Cultural Appropriation?

[KyleAisteach]

This story is rather germane to the topic.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ss-789340.html

Yes, it's on our radar already, but thank you!

Alas, reading the entire article, the only real take-away was that we shouldn't call whatever we produce "Scottish," which we wouldn't have done anyway...

[Jock Scot]

The trouble is that the children born in America with American parents, for example, who have Scottish roots, but are in fact American, or wherever, often have an annoying habit of calling themselves Scottish, when it suits them! No Scot in Scotland that I know, will accept that in any way shape or form. It is a cause of friction on this website on occasion and is a cause of modest amusement when a visitor who is plainly not Scottish claims that because his G, G, G, G, Grandfather"s wife was half Scottish then they are Scottish! No way!

[Profane James]

There is probably some pathology at work there, in regard to the self esteem of those who would say such...

[DWFII]

Yes, it's on our radar already, but thank you!

Alas, reading the entire article, the only real take-away was that we shouldn't call whatever we produce "Scottish," which we wouldn't have done anyway...

All those kinds of articles are apocryphal anyway...anyone who has ever dealt with journalists or given an interview will tell you that most of the time the interviewer isn't really paying attention.

Look at that article...the text says the Scottish kilt is hemmed below the knee. But clearly the kilt in the accompanying photo is at the top of the knee.

However, the thesis...the bit about not calling non-Scottish made kilts (or people, Jock), Scottish, is righteous, IMO. Just as Japanese Single malt is not Scotch.

[Liam]

The trouble is that the children born in America with American parents, for example, who have Scottish roots, but are in fact American, or wherever, often have an annoying habit of calling themselves Scottish, when it suits them! No Scot in Scotland that I know, will accept that in any way shape or form. It is a cause of friction on this website on occasion and is a cause of modest amusement when a visitor who is plainly not Scottish claims that because his G, G, G, G, Grandfather"s wife was half Scottish then they are Scottish! No way!

Jock, you can be Scottish by birth, citizenship, ancestry or absorption as my brother-in-law has explained to me. He is in fact English by both birth and ancestry, Canadian by citizenship, but is still working on the Scottish by absorption.😉😉😉
Canada is currently welcoming 35-50,000 Syrian refugees. Once they become Canadian citizens they will indeed be Canadians. The parallel situation would exist in Scotland, or the USA for that matter. They will always be Syrian by Heritage, and I hope someday proud of it.
Cheers....

[Nathan]

The trouble is that the children born in America with American parents, for example, who have Scottish roots, but are in fact American, or wherever, often have an annoying habit of calling themselves Scottish, when it suits them! No Scot in Scotland that I know, will accept that in any way shape or form. It is a cause of friction on this website on occasion and is a cause of modest amusement when a visitor who is plainly not Scottish claims that because his G, G, G, G, Grandfather"s wife was half Scottish then they are Scottish! No way!

We have discussed this before, Jock but I must insist on defining the terms of what is ultimately a semantic debate.

1) The concept of ethnicity versus nationality exists, is widely accepted and is not limited to the question of Scottishness. As such, it doesn't require the consensus of the Scots you associate with to be a valid descriptive nomenclature for diaspora populations.

2) The American with Scottish roots is a Scottish-American or, if you prefer, an American Scot. The higher the portion of this person's ancestry or cultural influence, the stronger the claim. Certainly your reductio ad absurdum of the wife of someone's GGG grandfather being half Scottish does not speak to the more authentic cases of people with a far higher proportion of Scottish ancestry or who come from a community with a very high concentration of families of Scottish ancestry.

3) In one's own country the -American, -Canadian is assumed and is therefore often not stated explicitly. At home, I'm called Scottish (or a Cape Bretoner - which is Canadian for really Scottish), abroad, I'm Scottish-Canadian.

4) This is really not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact that in a pluralistic society, different ethnic groups with shared citizenship distinguish between their various communities via country of ancestral origin.

5) Diaspora ethnic groups often marry others from the same community and pass down customs from the old country. Their acculturation to the new country is not instant and the degree and pace of assimilation varies greatly among different communities, families and individuals.

Finally, when a Scottish-Canadian, Scottish-American, Ulster Scot etc... calls himself Scottish, he is not claiming to a be a resident or native of Scotland. He is merely making the factual claim that his ancestral origins derive mainly from Scotland. Reisdency or country of birth is only one way the word is used. And, perhaps to the shegrin of some, residents or natives of Scotland don't own the word or its meaning in these other senses. This applies equally to any country and its diaspora descendants.

I know Chinese-Canadians, Indo-Canadians, Italian-Canadians etc...Certainly we are all equally Canadians but the word Canadian only captures what all have in common. The word before the hyphen captures what makes us distinct from one another and to deny the existence of those differences and indeed those communities is to deny reality.

[Steve Ashton]

OK, I'm sorry but I'm going to fire a shot across the bow of this thread.
The original question put forth by the OP has been answered to his satisfaction.
This thread has now veered off onto an entirely different topic and has taken a different direction.
This thread is now no longer about kilts or even Tartan even though it is posted within the Kilt Advice section.
This thread has come very close to being argumentative and even abrasive.

May I suggest that everyone take a step back. Remember that the chosen topic of this forum is the kilt and not national identity.

No flag has been raised against this thread yet. Let's keep it that way shall we.

In other words - Let it go people. This discussion has no place here. If you wish to continue to discuss this, in this way, take your discussion elsewhere.

[ASinclair]

Wow Steve, way to allow the open exchange of ideas.

[Alvin]

I also wouldn't use the adjective to describe myself.

[Jock Scot]

Whilst noting Steve's timely warning, the strength of feeling and divergence of opinion shown here does illustrate perfectly the wisdom of the OP in doing his research. Nevertheless, I cannot see that a corporate tartan should cause upset to anyone, on the other hand as this group that the OP represents apparently has a need to be sensitive to opinion, all opinions and the fine line that they tread, then they may prefer to think again.