LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L  May 1997

CELTIC-L May 1997

Subject:

Re: Map of the Clans of Scotland (VERY LONG)

From:

Neil Alasdair McEwan <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date:

Tue, 6 May 1997 18:13:56 -0300

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (324 lines)

On Sun, 4 May 1997, Martin Burns at EasyWeb Design wrote:

> I say it again, Scotland is more than the Gaidhealteacht, and no matter
> how many Gaelic lessons are forced apon *Scots* speakers, this will remain.


    But what do you mean, "forced"?  English is forced on Gaelic
speakers, at least on those who want a complete education; I'd be very
surprised if the reverse was true.


> >[...]
> >    I have to object to the invocation of the pompous Baudrillard as an
> >authority of some kind -- these semiotic parlour-games are really not
> >descriptive of the actions of people who don't live by them.  The
> >motivation for not translating the songs on Capercaillie was that they
> >were normally orally transmitted, and had nothing to do with any
> >"hyperreality" business.


> So, you *really* think that the marketing execs at Arista are hot
> promoters of Gaelic culture?


     No, but neither do I assume that they're out to actively bowdlerize
it either.  In any case this whole thing was likely the band's idea.


> The *only* reason it could have made it
> onto the final release (accepting that this was probably the band's
> motivation, albeit that they only have one Gaelic speaker amongst
> them (Manus Lunny))


     Karen Matheson speaks Gaelic as well.


> is that it had a marketing appeal that would
> be more effective in trying to communicate to non-Gaels than
> providing translations. In fact, the 'Secret People' theory didn't
> even last to the next album (Capercaille) which contained some
> remixes from Secret People, and provided translations.


     Sounds like they changed their minds, or forgot, or even (as you
suggest) were bullied by record company executives -- we don't know.  But
whichever one it was, it doesn't have the far-reaching significance that
you've attached to it.


> If you
> were trying to promote Gaelic culture, you *would* have provided
> translations, as many non-Gaels improve their language skills from
> them. Otherwise, you wouldn't bother providing Gaelic lessons.


     True, I provide lessons, but only in context.  I don't think that
everything in the world can or should be translated.  The whole point of
learning Gaelic is so you get access to that other body of cultural
expression; otherwise you might as well just stick to English and wait
for everything to be translated.


> Also, "I don't like Baudrillard because he invokes semiotics" is
> hardly an argument. If you dislike semiotics, then you dislike
> linguistics, which is a subdivision of it.


    I never said I disliked semiotics; I studied it in graduate school,
wrote the usual essays full of reflexive nods to Bakhtin and Derrida,
etc.  I respect the power of semiotics as a means of interpretation as
far as it goes.  But I think that a good deal of theorizing that goes on
at the fringes of semiotics is just pretentious bullshit, and despite
its wildly speculative nature much of it has become a kind of shibboleth
for intellectuals trying to close their ranks.  I mean, you wouldn't
respect someone who went about their whole life saying that Ayn Rand could
explain everything in the world (and as you know, such people do exist),
and yet my professor-mentor -- a respected semiotician -- claimed that
because all the other disclipines express themselves through the means
of language, all other discliplines (including the scientific ones) could
be understood if you just had a grasp of semiotics, and that as a result
they weren't really all that important in themselves.  *This* is the kind
of thing I mean -- this arrogance that language and systems of
signification control our lives, and that the semioticians therefore are
eminently qualified to speak on every aspect of human existence without
having their authority questioned.


> >     Because the Scottish people know what they want.  They take the
> >cultural independence as a given, and they don't have to work to make it
> >better or more authentic.

> Do they really? It is less than a generation since the only Scottish
> popular culture was the White Heather Club (*gag*). Still there is no
> Scottish-based soap opera shown UK-wide.


     The thing is, culture is what people *do*.  If they do things that
are tasteless or atavistic or bland, then that's the culture they've
chosen.  All we can do is show them an alternative, asking them whether
they wouldn't like it better.


> >  The political independence on the other hand
> >they see as being a lot of trouble for little reward, since life in an
> >independent Scotland will almost certainly be like life in an independent
> >England, and the only people who will really be affected by the change
> >are politicians.
>
> No. Political Independence is *portrayed* as being a lot of trouble
> for little reward, and "no' fur the likes o' us" It remains that Scotland
> gets whatever government England votes for. And Scotland demonstrably
> has a more left-wing political consciousness than England.


