Kilt Go Braugh? A cultural/historical question

[highlander_Daz]

I find that America in particular has a fascination with the history of other countries- that may be due to the fact that America is a relitively young nation in the grand scheme of things, and secondly because the majority of its residents hail from other lands, large numbers of Irish left for the states so its no suprise that Irish culture (and Scottish) is celebrated, its less usual for people in England to have this fascination with their roots, take for example Steve McLaren hes got a Scottish name and red hair but regards himself as English, which of course is his choice, Tony Blair was born and educated in Edinburgh, but regards himself as English, Sandy Lyle was born in England but regards himself a Scot, I have family born in England but they considor themselves as Scots, so your roots are a factor but less so in the UK, Gordon Brown has been promoting britishness and was seen last year on telly, rooting for the England football team, so there is a big overlap of cultures, in todays society people like to "pidgeon hole" you as something, in the UK you tend to be judged on how you speak, for example, Colin Montgomeryand Gordon Ramsay, both have English accents as do a lot of Scots Lairds etc, but Scots non the less.

Rod Stuart is someone who has made a living from being a "professional" Scot, despite being born in London (to Scots parents) there was a scatihng article about Rod in the Scotsman a few years ago criticising his Scottish credentials as bogus because he was Born in London, which was a little unfair , Rod has got Scots blood and promotes Scotland all over the world, albeit in a slightly stereotyped way.

[creativeaccents]

If there is one thing that I have learned from my studies of history it is that none of us, whether American, English, Scottish, Irish or other more recent national origin, are truly purebreds in the sense of all predecessors being from one stock. One doesn't have to go back too far in history of any countries or regions to see how many different cultures have entered into our heritage.



Going back beyond the 1600s things REALLY begin to get interesting. Most of our histories do well to even be traced back before the 400s...still not that long ago in terms of history. However, even before that there were cultural migrations that would really surprise us. Peoples from throughout what is now "Britain" as well as most of Europe and even other parts of the world spread their genes, cultures and traditions well before recorded history.



One thing that I might add is the considerable role of the Normans (French) both in terms of the French families that we now recognize as Scottish as well as the substantial role of feudalism as a system that greatly influenced most aspects of land ownership, entitlement, political affiliation and so much more that later shaped Scottish and English history.

[Archangel]

Regarding the question of Scotch-Irish migration being lumped together in American history:

Yes, generally, historians tend to group the whole movement as one long event rather than break it down to smaller events. Fischer's Albion's Seed takes the long general approach and, while this is considered an important book, the critics say that the generalization is it's major flaw.

He describes the movement of Scotch-Irish into the frontier lands of the colonies. You know America better than I do at this time in the morning without getting the book out, sort of the Ozark, Smoky Mountain areas. He doesn't really get into the late-1700 to mid-1800 migrations. That would disrupt his thesis.

It is a good book if you pay attention to what he is actually describing.

So, yes, that study could create confusion.

[Mael Coluim]

Another way to state this may be, "What thoughts do you personally have when you don your kilt on March 17th?"
.

Before there was a Scotland or Ireland or England; there was the Kingdom of Dalraida. Dalraida included lands both in the north of Ireland and the west of Scotland. The peoples considered the sea between them as their highway. It was these people the Romans called the Scotti that the name Scotland was derived.

My clan Malcolm/MacCallum hails from the Poltalloch peninsula of Argyll. Within this area is the ancient fort of Dunadd where the King of the eastern Kingdom of Dalraida reigned. Legend has it that the Irish St. Columba when searching for a place in ‘Scotland’ to establish his abbey was given/directed to the Isle of Iona. (This occurred in the 6th century, a century after St. Patrick came to Ireland.) The name Malcolm/MacCallum/ Mael Coluim means follower of St. Columba.

When I put on my Malcolm tartan kilt on St. Patrick’s Day I think of this common heritage.

Duntrune is the background - fresh from rowing the 'Colmcille' from Ireland!

[beloitpiper]

Picture a Highland Pipes and Drums band (clearly Scottish, plausibly mostly Presbyterians) marching on St. Patty's Day (an Irish Catholic celebration).

I am a Presbyterian. I am in an Irish pipe band. We wear green kilts. Are kilts Irish? Not exactly. Are bagpipes? You bet your thóin! Irish war pipes are basically great highland pipes, but with two drones instead of three. The only reason we don't play those instead is because 1) GHB are easy to get and, 2) they sound better. A large majority of our repertoire is Irish tunes.

Yes, you may see Scottish pipe bands march in St. Patrick's Day parades, but you also see them march in 4th of July Parades, Canada Day parades, and (I bet) any others you can dig up. Let's face it, bagpipes are awesome, and why stop the skirl of the pipes on such a wonderful (largely secular) holiday?!?

