A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)

[Phil]

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 .

Let me use the example of Malcolm, an 18th century crofter on Arran who had two sons, Daniel and Alexander. In the 1830s Malcolm's sons left Arran, went to Edinburgh and set up as book sellers. There Malcolm's sons worked hard, expanded their business and, moving to England, founded a publishing company in 1845. Daniel had a son, Maurice, who followed in his father's footsteps in the family business. 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.

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.

So, it seems to me that if one isn't the Prime Minister, or isn't rich, or isn't... whatever, it's not the fault of the hereditary landed classes. It's probably one's own fault for not having made the best of every opportunity that came their way.

Excellent reply, MOR, and I am sure there is not a better example of the point I was trying to get across. You refer, of course, to the former Conservative British Prime Minister known as Harold MacMillan (he dropped the Maurice). Although he, himself was not exactly a “lad o pairts”, that distinction really belonging to his forebears in the 19th century who started the family publishing dynasty. Perhaps another example would be our present Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, a kirk minister’s son, educated at a State school rather than an exclusive and costly establishment such as Eton where MacMillan was educated, and who has achieved high office regardless of this.
But there could be no better example than Harold MacMillan who, despite his great talents, privileged education, connection to noble families (the Devonshires) through marriage still could never become chief of his clan.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

But there could be no better example than Harold MacMillan who, despite his great talents, privileged education, connection to noble families (the Devonshires) through marriage still could never become chief of his clan.

You are absolutely correct, but not for the reasons you've stated. The courts decided in 1953 that the chiefly line was vested in General Sir Gordon MacMillan. So the matter is settled in law. And this is the case with virtually all of the Scottish chiefs: they are chiefs because of a decision made by a court of law. People who who are unhappy with that decision have the right to appeal, and some have. In fact cases of chiefship have gone all the way to the House of Lords. But at the end of the day the Law has determined who is entitled to be called a chief, not some clerk at the central registry of births.

(By the way, in the archives at the MacMillan Clan Center there is a letter from Harold MacMillan acknowledging the chief, wishing him well, and stating how proud he is to be a member of the clan.)

I think it presumptuous to assume that the average clansman (or even Super Mac) would want to be a clan chief. I know I wouldn't. I see chiefship as a tiring, largely thankless task that quite often gets in the way of the chief having a life of his own. True, a chief gets to be friends with people from all walks of life and every corner of the globe-- and here one may have missed the central core of chiefship-- that clan folk come from every possible section of society, and all are regarded as "family and friends" by their chief, and generally treated as such.

There is no "below the salt" at a clan gathering.

[David Dalglish]

I belive that the GATHERING is one big rip off.

[SteveB]

Bigkahuna,
My spouse's family is the one your ancestors ate, mine ran back to Plymouth Colony before the attack. My spouse's ancestors got caught in the conflict with your ancestors. As a proud supporter of the Wampanoag Indigenous Program at Plimoth Plantation, I can say all is forgiven.
Slainte

[The Barry]

It is an unfortunate truth that those who are availed to privilege in life do better than those that aren't. This is the "gap" that is talked about at length in sociological studies. This gap is unfortunately widening. I hope that the playing field levels out significantly in the near future.

As far as family history is concerned, my limited studies have suggested that my ancestors have been the invaders, the invaded, the enslaved, the enslavers, the victims, the warlords, etc..

This is all dependent on who gets what side of what stick during what century.

I would imagine that this is true of most peoples' ancestors.

[DWFII]

It is an unfortunate truth that those who are availed to privilege in life do better than those that aren't. This is the "gap" that is talked about at length in sociological studies. This gap is unfortunately widening. I hope that the playing field levels out significantly in the near future.

Don't hold your breath (he said kindly). I can't think of a society in history(even contemporaneous history) where some haven't had, by virtue of birth, an advantage over others.

Once upon a time it was Clan Chiefs who by virtue of genes or nourishment were bigger and stronger than their peers. Isn't that a kind of ascendancy by merit? Or is it just a variation of the lucky sperm wars?

Once upon a time there were Kings and Queens who, by virtue of their birth and education, were undoubtedly better prepared to govern than others. Was the French Revolution, and subsequently the Empire, really a different or better society that what had preceded it?

And always...running through the history of human beings on this planet...there were people who, by virtue of their birth and temperament, were in positions of privilege that they did not deserve and almost certainly abused. To...this...day.

And always, just as certainly, there have been shadowy figures who rose from obscurity to positions of power and privilege...on merit--by manipulating those who actually wore the crown or the feathers.

