Identity in the Scottish Diaspora

[Reiver]

As best I can...

"In America and Canada hyphenating citizenship and a selected ancestor's place of birth is frequently, but not always, the norm. That's combining heritage and citizenship; I understand the fact but not yet the reason."

I hardly know anyone that hyphenates in this manor...actually, no one personally unless you were discussing their origins and they would say......Oh, Italian roots but not Italian American.

"The question that I asked earlier is why? What's the difference that makes this the way in the new land of North America and not in the new land of Scotland?"

One would have to live both places and know them intimately to know both sides of that story.

"I have heard that America is a big land and that's the reason. That would seem to me to be saying that a move from Florida to California five generations ago results in the hyphenated Floridian-Californian. I don't know; does it?"

Yes, generally. I'm simply an American but when we talk locally even tho I live in Arizona it is common to say 'but born raised in Indiana'....

"Is it a need for deeper roots than those to be found in NA after even as many as five or ten generations? If so, why is the selected ancestry Scottish and not another of the myriad genealogical lines?"

Name mostly...most here have a Scots name and, as my cousin David (the genealogist in the family ) had his DNA done his pathway led from Africa (as we all do) to the northern portion of the British Isles by DNA markers. The pathway indicated across Eurasia was thousands of years ago.....he had it done by the National Geographic Genome experiment and a private firm and they both had the same results. Finally, many know the name of the individual that first came to the Colony/US....in our case Jerome Scott but I'll not bore you with the details.

"Is it an admiration for earlier times in Scotland? An admiration for the Scotland of today? A feeling of spiritual connection and, if so, with what aspect of 'Scottishness'?"

It is simply where they came from and I enjoy the history of the whole deal. However, I do have an admiration for those living/surviving on the borders thru to the 1600's...they had to be stalwart people and that tenacity didn't hurt any when they came to the Colonies. So, yes, a certain admiration. Perhaps they still are

[davidlpope]

In America and Canada hyphenating citizenship and a selected ancestor's place of birth is frequently, but not always, the norm. That's combining heritage and citizenship; I understand the fact but not yet the reason.

The question that I asked earlier is why? What's the difference that makes this the way in the new land of North America and not in the new land of Scotland?

First, it should be noted that we are dealing with a sub-set of Americans here. Most Americans don't know and don't care about their genealogy.

For those that do care, my hypothesis is this: The difference is that there is no unifying American culture. Immigrants to Scotland have a new culture that comes with their new adopted country. There is no singular American culture. So, in a sense you get to choose. Usually that choice is based on your family's ancestry. Italians in New York do the whole Columbus Day thing. Descendants of Greeks in Charlotte, NC have a big Greek festival. Germans have Oktoberfest and Polka. The Irish (from the South, who arrived after ~1860) have St. Patrick's Day. Descendants of Scots have the Highland Games.

Here's how simple it is for me: I like history. I like to have history personalized. I want to know the story of "my people" (the "my" is important), and what their history was. Where am I from?

I have heard that America is a big land and that's the reason. That would seem to me to be saying that a move from Florida to California five generations ago results in the hyphenated Floridian-Californian. I don't know; does it?

Yes. Yankees who move to North Carolina are still Yankees. Their kids are Yankee kids raised in the South. My wife's parents are both from Maryland. She and her siblings were all born and grew up here. But she's not a North Carolinian in the same way that I am. Our children's heritage is a mixed bag. Where were your great-grandparents from? "Who are/were your people?"

Is it a need for deeper roots than those to be found in NA after even as many as five or ten generations?

Yes, sometimes. But even then, it's complicated. It's complicated because the organic culture that's been created over 5-10 generations was the result of the mixing of the original immigrant cultures. The region of North Carolina that I am from was strongly influenced by it's original immigrants- Ulster Presbyterians of Scottish ancestry. So, my cultural identity is still tied to/influenced by the historical culture of Scotland. In other words, my North Carolinian heritage is still largely reflective of its Scottish roots. Hey, the last Highland broadsword charge occurred at the Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge, right here in North Carolina...

If so, why is the selected ancestry Scottish and not another of the myriad genealogical lines?

Scotland is the selected ancestry because it is the only one that has a clearly definable culture that is cool. If you go back to my g'g'g'grandparents, they are about 1/2 Ulster Scots/Scots (Mom's side) and about 1/2 English/Welsh (Dad's side). What would it look like for me to celebrate my English heritage? Morris dancing? My Welsh heritage? Choral singing? Those things can't compete with tartan and kilts and bagpipes. Sir Walter Scott did his job too well...

