The Kilt's use in Irish Nationalism

[Jock Scot]

Blackrose87.

I am sorry to take issue with you and I hope this does not derail a very sensible discussion.

The British army did not and were not occupying part of your country when you were growing up. Their presence has always been and still is there in NI as a garrison just like Aldershot, or, Tidworth in England. However there certainly were reinforcements drafted in to assist the Civil Administration. An occupation? Most certainly not. I know that it does depend on point of view, but historically those are the facts.

[Blackrose87]

Blackrose87.

I am sorry to take issue with you and I hope this does not derail a very sensible discussion.

The British army did not and were not occupying part of your country when you were growing up. Their presence has always been and still is there in NI as a garrison just like Aldershot, or, Tidworth in England. However there certainly were reinforcements drafted in to assist the Civil Administration. An occupation? Most certainly not. I know that it does depend on point of view, but historically those are the facts.

Sorry jock, I think we'll just have to disagree on this point. I had to go through an army checkpoint everyday going home from school, sometimes being searched There were soldiers walking around the streets with rifles. Maybe I'm being naive, and the same kind of thing happened in Aldershot or Tidworth.

[Jock Scot]

Sorry jock, I think we'll just have to disagree on this point. I had to go through an army checkpoint everyday going home from school, sometimes being searched There were soldiers walking around the streets with rifles. Maybe I'm being naive, and the same kind of thing happened in Aldershot or Tidworth.

When the occasion has arisen there have indeed been checkpoints in Aldershot and Tidworth and at our airports and docks and I am afraid they will be, occasionally we hope, a fact of life in this uncertain world we now live in. If you go past any barracks in the UK you will see armed guards on sentry duty.

I grant you that "the troubles" caused an extreme measure by the Civil Administration to call in the British Army, nevertheless I think that everyone of whatever persuasion will have to admit that there were people behaving appallingly badly and yes the British army too on occasion. So yes you are, I am afraid, being naive.

[Blackrose87]

When the occasion has arisen there have indeed been checkpoints in Aldershot and Tidworth and at our airports and docks and I am afraid they will be, occasionally we hope, a fact of life in this uncertain world we now live in. If you go past any barracks in the UK you will see armed guards on sentry duty.

I grant you that "the troubles" caused an extreme measure by the Civil Administration to call in the British Army, nevertheless I think that everyone of whatever persuasion will have to admit that there were people behaving appallingly badly and yes the British army too on occasion. So yes you are, I am afraid, being naive.

You can't say armed guards on sentry duty outside a barracks are the same as soldiers patrolling the whole city, and doing random checks on people and houses.
There is also a difference between having 'occassional' check points, and a permanent stop and search check point on my road for 30 years.

From what I've read on this forum you always have insightful and intelligent comments, the majority of which I agree with. However, I can't agree with you on this. I know what I grew up experiencing, and it wasn't civil administration.

[Jock Scot]

You can't say armed guards on sentry duty outside a barracks are the same as soldiers patrolling the whole city, and doing random checks on people and houses.
There is also a difference between having 'occassional' check points, and a permanent stop and search check point on my road for 30 years.

From what I've read on this forum you always have insightful and intelligent comments, the majority of which I agree with. However, I can't agree with you on this. I know what I grew up experiencing, and it wasn't civil administration.

What you grew up in was the result of people behaving appallingly badly and as a result of that the army did their job and a very difficult job. If there are ruthless armed and lawless people in the community then what you had to endure was the result. Not pleasant, not something any thinking person would want for sure, or to be proud of necessarily, but that was still not an occupation.

If those ruthless, armed, dangerous people in NI were not there . Why would the armed British Army be out on the streets of NI? If everything was just dandy there, the Army had no need to be there patroling the streets. The fact is, that some people of NI were behaving well beyond what is required in a civilised society and that was going on well before the army was called in. Things escalated from there of that there is no doubt and there is also no doubt that there were genuine grievances that existed, but once the bomb and bullet took precedence over the ballot box then in reality the Civil Authorities had no other choice than to do what they did. That still does not make an occupation.

Yes we both know where we stand, let us move on.

[CDNSushi]

Yes we both know where we stand, let us move on.

Ladies & gentlemen, on behalf on the XMTS staff, I'd like to encourage everyone to take that bit of advice to heart.

This thread has been reported to the moderators as possibly breaking Rule #5.

Rule #5
- Discussions on the topics of religion and politics most often result in conflict between members. Posts which quote historical facts or historical events are acceptable. Discussions of the rightness or wrongness of, espousing one over another, perceptions of, or personal belief in, a religion or political system are not acceptable. Quite simply, check your religion and politics at the door before entering.

