The Scots Who Left

[Peter Crowe]

Gael Ridire.

I respect your candor,the thoughtfullness in which you approach this discussion.

You say that by wearing the kilt,other folk of gaelic/celtic backgrounds or sympathies can express a sort of solidarity of ethnicity.A good notion,but does one of the foremost symbols of one particular celtic nation have to be slowley claimed by others,and by degrees,attempts made to write new 'pages of history' where other cultures grow in,around and over the kilt untill some will not know whether it is Scottish,Irish,Welsh ,Cornish or any other?

There are many striking and beautiful ways to celebrate what was once a vast empire where the celts reigned surpreme.The flowing,interlacing knotwork art,music that incorporates instruments such as the pipes(not only the great highland bagpipe)fiddle and drum,sports that have ancient lineages that are celtic(hurly,shinty,gaelic football,various tests of strength),Celtic inspired jewelry.Wear and enjoy the kilt but I urge to show respect and give recognition where it is due.The tartan kilt was developed and made into what it is today by Scots in Scotland,not by the Irish,Welsh,Cornish or any other.
If one who is not Scottish or who has mixed background wears it,why should they not be satisfied to say,
"I may not be Scottish,but I love their kilt."
To me it seems a way to possibly 'wear out the welcome' by presumptiously starting to come out with claims by other countries that "it's becoming our kilt too.A new history is being written ,by us ,for the kilt"
There are so many celtic things to share in and celebrate,to teach young ones about,without needing to smudge any of the bright colours together,by not differentiating the unique customs and characteristics of one part of the celtic world from another.The old cultures deserve more than that.

I agree with AN COIGREACH ALBANNACH about acknowledging the Scottish Highland origins of the kilt. I would never deny the Irish, Manx, Welsh, Cornish, Breton or anyone else the right to wear it and enjoy it (not that I would ever claim I have any such right - but you take my point). There is a feeling of fellowship between people of the Celtic nations, but each of these cultures (while having many features in common) has it's own unique characteristics. I am all for making cultural re-connections (and even some degree of cross-pollination) in our post-modern world, but please just have the respect to give credit where it's properly due. The vast majority of Scots who think about such matters acknowledge the Irish (Scotti) roots of Dalriada and consequently our very name.

[AN COIGREACH ALBANNACH]

Jock Scot,
I agree that to lay the cards out is good,yes I really feel that the fellows that can come at a frank and honest discussion,from opposite sides as it were,and as you say, learn a bit more from each other ,only betters us all.

[MacBean]

I must admitt I did not really think that ancestry,but rather different cultures and thier histories was what we were chewing over. We are,as you pointed out,all of the same human race.

My earlier post raised the possibility that ancestry (genetics) may be of far, far greater importance than most of us realize (and I speak as a professional scientist). There has been an active dispute for years on whether nature (genetics or ancestry) or nurture (evironment) determine personality and such. I've always sided with nurture, but the evidence leans increasingly towards nature (genetics) being paramount.

Take the concept of trying to find one's "roots". Where would this come from? Is it possible that it is encoded as part of creating personal identity (and thus also mate selection)? I have to say that I think that ancestry may be very much a part of some folks' desire to kilt. No matter that they are quarter Russian, and an eighth Indonesian.

For example, our concept of Germans being hyper punctual; is that really just culture? A tiny change in brain chemistry might account for it.

[Bugbear]

My earlier post raised the possibility that ancestry (genetics) may be of far, far greater importance than most of us realize (and I speak as a professional scientist). There has been an active dispute for years on whether nature (genetics or ancestry) or nurture (evironment) determine personality and such. I've always sided with nurture, but the evidence leans increasingly towards nature (genetics) being paramount.

Take the concept of trying to find one's "roots". Where would this come from? Is it possible that it is encoded as part of creating personal identity (and thus also mate selection)? I have to say that I think that ancestry may be very much a part of some folks' desire to kilt. No matter that they are quarter Russian, and an eighth Indonesian.

