A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)

[Phil]

And I guess you're right about the scholarship and the museum (which I hope to visit someday), but for me it's just not something that appeals to me that much. With or without a society, I will always be a Gordon and so will the others that I know. We'll always gather at the games and sing "A Gordon For Me"!

I think that sums up the fellowship that people feel membership of a clan can be, without all this silly flummery of feathers, chiefs, lairds plaids etc.. It surely is about belonging to a family.

[macwilkin]

I think that sums up the fellowship that people feel membership of a clan can be, without all this silly flummery of feathers, chiefs, lairds plaids etc.. It surely is about belonging to a family.

Again, in your opinion...what is silly flummery to you may not be to others.

As Barry Goldwater once said, "we can disagree without being disagreeable".

T.

[Bugbear]

I think that sums up the fellowship that people feel membership of a clan can be, without all this silly flummery of feathers, chiefs, lairds plaids etc.. It surely is about belonging to a family.

Perhaps, by "silly flummery," you really mean symbols of something you perceive to be oppressive... I don't know, but there seems to be that undertone in your posts. If so, then I can understand your feelings about this in comparison to similar things in my own life.

That being said, I can also understand what you are saying about the feelings of fellowship and belonging; though not in an exact way. Hopefully, I'm not way off..

[KFCarter]

I have no objection to people using what they see as a connection with a clan name as a means of establishing a closer relationship with Scotland, her history and customs. That is just great for both the individual and my country. I freely confess that I have chosen the tartan for two of my kilts (and for my avatar) from just such a supposed association and I am happy to wear those tartans. But I don't delude myself into thinking that I am preserving or paying homage to a valuable ancient social system when I do so.

I can agree with 99% percent of us, save the last sentence. I think the majority of people join clan societies to pay homage to their ancestors.

T.

I think there's an important distinction between homage to an "ancient social system" and homage to "their ancestors". There have been some reference in this thread to the irony of Americans romanticizing the trappings of an ancient feudal system. I think that misses the mark. Many Americans relate to clans as extended families, not as socio-political systems. In that context, respect for the patriarch (i.e. clan chief) is a natural step. As a member of a clan society, I have no problem tipping a metaphorical hat to the clan chief and the connection he represents to a shared (if very distant) family history. I am proud of that connection. But I'd never consider bending a knee to him. I reserve that for church (okay, sometimes, when necessary, the wife...). I don't feel I owe homage to a social system that ran off, kicked out and dispossessed my various ancestors. But I do owe, and gladly pay, homage to the people of my lineage, their native land and its customs.

In a country such as America where success is based principally on ability, reverence for inherited influence seems totally incomprehensible. I can only assume that there is a latent desire to look up to such people much in the way the late Princess Diana was revered as a fairy tale princess.

Perhaps Americans are comfortable putting so much stock in our ancestry because we are not captives of it. We are free, and have been so for a long time, to remake ourselves on a regular basis. The idea of America as a pure egalitarian meritocracy is as much a myth as any idealized picture of clan life, but it is true that we allow for the possibility that anyone can become anything if they have the energy, persistence and will to make it happen, and we celebrate those who succeed. While some of us may "revere" a Princess or a clan chief in a romantic way, I don't see us granting either any meaningful authority over our lives.

[Phil]

The idea of America as a pure egalitarian meritocracy is as much a myth as any idealized picture of clan life, but it is true that we allow for the possibility that anyone can become anything if they have the energy, persistence and will to make it happen, and we celebrate those who succeed. While some of us may "revere" a Princess or a clan chief in a romantic way, I don't see us granting either any meaningful authority over our lives.

Remember that while you may, possibly, become the President of your country through effort, persistence, possibly ability and no doubt shed-loads of cash, you cannot ever, in any circumstances, no matter how much you wish or try, become a clan chief because that depends solely upon an accident of birth. Something that none of us can overcome no matter how much we may wish or try for it. But what, precisely, does such an accident of birth confer upon an individual that makes him (I say him deliberately because primogeniture is another essential part of the deal here) such a suitable candidate for the job? Answers please on the back of a postage stamp - if you can actually think of any that is. I suppose that places you in a similar situation as me in that I cannot ever become the Head of State in my country for exactly the same reason. There are many obstacles placed in our path as we make our way through life but ones such as these that deny even the possibility are indefensible, unsupportable and should be swept away as your forefathers so sensibly decided all those years ago.

[Jack Daw]

Oh, I pipe and "work" at the tent, talking to people looking to find out more about the clan. I'm great friends with the guys that work the tent in Wisconsin, and it's true that they've invested a lot of money, but it is not the Society's money. They did it on their own out of the love of their clan, just like I do.

And I guess you're right about the scholarship and the museum (which I hope to visit someday), but for me it's just not something that appeals to me that much. With or without a society, I will always be a Gordon and so will the others that I know. We'll always gather at the games and sing "A Gordon For Me"!

The Gordon Highlanders Museum was one of my favorites to visit. We were provided a tour; and, the tea shop had a good lunch.

[Bugbear]

... xmarks "clan" ...

Just wondering, is it all right for the non-Scots to do that with our groups when we have a tartan? For example, a Marine saying his "clan" is the Marines, or his "clan" tartan is the Leatherneck.

[cessna152towser]

Originally Posted by cessna152towser
... xmarks "clan" ...

Just wondering, is it all right for the non-Scots to do that with our groups when we have a tartan? For example, a Marine saying his "clan" is the Marines, or his "clan" tartan is the Leatherneck.

Of course, yes.

[Bugbear]

Of course, yes.

Oh, ok. I wasn't sure.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

61 posts in 37 hours, and many of them bitter about how unfair it is to not be a member of the lucky sperm club, and how this is somehow tied into accidents of birth, etc. This almost sounds like the basis of the next Dan Brown conspiracy book-- Angles and Crofters, maybe? Or would it be The Karl Marx Code?

It has been my observation that people with talent, who apply themselves, inevitably do well. Those who sit on the sidelines of life and piss and moan about how unfair things are usually accomplish little, regardless of their self-styled "social status" or third level (and often second rate) academic attainments .

Let me use the example of Malcolm, an 18th century crofter on Arran who had two sons, Daniel and Alexander. In the 1830s Malcolm's sons left Arran, went to Edinburgh and set up as book sellers. There Malcolm's sons worked hard, expanded their business and, moving to England, founded a publishing company in 1845. Daniel had a son, Maurice, who followed in his father's footsteps in the family business. Maurice had a son, also named Maurice, who, in turn, also became chairman of the family publishing business. But only after he had spent a lifetime in public service, eventually becoming the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Now if the great-grandson of an 18th century crofter from Arran could become Prime Minister there is obviously a lot more emphasis placed on meritocracy in the United kingdom than some are willing to admit.

So, it seems to me that if one isn't the Prime Minister, or isn't rich, or isn't... whatever, it's not the fault of the hereditary landed classes. It's probably one's own fault for not having made the best of every opportunity that came their way.