Wearing the kilt in Scotland

[Nathan]

I'm a huge history buff and try to learn all I can, but I agree wholeheartedly with Jock, BCAC and figheadair that no good can come of salting old wounds and acting indignant about events that transpired long ago and that may or may not have happened exactly the way history has recorded them.

I remember meeting a piper in university who decided to berate me about how his clan defeated the MacDonalds in a great battle in the late 1400s. He came at me with the zeal of a sports fan who's team just won the championship telling me, "we kicked your clan's @$s".

Nevermind that his clan was allied with some MacDonalds and enemies with others at different times in history. Nevermind that he was being entirely too boorish and aggressive about the whole matter given that we were interacting in the late 1990s. To me, this guy was a windbag. I found his misplaced jingoism extremely distasteful and I suggested he accomplish something with his own life rather than living vicariously through 500 year old victories. I also told him that the best way to bring honour to his clan was to act honourably.

All that having been said, I can't say I didn't have mixed feelings when my 2nd Battalion Nova Scotia Highlanders were rebadged to the name they had in both world wars, the Cape Breton Highlanders. It was a proud day, but also unsettling to know that all of these Clan Donald men would hang up their Clan Donald modern tartan kilts and go back to wearing the old Government sett that Clan Campbell claims as their own. Nonetheless, the kilts got changed, the hatchet stayed buried, and the soldiers got on with the job at hand.

[TheOfficialBren]

Borrowing from the good padre:

You can't legislate intelligence (or couth) and you can't fix stupid (or stubbornly clung-to ignorance).

[Calgacus]

...On learning that I wasn't, she informed me that in Scotland it was "illegal" to wear someone else's tartan...

As Bren correctly states, you can't legislate for this sort of thing, but it's worth bearing in mind that these sort of things may in part be due simply to a lack of education. When I was at school (not that long ago), the sum total of Scottish history that we learned was, well, not much more than zero. We did a project about Bonnie Prince Charlie's ill-fated adventure, and that was about it. We learned more about King Canute, Henry VIII and the Wars of the Roses than anything Scottish. In English, we learned Shakespeare instead of Burns, and so on. My knowledge of Scottish history and culture is pretty much entirely self-taught, and I suspect the same might be true for the woman in question.

[Nathan]

The Scottish woman then asked if I was a MacLean. On learning that I wasn't, she informed me that in Scotland it was "illegal" to wear someone else's tartan. Her American friend then informed me, as if it wasn't obvious, that her friend was from Scotland and therefore knew about these things. Neither one was able to tell me how Scottish pipe bands manage to find a full complement of players all with the same clan affiliation, but the Scot was adamant that they must be able to do it.

I'm not sure how I missed this post the first time through, but Calgacus' wise reply made me go back and re-read it. This one truly boggles the mind.

I think it's sad that apparently I learned more about Scots history and literature in school than people living in Scotland. Sure, we did Shakespeare, but we also did Burns.

We learned about the Celts and the Picts, The clan system, Mary, Queen of Scots, James I & 5, the '45 and the Battle of Culloden, the Highland Clearances.

Some of this we covered when learning about the Reformation, some while learning about why the Highlanders ended up in Nova Scotia, we learned about some of it in music class when they taught us the Skye Boat Song and other Scottish songs.

It was enough to spark an interest.

Education curriculum is a Provincial jurisdiction in Canada. How does it work in the UK? Does Scotland set its own education curriculum or is that uniform across the country?

[Calgacus]

Since devolution, all aspects of education have been the responsibility of the Scottish Government and things have improved, I believe. Prior to that, despite having a separate education and exam system and the Scottish arm of the Ministry of Education moving to Edinburgh in 1939, overall control was from Westminster. Who actually set curriculum content I don't know.

[WillowEstate]

(snip)

It was enough to spark an interest.

(snip)

But isn't that what good education is supposed to be about? To spark an interest and encourage you to do your own research (at which you seem to be exemplary, Nathan) rather than just sit in class and be "spoon fed"?

That said, it is unfortunate that there isn't a broader "spark" with respect to Scottish history, even in the UK. Though educated in central England, we did learn that the invading Scots got as far as Swarkstone (just south of Derby) before being driven back - perhaps it being only 15 miles from the school helped.

[John_Carrick]

In my school in Hertfordshire we got Mary Queen of Scots, her marriages and the gory murder. Not too much too much Scottish history apart from that.
That said, elected politicians laying down the history curriculum is not a good thing either, and one of the problems we have had in Ireland. You need balance, different opinions, a sufficiently broad worldview and no one manipulating the narrative.
Isn't this thread about wearing the kilt in Scotland by the way?

[TheOfficialBren]

We in the US (specifically California) get a very one-sided education regarding the Revolution and the War Between the States. Very little information about pre-Revolution, antibellum, or post-bellum. No mention whatsoever of westward expansion except for the California Gold Rush, Lewis and Clark's expedition, and Manifest Destiny (which is, ashamedly, preached as Gospel). Brief plot points about the Louisiana Purchase (Napoleon Bonaparte's predicament there being glossed ver greatly). The War of 1812 is usually not taught at all.

[Nathan]

<snip> Manifest Destiny (which is, ashamedly, preached as Gospel)...

.<snip>... The War of 1812 is usually not taught at all.

Hehe - whereas we are taught that the War of 1812 was the day we came together and had our first real nation defining moment prior to confederation, where the loyalist and colonial proto-Canadians of British North America fought valiantly and turned back the imperialist tide of Manifest Destiny.

Unfortunately, I can't really add much to the OPs question about wearing the kilt in Scotland but I can say that when competing at the World University Debating Championships, countries are asked to wear their National dress periodically and some wear it the whole time.

I wore the kilt and my debating partner who is indo-Canadian wore his kurtha pajama and the Scottish delegation was very pleased that I chose to do that and the Indian delegation was equally proud of my debating partner. The Scots were curious about my story but they were very warm about it and I could tell that they were OK with it (and me) by the amount of parties I was invited to and the number of those gents with whom I am still in contact on occasion.

The Canadian delegation was thrilled about it because they thought we represented Canada's multicultural identity perfectly.

Here we are:

[SeumasA]

I'm a huge history buff and try to learn all I can, but I agree wholeheartedly with Jock, BCAC and figheadair that no good can come of salting old wounds and acting indignant about events that transpired long ago and that may or may not have happened exactly the way history has recorded them.

I'm a history buff too. In fact, I've gone back to school and am taking some history classes right now. There was an interesting comment made in one class, that history is not necessarily what happened but rather what we know about what happened. Those can be two very different things.