What makes a Scot?

[Bugbear]

Hmmm, Gryphon noir, I have been watching a blending of culture and... genetics or race in my own family and my friends families: A kind of melting pot. I have decided to not have any children, so that leaves my sister's family and my niece to carry on the family genetics from my father's side. My sister's son is partly hispanic or latino, both culture and race, and so is my niece. If I go back one generation to my grandfather, or even my father, that would be unspeakable. My father has had to accept this blending, it's still very painful to him, and from here on out his family line is at least part hispanic. I think this blending is good.

Perhaps one day, we will be so blended that we are all everything because we all came from all of us. might be the big plann... Nice and confusing, but that's the melting pot. We could pick who we are and change it like hair styles. LOL! If we're just talking culture blending, that's being done right here and now as we talk.

*******
BTW
My mother's side of the family traces back to Scotland and Ireland, The Shaws. My father's side traces back a couple of gens, and then we just don't know. It might be that the blending has been going on all along, LOL!, I sure do have a bunch of half relatives out there that I've never met.

[Makeitstop]

Well, if you go back far enough, we are all cousins, just some more distant than others. On the one hand that makes issues of diversity and race and ethnicity all the more irrelevant. But on the other hand, that is a creepy thought when you realize everyone you have ever been so much as attracted to is actually a relative



I think a lot of people want to identify with a culture and heritage other than that of the nation they were born in because they were raised that way by parents and grandparents who also identify with the old country. That seemingly distant cultural heritage is part of the much more immediate family identity.

But I think a lot of people also do it because they want an identity, and to have their own culture and heritage. I think part of why a lot of people in America do it is because it can be easy to feel like we don't have a cultural identity of our own. Part of living in the melting pot is being exposed to elements of other cultures, and people who bring their own heritage in. If you belong to a group whose culture is already well mixed in, it ceases to be as unique and special by comparison. So people who want that cultural identity look to where their ancestors came from and try to adopt more of that culture, especially those elements which are not common around here.

It's the same reason a lot of suburban middle class white kids want to identify with rappers, a subculture that is based on poor, black, urban criminals. Despite the fact that my cousin lives in the country, and comes from middle class white family, and wouldn't last five minutes in the ghetto, he identifies with all that crap anyway. It makes about as much sense as people identifying themselves as being part of a culture that they are a dozen generations removed from and have not personally experienced.

Of course, I say people should feel free to adopt any part of any culture they like with no need to justify it through lineage or circumstances. Just be honest about it.

[Gryphon noir]

The genetic part is kind of interesting--and seems to support the notion that we are all only six degrees of separation away from knowing or being related to everyone currently alive on the planet.

I am told by relatives that not only are there cousins of practically every colour, but many look like family architypes [of which I am one]. I know I have cousins in Brazil who look much like me except for having very dark skin, American cousins who are part Hispanic, cousins who are part Cree, some who are part Chinese [Hong Kong] and some who never left Scotland. The few photos I have seen are quite remarkable--I would recognise some of them were I to meet them at an airport [communication in English might be a problem!]. With any luck, I shall get to meet some of these people someday. Regardless, many of these distant cousins are aware of their heritage, and some of them have surnames to remind them.

[Bugbear]

I don't know for sure, but the genetic differences are probably very very small or few between any two people. If you geneticly compare humans to ... say apes, our differences are probably laughable. Like I said before, I have a bunch of half relatives running around that I don't know... or do I?

[auld argonian]

I'm probably going to be accused of cynicism for looking at it this way but this is the way that I look at it.

In my opinion, there are two things that people really want. The first is a sense that there is some order or purpose to life and the second is the feeling that one belongs to some kind of group. The belonging to a group business has a couple of benefits; one does not feel isolated and one feels that this group supports that first need, that the group is helping to bring some order or purpose to life. The obvious examples of groups that are in existence to support the idea of order and purpose are religions, political parties, citizenship (nation, region, city, etc.)...extend this into such things as company affiliation, family, being the alumni of an educational institution...you can really subdivide these affiliations.

So if you're born in Scotland, you're a Scot by definiton...love it or hate it...you were brought into this world in that specific place and culture and your being raised and educated in that place and culture forms part of your identity. You can totally embrace the culture and its values, totally reject it or be somewhere in between.

