Scottish outlook on kilted Americans?

[CMcG]

On the specific point of Scottish politics in general, past and present Colin . I really and genuinely think that you are drawing the wrong conclusions as far as the topic in this thread. It has nothing whatsoever to do with politics.

I agree.

Well, if one of the Mods agrees that the topic of this thread has nothing to do with politics, then I guess it is safe to ask a question without running afoul of Rule #5

Now, it is quite possible that I have forgotten some of what has been written in this very long, old thread, so I'm going to take this for another spin first. The contentious outlook of some residents of Scotland is that ONLY residents of Scotland with British citizenship are Scots and ought to wear the kilt. From this perspective, a proud, Gaelic, Cape Bretonner like Nathan (who I'm pretty sure doesn't mind me using him as an example) shouldn't be wearing a kilt because he has Canadian citizenship and can't even be considered a Scottish-Canadian; he is just a Canadian with some inconsequential background that happens to be Scottish, which doesn't mean he should granted the right to wear a kilt or if he is at least deigned to have that right, then he is seen as "playing at being a Scot." A naturalized immigrant to Scotland from Asia, however, is actually a true Scot and can wear Scotland's national attire with impunity because he is a British citizen and lives in Scotland.

If a Scot -- with the right to Scottish national attire -- is to be identified solely by place of residence and citizenship, without regard to history, heritage, culture, or ethnicity, then the demarcation appears to be made on geo-political lines. But both Jock and ThistleDown agree that this particular Scottish view on kilted "others" is not political? Or is it just that they don't believe this essentialist viewpoint has anything to do with the political issues, past or present, surrounding the sovereignty (or lack thereof) of Scotland as a nation?

I'm honestly confused, so hopefully someone still has the patience to explain

[Dale Seago]

I'm honestly confused, so hopefully someone still has the patience to explain

Culture and ethnicity vs. citizenship. It's really not that hard:

You see, when a group of Vulcans left the planet rather than adopt a newly developing way of life that was alien (heh!) to their cultural history and settled on Romulus, they took the old culture with them and kept it alive on the New World, and they even flourished and became a power in their own right.

But they were no longer Vulcans, even though they were all that remained of the original Vulcan culture. They were Romulans.

Had the pre-emigration Vulcans worn kilts as part of their ethnic dress, like an African dashiki or Japanese kimono, and had those remaining on Vulcan and embracing Surak's teachings (later becoming the Vulcan planetary majority) adopted it as their planetary form of masculine attire, then either Vulcans or Romulans might feel they had a claim to it but for different reasons -- Romulans because it was part of their culture before it was ever adopted by the Vulcan planetary government, and Vulcans because it had been officially declared their planetary dress.

If, later on, Star Trek fans began adopting it, they would no doubt be regarded with (variously) respect, amusement, or bemusement by both Vulcans and Romulans.

Simple!

[rondo]

Dale,
That was an excellent description...I think you nailed it.
Rondo

[TheOfficialBren]

Dale,
That was an excellent description...I think you nailed it.
Rondo

***

Live long and prosper.

[ThistleDown]

Culture and ethnicity vs. citizenship. It's really not that hard:

You see, when a group of Vulcans left the planet rather than adopt a newly developing way of life that was alien (heh!) to their cultural history and settled on Romulus, they took the old culture with them and kept it alive on the New World, and they even flourished and became a power in their own right.

But they were no longer Vulcans, even though they were all that remained of the original Vulcan culture. They were Romulans.

Had the pre-emigration Vulcans worn kilts as part of their ethnic dress, like an African dashiki or Japanese kimono, and had those remaining on Vulcan and embracing Surak's teachings (later becoming the Vulcan planetary majority) adopted it as their planetary form of masculine attire, then either Vulcans or Romulans might feel they had a claim to it but for different reasons -- Romulans because it was part of their culture before it was ever adopted by the Vulcan planetary government, and Vulcans because it had been officially declared their planetary dress.

If, later on, Star Trek fans began adopting it, they would no doubt be regarded with (variously) respect, amusement, or bemusement by both Vulcans and Romulans.

Simple!

Yes

[ThistleDown]

Well, if one of the Mods agrees that the topic of this thread has nothing to do with politics, then I guess it is safe to ask a question without running afoul of Rule #5

Now, it is quite possible that I have forgotten some of what has been written in this very long, old thread, so I'm going to take this for another spin first. The contentious outlook of some residents of Scotland is that ONLY residents of Scotland with British citizenship are Scots and ought to wear the kilt. From this perspective, a proud, Gaelic, Cape Bretonner like Nathan (who I'm pretty sure doesn't mind me using him as an example) shouldn't be wearing a kilt because he has Canadian citizenship and can't even be considered a Scottish-Canadian; he is just a Canadian with some inconsequential background that happens to be Scottish, which doesn't mean he should granted the right to wear a kilt or if he is at least deigned to have that right, then he is seen as "playing at being a Scot." A naturalized immigrant to Scotland from Asia, however, is actually a true Scot and can wear Scotland's national attire with impunity because he is a British citizen and lives in Scotland.