     That's true, but it's evidently not so much more left-wing that the
people of Scotland are continually feeling agitated by English rule.  And
we can't really say that they've been bullied into submission, because if
they have then why does the political difference exist in the first
place?  The mere fact of a whole region (and unfortunately for the
purposes of the UK Scotland is a "region") being more left-wing is not
any kind of guarantee that it wants a separate political future of its
own -- Merseyside and Tyneside aren't going to separate any time soon,
but they consistently vote Labour as well.


> Independence is not *the* end; it is however *an* end in that only then
> will Scotland get democracy. And I'm not even basing that on the argument
> that then Scotland will be governed in a more socialist fashion - pleased
> though that would make me. I *fully* recognise that there is a significant
> minority of Tory voters. Democracy would give them their appropriate voice.
> Independence is the natural position of nations. It has been recognised
> as a self-evident good that Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Iceland, Norway,
> Canada, Nigeria, the Congo, the republic of Ireland, Bosnia, Slovenia,
> the Czech republic and just about any other nation you care to mention
> should have democratically accountable control over its own affairs.


     I don't disagree with this -- I want to see Scotland independent.
However, I think that the overall opinion of the Scots themselves on this
matter is going to have more weight than your opinion or mine alone.  You
and I may think that it's a good idea, but other people may disagree, and
we're not really entitled to look for character flaws that would explain
their disagreement.  It seems to me that the two greatest obstacles to
Scottish independence are apathy and complacency, not inbred
submissiveness; and apathy and complacency come from a situation where
change is feared more than the status-quo is -- the opposite of a
situation where revolution would be inevitable, i.e. in which anything
would be preferable to the current system.


> >     As opposed to...?  They are all men, after all.
>
> Yes, but where are the women?


     I dunno, where?  If women were not prominent in the leadership of
Scotland throughout the ages, they're not going to assume their "proper"
historical role now just because we feel that they've been slighted.  The
political subjection of women necessarily means that women weren't given
the same opportunities as men and that, as a result, they are mostly
absent from the record of Scottish leaders and rebels.  What can we do
about that now?


> >     ... to *this*?  "Reality" is not something that exists outside the
> >sum total of people's individual lives (and not something that needs
> >capitalizing either, as if it were "out there").  If someone chooses to
> >express an allegiance to a lifstyle or culture than runs counter to
> >either the prevailing lifestyle or culture or to the one touted as ideal
> >by those on the Left, then *that* is the "reality" for that person.
> >Which is why this...
> >
> The Reality is that (as I said above) Scotland is more than the Gaidhealtacht,
> and that the thought that it ever was is fantasy - in the last 600 years
> certainly, and before that extremely probably.


     But reality (uncapitalized) is whatever people choose to be the
reality of their lives.  If the majority of Scots are just ordinary
people who want to get on with their lives, and have no interest in what
you would consider romantic nonsense (but which you unfortunately
associate with the Gaidhealtachd), then why does it bother you that a
minority of people have chosen to embrace it instead?


> The Reality is that the overwhelming majority of Scots do not even
> live in rural areas.


     Neither do the overwhelming majority of native Gaelic-speakers, many
of whom now live in Glasgow.  But they maintain an urban Gaelic-speaker
culture just the same.


> The Reality is that the areas where most Scots live (ie the Central
> Belt) have never been part of the culture that is being portrayed
> as 'Scottish'.
> For many, many Scots, the feeling is that of Renton in Trainspotting:
> "Being Scottish is shite. Lots of people hate the English - I don't
> coz they're just wankers. We've been colonised by wankers. We can't
> even choose a decent country to be colonised by." This is the result
> of Scottish cultural signifiers either being irrelevant to them,
> or being used to prop up the status quo.