Say that you were born in Scotland but you're family moved to Canada when you were two...a slightly different version of being brought up in a culture; now it's a sort of a transplanted culture...things being dynamic, your family will undoubtedly retain many of its traditions and perspectives but they're going to be modified by the new environment that you're living in. Maybe you'll decide that you want to maintain a very solid "ethnic identity' and maybe you'll decide to go for total assimilation into the local culture...no right or wrong here.

So now you're a citizen of the United States whose ancestor(s) came over from Scotland back in the 1700's...traditions may or not have been preserved, perspectives may have been maintained but there's going to have to be some effects wrought upon them by the interaction with the local culture. It's inevitable. Maybe you're one of the people who have gotten constant reinforcement of your Proud Scottish Heritage from family members or maybe, like me, it's something that hasn't been kept in the forefront of your upbringing but has been considered just another aspect of your family's past...again; no right or wrong here.

I don't buy this business of it "being in the blood" that's been tossed around here. Seriously, I'm reminded of the George Lucas Star Wars bit about The Force actually being generated by some kind of sentient beings that live in a sub-atomic world in your mitochondrial DNA. Call me when you can point to the Scottish chromosome, would you? Sorry, gang, when you start that stuff you're talking Ancestral Memory and we're rapidly heading for Shirley MacLaine territory...."...in a previous life, I was Bonnie Prince Sidney, Bonnie Prince Charlie's lesser known younger brother...". Let's leave the Romantic Fantasy behind...I went to college with WAY too many people who would have a couple of drinks (or tokes) and start that "I was born out of my time" stuff.

We seem, in this thread, to be more concerned about the "Scottishness" of members of the Scottish Diaspora and those who feel an affinity with Scottishness but who might not have direct family connections to Scotland than we are that of the Native Born Scots. We also seem to be making some generality that there is a sort of a single, essential way to be "A Scot".

There are, certainly, historic examples of characteristics demonstrated by Scots that we find admirable and with which we identify. Certainly, there are such characteristics in the histories of many cultures that folks have the same feelings about but let's deal with this set of specifics. Is identifying with these characteristics part of that need to belong to a group and adopt a set of principles that help one feel that there is order and a purpose in life? Do we feel that these characteristics are desirable and seize upon our connection with the Scots in our ancestry as a way of signifying our approval of them? Look at it...when you do this, you can have a mode of dress (kilt stuff) and a whole set of rituals to demonstrate that you identify with Scottishness but it's Scottishness as an abstract concept, as a set of principles as distinct from being "one who was born in Scotland". And, not to parse this way too finely, the Native Born Scot can certainly either embrace or reject those same principles that we of the Diaspora consider "Scottishness" and certainly has the right to define Scottishness in light of his own experience because, let's face it, they live in Scotland in the here and now and the Diaspora's concepts are largely based on historical events and traditions.

....holy schnikes...I feel like I ought to have footnotes for this whole rant...

Anyway, I'm enjoying the discussion and it has, obviously, provoked a lot of thought.

Best

AA


ps: ...and for the inevitable members of the forum who will say, "What's he talking about? I don't need to belong to any group! I live by my own rules!" I'd like to announce that the next meeting of the Rugged Individualists' Club will be held at 7 PM Thursday at the Rugged Individualists' Clubhouse.

[graham_s]

Meh, go far enough back we're all Africans anyway.

[Makeitstop]

Meh, go far enough back we're all Africans anyway.

And according to carl sagan, if you go back far enough we're all actually aliens. And you know, I think he is onto something. Everyone once in a while you meet someone and you just have to say to yourself "there's no way that guy's not a freakin alien!"



You know, this conversation reminds me of an interview I saw not too long ago. It was some French journalist/philosopher who had toured America for years and then wrote a book about it.

When he was asked what his favorite part of American culture was, he said it was that to be an American was not a matter of birthright or blood, but of will. That anyone who came and chose to be a part of this nation could do so and would become an American, regardless of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. That an Iranian, a Mexican or a Korean could all become Americans is a marvelous notion, and really sets the new world apart from the old.

Personally, I think that that's the way it ought to be. I do not claim to be a Scot, nor do I have an overwhelming desire to become one. But if I did so choose to I would hope that such an effort would be welcomed as a great compliment, rather than met with scorn or snobbery. I certainly would never want to belong to a culture that would exclude others simply for being born and raised elsewhere.

