A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

But there could be no better example than Harold MacMillan who, despite his great talents, privileged education, connection to noble families (the Devonshires) through marriage still could never become chief of his clan.

You are absolutely correct, but not for the reasons you've stated. The courts decided in 1953 that the chiefly line was vested in General Sir Gordon MacMillan. So the matter is settled in law. And this is the case with virtually all of the Scottish chiefs: they are chiefs because of a decision made by a court of law. People who who are unhappy with that decision have the right to appeal, and some have. In fact cases of chiefship have gone all the way to the House of Lords. But at the end of the day the Law has determined who is entitled to be called a chief, not some clerk at the central registry of births.

(By the way, in the archives at the MacMillan Clan Center there is a letter from Harold MacMillan acknowledging the chief, wishing him well, and stating how proud he is to be a member of the clan.)

I think it presumptuous to assume that the average clansman (or even Super Mac) would want to be a clan chief. I know I wouldn't. I see chiefship as a tiring, largely thankless task that quite often gets in the way of the chief having a life of his own. True, a chief gets to be friends with people from all walks of life and every corner of the globe-- and here one may have missed the central core of chiefship-- that clan folk come from every possible section of society, and all are regarded as "family and friends" by their chief, and generally treated as such.

There is no "below the salt" at a clan gathering.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

And to think, it took only four generations and some 200 years, as opposed to, say, some other countries where the bi-racial son of a deserted single mother---also from a remote island off the country's western coast--- became president before he was 50 years old.

I think it is disingenuous to portray someone in a false light, as you have done.

I suspect that if you go back 200 years you will find a similar pattern of social advancement in his family.

Setting aside any possible comment on the politics of the United States, you will notice that the gentleman referred to had the advantage of a first class education provided by his maternal grandparents. Beyond that, he took advantage of that education, and every political opportunity possible, to advance himself in society and in his chosen career.

In this regard I see no real difference between the current president of the United States and, say, former president Gerald Ford.

[The Barry]

It is an unfortunate truth that those who are availed to privilege in life do better than those that aren't. This is the "gap" that is talked about at length in sociological studies. This gap is unfortunately widening. I hope that the playing field levels out significantly in the near future.

As far as family history is concerned, my limited studies have suggested that my ancestors have been the invaders, the invaded, the enslaved, the enslavers, the victims, the warlords, etc..

This is all dependent on who gets what side of what stick during what century.

I would imagine that this is true of most peoples' ancestors.

[DWFII]

It is an unfortunate truth that those who are availed to privilege in life do better than those that aren't. This is the "gap" that is talked about at length in sociological studies. This gap is unfortunately widening. I hope that the playing field levels out significantly in the near future.

Don't hold your breath (he said kindly). I can't think of a society in history(even contemporaneous history) where some haven't had, by virtue of birth, an advantage over others.

Once upon a time it was Clan Chiefs who by virtue of genes or nourishment were bigger and stronger than their peers. Isn't that a kind of ascendancy by merit? Or is it just a variation of the lucky sperm wars?

Once upon a time there were Kings and Queens who, by virtue of their birth and education, were undoubtedly better prepared to govern than others. Was the French Revolution, and subsequently the Empire, really a different or better society that what had preceded it?

And always...running through the history of human beings on this planet...there were people who, by virtue of their birth and temperament, were in positions of privilege that they did not deserve and almost certainly abused. To...this...day.

And always, just as certainly, there have been shadowy figures who rose from obscurity to positions of power and privilege...on merit--by manipulating those who actually wore the crown or the feathers.

Today, instead of clan chiefs and kings and queens, we have CEO's and sports figures...and movie stars and politicians, both of whom, parenthetically, maintain their positions of privilege by essentially creating and living a lie, or a masquerade, at the very least. Where's the "merit" in the meritocracy?

And we buy into those lies and attend those masques, even if we have to go as footmen and scullery maids, simply because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

It may be better for a large segment of society now...and/or under certain systems of government...than it was in the past but, at bottom, not much has really changed.

[gilmore]

"A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)" was the original title of this post. Sadly no other actual Scottish people seem able or willing to contribute so I will bow out now before the inevitable tide of opprobrium descends upon me. If anyone feels that this has been a one-sided discussion then that is probably because that is precisely the case.

I am sorry to hear that. I find your comments interesting and informative.

Maybe other Scots aren't contributing to the discussion because it seems few know of the Gathering. According to one of the members who lives in the Highlands a few weeks ago, he was the only person among his aquaintances who was aware of it.

