A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)

[10buckstew]

If you don't mind, I'll stir the ashes on this simmering debate, mostly to see if we can re-visit the original topic, but also to bow in respect to a few people, and a few things.
-- Phil, and Macmillan--, if i may be so informal, I am moved by the depth of your knowledge of history, as well as your writing ability. I must however, give a tip of the hat to Cajunscot for having the sand to say the 'umentionables'.

The clan society in Scotland is going to be seen different by different strata of society, in the past as well as the present. The 'romance' angle is not however, the sole perogative of the ignorant, the expatriot, nor the gentry. It belongs to everyone, and it does NOT mean that people were not hurt by the system; it's a matter of heartfelt loyalty.
Clan chiefs usually swore allegiance to the King, but it was always touchy, because of the 'first among equals' idea that was, and is held. The original Stewart, a knight from Dol, was successful in driving out the 'vikings' and so was granted his title, that was later made hereditary. He earned it, in other words.
By marriage, they later became Royal.
It's a complex issue- bound to evoke the monarchy- because the Scots have lost theirs.
-Sorry, but that's the way I, and almost every Scot I have spoken with, feel, although it has never been said quite that way.
It was not just due to religion, but remember; religion is what the unwashed masses will die for, and even to today, financial coups are dressed in religious robes.
There certainly were monetary angles to the hanoverian succession being adopted; Please do not forget that Englands switch to 'fractional reserve banking' was in the offing (which makes the Darien affair pale by financial comparison when you take the long view). The effects of that system being adopted by the 'Monarchy' are still with us today.
But to return to our thread; Scots I am friends with, or have known briefly in Scotland on travels, have (in my opinion AND experience), had a burning nationalism that is bound to evoke pure Jacobite oaths. Tanistry, if the the issue ever did arise, could even be used to support a new Stewart lineage, and don't think of that as a joke. I think the crown under glass in Edinburgh could easily have hundreds of thousands--if not millions of Scots out in the streets to swear allegiance to it, or at least vote for it. (homerule might win someday, if it's packaged with a separate monarchy).
Loyalty (not just romance), and nationalism, runs deep in Scotland from what I've seen.
In the so-called 'rebellions' of the '15', and the '45', (more like wars for independance)many, many past disputes were forgotten. Many,many Scots risked (and lost) everything-Titles, lands, even their lives, to support this so-called 'romantic notion'.
Would you cast aspersion on those peoples most cherished beliefs? Rabbie Burns held them. His father held them(lost everything in the '45'). His grandfather did too(was in the '15'). What IS the ideal Scot, if not fiercely loyal?
My ancestors were descended from a branch of the Stewart family that turned Protestant, and was sent to Ireland (what they call the Plantations). When the Risings began they suddenly turned to Stewart loyalty above religious considerations, and lost everything, coming to America to start fresh (I say this to show why I bothered to write all this about such a complex subject).
I cannot leave this without pointing out that the injustice and brutalities of the system were part and parcel of life in historic times--nothing unusual. (America 'the free' didn't have Civil Rights passed until 1968!)
So, while the system may have been ugly in it's workings, history shows that when a call to a "higher purpose" went out (as in the Risings), even clan chiefs were willing to lay down their lives to show they believed in it.
I find that so-called 'commoners' still feel this, even when many generations from Scotland. That the clan system is now often reduced to booths in 'fairs' and highland games is not so much ignoble; It is simply a way for Everyone to show that they feel something deep is going on there, and they would like to be a part of it.
I believe even something as simple as the wearing of the kilt, honors that deep emotion.

Thank you for your time, even if you do not agree, perhaps- especially if you do not agree.

I apoligize to any I have offended, feel free to ri[p] and {tear} this apart; it's an open forum.

[thescot]

. . .(America 'the free' didn't have Civil Rights passed until 1968!)
. . .

Well, if you refer to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 as the beginning of civil rights in the US, then you should point out that the law is only applicable in the southern states. Which would, I guess, imply that the other 39 or so states (depending on whether you use Obama's count) have no civil rights.

A statement which I believe begs a reference to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution (Commony refered to as the Bill of Rights) which guaranatee civil rights. They may not have been universally applied, but they were not invented in 1968.

Gosh I love a good discussion on this site.

[wvpiper]

Well, if you refer to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 as the beginning of civil rights in the US, then you should point out that the law is only applicable in the southern states. Which would, I guess, imply that the other 39 or so states (depending on whether you use Obama's count) have no civil rights.

do you mean the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Either way, they both apply to all 50 states. They may have been passed to address specific problems predominate in the South, but they're applicable to all.

[gilmore]

do you mean the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Either way, they both apply to all 50 states. They may have been passed to address specific problems predominate in the South, but they're applicable to all.

You got the dates right, but the latter part of the info isn't quite accurate.

The Voting Rights Act does apply to all 50 states, but only to those with a history of governmental discrimination in voting. Want to guess where those states are? I believe, though, it has been used a few times in a very few counties and cities outside the South that had a history of racial and other discrimination in voting, and that didn't involve African Americans. But my memory may be faulty. It has been decades since I worked on voting rights litigation.

[wvpiper]

You got the dates right, but the latter part of the info isn't quite accurate.

The Voting Rights Act does apply to all 50 states, but only to those with a history of governmental discrimination in voting. Want to guess where those states are? I believe, though, it has been used a few times in a very few counties and cities outside the South that had a history of racial and other discrimination in voting, and that didn't involve African Americans. But my memory may be faulty. It has been decades since I worked on voting rights litigation.

You've echoed my point. The problems may have been primarily southern based, but the laws do not specifically single out a state, or region. It is applicable to all 50 states.

[gilmore]

You've echoed my point. The problems may have been primarily southern based, but the laws do not specifically single out a state, or region. It is applicable to all 50 states.

True, but that is something of a disingenius way of putting it.

The Voting Rights Act is, in this regard we are discussing, very much like what are called "population bills" and are often used in legislation that purportedly applies to an entire state (if passed by a state legislature) or the entire country. These bills are written so that they apply only to, say, a "county having more than 234,378 residents but less than 235,000 residents at the time of the 2000 census," and, hence, there is only one possible county the bill could apply to. I just isn't named.

The Voting Rights Act was written similarly, so that as a practical matter it involves only the Southern states (with a very few local exceptions outside the South,) although of course racial and other discrimination in voting had occured throughout the country, though not as recently as in the South, where it was intended to remedy more recent and more blatant methods of keeping African Americans from voting.

[ronstew]

This gets my vote for Furthest Off-Topic Thread in the History of Xmarks.

(And I am aware that there is irony implicit in my comment.)