So I ask you guys, is it possible to become a Scot?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

BJ--

As I said, nationality and race are two different things. No matter what your race, when you move to the United States you become an American. It doesn't matter what the motivation was for the move, your ethnicity doesn't change, just your nationality.

Example #1: Mr. Harrar (an Ethiopian) moves to NYC, gets a license to drive a taxi, and takes out U.S. citizenship. Nationality: USA

Example #2: Mr. Harrar (still an Ethiopian and first cousin to the fella in NYC) moves to Glasgow, can't get a taxi license so becomes an accountant, and applies for citizenship, which is duly granted. Nationality? BRITISH. Not Scottish. Not Scots, but British. He becomes a British Subject (just as his disgruntled, SNP-voting neighbour is).

Time for a dose of historical reality here. The Union of Crowns (1603-- which saw James VI pack his golf clubs and gallop off to Merry Olde England never to return) and the Union of Parliaments (1707) put an end to the "nation of Scotland". Okay, it was technically "The Kingdom of Scotland" or some such, but the point is that once the executive and legislative branches left, Scotland was reduced in status to something like an "uber" county. There was a lot of "local" govenment -- and that's been seriously eroded over the years-- but despite (or perhaps, because of) the fuzzy-headed rantings of Mr. Harrar's SNP neighbour in Glasgow, all the "big" decisions were taken by the executive and legislatve bods down in London.

Granted that Scotland has recently been hiked up the govenmental ranks from the status of "Uber County" to something the equivalent of the state of Idaho, now that it has its own multi-district assembly, it still isn't really an independent nation. Even though SNP stalwart Ramsey Luigi Casatti (Mr. Harrar's Glasgow neighbour, who really is -or isn't- Scottish according to your definition) may fantasize about turning Scotland into some sort of throw-back 19th century worker's paradise, complete with a permanent seat on the United Nation's Security Council, the hard fact remains that Scotland hasn't been a "nation" for 201 years, and that it was, at best, only a quasi-nation for 104 years before that.

If a Scottish nation exists at all, it exists in the hearts and minds of the descendants of those people who witnessed the departure of their king and parliament all those centuries ago. That means that someone in Toronto, Canada or Brisbane, Australia or Wellington, New Zealand or Harare, Zimbabwe has as much claim to be a Scot, as someone sitting in a pub in Glasgow, in Great Britain.

[bjproc]

Even though SNP stalwart Ramsey Luigi Casatti (Mr. Harrar's Glasgow neighbour, who really is -or isn't- Scottish according to your definition)

please don't put words in my mouth that i never said, thank you.

what i said was, if somebody born, grown up and lived their life, say in the US, whos forefathers were from scotland 6 generation ago, or any other country, for example, said he had a longing to be back home to scotland, i do find this a bit strange, weather you like it or not.

did you read auld argonian's post?, i thought it was a cracker

there nothing wrong going back to you roots and loving the history of your past family.


also, please don't patronise me about the nationality of this country, i know it brittish, thats what my passport has on it.

well whatever, but thanks for the history lesson, you maybe should've been my history teacher, i may have paid more attention then.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

please don't put words in my mouth that i never said, thank you.

what i said was, if somebody born, grown up and lived their life, say in the US, whos forefathers were from scotland 6 generation ago, or any other country, for example, said he had a longing to be back home to scotland, i do find this a bit strange, weather you like it or not.

did you read auld argonian's post?, i thought it was a cracker

there nothing wrong going back to you roots and loving the history of your past family.


also, please don't patronise me about the nationality of this country, i know it brittish, thats what my passport has on it.

well whatever, but thanks for the history lesson, you maybe should've been my history teacher, i may have paid more attention then.

Sorry if you thought I was putting words in your mouth-- I wasn't. I've used the "is/isn't a Scot according to your definition" in almost every post I've submitted to this and related threads. Given that only the first part of my posting was in direct response to your comments, I probably should have said "one's definitions" but that probably would have confused some one else.

And I'm NOT patronising you about being British, any more than I think some of the people on this thread are being condescending or dismissive to those not born, or raised, or educated, or whatever, north of the Tweed.

The plain fact is that whether one is born in Belfast, Inverness, London, or Cardiff they are British. That's their nationality, and they can like it or lump it. I don't care. I care when the lines of ethnicity start to blur do to someone's poorly defined understanding of their own nationality. Obviously this isn't your problem, but for some of our fellow Scots it seems as though it is a problem.