How far was dear Kenneth Roy’s tongue buried in his cheek as he wrote ‘The Case for Abolishing Burns Suppers’? (24 January)
With a working knowledge far short of expertise in the life and works of the bard, I must say that wherever I am to be found on the planet on 25 January in each year there will be Scots gathering for a supper of sorts, the guests having invited friends of other nationalities to what is an initially bamboozling event.
Kilts, pipes, ferocity of address to the Haggis, wittiness and creativity in speeches including the Immortal Memory, not to mention food of an unusual variety wih unpronounceable names like cranachan. In recent years I have enjoyed crafting the Immortal Memory which may give insight for the very first time to those who know nothing of Burns, and yet who are drawn to be informed and amused in convivial company.
Like Kenneth, I have enjoyed evenings of bonhomie, and have endured suppers where the Immortal Memory has provided nothing other than a dire analysis of whatever motivates the goat’eed speaker (no-one particular in mind) in clubs such as Bridgeton and Peterhead. At others I have seen witless vulgarity and whisky abuse wrapped in faux tartan national pride. At others I have seen the result of a modernisation of the process, where recognition of any Burns aspect is dwarfed by a vodka and coke party attitude.
Kenneth’s suggestion of a day to celebrate an individual Scot is an excellent one. Why not couple it with St Andrew’s Day, which lies limp on most calendars? Why not celebrate the achievements of scientists and surgeons, poets and physicians, athletes and artists?
Leave the Burns tradition to continue – a gathering when Scots can take pride in, and reflect upon, a man whose attitudes align with their culture of decency, whose literature gives them a wealth of study, whose life saw hardships still visited upon the many, and above all whose celebration takes Scotland and the Scottish above the nation of divisiveness and introspection into which it is falling.
Kenneth, are you awake?
David Kinnon
I enjoyed Thom Cross’s fascinating ‘Did Burns ever really mean to go to Jamaica?’ (24 January), but am not sure that the dither issue is the main one. Surely the main issue is that most of the Scots who went to work in the West Indian plantations must have known what they were getting into.
It seems improbable that Burns didn’t know what went on in the plantations where, in his own words, he would have became a ‘poor negro-driver’. Even more depressingly, it is clear that he regards the slave driver as unfortunate, rather than the ‘negro’.
As someone (I think Robert Crawford) observed, the comment just cannot be explained away, any more than his creepy letter boasting of having violent sex with Jean Armour days before she was due to give birth can be explained. Burns seems to me to be a more distant and inexplicable character than he did just a few decades ago.
Edwin Moore
The Cafe is our readers’ forum. Send your contribution to islay@scottishreview.net
website design by Big Blue Dogwebsite development by NSD Web