A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)

[cessna152towser]

The subject of the divergent views about clans and clan societies was touched on in this thread about Clan Adoption. Phil, from Edinburgh, came up with a populist Scottish view on the subject and riled a few people on the other side of the Atlantic.
http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/c...ighlight=yanks
Not wishing to hijack the thread I will start a new one with my personal views of where the clans are perceived in today's Scotland. I would welcome input from other Scottish members as to how they see it, and also responses from our cousins in the new world.
There are a few clans who still have a recognised legal structure within Scotland. Those of us who wear kilts, attend Highland Games, etc. have a respect for their structure and will have a basic understanding of the accessories worn by senior clan officers. Sadly, most Scots see clan regalia as historical costume and if you walk along a city centre street wearing a feather in your hat you will be perceived by most onlookers as an American tourist.
Many Scots own just the one kilt which may be in their family tartan or a district tartan. As a kilt collector I have a choice of six family tartans which I wear, all family names from which I can claim lineage. However the only clan to which I belong is that for my own surname. Rather it is no longer a clan, as there is no chieftain, but is a clan society headed by a High Commissioner and which is based in the USA and has a worldwide membership of almost a thousand, including quite a few of us in Scotland. The society provides regular communiques and intermittently I have been involved in assisting in compiling their genealogy database. My clan will not be taking part in the Edinburgh gathering because a breakaway group which has only been formed since the start of the new millenium, also USA based, got in first with their application for a clan tent in our name, apparently they were only the third clan society to apply to take part when the gathering (or Gartering of the Clans as this group prefer to call it on their website) was first mooted. This is a small group of Americans who will be spending just one week in Scotland and running their own tent at the gathering in purported representation of the family name, rather than allowing us native Scots the opportunity to be good hosts. They may have their own good reasons for breaking away from the recognised clan society but I cannot feel any sense of kinship with them. So maybe you will understand why I regard the Edinburgh Gathering as very much a Brig o' Doon event and one which pays no respect to clan heritage, and this is why l will not be taking part in the clan parade and pageant despite the fact these are taking place just 55 miles from my home. No I will stay away from Edinburgh that day and leave it to the overseas visitors to enjoy dressing up in their clan costumes.
Despite my cynicism about the Edinburgh event, it is wonderful to hear of so many people of Scottish descent coming to Scotland throughout this Year of the Homecoming. I have already met some of you this year, starting with the Burns Light event in Dumfries in January and I do hope to meet up with many more. I hope to attend the Sunday games in Holyrood Park, Edinburgh to meet up with members of the xmarks "clan" who will be there, and yes I will wear a kilt but I will wear it with a Tee shirt. I also plan to attend a couple of public events which are being hosted by clans from the Scottish Borders where I now live.

[JolyStNicholas]

With the deepest and greatest respect to you kind sir::WELL DONE!!

[Phil]

Phil, from Edinburgh, came up with a populist Scottish view on the subject and riled a few people on the other side of the Atlantic.
http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/c...ighlight=yanks

I’m afraid I seem to be rather good at that and really must try to be more considerate of the sincerely held beliefs and aspirations of others when it comes to clans, heraldry and other matters Scottish.
In mitigation I would only say that I, and I believe a substantial majority of fellow Scots, have no connection with any so-called “clan” other than an awareness of their existence as historical entities which no longer exist in any meaningful way or with any significance whatsoever to society in the 21st century. The days are not so far off when Scottish people were feudally bound to landowners as vassals and such bondsmen as miners only had this hereditary serfdom lifted in the 19th century. In fact, feudalism generally in Scotland was only abolished as recently as 1974 and I, myself, was a vassal under this system, paying feu duty to a feudal superior for the pleasure of allowing me to occupy the house I had bought.
While this serfdom may come as a shock to some raised to the “land of the free” they should try to understand how it has shaped and coloured the views of those so recently released from their feudal shackles. In particular towards those who would still seek to “lord it” over their fellow man, who live by the trappings of feudal privilege such as lords, chiefs etc., and those who try to exercise a supposed superiority by the use of arcane mediaeval flummery. There was never really anything romantic about the clan system which only existed to perpetuate the privileges of a very few land-owning individuals by holding their many clansmen in abject servitude purely for their own selfish ends. And when these ends no longer required clansmen to till their fields, tend their cattle and spill their blood on their behalf they had little compunction in dispensing with them, frequently in the cruellest ways imaginable. This is how so many found themselves dispossessed, homeless and shipped off to the far corners of the world to face an unknown and uncertain future. It says much for their hard work and determination that they survived in such hostile places and that their descendants survive to this day. It says nothing for the clan system, however, and for those privileged chiefs and other landowners who cast them aside without a further thought. You may, perhaps, understand why I completely fail to understand how anyone would wish to perpetuate something that so completely failed its adherents in the past and has nothing to offer but a simplistic romanticism nowadays.
By all means join clan societies but do so in the knowledge of what they truly represent. That is all I ask.

