Identity in the Scottish Diaspora

[neloon]

I've been thinking about the 'insecurity' comment related to outwiths wearing traditional garb.

I think Jock has a point but I don't think the proper target was struck.

I remember one of his past comments that his Son in law (I believe) was asked by his daughter why he didn't were a kilt more often and he responded "I don't want to look like a tourist"....that's his insecurity not ours.

It seems to me this kerfuffle is due to Scots insecurity not the outwiths.

As emulation is a form of praise why would Scots take offense unless they had some other issue that underlies?

Nickle and dime psychology certainly but approach it from a different angle and you may find some truth.

(I don't think it was Jock's son in law but I believe he may be away from home just now.)
Here is what he actually said
"Is it insecurity that causes some of those from outwith these shores to delve so earnestly into their past? Again, is it insecurity that these distant connections to past times, long gone now, that so much is made of them? I think probably so.I find it strange that the Canadians and Americans that I have met are immensely proud of their country, but they above all other nations have this need to cling to the past. The same goes for other nationalities that I have met, there is still this need, but markedly less so and they too are proud of their respective countries and quite right too, but this rather desperate(sorry) clinging to the past is baffling to most over here."
So the insecurity mentioned was about genealogy - not kilt-wearing.
We are all scuppered by rule #5 here which means that many potentially helpful comments cannot be made. C'est la vie

Alan

[neloon]

Perhaps I could point out that, philosophically, Scots' view of nationality is very much that it is a civic rather than an ethnic matter. This may be distantly related to the philosophy, going right back to Robert the Bruce, that the monarch is not "King of Scotland" but "King of the Scots" e.g. as in "Mary, Queen of Scots".

Alan

[Reiver]

(I don't think it was Jock's son in law but I believe he may be away from home just now.)
Here is what he actually said
"Is it insecurity that causes some of those from outwith these shores to delve so earnestly into their past? Again, is it insecurity that these distant connections to past times, long gone now, that so much is made of them? I think probably so.I find it strange that the Canadians and Americans that I have met are immensely proud of their country, but they above all other nations have this need to cling to the past. The same goes for other nationalities that I have met, there is still this need, but markedly less so and they too are proud of their respective countries and quite right too, but this rather desperate(sorry) clinging to the past is baffling to most over here."
So the insecurity mentioned was about genealogy - not kilt-wearing.
We are all scuppered by rule #5 here which means that many potentially helpful comments cannot be made. C'est la vie

Alan

Yes, but there is an implied relationship regardless as this site is about kilt wearing and not genealogy and that is basically the rendered implication.
The example I pointed out is also germane as it relates to the outwith issue and the application (to some) of Scots garb in/to the negative.

After reading numerous comments/posts/threads about the Scots attitude about visitors (of Scots decent) wearing a kilt etc. it is simply my own conclusion....a basic schizophrenia if you will....exporting, selling and promoting an item(s) of wear and Scottishness yet somewhat insulted when it actually materializes.

You're not a true Scot but I'd love to sell you all of the garb (you know it's very dear to make so pull out the folding money) but please don't wear it here as you're not a true Scot.

That seems a tad insecure to me at least.

[ThistleDown]

Reiver you must understand that the number of 'Scots' contributing to this forum is ultra small; for the number who say anything critical about visitors to Scotland it is easy to walk into any village and find many more who love the funds visitors bring into the country.

The point of this thread is the question: how one can claim a nationality without being a national? American without being American, for example. Since Scots generally speaking don't hanker after being anything other than Scottish, some here are seeking to understand the reason behind Americans (Canadians, Australians, whatever) wishing to claim another nationality than their own.

[davidlpope]

Reiver you must understand that the number of 'Scots' contributing to this forum is ultra small; for the number who say anything critical about visitors to Scotland it is easy to walk into any village and find many more who love the funds visitors bring into the country.

The point of this thread is the question: how one can claim a nationality without being a national? American without being American, for example. Since Scots generally speaking don't hanker after being anything other than Scottish, some here are seeking to understand the reason behind Americans (Canadians, Australians, whatever) wishing to claim another nationality than their own.

Great question.