If a Scot -- with the right to Scottish national attire -- is to be identified solely by place of residence and citizenship, without regard to history, heritage, culture, or ethnicity, then the demarcation appears to be made on geo-political lines. But both Jock and ThistleDown agree that this particular Scottish view on kilted "others" is not political? Or is it just that they don't believe this essentialist viewpoint has anything to do with the political issues, past or present, surrounding the sovereignty (or lack thereof) of Scotland as a nation?

I'm honestly confused, so hopefully someone still has the patience to explain

I suppose you are referring to me in your opening sentence, Colin. If so, I must say that the words you put into my mouth are quite distasteful. If you wish to re-read post 286 in this thread you may gain a better flavour of my 'political' dish.

Rex

[Phil]

Now, it is quite possible that I have forgotten some of what has been written in this very long, old thread, so I'm going to take this for another spin first. The contentious outlook of some residents of Scotland is that ONLY residents of Scotland with British citizenship are Scots and ought to wear the kilt. From this perspective, a proud, Gaelic, Cape Bretonner like Nathan (who I'm pretty sure doesn't mind me using him as an example) shouldn't be wearing a kilt because he has Canadian citizenship and can't even be considered a Scottish-Canadian; he is just a Canadian with some inconsequential background that happens to be Scottish, which doesn't mean he should granted the right to wear a kilt or if he is at least deigned to have that right, then he is seen as "playing at being a Scot." A naturalized immigrant to Scotland from Asia, however, is actually a true Scot and can wear Scotland's national attire with impunity because he is a British citizen and lives in Scotland.
I'm honestly confused, so hopefully someone still has the patience to explain

I think your confusion is less to do with the fact that you have forgotten, by your own admission, some of what has been written in this thread. What it appears more to do with is what you have chosen to think you remember but which has not actually appeared in this thread. I can find no statement from a Scottish contributor that states non-domiciled Scots should not wear a kilt, quite the reverse in fact. I believe one of my comments early on was to such effect.

Wearing a kilt is a profound experience for anyone brought up in a western background where trousers (pants) are the normal form of dress. It is an opportunity to step outside the humdrum mediocrity of present-day mens' clothing, to be a bit individual and, let's face it - be a bit of a peacock. Women do it all the time but men are stuck in a bit of a rut dress-wise.
OK it is a Scottish national dress but there is nothing to stop anyone else adoping it, especially if they have a Scottish background or just really want to identify with it. The only thing we Scots ask is that it is worn with respect and not treated as some sort of fancy dress costume.

What I have seen, however, are resentful and blatantly inaccurate statements by non-Scots such as Nathan and, if I might say, yourself, attributing this and other prejudices to the Scottish contributors here. I, myself, have been accused by Nathan of denying his Scottish ethnicity when I stated quite explicitly "Indeed and I don't believe that anyone is disputing your claim to be a Canadian with Scottish ancestry."
The sole criticism that I can detect coming from the Scottish contributors in this entire thread is the impertinence of non-Scottish contributors who feel they have the authority over actual Scots to pronounce upon matters of culture, language, values, nationhood and any other matter that comes to mind while remaining at arms length far away in another country, quite separate from the day to day issues and influences that mould the Scottish psyche. Patently ridiculous statements evidencing the contributor's lack of true knowledge such as imagining that Glaswegiand speak 'Doric' can be amusingly dismissed with a long-suffering shake of the head. Other misapprehensions such as regarding a proud and ancient nation such as Scotland as merely a region of England are quite another and one which, hopefully, will begin to be resolved next year.
It would help immeasurably the standard of this debate if contributors took the trouble to read and understand correctly what has been posted rather than rushing off a hurried post full of misinterpretaions, misapprehensions and plain misunderstandings.

