Scottish Olympic Team

[anSiarach]

Originally Posted by Myers

If you and your friend could not care less then you would not both be on this website ripping at the lowlanders.

I couldnt care less that i happened to be born Scottish anymore than any other race. I am not 'ripping' lowlanders although it would undoubtedly suit you for this to be the case. I do however care about the correct appreciation of history, as previously mentioned, which is why i have corrected you.

That’s why we take it personally. You come on here with a lofty attitude that we are beneath you or something and you wonder why we take offence to you.

What utter utter delusional bollocks. Lofty attitude? Quote me once saying anything which suggests i think you are below me? What makes this even more laughable is that i have gone out of my way to ensure that it is perfectly clear my view is absolutely nothing like this.

You don’t seem to be as extreme as your idiot friend but the simple reality is that you have both made it personal so don’t be wondering why we take it thus.

Nope. You have made it personal and consequently shown yourself to be irrational. I have gone out of my way to remain as impersonal as possible.

We are as proud to be Scottish as you are and just because we were never given the luxury of learning our language does not make you better than us, just luckier.

Have i denied that you are proud to be scottish? Have i not emphasised, repeatedly, the fact that you are not lessened at all by not being of Scottish ethnicity? That is the reality, now i am sorry that it obviously means so much to you but firing off misaimed diatribes doesnt change the reality. You obviously believe that the sole qualifying factor for Scottishness is the happenstance of being born within its geographical boundaries which is the common view and one i accept as valid (although i expect the same rationale to be applied universally to all other nations and races by those who believe so). Ethnicity is independent of this however and again i must exclaim my puzzlement that people should be so offended when the obvious is pointed to them.

I do not know the exact chain of events that lead to us not being allowed to learn our own language, but you were. All I know for sure is that it was not our choice at least not mine.. I had no desire to learn French, Latin or Spanish and when I was at school them were the only choices.

For the love of god man did you read my previous post at all? Did i not point out that the ethnic group into which we are born is completely beyond our control?

Your friend in particular is a condescending prick and we have every right to find problems with his sweeping allegations and stupidity.

Whatever lies between yourself and Raingeanach lies between you and Raingeanach i would expect you to keep it there rather than indulge, yourself, in any sweeping generalisations and accuse me over anything he might have said or views he holds.

[anSiarach]

Originally Posted by Polwarth

Sorry, but that's laughable. There's only 60K Gaelic speakers in Scotland (according to the last census) - are you SERIOUSLY saying that only those are 'real' Scots?

Er history says that they are the real Scots. Their declining numbers is absolutely and completely irrelevant. I suppose if, in some hypothetical future scenario, english speakers become a minority to the same (1%) extent in England do they suddenly lose their undoubted status as the original English people? Of course they dont - only in the Scottish microcosm to people have the gall to make such ludicrous suggestions.

I spent a lot of time with my Gaelic speaking family. I probably knew more about 'Scottish' culture than they did - having studied it, lived it(ie dance, music etc) - but THEY were more Scots than me, simply because they spoke the ancient language of Scotland.

Here you confuse the general view of 'Scottish' culture (meaning the culture of the nation of Scotland, which of course concentrates on that of the dominant culture and language of the previous centuries - the english) as somehow overriding the status of the original Scottish language and culture which are seperate. What people think of as 'Scottish culture' in general when the term is used is simply the english speaking culture based in Scotland and this is what you presumably have in mind when you state you have studied it and decide you know more about it than they do. Also ethnicity is not based upon historical knowledge.

You are not ethnically Scottish without being able to speak Scottish just as you cannot be Welsh without speaking Welsh, Irish without speaking Irish, English without speaking English or Japanese/French/Aztec/Martian without speaking the language of each people. The difference between us on this issue is that i would be quite happy to apply my rationale regarding ethnicity universally while you would be laughed at if you suggested merely being born in Japan or whatever made one ethnically japanese.

[anSiarach]

Originally Posted by Myers

Your friend keeps referring to us as North Britons because he knows it offends some of us, just pointing out that we are all the same.

Well that has nothing to do with me.

