A question on ethics...

[Schultz]

I'll relate one story that is illustrative. A friend of mine, who is a Grant, was wearing his new Black Watch kilt at a Highland Games. (His father served in the Black Watch, and Black Watch is also used by clan Grant as a hunting tartan, so he has a double connection to the tartan). He was at a vendor's tent, browsing through some books, when a man whom he had never met stomped up to him, absolutely livid! "Why are you wearing that tartan?!" he demanded.

"Well," my friend calmly replied, "this is the Black Watch tartan and my father served in the..."

Before he could even get the sentence out, the man said, "That's the Murray clan tartan, and I'm a Murray and I want to know what gives you the right to wear my clan tartan!"

M

Not to hijack the thread, but I would have told this rather rude fellow, "SIR! You are sadly mistaken and have insulted my honor. I therefore challenge you to a duel. If you accept, would you prefer pistols or claymores? Please arrange for your second to contact mine by this eve with weapon choice and I will see you on the morrow. GOOD DAY!"

Sorry, I'm in a weird mood today

[bubba]

If someone started ranting at me about my tartan I'd just ask if the words "kiss my ****" held any meaning for him.

[GlassMan]

Personally I think Matt Newsome is right that there is a big difference between an ethical choice and whether something will be offensive to someone.

For me personally I try to wear only fashion tartans, universal tartans, or those with which I have some connection. I do have a Black Watch kilt, but as the new unified regiment will be wearing the Sutherland tartan, the Black Watch is now sadly a historical item and in 50 to 80 years or so there will be no one left who served in the actual regiment.

However, that decision is personal and I do not feel that it is ethical or unethical. However, I feel it would be unethical for you to wear a clan tartan of another clan and then, if questioned, misrepresent yourself and your association to that tartan. If you were wearing a clan tartan not your own, then it would be good to know it's history and to state that you wear it to show respect or allegiance to the clan and its chief. Telling the truth is always best.

[macwilkin]

I do have a Black Watch kilt, but as the new unified regiment will be wearing the Sutherland tartan, the Black Watch is now sadly a historical item and in 50 to 80 years or so there will be no one left who served in the actual regiment.

The Royal Regiment of Scotland wears the Government Sett, also known as the Black Watch tartan. The Sutherland Tartan is a variant of the Government Sett:

Minor variations distinguish some regimental applications of the Black Watch tartan. The "Sutherland" tartan, as worn by The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, is considered to be "Government" but in a lighter shade. For The Black Watch regiment, knife pleats in rear show black line.

-- http://www.regiments.org/tradition/tartans/govermt.htm

...the 93rd (Sutherland) Highlanders and like the 91st wore the official military tartan, as did several Auxiliary units raised in the district. The association with Sutherland is another case, where the universal military tartan has been given "clan" or "district" significance and this sett when worn by the 93rd has been referred to as "Sutherland Tartan". It is true that this version also adopted by the amalgamated regiment (91st/93rd), was somewhat lighter in shade than that worn by the 42nd, but it was nevertheless still the regulation pattern of military tartan and called "Black Watch" officially.

-- Scottish Military Historical Society, http://www.btinternet.com/~james.mckay/disp_020.htm

Regards,

Todd

[GlassMan]

The Royal Regiment of Scotland wears the Government Sett, also known as the Black Watch tartan. The Sutherland Tartan is a variant of the Government Sett:

Regards,

Todd

Thanks for the correction. I was under the impression that they had officially changed the name reference to Sutherland but after heading over to the actual regimental web page I see that I was mistaken. For those interested you can go to their website at www.army.mod.uk/royalregimentofscotland

[arrogcow]

Adam,

Usually a district tartan is "recommended" for a certain surname because there might be a large of people with that surname living in that area, or did so at some point. But, only individual research really should determine where your particular branch came from, and what tartan to wear, if you would use that as your "claim" to a district tartan.

