Gentlemen - prepare to kilt up monday!

[Cygnus]

I intend to be kilted tomorrow as well.

And if I may share my two cents on the off-topic history discussion. I understand what Jock is getting at; here in the US, most US history classes begin with the colonization of North America, or start with only a few lessons that cover all of North America's history to that point. Because the colonization of North America really only begins in the 16th century, we really don't have as much history to cover. Sir Walter Scott, in Tales of a Grandfather, calls all of Scotland's history before Macbeth the "boring part" - and with Macbeth appearing in the 11th century, that's more than twice as much history to cover without even dipping into the prior history of Romans, Vikings, Scotti, Britons, Picts, etc.

Unless Scottish children take more than twice as many history classes than their American counterparts, they will, of necessity, have to skip over far more of their own history. Given the richness of Scottish history, I could easily see the Act of Proscription being passed over for more far-reaching and modernly-applicable history.

EDIT: That's what I get for taking too long to write a post! To Jock: I don't think that we foreigners are really making a "fuss" about it - not all of us are bold, every-day kilt wearers, and we look for any excuse we can to don a kilt so that when the question of "What's the occasion?" comes up, we can give more of an answer than "I just wanted to".

[saxandpipes]

Sigh,

With the greatest of respect, I think you misunderstand Nighthawk on both points.

I know CDNSushi meant no disrespect and perhaps my reply was rather pithy, but I don't think the Scots need any suggestions from anyone, outwith Scotland on how and who does the educating in Scotland and I was just pointing that out.

Secondly. Our Scots history is there for all to see and of course proscription is part of that. BUT proscription only affected the minority and I really do not understand why people from outwith Scotland want to make a bit of a big deal about it when the native Scots don't.

With all due respect Jock,

probably because most of the "Scots" outwith Scotland are infact descended from Highlanders- the very ones with families directly affected by such events as the clearances...

There's a reason all of these "new nations" are filled with Scottish (Highland!) surnames.

Cheers!

Michael

[Father Bill]

Under a similar file to "the grass is always greener" other folks' histories often seem more interesting. My wife is German born. To her family, local history is just that darned building that's falling down but has a great view. They think I'm weird that I'm so fascinated with trying to find out the story of the very minor and decaying castle above her home town. So it will likely always be.

[Jock Scot]

With all due respect Jock,

probably because most of the "Scots" outwith Scotland are infact descended from Highlanders- the very ones with families directly affected by such events as the clearances...

There's a reason all of these "new nations" are filled with Scottish (Highland!) surnames.

Cheers!

Michael

With all due respect, proscription had little, or nothing to do with the famine, or the clearances which were everything to do with major agricultural changes and greed. These were the main reasons why the Scots left for points yonder, not proscription, which was a mere detail (in comparison) in the Scots history.

[saxandpipes]

With all due respect, proscription had little, or nothing to do with the clearances which were everything to do with major agricultural changes and greed.

Yes,

but it does. I knew I would get a reaction like this, but I'm quite sure that you understand what I'm saying.

Proscription had to do with the banning of bagpipes and Highland dress among other things. Why should matters of the Highlanders have anything to do with Americans, Canadians, Australians etc...? Because they are the ones whose families were cleared... by the greedy landlords (chiefs...). They are the descendants of the Highlanders... that's why.

At least thats why many people feel somehow connected to these events. Indeed many people in Scotland today probably have less concern about Highland history. That's their prerogative.

Cheers,

Michael

[Paul Henry]

Yes,

but it does. I knew I would get a reaction like this, but I'm quite sure that you understand what I'm saying.

Proscription had to do with the banning of bagpipes and Highland dress among other things. Why should matters of the Highlanders have anything to do with Americans, Canadians, Australians etc...? Because they are the ones whose families were cleared... by the greedy landlords (chiefs...). They are the descendants of the Highlanders... that's why.

At least thats why many people feel somehow connected to these events. Indeed many people in Scotland today probably have less concern about Highland history. That's their prerogative.

