Originally Posted by
Troglodyte
You are quite right, of course.
But, as things appear to us in Scotland, there tends to be a way that is recognised as 'North American' in the same way that there is something equally recognisable as 'Australian and New Zealand' in views or attitudes. There is distinct similarity in the Canadian and American ways and views that are different from the others.
This is an observation only, and must not be taken as a slight or in any way derogatory.
In my clan association's activities, the American (ie, the independant USA organisation) does things quite separately from the home (ie, Scottish) lot, of which the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders are branches.
The American association has its own set of rules, principles, aims, etc, and its own president, vice-president, etc, and acknowledges the chief as simply that, the chief - he has no part to play with either influence or advice, and no status other than titular chief. They organise their own programme of events and activities (even when attending Gatherings at the homelands in Scotland) that exclude the other nations.
As the Canadian branch is so small, and as it is so convenient to do so, it attaches itself to the American association and joins in with their gatherings and similar activities. Similarities in needs and interests are naturally going to follow.
When it comes to our membership numbers, Americans make up more than the rest of the world combined, so taking a majority rule approach is easy to understand. But it is a pity that they see themselves as independent, and operate in a kind of isolationist way. The Aussies and Kiwis do things as if they are coming home, and get stuck in.
I have heard the chief say on more than one occasion, that he fears the dwindling membership in the UK (particularly in Scotland itself) will eventually see the original clan association fail at home. The size and wealth of the American association (which is run as if it is a large commercial corporation) will be all that remains.
Ours is a relatively small clan, but the chief and his family, along with representatives of the cadet families, provide officers of the association, and clansmen make up the council and membership. The chief (although elected) quite rightly is chairman. Consequently, the clan still operates much in a way that would be recognised by long-gone generations, so it would be sad to see this dwindle to nothing.
As they already operate independently, our American cousins see nothing worrying in the failure of the original association, and the idea that it would go from a virtually still functioning clan to a same-name membership club seems of no consequence. Nothing would change on their side of the Atlantic.
The North Americans (both Canadians and Americans) are not wrong as such, but their shared different views and attitudes are seen unintentional risk to the clan's survival. There is irony here, as the whole point of the clan association is to ensure its preservation as a clan.
All of which goes to make me wonder what the North American view of Sotland is. Looking out from the inside is quite different from looking in from the outside, and it helps to know what those outside are looking at - or hope to see.
Bookmarks