[macwilkin]

I’m afraid I seem to be rather good at that and really must try to be more considerate of the sincerely held beliefs and aspirations of others when it comes to clans, heraldry and other matters Scottish.
In mitigation I would only say that I, and I believe a substantial majority of fellow Scots, have no connection with any so-called “clan” other than an awareness of their existence as historical entities which no longer exist in any meaningful way or with any significance whatsoever to society in the 21st century. The days are not so far off when Scottish people were feudally bound to landowners as vassals and such bondsmen as miners only had this hereditary serfdom lifted in the 19th century. In fact, feudalism generally in Scotland was only abolished as recently as 1974 and I, myself, was a vassal under this system, paying feu duty to a feudal superior for the pleasure of allowing me to occupy the house I had bought.
While this serfdom may come as a shock to some raised to the “land of the free” they should try to understand how it has shaped and coloured the views of those so recently released from their feudal shackles. In particular towards those who would still seek to “lord it” over their fellow man, who live by the trappings of feudal privilege such as lords, chiefs etc., and those who try to exercise a supposed superiority by the use of arcane mediaeval flummery. There was never really anything romantic about the clan system which only existed to perpetuate the privileges of a very few land-owning individuals by holding their many clansmen in abject servitude purely for their own selfish ends. And when these ends no longer required clansmen to till their fields, tend their cattle and spill their blood on their behalf they had little compunction in dispensing with them, frequently in the cruellest ways imaginable. This is how so many found themselves dispossessed, homeless and shipped off to the far corners of the world to face an unknown and uncertain future. It says much for their hard work and determination that they survived in such hostile places and that their descendants survive to this day. It says nothing for the clan system, however, and for those privileged chiefs and other landowners who cast them aside without a further thought. You may, perhaps, understand why I completely fail to understand how anyone would wish to perpetuate something that so completely failed its adherents in the past and has nothing to offer but a simplistic romanticism nowadays.
By all means join clan societies but do so in the knowledge of what they truly represent. That is all I ask.

Have you ever considered Phil, that many people of Scottish heritage join clan (and other Scottish) societies not to celebrate feudalism and the "real" history of the clan system, but instead (and these are your words) "... their [ancestors] hard work and determination that they survived in such hostile places and that their descendants survive to this day"?

I don't believe I've ever said that the clan system was something "romantic". Any serious student of Scottish history, regardless of their nationality, can certainly tell you that. However, as a trained historian, I'm also very wary of sweeping generalizations brought on by personal opinions and beliefs. Your description of the Scottish clan system could just as easily describe the American South and the romantic "moonlight and magnolias" view that some still hold today, yet history goes much deeper than such generalizations.

Regards,

Todd

[Phil]

Have you ever considered Phil, that many people of Scottish heritage join clan (and other Scottish) societies not to celebrate feudalism and the "real" history of the clan system, but instead (and these are your words) "... their [ancestors] hard work and determination that they survived in such hostile places and that their descendants survive to this day"?

I don't believe I've ever said that the clan system was something "romantic". Any serious student of Scottish history, regardless of their nationality, can certainly tell you that. However, as a trained historian, I'm also very wary of sweeping generalizations brought on by personal opinions and beliefs. Your description of the Scottish clan system could just as easily describe the American South and the romantic "moonlight and magnolias" view that some still hold today, yet history goes much deeper than such generalizations.

