Scottish outlook on kilted Americans?

[TheOfficialBren]

A noble sentiment and one with which I agree completely. As you say a diplomatic and honest reply is followed by a contentious post revealing the writer's underlying feelings about the validity or otherwise of wearing a kilt, thinly disguised in a convoluted argument trying to dissemble any valid claim to that garment and, in fact, any claim to the history and tradition behind it.
The bottom line is that nobody can or wishes to stop anyone wearing a kilt - how can they? What this whole discussion seems to throw up, however, is the underlying uncertainties felt about wearing a garment that purports to define a nationality when one does not belong to that nation oneself. What better way to dissemble the whole facade then than to argue against the very existence of that nation? If it doesn't exist how can anyone have a better claim to its symbols?

Fair enough but by virtue of the speculative nature of each position to be had on this subject it becomes a cyclic debate that is inevitably unresolvable.

[AKScott]

To put the question the other way round, what do Americans think of Scots singing C&W songs. C&W clubs are very popular in Scotland especially here in the North East. If some farmer from Auchnagatt or a fisherman from Buckie who has never been near the States composes a song about his forty-tonner thundering across the prairie (or whatever), can that be regarded as in any way authentic C&W?

Thank you kind sir for putting the shoe on the other foot as it were.

I am duly resolved to not overthink this.

[Woodsheal]

When Xmarks was first created, that was the first moniker that came and has since stuck. I'm fine with it being so.



I think this fossilized horse has been beaten enough.

OK, here's the official graphic!:

[TheOfficialBren]

ok, here's the official graphic!:

lmao!!!
:d

[CMcG]

Example please because reading your posts I don't see any such assertion

I wrote in post #33: "There is no denying that the kilt is a Scottish symbol and a very important one at that. Things like a "system of laws, education, religion, language, customs, music etc." are markers of distinct society and culture, but not necessarily nationhood, unless we take nation in its other sense as a group of people bound by ethnicity, culture, history, and language, without the requirement of being a sovereign state.

In a transnational, post-modern world, the broader and more inclusive meaning of nation makes more sense to me than one defined solely by geo-political boundaries and citizenship because it has more to do with lived experience and identity. In this sense, I can understand Scotland as a nation."

Some people use nation and State interchangeably, but Scotland is a nation, within the sovereign State of the UK. I am suggesting, however, that the Scottish nation extends considerably further than borders of Scotland, because there are Scots all over the world. Sorry for calling Scotland a "region," which was not the right word.

... Whilst assorted National attire is hardly worth waging war over, nevertheless, how dare others from another country tell another what they should,or, should not do with their National attire, it is the height of arrogance so to do and is contrary to the mutual understanding that I am sure, we all here are hoping for.

I'm not telling anyone what they should or should not do. Just expressing my enduring lack of comprehension.

... As you say a diplomatic and honest reply is followed by a contentious post revealing the writer's underlying feelings about the validity or otherwise of wearing a kilt, thinly disguised in a convoluted argument trying to dissemble any valid claim to that garment and, in fact, any claim to the history and tradition behind it.

See what too much education in deconstruction and post-modernism has done to me? In the most simple terms, I have encountered many different views held by Scots on kilted Americans, but the one I have the hardest time understanding is when some Scots have suggested that citizenship (a property of States) is more important than culture or ethnicity (a property of nations) in determining whether or not someone should wear the kilt. In a free society, people can think and feel what they like (or wear what they like, for that matter), but it doesn't mean other people will ken it.

My convoluted arguments have struck a nerve, people are reading far too much into my discourse, and I think I should stop trying to explain, before someone decides to reconsider whether or not national attire is worth going to war over I don't want to argue, but I'd still like to understand, so I'll try to do a little more reading and little less typing.

[Jock Scot]

I wrote in post #33: -------

In a transnational, post-modern world, the broader and more inclusive meaning of nation makes more sense to me than one defined solely by geo-political boundaries and citizenship because it has more to do with lived experience and identity. In this sense, I can understand Scotland as a nation."

Some people use nation and State interchangeably, but Scotland is a nation, within the sovereign State of the UK. I am suggesting, however, that the Scottish nation extends considerably further than borders of Scotland, because there are Scots all over the world. Sorry for calling Scotland a "region," which was not the right word.

Alright one more try, in the interests of trying to assist you. With the greatest of respect you are failing to grasp that many Scots do not regard people from any country---apart from Scotland that is--- in the world, EVEN IF, they have Scots roots, as Scots.The Scots recognise and respect the loose connection full well and do make visitors with, or even, without Scots connections very welcome, but that is where it ends and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

Before anyone else brings it up to take our eyes away from the point.To Scotland's credit we do welcome and assimilate other nationalities and cultures readily who take up residence here and of course, Scots working overseas such as in the military are not included in this discussion, but these aspects are not what we are talking about at this moment. So:-

This idea of of a "transnational post-modern world" whilst very commendable has yet to gain much--any--credence in Scotland(although,I suppose within Scotland we have been "transnational" without knowing it for centuries?) for certain sure and frankly is probably still rather a Utopian idea for the rest of the world too.

[MacGumerait]

I thought about touching the subject of this thread .... but I forgot my 10 ' pole .

[Phil]

I thought about touching the subject of this thread .... but I forgot my 10 ' pole .

If you sup with the devil ... as the saying goes. But then you are suggesting that the contributors to this thread may be in some way diabolical or fiendish. I don't think so and I do think that a healthy discussion such as this does help to clear up some of the misapprehensions that exist.
Hopefully now everyone will understand that Scotland is not a region of England but is, in fact, a historic nation with its own distinctive culture, laws, religion. education and, once again after a gap of 300 years its own Parliament.
Perhaps they will also understand, as Jock has helpfully contributed, that irrespective of genealogy, DNA testing or any other "evidence", if they don't live in and breathe the air of Scotland they are not and cannot ever be - SCOTS. That is not to say they will not be welcomed as visitors and shown every courtesy while wearing kilts. Scots are an inclusive people, however, and anyone coming to settle here will be embraced and included as Scots just as so many have in the past.

[neloon]

if they don't live in and breathe the air of Scotland they are not and cannot ever be - SCOTS.

Except when we need some good football (soccer) players when a certain amount of genealogy suddenly matters!
By the way, did I cease to be a Scot during the 6 years I lived in England?

[Tuirc]

I've read this whole torrid thread with interest. I'd say the most common attitude I've run across on boards such as these is very similar to Phil's last post. If you are not a subject of the British crown living within the political borders of Scotland, expats etc. excepted, you are not a Scot. Sometimes stated with emphasis added as Phil did.

Clearly you can't argue with that on flat political basis. You either are a citizen/subject of a country or you are not. In the broader context of the history of Scotland as a country, I think it's a bit more debatable than that clear cut statement or analysis. Taking the plight of the Highlander as an example, as an outsider observing, closely I would say, Scottish attitudes, Scots on the board correct me if I misstate here, Scots decry the injustice of clearances and perhaps even the disarming act both of which forced large numbers of Highlanders out of their native country. However, they don't seem willing to see any difference between an Indian, a Russian, an African or the sons and daughters of those countrymen that were forcibly removed. As I say, as a flat statement of current political status, it is an unassailable position. But, curious from my prospective.

Perhaps I'm being romantic, but I would like to think that if a large number of Americans were forced to go live in Bolivia as a consequence of the American Civil War, we would entertain a special place in our hearts here for their descendants. Certainly, they would not be regarded as no better or worse than anyone else who might happen to visit.