[Bugbear]

Don't hold your breath (he said kindly). I can't think of a society in history(even contemporaneous history) where some haven't had, by virtue of birth, an advantage over others.

Once upon a time it was Clan Chiefs who by virtue of genes or nourishment were bigger and stronger than their peers. Isn't that a kind of ascendancy by merit? Or is it just a variation of the lucky sperm wars?

Once upon a time there were Kings and Queens who, by virtue of their birth and education, were undoubtedly better prepared to govern than others. Was the French Revolution, and subsequently the Empire, really a different or better society that what had preceded it?

And always...running through the history of human beings on this planet...there were people who, by virtue of their birth and temperament, were in positions of privilege that they did not deserve and almost certainly abused. To...this...day.

And always, just as certainly, there have been shadowy figures who rose from obscurity to positions of power and privilege...on merit--by manipulating those who actually wore the crown or the feathers.

Today, instead of clan chiefs and kings and queens, we have CEO's and sports figures...and movie stars and politicians, both of whom, parenthetically, maintain their positions of privilege by essentially creating and living a lie, or a masquerade, at the very least. Where's the "merit" in the meritocracy?

And we buy into those lies and attend those masques, even if we have to go as footmen and scullery maids, simply because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

It may be better for a large segment of society now...and/or under certain systems of government...than it was in the past but, at bottom, not much has really changed.

Ah, cheer up, DWFII; some day the world will probably get smacked with a giant piece of space rubble, again, and wipe us all out.

I think I've heard several points of view on the Scottish clans now; I hope I can let it all go. I will, however, keep in mind that the chief of a clan is determent by genetic heretity; the chief of a clan has the final and only say on what the tartans of the clan are, as well as, the clan badge etc; therefore, clan tartans are inseparably tied to and represent genetic blood lines being perpetuated through offspring.

I will also keep in mind that it is all right to think of the word "clan" in a broader sense of people of one's own kind, and not strictly by the meaning of a legally recognized Scottish clan, the members of which have loilty to a legally recognized chiefe.

[dfmacliam]

Phil, I learned from your comments, it is much appreciated.

My thoughts on the Gathering is it's all about money.. True it's going to put a boost in the economy... People are going to greatly benefit from the need of others showing their pride in their heritage.. Mind you, with good intentions or not..some guests will be wronged, just as sure as some hosts.
I pray that overall, people walk away with good feelings... I regret, that some hard feelings will be present, due to ignorence, a lack of understanding, and possibly a misguided version of history.
Do not take my opinion as being so negative, because I do wish the event to be a success. Things will happens, it's all part of life... But, let's pray the good far exceeds the bad.

[DWFII]

Ah, cheer up, DWFII; some day the world will probably get smacked with a giant piece of space rubble, again, and wipe us all out.

[chuckle] No worries, Ted. People only need cheering up when they live their lives believing in histories or philosophies that have no basis in reality.

[Bugbear]

[chuckle] No worries, Ted. People only need cheering up when they live their lives believing in histories or philosophies that have no basis in reality.

Exactly.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

It is an unfortunate truth that those who are availed to privilege in life do better than those that aren't. This is the "gap" that is talked about at length in sociological studies. This gap is unfortunately widening. I hope that the playing field levels out significantly in the near future.

I tend to think that the playing fields are about as level as they can be, at least in the Western Hemisphere. Unfortunately for social engineers we, as people, aren't all the same size, shape, or race. We don't all have equal mental acuity, or the same level of artistic ability. Nor do we all have the same desire to dress like Snoop Dog or wear a kilt. We do, however, live in a society where-- all things being equal-- anyone can achieve a full measure of success.

And here's the problem.

No matter how you slice it, things will never be truly equal. While we can all enjoy a fair degree of social and legal equality, it will still remain a fact of life that the child with an IQ of 78 probably won't do as well in school as the child with an IQ of 110. The 6 foot tall, 175 pound man will probably outlive the 6 foot tall 260 pound man, and neither one will play professional basketball. And yes, the pretty girl will be asked out more often than her mousy sorority sister.

Rather than demand "special status" because of perceived inequality, people have to recognize the fact that we aren't all the same, and that they have to capitalize on those meager abilities that they were born with. Yes, some people are born with superior abilities-- the voice of an opera singer, the looks of a movie star, the brains of a mathematical genius.

How does society compensate for the basic traits that allow some to excel while the majority fall by the wayside? By enacting laws limiting the height of basketball players? Banning all music but Rap? Sorry, it can't be done.

The playing field is a level as it can possibly be, and the game is in full play. It is up to the individual to either go out and play as best he can, or sit on the sidelines and be, at best, a mere spectator.