     Well, I was hoping you'd bring up "Trainspotting", because that book
and film portrays the hypocrisy of many of those who claim to be
attacking a romanticized notion of what Scotland is about.
"Trainspotting" is itself a work of romance.  There was an American
critic in "The New Republic" who, when reviewing the film, perceptively
noted that the film seemed to be saying, "So you think that we're about
tartan and shortbread and castles, do you?  But our junkies are just as
good as anybody else's junkies."  The fact is, once you describe Scotland
as a nation in the first place, *any* kind of picture you try to draw of
Scottish life is going to be a romantic fiction.  The difference is that
those who want to portray Scotland as being just as dirty, as hip, as
dangerous as anywhere else are trying to erase Scotland's differences
from the rest of the world; whereas the romanticists are, in their own
misguided way, and least trying to stave off that kind of assimilation.
If "Trainspotting" is the real Scotland, then the real Scotland is no
different from the real England or the real Ireland or the real Canada,
U.S., New Zealand or Australia -- all English-speaking countries in which
enough junkies and slums can be found if you look for them.  Compared to
that, is it any wonder that people who are conscious of their national
separation are taking hold of symbols like Gaelic?


> >    ... leaves unspoken the assumption that this "process" is in fact
> >supposed to lead to the desirability or the inevitability of socialism
> >for Scotland, an assumption which most people do not share, and which
> >cannot be taken as a basis for this discussion.

> Most people where? May I remind you that this week 85% of Scots
> voted for parties either nominally or explicitly committed to narrowing
> the gap between rich and poor.


     Are you kidding?  The Labour party won't do anything of the kind,
and the SNP, had they won in Scotland, wouldn't have done *anything*, at
least apart from setting up an independent Scotland which could
politically go wherever it likes.  But in any case, even if we had been
talking about "old" Labour, the "narrowing of the gap between rich and
poor" would have been more easily accomplished by making everyone equally
poor, rather than making them equally rich -- for that reason I suspect
that had Labour been given a free run at Scottish government, rather than
remaining just an idealized focus for desperate Scottish hopes, the Scottish
people like most of the others in the English-speaking world would have
become sick of the unemployment, the inflation, the paralysis brought on
by the unions, the taxes, etc.  The fact that Scotland continues time and
time again to vote Labour is extremely abnormal when compared to the
fluctuating voter patterns you find in other countries, and if Scotland
were independent they'd likely exhibit the same patterns too.


> >    And a good song it is too.  But it's not either-or, *either* you're a
> >raving Jacobite atavistic loony living in a dream world *or* you're
> >cannily following the latest master plan to complete social
> >emancipation -- there are other alternatives.
>
> Such as? (Apart from rejecting the whole thing)


    Such as embracing as much of your culture as is historically
justifiable and personally satisfying, while not letting your political
leaders (Right *or* Left) screw you over -- and historically those on the
Left have not proven themselves to be much more trustworthy than those on
the Right.


> Very possibly true, however it is undeniable that colonial systems
> take great delight in pacifying the natives by allowing them to
> express a bit of their own culture after a time of repression.
> *Especially* if that culture is then incorporated into the
> system of repression. Listen to pipe music, and try and find
> something that hasn't been through the army at some point.
> Remember that Welsh nationalism was thrown the crumb of S4C
> (Welsh language Channel Four) and this quietened down demands
> for better governance.


     However, all of this is different from saying that such cultural
expression has been tainted by its abuse at the hands of the colonial
power.  *That* would be to admit further defeat by surrendering your
culture in disgust, which would only hasten the process of assimilation.


> The truth is that much of the culture is *already* being used
> for political ends by London. Yes, I value the culture for its
> own sake. But those who promote the culture need to guard against
> its hijacking and bowlderisation by unionism. Yes, I overstressed
> this a bit, by not offering an alternative to using it as a
> tool of nationalism (and isn't this what the Gaelic League did?).
> It is *very* difficult to have a link with Scottish culture
> within Scotland (and even more difficult to *gain* a link
> from scratch) without being pushed into one camp or the other.


     Maybe, but the Gaidhealtachd itself is not a "camp" or a signifier;
it shouldn't be very difficult for those interested in real Gaelic
culture to know where to go to find it, and so to sidestep all of this
politicized argument.


> It's not that I want that; simply that I want to warn against
> cultural signifiers being used as tools *without us being aware
> of it*. Some elements of Scots music *have* become aware, and
> are replacing reactionary material with newly written/adapted
> material that *does* speak with the consciousness that most Scots
> feel to be their own.
>
> Cheers
> Martin


    And as long as the past is not erased to suit the present, this is a
very intelligent and worthwhile thing to do.


slainte

Neil
--

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2019
December 2018
September 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
August 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
February 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager