The email was along the lines of "but there were Scots settling in Ulster long before 1606/1607, so how come you don't include them as 'Ulster Scots'".
Personally, it's because Ulster-Scots is not a geographical or racial term - it's cultural. The answer begins in Scotland. Around 1380, "two Scotlands" emerged, one Highland and one Lowland, with identifiable cultural and linguistic differences, one Highland and one Lowland. That year John of Fordun wrote in Chronicles of the Scottish Nation that "the manners and customs of the Scots vary with the diversity of their speech. For two languages are spoken among them". The Introduction of the Chambers' Concise Scots Dictionary says that "by the fourteenth century this language had become the dominant spoken tongue of all ranks of Scots east and south of the Highland Line..." (see map below). Fordun also described a range of cultural differences, outlining a Highland / Lowland cultural "divide".
Throughout written history the term Ulster-Scots has overwhelmingly referred to the Ulster outworkings of these Lowland Scots - to their culture. If Ulster-Scots is to be stretched to become a racial or geographical term, then perhaps the 1200s-1400s Gaelic Gallowglasses/Gallóglaigh and 1400s-1500s Gaelic Redshanks from Argyll (which Barry McCain has explored well) should be included. However if it is to remain as a cultural term, then they should not.
1606/1607 was when Lowland Scottish culture arrived in Ulster. There was no meaningful Lowland Scots communal or cultural arrival in Ulster before this. That's why 1606/1607 is "The Dawn of the Ulster-Scots".
Food for thought. Your feedback would be appreciated.
No comments:
Post a Comment