A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)

[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...

[macwilkin]

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...

Regardless, though, the Chief is the head of the clan, and respect should be given to the office/position, if nothing else. I agree, I'm not much on "gushing" myself, be it to a Chief, President, etc., but I do believe that one should show respect.

T.

[Andrewson]

As another native Scot I find myself in close agreement with Phil and Alex above. Who can deny the historical facts?

Like Alex I am a member of a clan society. I joined before I knew very much about the clan system. I attended clan gatherings and enjoyed the social interaction but there was no deep feeling of kinship with the very diverse group of people there. The original clans were collections of diverse people, not all sharing the same family trees (i.e. not all sharing the same "surname") but willing to swear allegiance to the chief for whatever reasons of economic need etc.. Because they lived. worked and fought together, there is no doubt that a very strong bond did develop between members and this may even, at times have cut across actual family relations. I believe there were cases where brothers of the same family joined different clans and fought each other when their clan interests were in conflict. Who knows they may even have worn the same tartan when they did so for the notion that the tartan was the uniform identifying the clan is also a myth. (They would be carrying their chief's badge in their caps.) So the idea that I have a historical clan-based bond with people who happen to share a surname with me (no matter how that name was acquired) is false. The notion that I have the "right" (maybe even the duty) to wear the tartans of that name whereas those without the surname do not is also false.

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.