But, Zoe, we're Americans now

I know, but the McDonald clan isn't.

I guess some people feel that a cultural heritage stretching back into pre-history is worth standing up for. The Scots who left took their names with them but the name is Scottish and means "son of Donald" in gaelic.

Sure, but if they think that the name being common in America, and part of America's history and culture, is in any way a negation of that then they're tilting at windmills. I suspect a better reaction would be to celebrate the part people of Scottish descent played in the history of the US, rather than disowning them for being American first.

The American McDonalds have the same cultural prehistory as the Scottish ones. It's their recent history that has diverged - while of Scottish heritage, they are American now, and mostly identify as such. And I'm willing to bet that modern Highland culture is significantly different from what is was in the prehistoric past, or even 50 years ago. My point is that culture is an historically evolving thing - I don't even personally believe that one can have a direct understanding of past cultures, whether "one's own" (how - genetically?) or not. (And I am an archaeologist - I have thought about this a lot).

And, frankly, if you traced your Scots blood back into pre-history, you'd find English invaders and Viking invaders and kidnapped slaves and God knows what-all. Human beings are a promiscuous lot.

Hey, what about the Irish? The Scots did actually invade Scotland from Ireland, y'know.

(Or was that the 'kidnapped slaves and God knows what-all' bit? If so... well, fair enough.)

I guess some people feel that a cultural heritage stretching back into pre-history is worth standing up for.

But why exactly is it in need of defense? True the name McDonald is of Scottish origin. But that doesn't make the Americans named McDonald poseurs. It's an American name too now, because it was brought to America. I don't think there are many McDonalds living in America who are entirely unaware of their ancestors origins, but after many generations, it is more correct to describe them as Americans than as Scots.

I suspect a better reaction would be to celebrate the part people of Scottish descent played in the history of the US, rather than disowning them for being American first.

I'm not disowning, I swear. But people have been prosecuted here for using their own name and that isn't right. I guess I'd like to hear some American people acknowledgeing the Scottish contribution too and the Irish. And I know I should not be getting upset.

Edit: also the name McDonald is a particularly emotive one in Scottish history due to the notorious massacre of Glencoe.

I don't even personally believe that one can have a direct understanding of past cultures, whether "one's own" (how - genetically?) or not. (And I am an archaeologist - I have thought about this a lot).

Ooo, flea, I'd love to talk to you about this sometime. About the limits of reconstructed history, and the value of studying history. Not because I reject them--not at all!--but because I find the paradox meaningful.

Does this stem from the medievel damsel in distress?

What medieval sources are you thinking of here? Because that's a popular trope in Hollywood takes on Ye Olde European times, but my scant knowledge of Medieaval literature doesn't feature much in the way of that particular cliche. Not as a mainstay, at any rate.

Actually, Zoe, there is a TON of Celtic pride in the US, some ersatz and some not. All up and down the east coast, especially, from Boston to the Appalachians. America is not lacking in acknowledgement of Celtic cultural heritage, even if some of that acknowledgement would probably scare the modern Irish and Scots.

What medieval sources are you thinking of here?

Sources, who needs sources when you can't drive in this country for medieval castles!