A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)

[gilmore]

...
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.

...

And to think, it took only four generations and some 200 years, as opposed to, say, some other countries where the bi-racial son of a deserted single mother---also from a remote island off the country's western coast--- became president before he was 50 years old.

[DWFII]

And to think, it took only four generations and some 200 years, as opposed to, say, some other countries where the bi-racial son of a deserted single mother---also from a remote island off the country's western coast--- became president before he was 50 years old.

No. it took 300 odd years. How many generations is that?

It also should be noted that our fine "meritocracy" here in the USA is based on avarice and ruthlessness more than actual accomplishment or talent. If you are more ruthless than your peers, you'll do well in this society. How is that significantly different than clan or feudal societies? Our avarice is based on transportable wealth whereas theirs was land based, that's all I can see.

This is not to say that people with real talent and real energy won't do well, but they will generally do well in any society. It is worth noting that the freedoms and the opportunities that any society offers it members are generally the result of years, generations, even centuries of evolution and change. That evolution in the UK begat the system we have in the US, just as it begat the system that is now extant in Britain. The worth of a people and the society they live in needs to be judged on how far they've come, how inevitably change has prevailed, not where they were six hundred, three hundred or even fifty years ago.

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 .

MOR hit the nail on the head (especially the "bitter" part). And it is a theme that has run through both this thread and the one previous that got "capped" because it "went on for 18 pages"--a fate most "serious" discussions, sadly, seem to suffer.

[Phil]

"A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)" was the original title of this post. Sadly no other actual Scottish people seem able or willing to contribute so I will bow out now before the inevitable tide of opprobrium descends upon me. If anyone feels that this has been a one-sided discussion then that is probably because that is precisely the case.

[gilmore]

"A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)" was the original title of this post. Sadly no other actual Scottish people seem able or willing to contribute so I will bow out now before the inevitable tide of opprobrium descends upon me. If anyone feels that this has been a one-sided discussion then that is probably because that is precisely the case.

I am sorry to hear that. I find your comments interesting and informative.

Maybe other Scots aren't contributing to the discussion because it seems few know of the Gathering. According to one of the members who lives in the Highlands a few weeks ago, he was the only person among his aquaintances who was aware of it.

[Brandane]

"A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)" was the original title of this post. Sadly no other actual Scottish people seem able or willing to contribute so I will bow out now before the inevitable tide of opprobrium descends upon me. If anyone feels that this has been a one-sided discussion then that is probably because that is precisely the case.

Phil, your thread has certainly sparked all sorts of controversay.

I would just like to say the I am happy and proud to be a Scot and accept that our history is clouded by romantisism. I am also happy to be an Anderson and wear the tartan and the clan badge in honour of those that went before me.

As i've become older I more readily accept the views of others that may disagree with me on subjects such as those that you have raised. History is history however viewed, we have the chance to shape the future. Best wishes, Rob.

[BEEDEE]

"A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)" was the original title of this post. Sadly no other actual Scottish people seem able or willing to contribute...

Phil, thank you for an attempt to bring this back on topic.

This has moved well away from the original topic and is beginning to move to an "I Said, You said" disagreement that is not really in the best interests of the forum.

A gentle reminder to all: Stay on topic, and be courteous to all members.

Thanks,

Brian

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

And to think, it took only four generations and some 200 years, as opposed to, say, some other countries where the bi-racial son of a deserted single mother---also from a remote island off the country's western coast--- became president before he was 50 years old.

I think it is disingenuous to portray someone in a false light, as you have done.

I suspect that if you go back 200 years you will find a similar pattern of social advancement in his family.

Setting aside any possible comment on the politics of the United States, you will notice that the gentleman referred to had the advantage of a first class education provided by his maternal grandparents. Beyond that, he took advantage of that education, and every political opportunity possible, to advance himself in society and in his chosen career.

In this regard I see no real difference between the current president of the United States and, say, former president Gerald Ford.

[gilmore]

I think it is disingenuous to portray someone in a false light, as you have done.

I suspect that if you go back 200 years you will find a similar pattern of social advancement in his family.

Setting aside any possible comment on the politics of the United States, you will notice that the gentleman referred to had the advantage of a first class education provided by his maternal grandparents. Beyond that, he took advantage of that education, and every political opportunity possible, to advance himself in society and in his chosen career.

In this regard I see no real difference between the current president of the United States and, say, former president Gerald Ford.

I don't think I have portrayed anyone in a false light. I set out the facts. Smokescreen?

If there is a pattern of social advancement his maternal family in the last 200 years (and I really don't know if there is) it would prove my point: it would have happened after they came to the US.

You are mistaken re: his education. He did attend a private college prepartory school in HI, but worked during the summers at Harvard Law School, and took advantage of a program there that offered scholarships to students who agreed to practice some form of public service law after graduation.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I don't think I have portrayed anyone in a false light.

The "false light" I was referring to was the way in which you conveyed the impression that he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps.

I set out the facts.

Vaguely at best, if at all.

Smokescreen?

No, thanks. I don't smoke.

If there is a pattern of social advancement his maternal family in the last 200 years (and I really don't know if there is) it would prove my point: it would have happened after they came to the US.

Why is it that people always assume that only "the poor, the tired, the wretched refuse, etc." moved to America? Pretty damned condescending, in my view. Unless, of course, you are trying to make some sort of obscure point about how unfair the entrenched social system is in Britain, and that only by moving to North America does a person have a chance of achieving his/her full potential. If that's the point you are trying to make, it can be refuted with four words: Richard Branson and Sean Connery. Both blokes made it to the top with a combination of intelligence, talent, and a lot of hard work. In Britain.

You are mistaken re: his education. He did attend a private college prepartory school in HI, but worked during the summers at Harvard Law School, and took advantage of a program there that offered scholarships to students who agreed to practice some form of public service law after graduation.

I am not the least bit mistaken about the president's educational background-- read what I wrote: He has a first class education (the foundation of which was paid for by his maternal grandparents) and he took full advantage of it to advance himself both socially and politically. Those are facts. That he worked summers, between terms, or nights handing out towels at the YMCA is neither here nor there. In the United States and Canada virtually all third level and graduate level students have some sort of "after school" job, if for no other reason than to beguile the tedium of being a student.

[Bruce Scott]

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.

Somewhat better known as Harold, I believe.