Is it an admiration for earlier times in Scotland? An admiration for the Scotland of today? A feeling of spiritual connection and, if so, with what aspect of 'Scottishness'?

An admiration for earlier times, yes. We tend to trace our own sense of freedom and independence from our ancestors- Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, the Solemn League and Covenant, the Sugar Creek War, the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, the Halifax Resolves, the American Declaration of Independence.

An admiration for the Scotland of today? Only in the sense that you still have a definable culture. Yes, I know it may seem shortbread-tin to you all, but when someone sees a kilt or bagpipes they immediately know "Scotland". The same isn't true with the US.

A feeling of 'spiritual connection' with certain aspects of "Scottishness"? Sure: Fierce independence, willingness to defy kings when one's religion is at stake, loyalty to one's family to the extent that bloodshed is not out of the question...

Look, I know that there is probably shuddering all around the world when they watch America's current machinations. But I think that perhaps we're still just a bit wilder than you. A bit less refined and reasonable and tame. A little less civilized. It's not necessarily flattering for us. But I do think it harkens back to our shared ancestry in a way that is a bit truer to them.

Nemo me impune lacessit, right?

[ThistleDown]

Thank you, Reiver. Thank you, David. I see you are both still up and on, but we are rapidly approaching my bed-time and I must set aside my responses until tomorrow. In the meanwhile, you have helped me enormously to understand this intensely defensive "Scottish" stand that Americans (and a few Canadians) bring to XMarks. I do have some new questions and comments that come from your answers but must leave them until tomorrow.

Sleep well.

Rex

[Tarheel]

Davidpope is now my spokesman on this subject.

I have lived (experienced) everything in his most recent post for the first half of my life (North Carolina) and it is the same for many older families here in my adopted Mississippi.

I've lived here for thirty years and still here folks comment that, "You'd understand better if you were from here."

[neloon]

"The question that I asked earlier is why? What's the difference that makes this the way in the new land of North America and not in the new land of Scotland?"

One would have to live both places and know them intimately to know both sides of that story.

I believe that exactly characterises Rex (Thistledown) yet he's the one who asked the question!

Alan

[neloon]

David,
Your last contribution was excellent and I basically understood it. A couple of thoughts on the last para.

An admiration for the Scotland of today? Only in the sense that you still have a definable culture. Yes, I know it may seem shortbread-tin to you all, but when someone sees a kilt or bagpipes they immediately know "Scotland". The same isn't true with the US.

A feeling of 'spiritual connection' with certain aspects of "Scottishness"? Sure: Fierce independence, willingness to defy kings when one's religion is at stake, loyalty to one's family to the extent that bloodshed is not out of the question...

Look, I know that there is probably shuddering all around the world when they watch America's current machinations. But I think that perhaps we're still just a bit wilder than you. A bit less refined and reasonable and tame. A little less civilized. It's not necessarily flattering for us. But I do think it harkens back to our shared ancestry in a way that is a bit truer to them.

Nemo me impune lacessit, right?

Yes, we do cringe about the kilts and haggis image because it is such a small part of Scotland but a part of which we are very proud and we want to ensure that it is not "betrayed". We will certainly defend it - not, nowadays to the extent of bloodshed but, certainly, to the extent of shouting at XMarkers.
Indeed we are saddened by the ongoing predicament of the US not least because it closely affects us all and we have no say in anything - which probably makes us shout at you even more loudly.
Yes, you are wild - we certainly notice that. I think I have previously called you a bunch of teenagers in reference to the relative ages of our countries - you don't listen properly, you slam doors, you deliberately misunderstand, you know it all and certainly think that we're condescending. Have teenagers ever thought you were being condescending even when you knew you were not?
Just remember that Scotland on a daily basis is also full of great variety. I am sitting 'midst the rolling green fields of Aberdeenshire a million miles away from the buzzi-ness of Glasgow - your average Weegie(Glaswegian) can't understand the speak of the countryfolk around here and vice-versa. But we all share the same eternal backdrop of mountains, lochs and rivers, the same legal system (even if the US doesn't like it), the same education system (our Higher Education is renowned worldwide), the same tourism industry ("The land that likes to be visited" - we really do even if you come kilted), the same social conscience (which makes even Bernie seem right-wing but is what is left of Presbyterianism) and, on top of the variety, we share our long fought-for unity - from our near-Norwegian friends in Shetland to our near-Irish friends down in Wigtownshire.
So, yes, our culture is "definable", but not alone by shortbread and tartan.