First, as Richard has previously pointed out, when Americans say they are "Scottish". They don't mean that they grew up in Scotland or their citizenship is the United Kingdom, resident in Scotland. It's a shorthand way of saying I am American with at least some Scottish ancestry. They say this because there is no such thing as being of American* ancestry. We are too young of a country and too varied in our ethnic make up based on region for that term to have any value.

As to why an American would make this distinction, I think it's because the term "American" is too broad to be of any real descriptive value. That's because the United States is too big and too varied and too heterogenous for nationality to communicate any useful information about person's ethnic or cultural identity. On the other hand, If someone tells me they are a Southerner, there's an immediate connection, regardless of other differences between me and that person. We share a culture. If someone tells me they're from North Carolina there's a sense of identity that person and I will share, even if there are particular differences between us. if someone self- identifies as a Scottish American or an American of Scottish descent, then they're providing useful description. They are telling me that, one, they know what their background is based on at least some preliminary research, and, two, that they value their history and heritage.

I don't think that Scots or Englishmen or Germans or Poles would be happy to stop at saying that they are Europeans. I think that they would want to say that they are Scots or Englishmen or Germans or Poles. When you consider the issue of scale, that's what we're dealing with.

*except for Native Americans/American Indians/First Nations People

[ThistleDown]

I don't think that Scots or Englishmen or Germans or Poles would be happy to stop at saying that they are Europeans. I think that they would want to say that they are Scots or Englishmen or Germans or Poles. When you consider the issue of scale, that's what we're dealing with.

David, I don't think that's the same thing.
'Europe' is a continent, not a nation, just as North America is a continent, not a nation. The EU is an economic entity, but not a nation. For a Scot to say he is European is correct. But for a citizen of Germany to say he is Scottish because both nations are in Europe is not correct. Nor is it correct for the German whose great grandmother's name was Smith to claim to be English.

For a citizen of the United States, Canada or Mexico to say he is North American is correct, too. But for an American to say that he is Canadian because his great grandmother was born in Canada isn't correct.

I think the original question was a reasonable genealogical one. It did recognise that those who call themselves Scottish-American are, as you say, recognising their Scottish roots. The OP asked why those who describe themselves thus believe it to be necessary; in other words, isn't 'American' sufficient? Jock described his ancestry. I was born of a Scottish father and an English mother; my mother's parents were English and Irish. My father's parents were Scottish and Irish and his mother's were Irish and Norwegian. In Scotland, as in America, we are a mixed breed. But we call ourselves Scots without hyphens to anything else. This whole discussion isn't accusatory or confrontational, it's simply seeking information and understanding.

[ThistleDown]

Alan, Rule 5 is there because the forum knows, from vast experience, that to permit discussion of politics and/or religion when our focus is on kilts, is to court disaster. The 'genealogy' sub-set of the forum is to allow those whose ancestry is Scottish to discuss how that affects their thinking.

[neloon]

Alan, Rule 5 is there because the forum knows, from vast experience, that to permit discussion of politics and/or religion when our focus is on kilts, is to court disaster. The 'genealogy' sub-set of the forum is to allow those whose ancestry is Scottish to discuss how that affects their thinking.

Isn't that exactly the point I'm making? You don't find "rule 5s" on UK fora - they're not necessary.

Alan

[davidlpope]

The OP asked why those who describe themselves thus believe it to be necessary; in other words, isn't 'American' sufficient?

That's exactly my point. "American" isn't sufficient if one is referring to culture or identity. America is too big, young, and heterogenous for "American" to be useful in describing culture or identity.

I recognize that my prior metaphor (Europe/Scotland) was limited. But I still think that the metaphor still has value. My point was that "European", while an accurate descriptor of someone living in Germany, isn't as helpful as "German" when trying to provide information about culture and identity.

[Liam]

1329605[/URL]]Reiver you must understand that the number of 'Scots' contributing to this forum is ultra small; for the number who say anything critical about visitors to Scotland it is easy to walk into any village and find many more who love the funds visitors bring into the country.

The point of this thread is the question: how one can claim a nationality without being a national? American without being American, for example. Since Scots generally speaking don't hanker after being anything other than Scottish, some here are seeking to understand the reason behind Americans (Canadians, Australians, whatever) wishing to claim another nationality than their own.

The salient point is that they are not claiming Scottish citizenship but rightfully acknowledging Scottish ancestry.