Which Clan?

[ThistleDown]

So none of the armigerous (cheifless) clans have associations in Scottland?

When you live in a swirling cultural mosaic of 300 million people it takes a little organization to find likeminded people who want to preserve a particular aspect of your heritage. Someone has to keep the mailing list and organize get togethers. And if there hasn't been a Hamish MacOnion for 300 years that certainly isn't going to stop the MacOnions of North American from getting together for a potluck.

Yes, sorry, that was a terrible statement of generality, wasn't it? In fact there are several associations of folks with the same armigerous surname very, very actively seeking their absent chiefs. Off the top of my head I can think of the Highland family of Macgillivray and the Lowland one of Cunningham working diligently in this direction right now. What I was trying to say was that Clan Associations are formed around chiefly families in Scotland. They get together for potlucks and the like just as you do in America, but the structure is vastly different because of the presence of a chief.

Now back to the subject with apologies for the side-trip.

[AKScott]

Since, as you say, you are an American, and you don't "belong" to any clan, and since clan affiliation has little relevance to you, why do you choose to ...snip...ignore the cultural nuances associated with the wearing of tartan?

Or have I misinterpreted what you have posted?

Yes, I think you have misinterpreted what I wrote.

Whatever it means to you, clan affiliation will never be anything more than an abstract idea for me;

...snip...

There is no one proper way to show respect for the culture of Scotland or any nation. Each of us can and must choose the ways that are both meaningful and doable for ourselves.

And here we have the crux of the biscuit. Both gentlemen are correct, they merely have different frames of reference.

Lyle, you have explicated what it means to be an American most eloquently.

MacMillan of Rathdowne, as usual, is gently pointing those of us outside the culture at the deeper meaning from which the material trappings spring.

Finding the balance point more respectful than mere surface veneer, but still holding fast to our truly American roots is a dilemma every thinking American must inevitably face. Many settle for skipping the surface veneer entirely.

Lyle, you have either a breathtaking intuitive grasp of anthropology, or significant formal training in the discipline. While I admire your demonstrated ability to discuss the material with comprehensive polite analysis; I likewise encourage you to tread cautiously, you are exploring not just an academic discipline but what it means to be yourself. If I may be so bold, MacMillan personifies a piece of you, a piece of each of us from the States on XMarks.

Coming to terms with him is not merely an academic exercise, but an opportunity for personal growth. Imagine you could collect 24 or however many other men like MacMillan representing your personal gene pool and have a conversation with them...

Peace to you my cousins.

[Morris at Heathfield]

I have not yet chosen to affiliate with a clan, and I'm not sure that I ever will, but the whole subject is also relevant to choosing a tartan, which is something I've thought a lot about. As briefly (heh) as I can put it, here's my situation:

Closest surname with a tartan: Morris (paternal side)
Closest Scottish surname: Esplin (paternal side)
Closest Scottish surname with a tartan: Graham (maternal side)
Closest surname on Scottish soil (Dundee): Esplin (paternal side)
Closest surname with a tartan on Scottish soil (Wardend, near Airlie): Campbell (paternal side)
Closest surname in the Highlands (Braedownie): Ogilvy (paternal side)
Most common Scottish surnames: Crawford (paternal and maternal sides), Stewart (paternal and maternal sides)

Now, if I went the "Tartan for Me" route, I could claim the Buchanan or Gordon tartans, the Morris of Wales or, if it's not restricted, the Morris of Eddergoll. The problem is, I'm quite confident my Morris ancestors came from England, and from a part of England that is closer to France and Belgium than it is to Scotland, or even Wales. Wearing the Buchanan or Gordon tartans might make the most sense to someone who doesn't know my family history, but I don't think it makes any sense for me (although I do have some Gibsons and Buchanans back there).

There is, of course the purist (non-)option: I'm an American, and one of English lineage, so I have no business wearing the kilt (except, perhaps, as a member of my pipe band).