Todd

So anyone can't wear a district tartan, unless you/your family came from that district. The rules get murky, and contradictory. It's like, can I wear Thompson since my mother's maiden name is Thompson. Except all her Thompsons came to the US from Wales. How about the Kentucky Tartan? While I am not a KY native, I (as of a few months ago) have lived more than half my life here. Again most people wouldn't care, but some probably would.

While I do advocate trying to get a tartan that you do have a connection to (or a tartan that has no connections at all - my Braveheart for instance), you can never satisfy all the rules unless you can prove direct patralinial linteage to a Clan, or have proof that your family came from a specific district.

Adam
(and one of Matt's box pleat kilts in the KY tartan is probably going to be one of the next kilts I get)

[macwilkin]

So anyone can't wear a district tartan, unless you/your family came from that district. The rules get murky, and contradictory. It's like, can I wear Thompson since my mother's maiden name is Thompson. Except all her Thompsons came to the US from Wales. How about the Kentucky Tartan? While I am not a KY native, I (as of a few months ago) have lived more than half my life here. Again most people wouldn't care, but some probably would.

While I do advocate trying to get a tartan that you do have a connection to (or a tartan that has no connections at all - my Braveheart for instance), you can never satisfy all the rules unless you can prove direct patralinial linteage to a Clan, or have proof that your family came from a specific district.

Adam
(and one of Matt's box pleat kilts in the KY tartan is probably going to be one of the next kilts I get)

Adam -- You miss my meaning. There may have been, or are, a large number of people with that surname in a district -- for example, there are a lot of Cummings in NE Scotland, in Buchan, Morayshire, and Aberdeen. But, let's say (hypothetically), my branch of the Cummings came from Fife. I might choose to wear the Fife tartan, because I documented my line to there. Or I might choose to wear the Buchan tartan, since it is also a Cumming tartan. Or I might choose to wear the Badenoch tartan, since the Cummings controlled Badenoch. Clear as mud? :mrgreen:

Here's a quote from Matt Newsome's district tartans site:

Why might someone choose to wear a particular district tartan? If you live in that location, you may certainly wear that tartan. Or if you were once from that location but no longer live there, you may wish to wear that place’s tartan. Perhaps your family was historically from the region – you could wear the district tartan to represent your ancestral home. Maybe you visited the area and have a special affinity for it. Perhaps you wish to commemorate a historic event, such as a battle, that took place there (the Culloden tartan, or the Stirling & Bannockburn tartan would be prime examples). Any and all of these would be legitimate reasons for choosing a district tartan.

In the end, the choice of which district tartan to wear is entirely up to you. There is no "right or wrong." Remember, also, that you can wear a district tartan even if you belong to a clan! It might be a nice alternative to your usual clan sett.

www.district-tartans.com

As far as the KY tartan goes, you live there -- wear it. That's why many sate tartans are designed, to give people with little or no Scottish blood per se a chance to wear a tartan, as well as symbolise that state, town, province, etc. My avatar is the Iowa tartan. My family is from Iowa, so I hope to have an IA tartan to symbolise my Iowa and Scottish heritage.

I hope I've done a better job explaining -- sorry to muddy the waters.

Cheers,

Todd

[Chris Webb]

Gents,


Like it or not, America is called the New World for a good reason. It is and has always been the Amercan Way to adopt the best parts of whatever culture arrives here and to largely toss out most everything else. Insulting as this may be to the folks left in the lands of our ancestors the simple fact remains that it is their own descendants who have done this.

Is it good, not always, but usually it is. Kilts are but one example, and a very, very superficial one at that. If you want to take pride in your Scottish, Irish, or Scots-Irish Anscestory you'd find considerably better reasons to do so than by painstakingly adhereing to expectations of those left overseas.

The Scots-Irish culture, religion, governmental notions, rugged individualist spirit all make America what it is. There were kilted men fighting for America's Freedom in the Revolutionary War. Scots-Irish descendants took the very best of what was in Scotland, Ireland, Whales and England and established a New World. James Webb's book, Born Fighting, documents this extensively.

