The celts are not one group

[Dughlas mor]

In Celtic art Anthropomorphic refers to a stylized design based on a human figure. Zoomorphic refers to one based on an animal form. Could be Steve meant Zoomorphic, though both are quite common.

[Steve Ashton]

You are correct. I used Anthropomorphic when I guess Zoomorphic would have been a more accurate word.

In the Art form consisting of swirling and sometimes interlaced lines there are often human, plant and animal figures worked into the design.

[cizinec]

Even "Ottzi" the ice mummy may have genetic connections to "celtic" cultures.

Once again, I think there is a distinction between genes and culture. Otzi, for instance seems to be more closely related to modern Corsicans and Sardinians, although he apparently is related to some modern Tyroleans as well. These aren't particularly Celtic. So are you saying that he was a member of a culture that was a cultural ancestor of what we now call "Celtic" and using the term "genetic" figuratively, or are you saying his actual descendants were later identifying themselves as being what we now call "Celts?"

Celts were once dominant in what we now consider Central Europe and the Balkans. So is someone from Bratislava less genetically Celtic than someone from Edinburgh? It depends on the person. However, a person from Edinburgh is quite likely to be more heavily influenced by a Celtic culture, while a person from Bratislava is most likely to be more influenced by Slavic culture. Genes do not make a culture and membership in a culture does not change genes.

[Father Bill]

When we talk about genetics, I'm reminded of something I often have to say professionally when people are upset by family feuds: "Each of us has two families: the one to whom we're related, and the one composed of people who care about us. Which one do you want to spend your time with?"

In a related vein, perhaps our genetic history is less important than the heritage of the heart. There are a lot of XMarkers who hearken to the latter and I say "More power to them!"

[Destin_scot]

Once again, I think there is a distinction between genes and culture. Otzi, for instance seems to be more closely related to modern Corsicans and Sardinians, although he apparently is related to some modern Tyroleans as well. These aren't particularly Celtic. So are you saying that he was a member of a culture that was a cultural ancestor of what we now call "Celtic" and using the term "genetic" figuratively, or are you saying his actual descendants were later identifying themselves as being what we now call "Celts?"

Celts were once dominant in what we now consider Central Europe and the Balkans. So is someone from Bratislava less genetically Celtic than someone from Edinburgh? It depends on the person. However, a person from Edinburgh is quite likely to be more heavily influenced by a Celtic culture, while a person from Bratislava is most likely to be more influenced by Slavic culture. Genes do not make a culture and membership in a culture does not change genes.

Correct, it was a figurative link to "celtic" culture.

Everyone seems to think of the USA and Canada as "melting pots" of cultures, but as I tried to express, most of what what people call "(pick your culture of preference)" is actually a long culmination of many previous generations that brought their own experiences and values and blended to form that "culture". So, all "modern" cultures are really "melting pot" cultures, in my humble opinion.

[Father Bill]

You will also find that many Canadians resent being lumped in with the US on that. While Americans like to think of themselves as a melting pot, Canadians prefer the metaphor of a mosaic. Each individual still themselves, but making a beautiful whole.

[Destin_scot]

You will also find that many Canadians resent being lumped in with the US on that. While Americans like to think of themselves as a melting pot, Canadians prefer the metaphor of a mosaic. Each individual still themselves, but making a beautiful whole.

Father Bill,

Not meant to alienate anyone or cause any resentment. My point being that "culture" is something that I don't beleive can ever be truly set in stone. But that "culture" is a living, breathing, thing that changes and evolves over time.

[Father Bill]

No problem, Destin.

A lot of Canucks bristle at the American tendency to think we're just like them. In many cases, the resemblance is only skin deep and frankly, it does somehow suggest a rather cavalier disregard for our identity.

Personally, no offence taken.

[Liam]

No problem, Destin.

A lot of Canucks bristle at the American tendency to think we're just like them. In many cases, the resemblance is only skin deep and frankly, it does somehow suggest a rather cavalier disregard for our identity.

Personally, no offence taken.

Culture is the way people live their lives, regardless of where they came from. Heritage is how their ancestors lived...
It is often said that the U.S. is indeed a melting pot that attempts to to produce a unified culture, while Canada is as Father Bill states, a "coat of many cultures", or a mosaic. It may seem subtle, but it it is indeed very different.

[Tenmiles]

I've noticed that with genealogists these days. They don't seem to grasp that race is not culture.

I find this an interesting assertion.
I confess that I don't know a lot of geneticists, or persons directly involved in the field of genetics (only two), but it has not been my impression that geneticists, as such, have a tendency to blur the line between culture (which is a social construct) and heredity (which is a genetic link). I confess here that I am not really referring to "genealogists", as a practice or trade.

Rather, I would expect (and my own, perhaps limited or biased, experiences may play a role here) that geneticists would be fairly stringent in separating culture from heredity in their own conclusions, just as the most effective physicist might make a clear distinction between observed facts and any philosophical/religious speculation of the meaning of those facts.

Perhaps we have an issue of mismatched nomenclature; where one group of observers uses a word, such as "celtic", to explicitly refer to an hereditary (genetic) link, whilst another group uses the same word to refer to a cultural (social) link, resulting in some ambiguity about the meaning of such proclamations as this "headline" we're discussing now.