A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)

[macwilkin]

Yar! I knew you would reply, Todd!

Yes, some of the structure for most societies is democratic to a degree. (Although I don't think 'appointing ' is really that democratic.) I'm mainly referring to the gushing attitude some people have when referring to their chief and the institution itself.

As for celebs and politicians? Definitely elevated to an unearned lofty position. A certain middle-aged Irish musician come to mind right now...

Regardless, though, the Chief is the head of the clan, and respect should be given to the office/position, if nothing else. I agree, I'm not much on "gushing" myself, be it to a Chief, President, etc., but I do believe that one should show respect.

T.

[Andrewson]

As another native Scot I find myself in close agreement with Phil and Alex above. Who can deny the historical facts?

Like Alex I am a member of a clan society. I joined before I knew very much about the clan system. I attended clan gatherings and enjoyed the social interaction but there was no deep feeling of kinship with the very diverse group of people there. The original clans were collections of diverse people, not all sharing the same family trees (i.e. not all sharing the same "surname") but willing to swear allegiance to the chief for whatever reasons of economic need etc.. Because they lived. worked and fought together, there is no doubt that a very strong bond did develop between members and this may even, at times have cut across actual family relations. I believe there were cases where brothers of the same family joined different clans and fought each other when their clan interests were in conflict. Who knows they may even have worn the same tartan when they did so for the notion that the tartan was the uniform identifying the clan is also a myth. (They would be carrying their chief's badge in their caps.) So the idea that I have a historical clan-based bond with people who happen to share a surname with me (no matter how that name was acquired) is false. The notion that I have the "right" (maybe even the duty) to wear the tartans of that name whereas those without the surname do not is also false.

I have no objection to people using what they see as a connection with a clan name as a means of establishing a closer relationship with Scotland, her history and customs. That is just great for both the individual and my country. I freely confess that I have chosen the tartan for two of my kilts (and for my avatar) from just such a supposed association and I am happy to wear those tartans. But I don't delude myself into thinking that I am preserving or paying homage to a valuable ancient social system when I do so.

[macwilkin]

As another native Scot I find myself in close agreement with Phil and Alex above. Who can deny the historical facts?

Like Alex I am a member of a clan society. I joined before I knew very much about the clan system. I attended clan gatherings and enjoyed the social interaction but there was no deep feeling of kinship with the very diverse group of people there. The original clans were collections of diverse people, not all sharing the same family trees (i.e. not all sharing the same "surname") but willing to swear allegiance to the chief for whatever reasons of economic need etc.. Because they lived. worked and fought together, there is no doubt that a very strong bond did develop between members and this may even, at times have cut across actual family relations. I believe there were cases where brothers of the same family joined different clans and fought each other when their clan interests were in conflict. Who knows they may even have worn the same tartan when they did so for the notion that the tartan was the uniform identifying the clan is also a myth. (They would be carrying their chief's badge in their caps.) So the idea that I have a historical clan-based bond with people who happen to share a surname with me (no matter how that name was acquired) is false. The notion that I have the "right" (maybe even the duty) to wear the tartans of that name whereas those without the surname do not is also false.

I have no objection to people using what they see as a connection with a clan name as a means of establishing a closer relationship with Scotland, her history and customs. That is just great for both the individual and my country. I freely confess that I have chosen the tartan for two of my kilts (and for my avatar) from just such a supposed association and I am happy to wear those tartans. But I don't delude myself into thinking that I am preserving or paying homage to a valuable ancient social system when I do so.

I can agree with 99% percent of us, save the last sentence. I think the majority of people join clan societies to pay homage to their ancestors.

T.

[Phil]

I believe there were cases where brothers of the same family joined different clans and fought each other when their clan interests were in conflict.

I think this was generally for pragmatic reasons in that noble families could thus ensure that at least one of their family would be on the winning side. The losers usually found their lands and all their possessions confiscated and their survivors exiled.

[gilmore]

... You may, perhaps, understand why I completely fail to understand how anyone would wish to perpetuate something that so completely failed its adherents in the past and has nothing to offer but a simplistic romanticism nowadays.
By all means join clan societies but do so in the knowledge of what they truly represent. That is all I ask.