Also, I believe this is Sports and this has nothing to do with our Olympic Team's and upon reading through this thread I have not seen your opinion on that or your mentally retarded friend's opinion's (his first being to call someone a prick and yours to come to his aid).. All I can see is just both of you’re never ending, thread jumping, condescending opinions of us.

I replied to your post on the issue so feel free to point the finger inward if you want to start moaning. And you certainly cannot see any 'never ending thread jumping conedescending opinions ' of 'you' from me because im not in the habit of infecting threads with irrelevance (again il point out that i replied to your irrelevance) and i have never expressed any of these condescending opinions of non-gaelic speakers about which you seem to fantasise.

[anSiarach]

As for a Scottish Olympic team no because it isnt feasible. Scotland should not be represented at the Olympics any more than England, Wales, Catalonia, Brittany, Bavaria, Lombardia etc etc. What goes in the world of football generally (our special status in the international sphere) cant really hold at the olympics where GB is represented. It would be ridiculous to have GB represented in every other area and then essentially have 4 seperate representative teams in one area and totally unfair on other nations. Im all for a british team but theres no balanced argument for the home nations to represent themselves independently.

[SherbrookeJacobite]

AnSiarach,

I am confused by some of your points - you state that ethnicity has nothing to do with blood or ancestry - then your ethnicity must be a learned thing.

Then you state:

However scottish and english ethnicity is dependant upon the ethnic group into which you are born and the Scottish ethnic group has been in steady decline for 800-900 years and steep decline for 250.

If bloodlines and ancestry have nothing to do with ethnicity - then what difference does it make what group you are born into? By your first definition of ethnicity - Polworth wouldn't be ethnically Scottish - but by your second definition she would. For the record I think that she is as Scottish as anyone could be - by any defintion.

And what about us North Americans? English is my first language, but I would strongly dispute any suggestion that I am ethnically English. My culture comes from the Highlands of Scotland, it was preserved by my ancestors and their Scottish neighbours in a predominately Scottish area. Their language, unfortunately, was (like Scotland) largely lost. Did we turn into Englishmen? - or Canadians?? or are we Scottish Canadians? or English Canadians? What about Canadians who only speak French? I don't believe there is a Canadian ethnicity.

I believe culture can be taught, I don't believe ethnicity can. Many of our our Native Americans here have lost the language of their forefathers. But, they still keep traditions and other cultural aspects alive. What are they? By your definition are they English? If I studied their culture and learned their language would I become an American Indian?

You are dismissive of history - but our history is a big part of our culture. And I do believe that we possess genetic traits that show themselves regardless of where we are born, or what language we learn. These traits are also part of our ethnicity.

I do think that Myers is being a bit harsh here - I do see a significant difference between your posts and those of the gaelic imposter Raingenach -
but if you want to understand the reason for our antagonism towards him - just go back and read some of his posts. Myers is right about him is e amadan a tha ann dheth.

Slainte

[anSiarach]

Originally Posted by SherbrookeJacobite

If bloodlines and ancestry have nothing to do with ethnicity - then what difference does it make what group you are born into?

When i talk of the group you are born into i am referring to whatever group you are raised as a part of and learning the language and hence culture of that group. Im not talking about lineage.

By your first definition of ethnicity - Polworth wouldn't be ethnically Scottish - but by your second definition she would. For the record I think that she is as Scottish as anyone could be - by any defintion.

I only have the one definition and the misunderstanding over what you view as the second one is cleared above. How can she be as scottish as 'anyone could be' without being able to speak the scottish language and consequently being divorced (although as shes pointed out due to her family background, not to the same extent as most) from scottish culture? Il point out again that any rationale used in connection to this topic in Scotland must be applied universally to all other nations if it is valid. Are you truly going to argue that someone who happens to have French/Japanese ancestors or simply happened to be born in France/Japan yet has no knowledge of the respective languages/culture of either race/ethnic group is just as French/japanese as any other?

And what about us North Americans? English is my first language, but I would strongly dispute any suggestion that I am ethnically English.

Ethnically anglo-saxon. English is a word charged with national associations and i wouldnt use it in connection to english speaking denizens of any other nation unless i was being very lazy or (depending on the person/nation) trying to be offensive.

My culture comes from the Highlands of Scotland, it was preserved by my ancestors and their Scottish neighbours in a predominately Scottish area. Their language, unfortunately, was (like Scotland) largely lost.