[neloon]

A lot of recent contributions seem to be about what is a Scot. And certainly Scots in Scotland don't come as a standard issue.
I'm going to repost a musical link. There is not a kilt in sight. These people don't have "Scottish" accents. They have been born and brought up in a bit of the world a long way from Scotland. But they love their land and their traditions. The lovely lass could just as well be talking about Mull or Skye or Lewis or the Aberdeenshire coast. They are playing music composed in Canada but slipped into with an air composed about ten miles from where I'm sitting. Thousands of people in Scotland would love to be able to play like that. Even more would love to dance to that music at their next ceilidh. I have spent a lot of my life surrounded by musicians just like these. The birls (= "cuts" in Cape Breton) that Andrea Beaton starts the reels section with - just three millisecond-long notes - span centuries and thousands of miles. "I can see it all connected" Yes. These people are 101% Scottish. But not even Honorary Scots?
Please listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOuqRpZdnVI

Alan

[tripleblessed]

As the topic was Scots opinions, I've stayed out, but caught up on the reading from time to time. Seeing how it's flowed, (SIGH), here goes. I grew up in swamp south Georgia. My folk are Americans since before the Revolution. Some on each side of that one. Many came from England, more from Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. I grew up with that as regular life, conversation and story. Not setting up a "right" to anything, just context. Burns was quoted in my home. By ten, I was discussing Hume, Adam Smith, Burns, Locke, Socrates, Kant, etc. in a Great Books roundtable of college professors, holding my own and becoming an exhibit for the psychology department. I am fully cognizant that not all do have the knowledge or love for their roots. I fully and respectfully accept this, though I'll admit to being saddened by it. It limits one's perspective. For those who don't have this love, it seems to be difficult to find empathy with those who do. Fine. OK. Your loss. Truly. I support who you ARE, not who anyone else thinks you "ought " to be. I hope to receive the same courtesy. Doesn't always happen. C'est la vie. I don't wear a kilt for any of those folk. Nor do I answer to them for how I spend my money, such as it is. What does get a bit tiresome is the snidely smug condescension of those who naively and chauvinistically assume that those "outwith" have no possibility of having some modicum of understanding of history. And to hear that not being educated in Scotland, I should shut up and bow down. If I want to know about Reconstruction, I don't ask someone educated in the northern states of the US. If I want to know the role of Japan in WWII, I don't go to Japan and ask those educated there. If I want to speak of how those "outwith" arrived where we are, I do not expect, and certainly do not get, accurate understanding of how we arrived on these shores. We did not all line up at the docks in Glasgow, Edinburgh, or Dundee, begging to be allowed to get out of the country. We did not all pay our own passage. Many arrived on these shores as property, sold by an uncaring government. Many, having arrived carrying arms risking all for crown and country, were mustered out here, told by the beloved Crown
they weren't worth the shipping costs, and left to scratch out a life in a strange place. Many were told that hundreds of years of service was worth nothing, go somewhere and starve. Hard to hear, but true. Yes, many did leave by choice, but the choice was often not be Scot or Canadian, it was starve here or starve there, but at least you have a shot at land on this side of the pond. Few had the luxury my Skye folk had, to come here with funds to buy land, as there was no more life for them there. Yes, many saw opportunity and grabbed it, and we here are grateful they did. Their willingness, inventiveness, thrift, and courage have stood us well. For those forced out, the longing for what was lost was/is an almost physical, visceral crush that can never be understood by anyone who got to stay. We don't begrudge you that, why must we be begrudged some measure of homesickness? I have at times cited the Scottish Record Society here, citing legal records of court cases in Scotland, only to be accused of getting my history from Hollywood movies. I once naively mentioned that great numbers of my ancestors fought and died for that land, to build that country, and while I have no desire to tell you there how to run things today, I do have an investment there. I was roundly boxed about the ears for brashly suggesting that a Scotland without my ancestors would be different than this one (not better or worse, just different). Please forgive my love for history as it happened and for uncomfortable as well as comfortable facts. Here as well as there. At the time, having always believed I descended from honest, hardworking farmers, soldiers, and teachers, I had discovered that some (small and insignificant, I am sure) percentage of my DNA comes, like so many others, from Norman lines through Edward Longshanks, and through Henry II back to St. Margaret, Malcolm Canmore, house of DunKeld, etc. Now, I acknowledge your similar descent, and welcome to it, cousins, but if you pull all those folk, I don't think the country turns out quite the same.

Still not claiming any rights here, just saying it's often more complex than than we might have been led to believe. I am profoundly grateful for the understanding I have gained here, and never would say anyone has no right to their opinion.On the the contrary, I love it! People and their understandings fascinate me, their motivations inform my world view, and I wish I could sit and have these discussions in person. So much is lost by not seeing faces and body language, and being able to feel the reality of interesting people. I have the sad feeling many here would not choose to indulge me in person, based on misunderstanding of my intent or my poor attempts at communicating my thoughts. However, thanks to you all for your participation, your willingness, and your patience. You've increased mine, and enriched my life.

[neloon]

And you have just enriched our lives, tripleblessed. Thank you!

Alan