the sinner an opportunity to become a penitent and to therefore rehabilitate himself. G-d’s patience may extend beyond the lifetime of the sinner and even the sinner’s son and grandson. If during these years the descendants of the original sinner have not mended their ways but continue to sin, G-d has to punish the great grandson for his own sins immediately, so that He will not be viewed as “forgetting” the original sin. He does so by removing that fourth generation of sinners from the world. He does so only when these generations successively have all been unrepentant sinners. He relates to such “sinners” in this fashion only if they do not sin inadvertently but “hate” Him and His laws.

...so innocent descendants are not punished, only if those that continue the lineage of "hate" of Him. In case the last bit of it isn't obvious, the verse is contrasting this with boundless patience for endlessly rewarding those who love Him. Hope that helps, --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)