With the Esplin surname, the "Tartan for Me" route (inexplicably, as far as I'm concerned) recommends the Stirling tartan rather than the Angus. The surname is not associated with any clan and has no tartan of its own, although that could be remedied.... If there was an Esplin tartan, I would most likely choose to wear it.

Going by MacMillan of Rathdown's recommendation, I think the likely choice would be Campbell. I have sort of gravitated towards that clan, but have not chosen to join its society so far. I would like to know where my Campbell ancestors fit in. Did they spring from the Glenorchy/Breadalbane branch, as geography might suggest, or from another branch of the clan? Unfortunately I've hit a dead end at Brydestown (almost undoubtedly the modern Braideston), Forfarshire, in the mid-18th century.

Another thought: Many of my more recent Scottish ancestors (including the Esplins) lived in Ogilvy territory. If they had any sort of clan allegiance, it might have been to the Ogilvies. And, as I mentioned above, the closest ancestor I can actually place in the Scottish Highlands was an Ogilvy.

So, anyway, my provisional decision has been not to join any clan association and, as for tartans, I think my first wool tartan kilt (apart from my band's Inverness, modern colors) will be in the Angus tartan, muted colors. No divided clan loyalties to worry about. (But now are there district rivalries to worry about? ) The recently-designed Strathmore tartan would be another option, but I prefer the muted Angus.

Now, will this post help anyone else make a decision about what clan to join, or what tartan to wear? Who knows? *shrug*

[tripleblessed]

MoR references "those places where the wearing of tartan has meaning"
with specific meaning and we mostly will know what he means, but I would point out that the wearing of tartan has meaning in the hearts of those who
choose to wear it. Since it is worn all over the world, it has meaning all over the world, and like most widespread behaviors, has many and varied motives
and meanings. No man has the right to tell another how he "should" feel,
and no man has ever had the right to tell another how to dress. Period.
The privilege, certainly. At times, the responsibility. But the right? NEVER.

And as for serving two masters, I'm pretty sure that any master I would choose to serve has never chosen a tartan.

Let me be clear that I do respect anyone's right to any belief they choose, as long as they make no attempt to impose it on others by force. That force is often evident on this forum, for all that the wielders perceive themselves
as "gentlemen".

[SlackerDrummer]

@Morris at Heathfield: You seem to be in a very similar situation. I think the situation becomes all the more muddied the longer one's ancestors existed in the New World. I would question whether any of mine brought the kilt with them to America - its wear was certainly not passed down as a tradition - and the mere fact that their emigration predates the modern notion of clan tartans makes the whole thing a crapshoot anyway. So then I find myself trying to figure out which line I am drawn to. That task seems not only daunting, but a little unfair. Thus, the Carolina tartan.

No man has the right to tell another how he "should" feel, and no man has ever had the right to tell another how to dress. Period. The privilege, certainly. At times, the responsibility. But the right? NEVER.

By the same token, the man who bucks social norms and mores should know and understand the difference between doing so out of thoughtful reflection and doing so out of ignorance.

[McElmurry]

By the same token, the man who bucks social norms and mores should know and understand the difference [between] doing so out of thoughtful reflection and doing so out of ignorance.

I agree. I actually like that the gloves are slipping off a bit on this topic. It is often discussed in a polite code that is less than clear to me. If I am going to adopt someone’s symbol I want to understand how that will be viewed from the perspective of the folks who are caretakers of that symbol. I don’t feel anyone is trying to force me to do anything. They are just explaining how “it is done”.

And you, as the OP, did ask for the Scottish perspective on clan affiliation.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

There are three "requirements" for clan affiliation:

1) a connection by blood;
2) a connection by adoption;
3) recognition by the chief of that clan.

Name alone doesn't do it. One could easily have changed his name from Lashinsky to Lamont on arrival at Ellis Island; likewise, simply buying a cap badge no more makes one a member of a clan than it would make them a member of a Highland regiment. It is the recognition of the chief that determines whether or not one is a member of a clan. That recognition comes when one first recognizes the chief (or convener) of a clan, acknowledges the chief's role as head of a broadly extended family, and asks to be recognized as a member of that family. The mechanism by which one achieves this recognition is activated simply by joining the appropriate clan society.