For example, our concept of Germans being hyper punctual; is that really just culture? A tiny change in brain chemistry might account for it.

That can be very difficult to understand: long chain of links between genetics and personality.

Might ask CDNSushi, he has degrees in both psychology and genetics, if I remember correctly.

[Gael Ridire]

I concur greatly with what has been posted of late. I have learned much on the view of native Scots on this subject. It should ever be known that the kilt is of the Scots! The kilt began with the Highland Scot adopted by Scotland (this includes Lowland Scots), and now is being adopted by the other Celtic branches who for one reason or another identify with it as a symbol of the a Gael/Celt, and by wearing it are stating to the world such. To me, it is a great honor to Scotland that their garment is the symbol to all the world and to which all the world knows belongs to Scotland which is Gaelic/Celtic. I wouldn't deny the Breton women the beauty of their lace hat, a thing unique for the Bretons. Yes there are other modes to show being a Celt. But for some reason the kilt is magnetic for some. And perhaps it is DNA.

i once read that it was a belief among the ancient Gael that in pre-mortal life one's ancestors gathered together and chose from among their lineage a person who would remember them, i.e., record the history. Since my first memory I sat down next to or on the lap of my great-grandparents (both sides have long life) and would ask them to tell me about their parents, their grandparents. Why? I don't know why? Just that it is important for me to record the lineage and make a record of my ancestry. The foregoing explanation is the best I have found. And I believe its DNA. Why do I love the pipes and wear the kilt? The best answer I can say is it's in the DNA, which for some reason trumps the other ethnicity's in my lineage.

Long live the kilt, and those who made it possible!

[Nick the DSM]

Gael Ridire,

I think evolution can be great, however it can be overwhelming. I think for years people have seen the kilt not only as Highland wear but has been worn across the world by pipebands and militaries for decades, centuries. Irish pipe bands and I suppose "Nationalist" (can I suppose that would be correct?) wear saffron or green kilts, there's the Welsh Cilt, Cornish and Manx tartans, tartan of regions, districts, countries, states, lions, tigers, bears, OH MY!

As much as Gaels and Celts have a common ancestor; years, seas, mountains, war, etc have divided that. I don't really think kilts will bring them together, I just think they have good taste in clothing.

As much as the other celtic cultures will adopt it, the kilt, will always be Highland clothing, nothing will really take that away.

[O'Callaghan]

The Irish Celts of antiquity didn't wear kilts. The Irish also didn't wear tartans. For that matter, the Scottish Celts didn't wear tartans either, until 300 or 400 years ago or so, give or take.

Celtic culture isn't dead; it continues to develop today. The Highland Scots, descended from Picts, Irish immigrants and Viking raiders, developed the tartan: a symbol of Scottish heritage. Since it's advent, the tartan, and the kilt have undergone significant changes; they continue today. Millions of Scots, and Irish, have migrated around the world. No longer separated by a small stretch of sea, they're now different Celtic tribes sharing their new lands. The kilt--while always remaining a garment first worn in the Highlands--is no longer restricted to it's humble beginnings as an exclusively Scottish item. Hundreds of years ago, the Irish were probably not wearing self-colored kilts. However, they are today. In 500 years, it'll be a page in Gaelic history. So, while trying to connect kilts and tartans to Irish history may seem like a "kid on" to you, it's actually not. Irish self-colored kilts have been around since the 1800's. There are dozens of registered Irish tartans now. They're here now; they're part of Irish history now.

It's not quite true that the ancient Irish didn't wear tartans. The kilt derives from the Irish cloak, called the brat (long a, so it is not pronounced like an unruly child), and it's probable that at least some of these were tartan. Written accounts only describe them as striped, but scraps of tartan have been found in celtic archaelogical sites that predate the arrival of the celts in Ireland, much less Scotland. So, celts wore tartan even before they reached the British Isles, and the Irish most likely wore cloaks of such material before the point at which they came to the Scottish highlands.

