"Full Blooded"

[Cavalry Scout]

I don't believe that we've brought the topics of culture and heritage in this thread. It seems to me that these hold a place of equal importance (and maybe moreso) to DNA.

-Mark-

[Father Bill]

I don't believe that we've brought the topics of culture and heritage in this thread. It seems to me that these hold a place of equal importance (and maybe moreso) to DNA.

-Mark-

Yes. Frankly, I see little importance in DNA outside of Clan Chiefs and royalty (and even then it may have had a detour or two that nobody knows of). The important family is not those who share your DNA; it's those who love you and take care of you, and about whom you care.

I care about Scotland.

[freep]

Freep, if you want it in Geneological Searches, I can still put it there. I just thought it had other elements as well.

We use the guideline at XMarks that the OP is the "owner" of the thread unless it's veering across the rules.

Father Bill for the Forum Moderators.

No worries. Leave it where it is. I think it's about run its course anyway.
I'm used to a bit more lattitude and free-ranging discussion. IOW thread drift.
In future I shall endeavor to rein in my free range tendencies and use more of my laser focus.

[freep]

Yes. Frankly, I see little importance in DNA outside of Clan Chiefs and royalty (and even then it may have had a detour or two that nobody knows of). The important family is not those who share your DNA; it's those who love you and take care of you, and about whom you care.

I care about Scotland.

Again, my goal was to start a conversation about who has a right to weigh-in, criticize or alter things cultural.
It drifted into DNA, but when asked questions if I've what is hopefully helpful info it seems rude not to share it even if it is off-topic.

Hopefully this is all sorted now with the move?

[kiltedcontractor]

Yes. Frankly, I see little importance in DNA outside of Clan Chiefs and royalty (and even then it may have had a detour or two that nobody knows of). The important family is not those who share your DNA; it's those who love you and take care of you, and about whom you care.

I care about Scotland.

I agree. I have blood family that live overseas. They are effectively strangers. However, dna helps those of us whose family history is inconsistent .....fill in the blanks. In my case rumors are seeming to be verified.

[Geoff Withnell]

Yes. Frankly, I see little importance in DNA outside of Clan Chiefs and royalty (and even then it may have had a detour or two that nobody knows of). The important family is not those who share your DNA; it's those who love you and take care of you, and about whom you care.

I care about Scotland.

I couldn't help but think of my wife Michele when reading your post. The lass both by family tree, and DNA testing some family members have done, a German/Lithuanian Jew. Not more than a trace of "Celtic" ancestry to be found. And yet, she would no more go to an event such as a Burns Dinner without some display of Davidson tartan than she would go in torn, stained bluejeans. She enthusiastically helps out at the Davidson tent at games, and is helping our local covener with the work in getting the US Clan GM together for this April in Southern Maryland. IOW, a good bit more of a participating member than many with the DNA. In her case it is because she is a "whither thou goest" sort of gal (and I am a lucky man). You are what you do with your DNA and heritage.

[EagleJCS]

I’m an ‘American mutt’ with known Irish (Dad’s side), Luxembourger (Mom’s side), and German (both sides) ancestors. My paternal line has been in Kentucky since before 1800 (and as far as we’ve been able to find so far, in North America since before 1770). We don’t know when/where they came over from Europe (presumably the British Isles, probably Scotland or Ireland since the family name is Scott, though the family name may have changed following the move – it’s happened). Since some records have been lost and/or destroyed and there were several people with the same names and approximately the same ages settling in the same areas at the same time, we may never untangle the knot containing our particular thread.

Percentage-wise, I think I’m more German than anything else – I haven’t really sat down to figure the exact “proportions” – but since I started researching the family tree and found Clan Scott and the proud history of the Borderers, I’ve embraced that (presumed) Scottish heritage. At any rate, I’ve been told by others presumably ‘in the know’ that since I carry the family name, I can claim membership in the clan (and not be just a dues-paying member of the Clan Society), regardless of the origins.

I’d like to do a DNA test to get additional information regarding my family origins, but that will have to come later (after I win a sweepstakes or find buried treasure).