Because the discussion has been civil so far, the mods do not see the need to lock or remove the thread for the time being, and at this time I am simply informing everyone that a report has been made, meaning that we will be discussing whether or not this rule is broken. In the mean time, I would suggest to change the course of discussion so that we do not have to pursue any further action.

Thank you for your understanding.

JD
For the XMTS Staff

[MacSpadger]

Don't most people just wear their own tartan? They're just representing their own family, nothing to do with 'Celtic' nations. Similarily I'm getting a Ulster tartan kilt, to represent the province where I'm from. Again nothing to do with Celtic nations or ancestors, just representing where I was come from.

Reading this forum, that's not the impression I get at all. There are plenty of places on da web where people in the US express pride in the kilt as an expression of their Irish or Celtic heritage. Also, this does not take into account some members of the gay community, who don't really seem to have to find anything "Celtic" or family related, they just like wearing the kilt, and are honest about it, and good luck to 'em.

I don't think there's all hat much confusion between the countries.

There we will have to differ, my friend. My own experiences are to the contrary.

I don't really think that there was much negative feelings solely towards the Scots at the start of the 20th Century. I always felt it was against the British.

I wasn't thinking specifically about the Scots, I was thinking about the Scots being British, (like it or lump it) and Scottish regiments, with full pipe bands, being there as part of the British army. Not everyone felt antagonism, of course, as when the bagpipe was introduced into the Irish Regiments in 1903 by Lord Castletown, most, if not all of the instructors were pipers from the Scottish regiments.

I can't say it was the same 100 years ago, but I think the kilt failed because we had no history of wearing it and no connection with it. It wasn't that we felt it was 'Scottish' so we were supposed to hate it. Probably more that the nationalists just didn't like the looks of it?

Hmmm, I didn't feel easy about mentioning this earlier, as I'd hate to go against forum rules, but in order that I am not misunderstood I'll make myself plain. I wasn't thinking about anti-Scottishness per se here. Padraig Pearse, who made the initial suggestion about adopting the kilt, has long had a question mark over his personal life. That kind of thing was more important in Ireland in the 1900's than now. There were articles defaming him printed at the time, and the debate continues today. If he wasn't thought of as gay, he was thought of as a bit mad. Hence my something else, something negative. Thankfully times are changing comment. Whatever the root of his social dislocation, he would have found it difficult to persuade ordinary working class Irish people to adopt a kilt they had absolutely no connection with.

**EDIT** Apologies if I am offending anyone. I'm not seeking to do so.

[CMcG]

See, this whole "Celtic" thing is anither thing I and many others just don't get.

Groups such as the Celtic Congress and the Celtic League think of the Celts as peoples who either speak a Celtic language or have spoken it within the modern historical period. While all six Celtic nations have unique histories and societies, they also share many elements of culture. Celtic is a bit of a catch-all term and is not without its flaws. Notwithstanding the romantic thrust of Pan-Celtism, it can also be useful as a general category.

That article you posted about DNA is fascinating but has relatively little bearing on either most people's identity, or the adoption of the Scottish kilt by other Celtic nations. It might be more productive to consider the discourse surrounding the way that people construct their sense of self, which is a big topic in the social sciences and humanities.

Social identity is far more complex than just citizenship and a nation is not simply a country. To go back to Benedict Anderson's idea of a nation as an imagined community, he points out that one can never actually see all the other members but rather knows they are there through communication. He also finds that a nation's borders are imagined to be permanent and solid, whereas they are instead permeable and subject to change. At this point, I should point out that of the six Celtic nations, only Ireland is actually a sovereign state...

In this global internet age, people are able to connect to a far more dispersed community and perhaps a semi-recent upsurge in interest in the kilt can be tied to the new ease of transnational flows of goods, services, people, and information. People are able to make links -- both weak and strong -- to various aspects of their heritage, citizenship, associations, locality, history, interests, etc.

Modern societies tend to also be more open to people expressing their individuality and collectivity in new and interesting hybrid ways. In fact, the post-modern condition recognizes that reality is constructed, plural, and variable. What does all that mean? It means that in the big picture, people can -- and will -- identify with different aspects of their individual heritage, culture, and history in various ways. For some, that means wearing the kilt as a symbol of Celtic identity, by way of a general association between the Celtic peoples, and thereby expressing a feeling of admiration, solidarity, and/or affinity for the distinctive dress of the Highlanders.

[Zardoz]

Wow, I'd use the report function to gripe about all the anti-Irish stuff, but the couple of times I've tried that before the reponses just made me more annoyed, so I'll just consider the (English) source, use the "ignore" function and get on with my day.

[Blackrose87]

Sorry for this thread becoming politic. I had read about the kilt use in Irish nationalism, and thought people here would be able to pont me to some more information regarding it.
With this topic, I suppose it is hard not to stray into politics. So I'm sorry if I went off-topic or offended anyone in anyway. This was not my intention.