I think the reason that most people are confused over that is because they associate tartans with clan identification, which is something separate that happened much later. That is, the tartans worn by the ancient Irish didn't identify their clans, although neither did those worn by the Scots until relatively recent times. At one time Scottish clans were identified not by the tartan of their kilts but by a plant badge worn in their hat, i.e. a sprig of some particular vegetation. OTOH, you can nowadays register a tartan for any group, including Irish clans or German Americans or the state of Hawaii, or WHY.

[Downunder Kilt]

What an interesting discussion.

You know I think what you have said above is wise and could be lived with by the "Old School Traditionalists". They know full well that the kilt is worn around the world, so from that point of view to think otherwise is a lost cause and has been for a decades now. And everyone knows it. I think what sticks in the throat of some in Scotland, is the comments of "the kilt is ours now", "never mind the traditions, conventions, aesthetics etc.,we/I can wear it how we like". It is perfectly true there is nothing to stop anyone from thinking/doing that ,but out loud comments like that, well, they don't help and they grate hugely.

Jock, I have long suspected that what you have said above is the case. It is not so much that the kilt is worn outwith Scotland, in particular the Highlands, it's the attitude of how it's worn, displayed by some. The comments of, I live here and I'll wear it how I want to, grate on me too.

Too many people play on the theme that it is their ancestry, but then ignore the traditions that go with that ancestry

AN COIGREACH ALBANNACH I would have quoted you too in regards to Jocks post by can't figure out how to do the double quote

[Bugbear]

Jock, I have long suspected that what you have said above is the case. It is not so much that the kilt is worn outwith Scotland, in particular the Highlands, it's the attitude of how it's worn displayed to it by some. The comments of, I live here and I'll wear it how I want to, grate on me too.

Too many people play on the theme that's it's their ancestry, but then ignore the traditions that go with that ancestry

AN COIGREACH ALBANNACH I would have quoted you too in regards to Jocks post by can't figure out how to do the double quote

This is something I have thought long and hard over, and is why I have decided to let go of tartan and traditional kilts. That was a very difficult and painful decision.

I have made the choice to continue to wear non-traditional/non-tartan kilts from time to time. In my mind they are not tied to traditional Highland attire; and there is no disrespect toward traditions intended in this. Rather, it is a recognition, out of respect, that tartan and traditional kilts are not my ancestor's traditions.

[Bugbear]

Just in case there is a problem with the term being used, a Scot, who left his country, called other garments from other cultures "kilt." From Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa, by David Livingstone:

On the 6th of January we reached the village of another female chief, named Nyamoana, who is said to be the mother of Manenko, and sister of Shinte or Kabompo, the greatest Balonda chief in this part of the country. Her people had but recently come to the present locality, and had erected only twenty huts. Her husband, Samoana, was clothed in a kilt of green and red baize, and was armed with a spear and a broadsword of antique form, about eighteen inches long and three broad [...] (chapter 15)

*****

17TH, TUESDAY. We were honored with a grand reception by Shinte about eleven o'clock. Sambanza claimed the honor of presenting us, Manenko being slightly indisposed. The native Portuguese and Mambari went fully armed with guns, in order to give Shinte a salute; their drummer and trumpeter making all the noise that very old instruments would produce. The kotla, or place of audience, was about a hundred yards square, and two graceful specimens of a species of banian stood near one end; under one of these sat Shinte, on a sort of throne covered with a leopard's skin. He had on a checked jacket, and a kilt of scarlet baize edged with green; many strings of large beads hung from his neck, and his limbs were covered with iron and copper armlets and bracelets; on his head he wore a helmet made of beads woven neatly together, and crowned with a great bunch of goose-feathers. Close to him sat three lads with large sheaves of arrows over their shoulders. (chapter 16)

Funny he says "checked jacket," and he basically refers to any knee-length garment of this sort as a kilt throughout the text.

This would be in the mid to late 1850s, from what I understand. I'm using the Project Gutenberg Ebook 1039.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1039/1039-h/1039-h.htm