Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Cennétig mac Lorcáin

Brian Boru's paddy Lorcain MacCennétig initiated the Kennedy family around the River Shannon (the O'Brien's moved 'em north a bit), though a variation of the name probably predates Lorcain.

"The eponymous ancestor of the O'Kennedys was Kennedy, nephew of Brian Boru, or Cinneide in Irish, the resultant surname being O Cinneide (Brian Boru's father was Cennetig - thus, Brian Mac Cennetig). They are thus a Dalcassian sept, and at first their territory was around Glenomra near Killaloe, and their occupation is perpetuated by the name of the civil parish comprising that area, viz. Killokennedy, but pressure from the powerful O'Briens and MacNamaras caused them to cross the Shannon and settle in Upper and lower Ormond. There they soon increased in power and importance, and from the eleventh to the sixteenth century they were Lords of Ormond.""""

(MacCennetig -> O Kennedy -> Kennedy, apres-Cromwell. And same root word for Canada--MacKenzie, when the micks swim over to Scots-land ("scoti" actually a word for irishmen, in Pax Romana times, and "Caledonia" the name for what is now Scotland.). From O.Ir. cinneide, "ugly head," say the etymologists, but we humbly suggest it's probably related to Old german form (or gothic), kennen as in to know, cunning, clever. Possibly distant relation to MacYidden. That said, Padraig Kennedy of the US Kennedys supposedly had eyes of blue. It's pre-Norman invasion, fer-shure. Norman names usually relate to Latin or frenchy--like Belle-amie, ie good byatch in french-gaul. )


Unknown said...

Good stuff. All this ancient clan stuff fascinates me.

One of the cunning ones, eh? Not cunning enough to avoid getting our asses kicked at Culloden. We coulda been contendahs!

Not the first or the last time we backed the wrong nag. But we did it with spirit!

J said...

Yes it's interesting. I haven't at all mastered irish history or gaelic but I have noted a few things when I have time to study this sh**t (an old professor pal of mine was sort of a specialist in old english and gaelic.) One, many of the names and places (like from Annals of the Four Masters): aren't really fixed until the scribes (mostly the priests) write the history down, like starting in 14th/15th century.

So a name like Kennedy has been transliterated. And given a latin/catholic bias--much of gaelic was sort of latinized. Who knows what it was originally--though the welsh bards had a tradition going way back--often with runes.

Early irish history itself very odd, not like say Tacitus, or greeks. Legendary kings--the Fir Bolgs or something--arrive after the Flood , battle various tribes, and then, like lightning strikes their king, and they turn into salmon or something.

It's a mixture of myth and history until the papists arrive--quite early in 4th-5th century AD, and start to tame the pagans, though pagan elements remains for few centuries, even with Brian Boru. Boru's also mentioned in the norse sagas--he must have defended a few forts from the vikings,etc--who made it down to river Shannon area, sort of raped and pillaged, destroyed monasteries.

That said, the US Kennedy's don't
look much like the old Connemara black irish, or Jack Dempsey types. They have old irish-catholic roots, certainly but also anglo or german blood as well (maybe via Fitzgerald or something). Daddy Joe K looks like a goiman to me (and he was no PC liberal like his sons).

After Cromwell and the famines, and then migrations to US, old Ireland was pretty reduced to history anyway.

Unknown said...

I read a great book a few years back though can't recall the title- a collection of Irish myths dating back to the dawn of recorded history. Fascinating the origins of "the little people" stuff.

The thing that stuck most in my mind was the extreme violence endemic to almost every story. The old unveiling of the host's son's decapitated head at the banquet sort of thing. Also some blow-by-blow personal combat stories that make Song of Roland look like Disney.

J said...

Yes. The Annals of the Four Masters has a lot of that. But then so does much ancient history. Really, I'm not a sword and sorcery sort of person, and prefer modern history--say the absurdities of WWI and WWII--but ancients interesting, at least as evidence of pathology.

The vikings or celtics seem fairly horrible until you read of the huns or mongols (--or, really stalinists and nazis). I think there is a bias ---perhaps judeo-christian--against the North, really. Goths and vikings, however barbaric, pale next to an Atilla or Tamerlane. The irish scribes present the Norsemen as evil incarnate, but they really were traders. There were horrible raids, to be sure, but that was sort of how business was done. The old catholics did not care for some danish pagans setting up their camp in one of their precious irish cathedrals (like one on an island in the shannon).

But that's rather tame compared to asian history. Tamerlane for instance built pyramids made up of thousands of skulls of his enemies, set them afire, carried away the women and children into slavery (sex slavery , mostly). A bit more terrifying than viking raids on irish towns.

J said...

Btw, McEnabler--

I posted a comment to your site (now featuring the Subluxanator, Mormon socialist, and chiropractor supplies salesman!). Of course, since you don't care for reasoned dissent, it's not likely to appear, but here it is again:

WHERE is your source for the claim (rather egregious claim) that 47 million Americans have no health insurance of any type??

I find that hard to believe. Not only that, but it's probably misleading: any working person usually has some type of health insurance. It may not be great, but something. And even the poor folks have county or state health services (as they do in LA, and Im quite sure SF). So, those who have no health insurance of any type have the county. For that matter, people can buy health insurance, even temporary. It's done all the time.

Im for a public option, but any working person has that already, most likely. And millions have Medicare or VA. Union members have great health care (usually private). Medicare is hardly a model of a successful bureaucracy for that matter.

The demo Health care hype obscures a number of issues, really.

And your pal the Subluxanator is actually the quack-libertarian, engaging in his usual cheap deceit and lies. Small business owners (even ones who pretend to be Demo) all want health care premiums to be reduced. Those premiums went up with Obama's victory (per Demo congress).

He whines about the GOP, but the Dem-led Congress led to those raises in health care costs on businesses.

So in effect Sub-lux the businessman argues for single payer/Medicare because he thinks the govt (ie taxpayers) will pick up the tab for medicare--via raised taxes and so forth. Even some Dems have addressed this issue. That would of course eliminate the worker/consumer's choice. Thou must use Medicare! It's a bit more complex than you (and your pal Senrab, or Sub-lux) make it out to be.

And they will probably be ending Medicare for chiropractor-quacks as well--Sub-luxius will be SOL there.

Unknown said...

Posted. One of many I found with a quick google.

J said...

Noted . However there have already been increases in social programs with ObamaCo's victory so I suspect its probably close to that, if not less.

Even if we grant that number's correct, that does not mean all these poor people have no medical care whatsoever--so the number's misleading. In CA there are county health care clinics up and down the state: even the illegal immigrants can use them (and do). The street people use them. Unemployed or broke people can use them.

For that matter, anyone who has enough money can buy health insurance. Even temporary . Some of these people might choose not to have health insurance. You make it seem like they have no choice--that may be the case with destitute, but if they are workers they have some choice. Really, I support a public option ala Durbin--even a UK type of system would work. But given history of Medicare, not to say American incompetence in general, I don't feel compelled to support the Conyers type program.

And read my above post for other issues.

(and your pal Sub-luxius's usual defamatory tactics and logical fallacies also noted: object to nationalized health care, and you like one of the nazis yapping about Obama's birth certificate! Hey, dee-eep thoughts there (and in fact a fallacy, and provably wrong). Anyone who sounds that ludicrous and hysterical probably works for the tea-baggers)

Unknown said...

This sounds like nit-picking. The point I'm making is that human lives shouldn't be valued the same way as personal property. I'm basing my ideas on the assumption that all lives are of equal value; which I have learned via feedback at Kos makes me a Natural Rights adherent rather than a Utilitarian. Stick the labels where you wish, but my basic point is that all humans value their own lives to essentially the same degree, and that a system of profit-base health insurance is fundamentally opposed to this concept.

BTW- I think you hijacked your own thread. This was about the valiant MacKinnons was it not?

J said...

I would not call that natural rights (which is more like Locke, or founding fathers), but a type of egalitarian-socialist view. Rights-philosophy and utilitarianism are not necessarily incompatible, anyway (ie a majority might vote for rights of various types--and have).

Even though people might start with natural rights to some activities (working, transportation, voting, etc), that doesn't mean they have rights to everything equally. Does a custodian have a right to teach your children calculus, instead of the properly trained math teacher? Nyet. Do mission people have a right to break into your house, and hang out, make dinner, etc? Nyet.

At least if you are saying "all people, regardless of income, have equal rights to health care," that would require a separate argument. Actually I agree in part with you, insofar that health care-- really the medical care itself, not the insurance--is a requirement for all human beings. In theory I support a EU type system, but that would require major overhauling of the system which not going to happen. Really, just giving some of the poor some "health stipends" or something would work.

I suspect the Big Demos have some contract scams going down with the health care hype: that goes down in LA, all the time. Building hospitals means big dollars--and dinero--for contractors. The Nurses unions support it as well .

And then the Medicare bureaucrats also will be in line for some cash. It's not just about givin' po' folks medical care, but about making money on it.

That reminds me: what did Lazarus Long say about that sentence in the Declaration of Independence, claiming that all men are created equal? One of the grandest fibs of History ever or something.

I'm not defending Longism per se, but your own gurus don't agree with you.

Unknown said...

"I'm not defending Longism per se, but your own gurus don't agree with you."

The best kind of guru is one that mind you telling him to his face he's a frigging ass. LL can bite it on this one.

J said...

Read some Rawls "Theory of Justice." One could, in theory, posit health care as part of a Rawls-like social contract, perhaps. If politicians were playing a type of sim-city--Rawlsland--, where they had to live in the society they chose to construct, they might choose to implement a type of socialism where medical care was provided to all equally.

Sim-city is not the world, however. So you face the sorts of implementation problems Rawls does (or even.....Marx), given existing historical-social conditions, not to say the political structure-- involving votes, business deals, cash, authori-tay.

And do the stupid, lazy, and incompetent or criminal have the same rights as the workers and professionals? Perhaps to basic necessities, but not to everything.

You misread your Demo leaders as well. Some may have a few authentic socialist desires, but most are party hacks working for various lobbies and special interest groups.

Unknown said...

"You misread your Demo leaders as well. Some may have a few authentic socialist desires, but most are party hacks working for various lobbies and special interest groups."

Politicians should never be blindly trusted or worshiped as celebrities. They're all under constant pressure to use their power to favor their financial supporters. A few manage to retain sufficient integrity to serve their constituents' genuine interest despite such pressure. Seeing a group of them as "the good guys" or "on your side" is the surest path to letting them hoodwink you.

That said, on the balance Dems seem to have a lot more integrity as Reps. This follows from their core humanitarian philosophy. When they fall, as they often do, it sucks all the more.

J said...

Everything's far more fucked-up and pathological than you realize, man.

Maybe click down a few posts, and note new Thomas Pynchon manga. TP has a good insight into the workings of Pathopolis, superior to that of most philosophical wheezebags, techie-bottlewashers who think they are scientists, or the scores of HS Thompson imitators found on KOS.

Try Crying of Lot 49 or Vineland for starters.

Custom Search

Blog Archive