Keeping this somewhat kilt-related, I even bought a kilt in Scott Modern Red (see my avatar) after finding out about Clan Scott, then sold it after I lost weight. I don’t currently have a kilt in my clan colors, just a couple of neckties (one in Scott Red and one in Scott Green) and a scarf in Scott Red.

[freep]

I was talking to a friend today about a meme I saw. There was a horse tied to one of those cheap plastic outdoor chairs. The legend stated, "Perception is Everything."

Is perception the operant factor then?

Does one need Scottish blood to be Scottish? Or, is one Scottish if perceived by self and others to be so? Is it possible to be Scottish without ever having touched Scottish soil?

By the same token, is being born in Scotland a requisite to being Scottish? Are some Scots more Scottish as a result of being born in the Highlands rather than the lowlands, cities or larger villages? Are those with connections to certain Clans more Scottish?

Is there some useful term for those that carry Scottish blood but are not of the soil, Americans for example? Or does Scottish require immersion in the culture--even if we understand there are a hundred Scottish cultures depending on where in Scotland one is immersed?

[California Highlander]

I was talking to a friend today about a meme I saw. There was a horse tied to one of those cheap plastic outdoor chairs. The legend stated, "Perception is Everything."

Is perception the operant factor then?

Does one need Scottish blood to be Scottish? Or, is one Scottish if perceived by self and others to be so? Is it possible to be Scottish without ever having touched Scottish soil?

By the same token, is being born in Scotland a requisite to being Scottish? Are some Scots more Scottish as a result of being born in the Highlands rather than the lowlands, cities or larger villages? Are those with connections to certain Clans more Scottish?

Is there some useful term for those that carry Scottish blood but are not of the soil, Americans for example? Or does Scottish require immersion in the culture--even if we understand there are a hundred Scottish cultures depending on where in Scotland one is immersed?

There have been a few threads on this and related topics. My summary of those threads is:

Scottish = Born in Scotland or a vote-eligible resident, or a citizen of the country.
Scottish decent, Scottish ancestry = those descended from Scots, but not "Scottish".

In the US, people frequently say they are "Irish" or "Scottish" or "fill-in-the-blank" and they mean "of that ancestry". They are actually "Americans" not Scottish at all! When someone asks if I'm Scottish, I reply with "I'm from California, but my ancestry is Scottish" or something similar.


I think you can appreciate and participate in another culture, but you really aren't part of that culture unless you are living it. My 2 cents! I know there are many varying opinions on this point.

[Profane James]

...a can of worms, that I have seen played out on these pages before.

Personally, only one mans opinion - and forgive the ramble:

I consider myself (after an Alabamian) an American Scottish - an American of Scottish ancestry. Not a Scot, not a highlander, not a lowlander. I stay away from ultra-nationalist viewpoints due to those ideals can get xenophobic or judgmental.
With regard to kilt wearing, if I ever were to travel to Scotland, I would not take a kilt. The thought would not enter my mind. Thanks to DNA, I happen to know the area of our Scottish origins, and that area, during those times, would not have been an area of kilt wearers. On these shores, I use that knowledge to attach myself to something larger and older than anything here. When I do wear the kilt, it is meant as show of solidarity, for those of us who wish remember where our people came from. In my short time with this particular knowledge, and in this world, I believe the kilt is worn by those on these shores simply as a striking symbol of that heritage - being that the kilt is the national dress of Scotland. For the most part, our intentions are the best; but I will say that I am very glad to have found this site and knowing that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions,' it would do well if more of us would have the knowledge contained here.
The same question can be posed to those of us here with Native American ancestry. I have full on Cherokee a lot closer than the generation that crossed the Atlantic. I have no interest in arguing my parts-per-million Cherokee blood for a small business loan, but I do enjoy exploring that culture as well. Would I attend the Moundville festival wearing buckskin and a bone necklace? Absolutely not. Will I set the best example for my children, and attempt to impress on them how big the world is, and that they are attached to that bigness? Yes.