Can one join multiple clan societies? Well, yes; in the same way that one could serve in different branches of the military. However, on Armed Forces Day, it would look down right silly to show up wearing bits of your Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps uniforms, and then dash up and down the street trying to march with every unit in the parade.

As Rex and Jock have pointed out, in Scotland people live their heritage on a daily basis; joining a clan doesn't have quite the same cultural imperative that it has overseas. For those far removed from Scotland, but deeply imbued with a sense of Highland culture or heritage, then declaring their clan affiliation is a good thing-- provided they don't end up like the guy who doesn't know where he belongs in life's parade.

[Lyle1]

I agree. I actually like that the gloves are slipping off a bit on this topic. It is often discussed in a polite code that is less than clear to me. If I am going to adopt someone’s symbol I want to understand how that will be viewed from the perspective of the folks who are caretakers of that symbol. I don’t feel anyone is trying to force me to do anything. They are just explaining how “it is done”.

And you, as the OP, did ask for the Scottish perspective on clan affiliation.

Yes, that is one of the nice thing about this forum! He ask for opinions from different groups, and he got them! Hopefully, we have all learned something from the discussion, particularly from those opinions that we do not share.

[tripleblessed]

Everyone, hopefully, would agree on the need to educate themselves before
bucking norms, and being different JUST to be different is usually pointless.
I personally am in agreement with the traditionalists most of the time on most subjects, and dress fairly conservatively. I do feel it behooves us to
be aware in our educational process that many of society's prominent
guardians of standards are totally self-appointed, and assume that their
interpretation is the only "right-minded" way of thinking. Often there is no
real reason it's done that way, it just usually is. In those cases, more latitude is a reasonable approach, not less.

In the matter SD notes of many of our ancestors emigrating early on and
no certainty whether they brought the kilt with them, it can be difficult.
My Scots were all here by 1776, so if I choose tartan with them in mind,
I struggle a bit with the idea that I am bound by rules that did not exist
when they lived. I have no wish to be disrespectful of anyone ever, and
despite efforts to paint me as such, I will not post anything intended to
insult anyone's path or culture. I simply suggest that more tolerance is
possible, and only we can engender it. It appears a good job is being done presenting traditional and tasteful ways to dress, much appreciated by me and others. If it were as hard-nosed it is often presented, though, we'd
still be wearing great kilts and handspun only.

[Lyle1]

And here we have the crux of the biscuit. Both gentlemen are correct, they merely have different frames of reference.

Lyle, you have explicated what it means to be an American most eloquently.

MacMillan of Rathdowne, as usual, is gently pointing those of us outside the culture at the deeper meaning from which the material trappings spring.

Finding the balance point more respectful than mere surface veneer, but still holding fast to our truly American roots is a dilemma every thinking American must inevitably face. Many settle for skipping the surface veneer entirely.

Lyle, you have either a breathtaking intuitive grasp of anthropology, or significant formal training in the discipline. While I admire your demonstrated ability to discuss the material with comprehensive polite analysis; I likewise encourage you to tread cautiously, you are exploring not just an academic discipline but what it means to be yourself. If I may be so bold, MacMillan personifies a piece of you, a piece of each of us from the States on XMarks.

Coming to terms with him is not merely an academic exercise, but an opportunity for personal growth. Imagine you could collect 24 or however many other men like MacMillan representing your personal gene pool and have a conversation with them...

Peace to you my cousins.

You are very insightful, yourself, AK.

I agree that we all have much to learn from MacMillan's comments. He is very knowledgeable about many of the topics discussed on this forum, and he presents his point of view very clearly. For me, he offers a Euro-centric perspective that is very different from what I have personally experienced growing up in America, and that is probably also true for many of the American members. I find his comments informative and interesting, even when they present a point of view that has no practical application to my American lifestyle. While I do not feel bound to emulate the "way it is done" in Scotland, I am always open to suggestion, and I appreciate the opportunity to learn about a different approach. I must, however, reserve the right to my own opinion, as should everyone.