Today, instead of clan chiefs and kings and queens, we have CEO's and sports figures...and movie stars and politicians, both of whom, parenthetically, maintain their positions of privilege by essentially creating and living a lie, or a masquerade, at the very least. Where's the "merit" in the meritocracy?

And we buy into those lies and attend those masques, even if we have to go as footmen and scullery maids, simply because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

It may be better for a large segment of society now...and/or under certain systems of government...than it was in the past but, at bottom, not much has really changed.

[Bugbear]

Don't hold your breath (he said kindly). I can't think of a society in history(even contemporaneous history) where some haven't had, by virtue of birth, an advantage over others.

Once upon a time it was Clan Chiefs who by virtue of genes or nourishment were bigger and stronger than their peers. Isn't that a kind of ascendancy by merit? Or is it just a variation of the lucky sperm wars?

Once upon a time there were Kings and Queens who, by virtue of their birth and education, were undoubtedly better prepared to govern than others. Was the French Revolution, and subsequently the Empire, really a different or better society that what had preceded it?

And always...running through the history of human beings on this planet...there were people who, by virtue of their birth and temperament, were in positions of privilege that they did not deserve and almost certainly abused. To...this...day.

And always, just as certainly, there have been shadowy figures who rose from obscurity to positions of power and privilege...on merit--by manipulating those who actually wore the crown or the feathers.

Today, instead of clan chiefs and kings and queens, we have CEO's and sports figures...and movie stars and politicians, both of whom, parenthetically, maintain their positions of privilege by essentially creating and living a lie, or a masquerade, at the very least. Where's the "merit" in the meritocracy?

And we buy into those lies and attend those masques, even if we have to go as footmen and scullery maids, simply because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

It may be better for a large segment of society now...and/or under certain systems of government...than it was in the past but, at bottom, not much has really changed.

Ah, cheer up, DWFII; some day the world will probably get smacked with a giant piece of space rubble, again, and wipe us all out.

I think I've heard several points of view on the Scottish clans now; I hope I can let it all go. I will, however, keep in mind that the chief of a clan is determent by genetic heretity; the chief of a clan has the final and only say on what the tartans of the clan are, as well as, the clan badge etc; therefore, clan tartans are inseparably tied to and represent genetic blood lines being perpetuated through offspring.

I will also keep in mind that it is all right to think of the word "clan" in a broader sense of people of one's own kind, and not strictly by the meaning of a legally recognized Scottish clan, the members of which have loilty to a legally recognized chiefe.

[DWFII]

Ah, cheer up, DWFII; some day the world will probably get smacked with a giant piece of space rubble, again, and wipe us all out.

[chuckle] No worries, Ted. People only need cheering up when they live their lives believing in histories or philosophies that have no basis in reality.

[Bugbear]

[chuckle] No worries, Ted. People only need cheering up when they live their lives believing in histories or philosophies that have no basis in reality.

Exactly.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

It is an unfortunate truth that those who are availed to privilege in life do better than those that aren't. This is the "gap" that is talked about at length in sociological studies. This gap is unfortunately widening. I hope that the playing field levels out significantly in the near future.

I tend to think that the playing fields are about as level as they can be, at least in the Western Hemisphere. Unfortunately for social engineers we, as people, aren't all the same size, shape, or race. We don't all have equal mental acuity, or the same level of artistic ability. Nor do we all have the same desire to dress like Snoop Dog or wear a kilt. We do, however, live in a society where-- all things being equal-- anyone can achieve a full measure of success.

And here's the problem.

No matter how you slice it, things will never be truly equal. While we can all enjoy a fair degree of social and legal equality, it will still remain a fact of life that the child with an IQ of 78 probably won't do as well in school as the child with an IQ of 110. The 6 foot tall, 175 pound man will probably outlive the 6 foot tall 260 pound man, and neither one will play professional basketball. And yes, the pretty girl will be asked out more often than her mousy sorority sister.

Rather than demand "special status" because of perceived inequality, people have to recognize the fact that we aren't all the same, and that they have to capitalize on those meager abilities that they were born with. Yes, some people are born with superior abilities-- the voice of an opera singer, the looks of a movie star, the brains of a mathematical genius.

How does society compensate for the basic traits that allow some to excel while the majority fall by the wayside? By enacting laws limiting the height of basketball players? Banning all music but Rap? Sorry, it can't be done.

The playing field is a level as it can possibly be, and the game is in full play. It is up to the individual to either go out and play as best he can, or sit on the sidelines and be, at best, a mere spectator.