Yeah, so yeah, that's me, sitting at my computer watching Outlander and drooling over the men in their kilts, when I glanced over at the other monitor on my desk to see that someone had mentioned me in one of their comments on a Facebook group that I'm a member of. The group is called "Scottish Kilts and Clan History". Don't laugh at the title of the group, I didn't name it, but to be sure, the comments rarely have anything to do with either men in kilts (which I would be able to discuss all day and at a whim) and there isn't much discussion over clans or history of clans, but there sure is a lot of hot air being blown from both sides of the pond over who has the "right" to say whatever it is that they say in the posts. Damn.
Those of us who are American, (or we'll say "other than Scots", because the Scottish born don't seem to have a problem putting us into our box when they think we deserve to be placed into it) may venture off on the discussion board with both ignorance and pride waving as boldly as ever. We are if nothing else, true to our reputation of being know-it-alls because we have watched a few mini-dramas such as Outlander, or maybe we've seen Braveheart a few times; experts all in fact! (giggles) What I find to be the most amusing is that most of the Scots who are commenting online about our American obsession with DNA tests "proving" we are Scottish, is that most if not EVERY DAMN one of the Scots who call us names for being so obsessed has (often) the same amount of Scottish blood or at times even less, than those of us whose ancestors crossed the seas to make a new life from scratch. EVERY last Scot, and probably most Irish and English born will in fact be part (upwards of 30% oftentimes) Scandanavian because there was no Scotland at the time the Vikings decided to invade and leave babies with the women they found. True fact. I'm not really being a completely ignorant know-it-all American at that point.
What do we do? What do we do when we see our names being mentioned in the posts on the sites and we feel as if we either need to defend our point of view or make some sarcastic remark in an attempt to bring levity and humor (humour) to the online club? We do what I usually do, and that's to make a remark about something I know will both spark up another conversation and perhaps drive the negative nellies back to their holes where they belong. Any self-respecting Scot should realize that nearly every American is an idiot when it comes to all things Scottish, and just leave us to fester in our own stupidity. Maybe they should laugh a bit, drink another Irn Bru, and watch a game of...wait, we call it soccer; they can call it whatever they want as long as they do so while wearing their kilts, stroking their beards, strumming their guitars, and speaking in their angelic brogues. Please, don't wake me up to force me to realize I'm not in my little dream world. I just got here, and I think I like it.
The comment that mentioned me was from Kathy B. (a Canadian with over 30% Scottish DNA) she wanted to talk about my preferences in men. What? Finally, finally, someone who wants to devote a sensible minute of time to a subject online that may actually be worth paying attention to. I won't waste my time if someone asks me my opinion about a Free Scotland because (A) I'm not Scottish (B) I can't vote either way (C) My opinion is just that, my ignorant uneducated opinion, and (D) I hate the English government with a passion, so yeah, if I can say stick it to them I will - - no, Kathy B. was asking me if I would rather go to bed with Jamie Fraser or Frank Randall. WHAT kind of question is that? Granted Kathy B. probably doesn't read my blogs so she would have NO IDEA that neither the red-headed hero nor the hapless be cockled husband of the Outlander would be of interest to me. Sorry, Sam. You're adorable and all, but no.
Kathy B. was amused and entertained when I told her that I would rather be caught in the woods alone with Roger Mackenzie than with any of the others; but that I couldn't be with Roger as he was married. I have my standards. If I had made it to Oxford in 1967 I would have snagged Roger before Brianna could have met him, sure, but not in North Carolina in 1770? Nope. OK, so that being said I have a choice to make. Do I find and dazzle Murtagh Fraser (remember Fitzgibbons was his middle name) and put up with his crusty, sour, hardened but loyal manly man self or do I go around the gentle campfire to lure Rupert away from Angus long enough to toss a few twigs and leaves out of their place? Oh...simple answer. Give me the rounded bearded man every damn time. Sorry, Murtagh, you're so cute, you're so mysterious and sexy, yes, oh, yes you are, but you are no match for the gentle-hearted, good-natured, God-fearing round-bellied man with the beard (and just think if he had been with me maybe he wouldn't have lost an eye, I don't know). Yep, it's Rupert.
After being berated any number of times for my open and honest opinion on that particular site it was great to see that even some of the high-and-mighty born and bred Scots ladies agreed with me on the whole "I-don't-need-Jamie-Fraser" to be happy in my fantasy world. I was surprised that many a lass said they were drawn to the likes of Angus though -- I mean, no. Sorry. Just no. So there you have it. One satisfied, fantasizing, happy to be an American with Scottish blood woman just placating the many rude and nasty commentators on both sides of the world - - trying to make heads and/or tails out of what we really mean when we say we appreciate this or that. Suffice it to say we can all agree that Outlander is fictional but wonderful and even if Lord John, Young Ian, or one of the Beardsley twins suits your fancy - - it's all good. There are enough Jamie Fraser fans out there to keep Sam Heughan smiling for years to come I'm sure. Grant O'Rourke deserves a little lovin' too.
No comments:
Post a Comment