An Open Question for 'Jock Scot' (and Scots)

[Father Bill]

AN 8!!!!!! I am stunned! I shall leave this website forthwith.

I sincerely hope not!!!!!! Neither you nor I are stupid, but we need to be mindful of feelings as well as of logic.

I "feel" that you are a good man, and one with whom I'd much enjoy a dram. (To quote W.C. Fields, the actor and infamous drunkard: "Everyone needs to believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink.")

Stay and be part, just don't dismiss people's feelings as invalid. Everyone has the right to their feelings as much as they have a right to toes and a nose, and equally without explanation, because all of the above are real just the way they are.

Yours, aye ever yours in truth!

Bill

[Detroitpete]

I think we may also be experiencing a bit of an illogical syllogism here. We aren't that unique in this respect given the current state of public discourse, at least in the US currently.

Asking for one's opinion on an issue, to my thinking, is a way to become informed. Yes, it can lead to counterpoint and point etc., but these efforts in subject refinement are still just that; a process which seeks more clarity. Again, in my thinking, this is the nature of 'debate'. If in asking one's opinion is merely an initiation of the act to refute said opinion wihtout benefit of learning from the opinion, it is merely an arguement. This second form of conversation does not allow for synthesis of ideas because of its structure and limitations. In the end with this, one finds him or her self in full support of the opinion he or she began with, with nothing to show for the effort except for a talley of 'jabs'.

In sharing opinions is debate, one would hope that the participants allow time and discernment of proposed points to inform their position and also allow for a possible reinterpretation. In an arguement, opinions simply clash.

I think debate is a method to inform. There is no amount of complete 'mind changing' that can happen externally. It is an internal process, if it occurs at all. Believing that simply stating one's opinion--over and over, to the point of rasing both the volume and hyperbole, changes nothing.

So, I think the OP here was not neccessarily looking for debate to occur, but by posing the question as a way to begin an arguement, we've come through umpteen pages of spicker and spat on this thread.

Personally, I was fine with Jock's initial statements showing what he thought in response to the question--not 'fine' as in I agreed with them, but fine as far as understanding clearly what he said and why he said it. I was also the same flavor of 'fine' with the first rebuttle which suggested another view. Since then, I have read repeated versions of the same positions.

In the end, perhaps because of my limited view, I see no attempt at debate, but real action toward arguement.

Jock's perfectly acceptable point of 'no' is clear. Other's perfectly acceptable point of 'yes' is clear. Other than that, I haven't been able to gather more from this exchange. Perhaps I've missed everything here?

[Detroitpete]

Hey guys, Got me thinking. Got some questions.
I am 2nd generation American.

1. Is clansmanship only passed down only thru the male side? If so it's easy I'm danish ( Holm ). If not I need to check out the other three: McConnell, Bushman and Porter.

2. I would consider wearing someone elses tartan poaching and offensive. So the only possible clan tartans I have are Blackwatch which I think is a regiment and Gordan. They are both Sport Kilt Comfys that I kickaround the house in. Are these two tartans clan or generic?

Thanks in advance for chewing on this one. Chuck

Chuck,

According to this thread, because you are not a Scot living in Scotland (Highlands preferred) you should NEVER wear the kilt...

Or...

You can wear whatever the Sam Hill you want to...

Or...you must wear only the tartan which you have close ancestral connection to--that being said, your GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGrand Step Grandfather who was adopted by a man or woman with a Scottish sounding name is considered an appropriate ancestral connection.

Or...something in between


Hope that was clear ;)

[lukeyrobertson]

OK, here goes. I was born in Bruce county in southwestern ontario. Everyone by now, should have some awareness about the name of the county. Yes, it was settled primarily by Scots in the early to mid 1800's. My ancestors are those settlers as well as French Canadian settlers from 18th century Quebec--through my father's lineage. On my mom's side, the lineage is also to the early settlers in the same region who are from England and (I think) Ireland. There are no indications of any kilt wearing in my family. They were hard-working farmers who settled on crown land who had to clear their land from hardwood bush (by mule, horse and axe) at the rate of on acre per year in order to stay on the land. I imagine that for my scottish ancestors the last thing on their mind would be to kilt or not to kilt. I am the first person in my family to wear a kilt. Why, because a good deal of my lineage is Scottish. It's my name, my heritage, my lineage. Unlike my ancestors and with my deepest respect and gratitude to them, I can afford to by a kilt. Fr. Bill has done an admirable job of describing the cultural phenomenon that is Canada. We are young as a nation, our identity is still being formed, we have no "national dress" but instead a mozaic of many cultures each with their own traditional dress. In fact, I would say for the most part, hard-working settlers were too busy surviving to consider the luxury of national dress or not. The Canadian's who have posted here have made excellent points, regarding the simple fact that for the most part, we are all from somewhere else. Even if families like mine who have been here for 150 years or in the case of my French descendants even longer, it's still not enough history to claim that I really know what is the Canadian identity. I have some awareness of our values, our social democracy, and the beginning of what a Canadian indentity is, but even the most thoughtful Canadian writers are still struggling with the challenge to articulate it. I think it's still too soon. When I wear the kilt I wear it with joy, with gratitude and respect for my descendants who have come from Scotland and who by their back-breaking toil have made an existance for me that is historically influenced by Scotland but clearly distinct from it. Where I grew up, kilts are worn by some Military Regiments and by civilians for special occasions, formal events like Remebrance Day and of course for special celebrations like Robbie Burns. It is not everyday wear, but a serious "quiet presence" that connects with heritage, history and identity.

The power of this thread is that it has the on-going potential to deepen awareness and bring to our understanding that we can never assume anything about one's closely held cultural practice or identity. Canadians realize that our identity is in the making. In the meantime it is not uncommon for us to be in conversation about our diversity which inevitably leads to an exploration of our roots and a respect for our many cultural practices which reach around the world to all nations of which, dear Scotland is but one.

[SlackerDrummer]

So, I think the OP here was not neccessarily looking for debate to occur, but by posing the question as a way to begin an arguement, we've come through umpteen pages of spicker and spat on this thread.

Think what you may, but the OP was looking for NEITHER debate nor argument. Rather, the OP was looking to be informed. I was trying to determine if the position held by some Scots that the kilt shouldn't be worn outwith Scotland was based on the abstract (e.g. "those people in American, Australia, Canada, etc.") and, if so, if that opinion might be altered somewhat were it to be thought about in more personalized terms. Certainly my intent was NEVER to argue about whether that position is right or wrong.

[Detroitpete]

Think what you may, but the OP was looking for NEITHER debate nor argument. Rather, the OP was looking to be informed. I was trying to determine if the position held by some Scots that the kilt shouldn't be worn outwith Scotland was based on the abstract (e.g. "those people in American, Australia, Canada, etc.") and, if so, if that opinion might be altered somewhat were it to be thought about in more personalized terms. Certainly my intent was NEVER to argue about whether that position is right or wrong.

I was not using the word 'argument' in the pejorative. I was setting a distinction between exchange of opinions for opinions, and that of debate. And asking an individuals 'opinion' is always based on the abstract. An arguement has but one goal: change the other person's opinion. In that sense, in how I interpret the majority of the posts on this thread, we've been arguing. That's neither good nor bad, but it does explain the relative stasis in positions.

[Woodsheal]

[Detroitpete]

[Ayrshire]

Agreed.

And as said by Abraham Lincoln

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory... will yet swell the chorus... when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

[PatG]

"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition."
"No it isn't."