[beloitpiper]

CE (that's the PC term for AD - CE=Christian Era AD=Anno Domini -in the year of our Lord).

CE means "common era", while BCE means "before common era". Same dates, different labeling

One of the 'kingdoms' was that of Dal Riata which had territory in both Ireland and Scotland. And there was also a King of the Scots (Beginning I think with Fergus Mor) - they were always Kings of the Scots, not of Scotland (think Mary, Queen of Scots) - kings of the people not the land, probably because they moved from Ireland to Scotland.

While Fergus Mór was the legendary ruler of Dál Riata, I'm not sure it wold be correct to say that he was the ruler of the Scots. I'm more inclined to name Cináed mac Ailpín (Kenneth MacAlpin) the first King of the Scots.

[Archangel]

While Fergus Mór was the legendary ruler of Dál Riata, I'm not sure it wold be correct to say that he was the ruler of the Scots. I'm more inclined to name Cináed mac Ailpín (Kenneth MacAlpin) the first King of the Scots.

Okay, this will end up being a mess but you're essentially right. Alpin was recognized by contemporaries as the first king.

The previous kings fell under the Irish system and were not really like what we would call king today. They would be lower level kings and Alpin rose above them (in battle, treachery, wealth, whatever). He was a Pictish king and moved the political structure to the east of Scotland. He brought about (or fulfilled) a different concept of kingship.

As usual, don't jump all over this. I'm compressing entire books into one paragraph.

[beloitpiper]

As usual, don't jump all over this. I'm compressing entire books into one paragraph.

Just a friendly peer review. History this old is blurry at best.

[gilmore]

If there is one thing that I have learned from my studies of history it is that none of us, whether American, English, Scottish, Irish or other more recent national origin, are truly purebreds in the sense of all predecessors being from one stock. One doesn't have to go back too far in history of any countries or regions to see how many different cultures have entered into our heritage.

Not always true. It depends on what part of the world you are in. Genetic genealogy shows that a surprising (to us peripetatic Americans) numbers of Welsh, Scots, Irish and English, and other Europeans live pretty much where their ancestors did. Do a search for a Welsh or Scots surname here: http://www.nationaltrustnames.org.uk/default.aspx You will see that in 1881, they were pretty much where they had always been.

Going back beyond the 1600s things REALLY begin to get interesting. Most of our histories do well to even be traced back before the 400s...still not that long ago in terms of history. However, even before that there were cultural migrations that would really surprise us. Peoples from throughout what is now "Britain" as well as most of Europe and even other parts of the world spread their genes, cultures and traditions well before recorded history.

No one of European descent (except Georgian nobility) can trace his ancestry with any reliability at all further than Charlemagne's immediate ancestors in the 700's. The records just are not there, LDS assertions notwithstanding.

There was relatively little genetic dispersal until European expansion started about 500 years ago. See maps of distribution of DNA here http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/Wo...groupsMaps.pdf

In 1500, and even today, despite the Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Norman invasions, the majority of English (yes, English, not only British) DNA comes from the Celts. The former contributed much less to the British gene pool than had been previously thought.

One thing that I might add is the considerable role of the Normans (French) both in terms of the French families that we now recognize as Scottish as well as the substantial role of feudalism as a system that greatly influenced most aspects of land ownership, entitlement, political affiliation and so much more that later shaped Scottish and English history.

Feudalism came to Lowland Scotland with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. The few Norman families who went there came much later. Most say that although feudalism made some inroads into the Highlands, it never replaced the clan system there, the latter having been destroyed after the 1745 rebellion.

[macwilkin]

Regarding the question of Scotch-Irish migration being lumped together in American history:

Yes, generally, historians tend to group the whole movement as one long event rather than break it down to smaller events. Fischer's Albion's Seed takes the long general approach and, while this is considered an important book, the critics say that the generalization is it's major flaw.

He describes the movement of Scotch-Irish into the frontier lands of the colonies. You know America better than I do at this time in the morning without getting the book out, sort of the Ozark, Smoky Mountain areas. He doesn't really get into the late-1700 to mid-1800 migrations. That would disrupt his thesis.

It is a good book if you pay attention to what he is actually describing.

So, yes, that study could create confusion.

Interesting...which critics? All of the reviews of Fischer tend to be very positive.

One thing, though: Fischer really doesn't address the Ozarks per se, since the settlement of the Ozarks came after the 1820's. Of course, the Ulster-Scots/Scots-Irish who settled Appalachia were the majority of settlers into the Ozarks, but as I remember (I'm in St. Louis and away from my library at the moment), he only mentions the Ozarks in passing.

Still, it's a good resource.

T.