At highland games here in the US I have often thought how ironic it is to see Americans leap to their feet when clan chiefs are introduced as honored guests, in ignorance, sometimes willful, that it was more often than not the ancestors of these very chiefs whose mistreatment of their own ancestors cause them to leave their homes in Scotland to start from nothing, making a new life in a strange country.

I suspect in the imaginings of most of those in the US, their ancestors WERE the chiefs, rather than their serfs, so they happily spend outrageous sums on highland dress, in the belief they are continuing the traditions of their chiefly ancestors, rather than clothing themselves in something closer to the chiefs' lackeys.

Of course times have changed, perhaps more quickly here in the US than in Britain. Every time I go to the UK, it is a bit of a shock to encounter how deeply held class prejudice is, and how pervasive, compared to the US, and on both sides of the salt. (I do not say there are not all sorts of prejudices in the US. There are. It's just that the kind of class prejudice one sees in the UK, one doesn't see here. It's qualitatively different.) It's more akin to racism in the US, I guess, an unpleasant legacy from the benighted past that most people avoid discussing openly, and find more comfortable to ignore.

One could continue this analogy of the Gathering in Edinburgh as if middle and upper income African-Americans from the northern US were to travel to the rural American South, dress in rags, pick cotton and pretend to be happy, content and compliant darkies who rever their kindly masters---to the point that they took their owners' surnames, just as clansmen took their chiefs'--- and enjoy nothing more than waiting on them hand and foot. But this misses the point. And that point is using myth to promote tourism and thus the local economy, benefitting largely the descendants of the oppressed. A past that never existed is foisted upon the unwary.

[macwilkin]

At highland games here in the US I have often thought how ironic it is to see Americans leap to their feet when clan chiefs are introduced as honored guests, in ignorance, sometimes willful, that it was more often than not the ancestors of these very chiefs whose mistreatment of their own ancestors cause them to leave their homes in Scotland to start from nothing, making a new life in a strange country.

Of course, one can argue that those Chiefs did anything to anyone's ancestors, because they weren't alive at the time.

"Sins of the father" all that.

T.

[Monkey@Arms]

Of course, one can argue that those Chiefs did anything to anyone's ancestors, because they weren't alive at the time.

"Sins of the father" all that.

T.

Yes, but to take your point if one is a descendant of the victims of the clearances, why express loyalty (as some do) to the descendants of your oppressor and the system that enabled your oppression?

Best regards,

Jake

[macwilkin]

Yes, but if is a descendant of the victims of the clearances, why express loyalty (as some do) to the descendants of your oppressor and the system that enabled your oppression?

Best regards,

Jake

Ah, nothing like generalization...as if every clan chief oppressed every clansman/woman in history. Since I'm not a descendant of a Clearances victim, then I really can't answer that.

And please tell me how an American citizen is being "oppressed" by any clan chief today? I don't recall any "draft notices" from my chief calling me up to fight those dastardly Bruces.

T.

[gilmore]

Of course, one can argue that those Chiefs did anything to anyone's ancestors, because they weren't alive at the time.

"Sins of the father" all that.

T.

Of course.

In fact the few chiefs, chieftans, and members of their families I have met have been fine fellows for whom I have a certain sympathy, they having been born into a rather circumscribed and often thankless role in life that they sometimes feel they have to play out, regardless of their own interests, abilities, personalities and inclinations.

Responding using the previous analogy, I may have done nothing to any living African-American's ancestors, because I was not alive at the time, although some of my ancestors were slave owners. However, I have benefited from that injustice. To me it seems the least I can do is not to perpetuate the rosy myth that slavery was a wonderful institution.

[Phil]

I am sure many present-day clan chiefs have little or nothing in common with their predecessors and can appreciate why they may find their role nowadays to be thankless. Why anyone would feel the need to "bend the knee" to them, however is completely beyond me, particularly as so much social change has taken place in this country to reduce the relevance and influence of people derived solely from an accident of their birth. In a country such as America where success is based principally on ability, reverence for inherited influence seems totally incomprehensible. I can only assume that there is a latent desire to look up to such people much in the way the late Princess Diana was revered as a fairy tale princess.