Im sorry but i give that as much credence as i would someone from Scotland who is in the same situation (I accept you are just as Scottish as any 99/100 people from Scotland itself). Im not saying its impossible certain aspects of scottish culture might not have been preserved but they will (almost inevitably) be (comparatively) trivial and without the language which is an essential part of all culture - especially the scottish - it is not something to define your ethnicity by. Ancestry yes .

Did we turn into Englishmen? - or Canadians?? or are we Scottish Canadians? or English Canadians? What about Canadians who only speak French? I don't believe there is a Canadian ethnicity.

Ethnically anglo-saxon Canadians of Scottish extraction. Given the nature of the nation of Canada (and other colonies ) there is no single 'Canadian' ethnic group. The french canadians are of course ethnically French Canadians.

I believe culture can be taught, I don't believe ethnicity can. Many of our our Native Americans here have lost the language of their forefathers. But, they still keep traditions and other cultural aspects alive.

What else is ethnicity but the language and culture which you are taught from birth? Both can, of course, be taught to a certain extent as well but youre ethnicity is the one you are brought up with, and not something you can learn and pick up in later life. Im dubious over how much validity to give any example of people keeping their traditions and certain other cultural aspects alive after a time when most of their culture has died and they know longer speak the language of the culture they are attempting to maintain. I dont think wearing a kilt, taking part in Highland games and playing the bagpipes can make you Scottish and i view the native americans in the same light.

What are they? By your definition are they English?

As answered before no they are not english by my definition. They are by their dominant language and culture anglo-saxon and ancestrally of native american extraction.

If I studied their culture and learned their language would I become an American Indian?

No but you might well have a finer understanding and indeed be closer to the native americans than many of native american background who have no knowledge whatsoever of the language/culture of their ancestors.

You are dismissive of history - but our history is a big part of our culture.

A culture you can hardly access without knowledge of its most important part - language. History of a people can and usually does survive the people themselves. You may (and rightly so) view the culture and history of Scotland as being part of your history but without personal knowledge of it i dont see how you can legitimately claim to be, yourself, ethnically Scottish.

And I do believe that we possess genetic traits that show themselves regardless of where we are born, or what language we learn. These traits are also part of our ethnicity.

We do possess genetic traits none of which mould who we are or have any bearing in the pertinent side of ethnicity (ones own language, ones own culture). Beyond the basic curio value of ones genetics i personally see no importance beyond the opportunity for false significance applied to it by racists which is why i dont view what race/ethnic grouping your grandparents, ancestors of 300 years ago or even your parents as having, in itself, a bearing no what race/ethnic grouping you yourself are a part of. My own racial background could be traced to anglo-saxons and even french normans if i cared to trace it back far enough - does this make me anglo-saxon or norman ? This is the problem with taking ones lineage as having great significance for ones own ethnic grouping - how far back do you trace it? I really think its meaningless. The most important factor in deciding your ethnicity is the language and culture which is yours, in which you were raised from birth.

I do think that Myers is being a bit harsh here - I do see a significant difference between your posts and those of the gaelic imposter Raingenach -
but if you want to understand the reason for our antagonism towards him - just go back and read some of his posts. Myers is right about him is e amadan a tha ann dheth.

Slainte

Thanks for your consideration but i dont see why i should be held to account for anything posted by another user anymore than i would expect to be taken seriously if i were to accuse you over what myers was saying or any other user on the form. Any problems between Myers, you and anyone else with Raingeanach really have nothing to do with me.

[Myers]

Originally Posted by anSiarach

Thanks for your consideration but i dont see why i should be held to account for anything posted by another user anymore than i would expect to be taken seriously if i were to accuse you over what myers was saying or any other user on the form. Any problems between Myers, you and anyone else with Raingeanach really have nothing to do with me.

I have already stated that....

Posted by me
You don’t seem to be as extreme as your idiot friend

If you do not wish to be tarred with the same brush then you should stop jumping to his aid. By defending his actions you are telling everyone that you agree with him.

And, you do have a lofty attitude, though in all other perspectives you seem to be a regular fellow.

I appologise if my comments towards you were out of line, I appreciate that you are not Rain.