M. Ted is quite right that Diane Easby's views reflect certain communist ideologies--which is not the same thing as calling her a communist. They also, and more interestingly, reflect the perspective of Romantic Nationalism out of whch the concept of "the folk" emerged in the 19th Century.

This is almost inevitable for anyone talking about folklore, by the way...the whole idea of "folklore" and "folksong" and "folk" is political, so there is no way to avoid folk songs having a political dimension--simply to decide whether it is a "folk song" or not is an interpretive move that requires political interpretation. Without a certain political perspective, "folk song" wouldn't mean anything, and we'd have nothing to argue about in this thread!

It strikes me again that there is a political dimension to the answers on this thread that is in many ways more interesting than the original question. The question was pretty well answered by several people. But now, we're talking about "my own tradition" and "an entirely different tradition," surely the "self/other" "in-group/out-group" "us/them" dichotomy that is at the root of all politics.

To respond to Diane, one could argue historically, that if it hadn't been for Pete and Woody, and Leadbelly, and others, there would have been no skiffle, and hence no real "second revival" in Britain...so indeed, the British folk scene is there because of Pete and Woody, among others. (The First revival primarily resulted in a revival of dance and the introduction of folksongs into books, classical arrangements, and schools. It did not create much of a singing scene as such.)

It's equally true that Pete and Woody were there because of earlier developments in Britain, of course; Woody, for example, sang a version of "The Gypsy Laddie" that he learned from his mother, and other traditional British songs, and therefore can't really be considered a "songwriter from an entirely different tradition" from the British tradition.

I'm not saying this to claim that either American or British traditions are more important than the other, just to point out that both the English and Anglo-American traditions and their respective revivals were intertwined to such an extent that separating them can only be arbitrary. Is this a political statement? Of course!