Regards,

Todd

Thanks for commenting on my post, Todd.
I did not, of course, say that you held the view that the clan system was something romantic, rather that the whole concept conveyed a notion of romanticism. Whether or not you subscribe to that is, of course, a personal view, coloured by the depth of knowledge of the subject. Your example of the American South is obviously a similar phenomenon and, while I am unaware of this myself, from what you write I imagine it to be something where opinions are similarly polarised. And, of course, history does go much deeper than such generalisations so that it is only by seeking the truth that one can approach the true picture. In all of this, however, we must also be conscious of the axiom that history is written by the victors and the whole truth is not always presented as a result so that inconvenient truths can be suppressed.

[macwilkin]

Thanks for commenting on my post, Todd.
I did not, of course, say that you held the view that the clan system was something romantic, rather that the whole concept conveyed a notion of romanticism. Whether or not you subscribe to that is, of course, a personal view, coloured by the depth of knowledge of the subject. Your example of the American South is obviously a similar phenomenon and, while I am unaware of this myself, from what you write I imagine it to be something where opinions are similarly polarised. And, of course, history does go much deeper than such generalisations so that it is only by seeking the truth that one can approach the true picture. In all of this, however, we must also be conscious of the axiom that history is written by the victors and the whole truth is not always presented as a result so that inconvenient truths can be suppressed.

Phil,

Romanticism and mythology aren't necessarily always bad. I frequently use them as a teaching tool to get at the "real" history behind such myths. However, I do not advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Todd

[Deil the Yin]

Your description of the Scottish clan system could just as easily describe the American South and the romantic "moonlight and magnolias" view that some still hold today...
Todd

I heard that!

[slohairt]

While I do understand the desire to belong to something bigger, I have to agree with both Phil and Cessna. It is a bit of myopic nostalgia at times, a longing for a society that never really was. The situation is much the same in Ireland to a far lesser degree. The clan system broke down earlier there and the chiefs fled en masse, thus paving the way for a truly miserable future for most of the country. As a result, the attitude of many an Irishman towards his chief for the past three hundred plus years has often been indifference or hostility. Many of these chiefs moved to continental Europe and enjoyed prestigious positions in both military and civil positions within their country of choice, never turning a glance to Ireland again.

Scotland is a bit different, of course, as many chiefs 'cashed in and sold out' to became absentee landowners living a life of leisure in London, but I'm sure the attitudes of their former clansmen were no different than those of their Gaelic cousins in Ireland.

So, once again, I do understand the need to belong a larger group. I do like the idea of clan societies, especially if organised along more democratic lines. I just personally don't like the pseudo-feudal idea of elevating someone to a lofty position that I don't feel they have earned. In the 'auld days' the chieftaincy was not always passed from eldest son to eldest son. If the clan system had survived in its original form, it is unlikely that many of these people would even be chiefs today!

To each his own. I'm not criticising anyone, just offering my personal opinion.

[macwilkin]

So, once again, I do understand the need to belong a larger group. I do like the idea of clan societies, especially if organised along more democratic lines. I just personally don't like the pseudo-feudal idea of elevating someone to a lofty position that I don't feel they have earned. In the 'auld days' the chieftaincy was not always passed from eldest son to eldest son. If the clan system had survived in its original form, it is unlikely that many of these people would even be chiefs today!

To each his own. I'm not criticising anyone, just offering my personal opinion.

Most clan societies are democratic, though. If there is a clan chief, he/she may appoint a personal represenative/comissioner, but society officers are generally elected from the membership.

And for that matter, feudalism really doesn't hold the monopoly on "elevating someone to a lofty position they haven't earned". I can think of numerous politicians and celebrities in our society that could be described that way as well.

T.

[slohairt]

Yar! I knew you would reply, Todd!

Yes, some of the structure for most societies is democratic to a degree. (Although I don't think 'appointing ' is really that democratic.) I'm mainly referring to the gushing attitude some people have when referring to their chief and the institution itself.

As for celebs and politicians? Definitely elevated to an unearned lofty position. A certain middle-aged Irish musician come to mind right now...