Alan

[jumary]

This is all very interesting but I am more than a bit frustrated/ annoyed by the constant complaints by the Scottish members here. It seems your goal is to make us give up our kilts etc. and that we should not even presume to try to understand Scotland. Most of us really want to like Scotland. We admire your history and truly like the Scots we know as friends. So what if we don't totally get it? I live inFlorida and we have thousands of tourists. We welcome and value them, regardless if they don't understand the USA. I have learned a great deal about kilts here but I don't need a periodic lecture. I will continue to wear my kilt when I want. If I go to Scotland again, I may just wear it, but I definitely won't be asking permission. If you don't like it, just keep it to yourself.
I hope to keep reading and learning about Scotland, and I hope you will still help to teach us, but I don't need the negativity.

[Father Bill]

This is all very interesting but I am more than a bit frustrated/ annoyed by the constant complaints by the Scottish members here. It seems your goal is to make us give up our kilts etc. and that we should not even presume to try to understand Scotland.

Not all, but a few of the Scottish members (or those who claim to be Scots) make me feel something similar to this. Their comments often come across as condescending and arrogant. No, I guess they're right, I don't understand them completely, but it's obvious that they don't understand other national mindsets either, and while I'll try to explain mine (if they insist ad nauseum on asking about it) I'm more than willing to just let their misunderstandings of us go by the by without lecturing them for their lack of comprehension of Canada (or the U.S. for that matter - Canadians and Americans don't always understand each other either, it would seem.)

Those few don't seem willing to grant us the same leeway for different understandings and keep bringing them up to the detriment of the forum and reduction of respect for Scotland that it creates. They don't seem able to give it up despite many long, thoughtful, scholarly, insightful and considerate attempts at explanations in answer to their questions.

I think it may be well past time to just let it go or if they don't like the misunderstandings, leave quietly. The damage that is inflicted is inappropriate to gentlemen and ladies and does neither Scotland nor this forum any favours.

[davidlpope]

Yes, you are wild - we certainly notice that. I think I have previously called you a bunch of teenagers in reference to the relative ages of our countries - you don't listen properly, you slam doors, you deliberately misunderstand, you know it all and certainly think that we're condescending. Have teenagers ever thought you were being condescending even when you knew you were not?

I think this is about right. Our Civil War was about 210 years after yours. We're roughly in the empire phase, now, so no wonder that other countries don't always love us. We're probably about 100-200 years more wild than you.

The other thought that I had is this: perhaps the answer is dependent on our genes. Maybe all the wild Scots left, either to Ulster or America or Canada or Australia, and the current population in Scotland is descended from the more sedate Scots who stayed put. It's hard for us in the South (who were willing to fight a war to try and get out of the country we were in) to understand the recent Scottish Independence Referendum vote. Maybe we're just genetically more rebellious?

[neloon]

I think this is about right. Our Civil War was about 210 years after yours. We're roughly in the empire phase, now, so no wonder that other countries don't always love us. We're probably about 100-200 years more wild than you.

The other thought that I had is this: perhaps the answer is dependent on our genes. Maybe all the wild Scots left, either to Ulster or America or Canada or Australia, and the current population in Scotland is descended from the more sedate Scots who stayed put. It's hard for us in the South (who were willing to fight a war to try and get out of the country we were in) to understand the recent Scottish Independence Referendum vote. Maybe we're just genetically more rebellious?

David,
I don't quite get the Civil War allusion - the old Scotland was so full of internal strife all the time that no period was designated as a "Civil War" though England had a civil war at the time you hint at.
I'm not sure about the genes idea. The only time that Scots were slightly adventurous was for the Darien Scheme (which was a flop and a main cause of the union 0f 1707) *
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
Otherwise most Scots were forced to emigrate by economic circumstances not some kind of spirit of adventure. Obviously to survive the sea journey and the privations of carving out a new life may have selected out those with determination. Many of those left behind died in the slums of Glasgow (life expectancy 30 years), were killed in service for the Crown or, in the Highlands particularly, succumbed to alcoholic poisoning.. Most voluntary Scottish emigration was to Canada and New Zealand and their descendants don't seem (to us) particularly "wild".
Rule #5 does not allow me to comment on the "sedate" Scots and the Referendum other than to say that it wasn't/isn't really all that sedate.

Alan

*See
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/...tcm4555678.asp