Cheers,

Michael

The exact wording of the act was as follows:

"That from and after the First Day of August 1747, no man or boy within that part of Great Britain called Scotland, other than such as shall be employed as Officers and Soldiers of His Majesty's Forces, shall on any pretext whatsoever, wear or put on the clothes, commonly called Highland clothes (that is to say) the Plaid, Philabeg, or little kilt, Trowes, Shoulder-Belts, or any part whatever of what peculiarly belongs to the Highland Garb; and that no tartan or party-coloured plaid or stuff shall be used for Great coats or upper coats, and if any such person shall presume after the first said day of August, to wear or put on the aforesaid garments or any part of them, every person so offending.... shall be liable to be transported to any of His Majesty's plantations beyond the seas, there to remain for the space of seven years."

no mention of the banning of the bagpipes....

[Father Bill]

Interesting PH! I love this forum for intelligent and thoughtful discussion as much as for its "kilted kontent!" Thank you for sharing the wording.

And to Jock, my dear and unmet friend, another thought came to me a moment ago whilst trimming the yuccas out front for S.W.M.B.O.: One is prudent to remember that this forum does not contain a random sampling of the general population, but rather, a self-selected group who share a mutual fascination for kilts. To us, therefore, a law forbidding its wearing will of course be of greater than normal interest.

Jock - think in terms of a law forbidding perhaps, fly-fishing, the tying of fish-lies, the possession of rods or reels or the eating of trout, etc. For us it's a passion, so we're highly unrepresentative of the general population, yet we are the overseas folk you are most likely to encounter.

[Jock Scot]

Yes,

but it does. I knew I would get a reaction like this, but I'm quite sure that you understand what I'm saying.

Proscription had to do with the banning of bagpipes and Highland dress among other things. Why should matters of the Highlanders have anything to do with Americans, Canadians, Australians etc...? Because they are the ones whose families were cleared... by the greedy landlords (chiefs...). They are the descendants of the Highlanders... that's why.

At least thats why many people feel somehow connected to these events. Indeed many people in Scotland today probably have less concern about Highland history. That's their prerogative.

Cheers,

Michael

I quite accept that freedom of thought should be every one's prerogative. Perhaps its because I am not a descendant of a displaced Scot, I don't understand what you chaps are banging on about and I can see that. However, I really fail to grasp why those descendants now outwith Scotland make such a song and dance about their roots. Yes of course, I can well understand the need to know about our ancestors and connections to the past(I take an interest in mine), but to make such a fuss, particularly over the minutiae, over some one else's---now----history, defeats me.

[Jock Scot]

Interesting PH! I love this forum for intelligent and thoughtful discussion as much as for its "kilted kontent!" Thank you for sharing the wording.

And to Jock, my dear and unmet friend, another thought came to me a moment ago whilst trimming the yuccas out front for S.W.M.B.O.: One is prudent to remember that this forum does not contain a random sampling of the general population, but rather, a self-selected group who share a mutual fascination for kilts. To us, therefore, a law forbidding its wearing will of course be of greater than normal interest.

Jock - think in terms of a law forbidding perhaps, fly-fishing, the tying of fish-lies, the possession of rods or reels or the eating of trout, etc. For us it's a passion, so we're highly unrepresentative of the general population, yet we are the overseas folk you are most likely to encounter.

I am and have been delighted to meet many non Scots from all over the world and very nice people most of them were and many I would like to call friends. I have never ever understood why many seem to be more knowledgeable about Scotland than their own country!

Sadly, some of the almost consistent and constant failings of the visitors(bless them) here have been an inability to distinguish fact from fiction in Scots history and an almost uncanny ability to attach importance to insignificant Scots historical facts!

[Nighthawk]

Sigh,

With the greatest of respect, I think you misunderstand Nighthawk on both points.

Maybe I do misunderstand. It just sounds like, from what you said, that people don't know, and people don't want to know. I have always been of the mindset that if you forget your history, you're doomed to repeat (or lose) it, and that was my point.