Of course, this is a kilt forum, so here's my take on the Americanization of the Kilt:

1. Wool has been abandoned because it's expensive, itchy, alergenic, prone to being eaten by moths, fades, stretches and stinks when wet. Thus, Americans have picked better materials for kilts to be made in. It's the American Way.

2. Most of the trappings of the true Scottish Kilt Outfit have been abandoned because it's simply more comfortable to wear a kilt without all the bagage attached to it. It's worth the trouble for a wedding or parade or funeral, but who wants to mow the yard with all that extra stuff dangling off of you.

3. Tartans have been marginalized because, to most Americans, it is far better to take pride in your Country than in your family. Lord knows I'm proud to be a Webb, a fine Scots-Irish family. My other 'clans', Monroe, Moncrief and Bell, all have tartans that, with the exception of Bell, look like Hell. Basically if an American wears YOUR tartan it's because it's a good looking tartan ... take the compliment.

4. If you are an American it is simply a matter of fact that you are free to wear, celebrate, adopt and practice any of the best of what any of the cultures that make America great have to offer. To say that you have to have some blood-line to Scotland to wear a kilt is profoundly un-American.
You can wear a Mexican hat, an English pair of boots, an Italian leather belt, French aftershave, a German fedora and any damned tartan of kilt that matches your eyes. This is a Free country.

5. American Society embraces diversity, so long as you see your diversity as equal and not better than any other. You are expected, and rightly so, to embrace and appreciate all that other cultures have to offer. Savor that which came from your particular heritage, but don't forget that it is more special to be an American than to be of Scottish descent. Wear your kilt for Scotish Pride if you like, but know that I can wear the same kilt for no other reason than that I am free to. Kilting is profoundly attached to Freedom.

It should be of special note that it is the common experience of kilted men here to run into non-kilted Scotsman in every major city in the U.S. including right here in Fort Worth, Texas. I even have a brother-in-law from Scotland living in Dallas. He, just like every single other Scotsman I've met here in the States, knows less about kilts, Scotish heritage and history than I do. I tease him about it. It's the Alamo Effect: folks in San Antonio don't go to the Alamo, but every visitor does. Folks in Scotland don't give near the amount of thought to kilts than we do.

Fact is that most 'real' Scotsmen here in the States, like my in-law, get their kilts from US companies just like most of us. Why, because they are cheaper, more practical, easier and faster to get, more comfortable, etc..... the kilt is no longer Scotish, gentlemen, it is American. The whole kilt get-up may still be Scotish, but the kilt itself, no, it's bigger than Scotland now ... it's American.

If you wear a tartan of another family than your own then simply say so. I'm a Webb, but this tartan is McDonald and I really like it. Them McDonalds really do have a mighty fine tartan ... and they can be proud that Americans like me picked theirs out of the hundereds of others.

If you see someone in your tartan, except the compliment, if you wear someone else's tartan, give them credit. If you are in Scotland, wear the Stuart Royal ... who could possibly bitch about you honoring the Queen.

Kilt On!

Chris Webb

[Kilted KT]

I have personally decided not to wear a tartan with which I am not associated aside from blackwatch, for which I honor the regiments (still need to find if I have relatives who served). Although I don't wear other tartans, that does not mean I am opposed to seeing another in my clan tartan, unless they are dishonoring it. I take it as a compliment that someone else would take the time and spend the money to honor my clan publicly.

Good post, chris...welcome.

[macwilkin]

The Scots-Irish culture, religion, governmental notions, rugged individualist spirit all make America what it is. There were kilted men fighting for America's Freedom in the Revolutionary War. Scots-Irish descendants took the very best of what was in Scotland, Ireland, Whales and England and established a New World. James Webb's book, Born Fighting, documents this extensively.

Chris,

Sorry to be a stickler, but the majority of the Ulster-Scots were Lowlanders and Protestants to boot who viewed the "wild Highlanders" the same way they later viewed the native Americans -- or the "wild Irish". Lowlanders did not wear kilts, and the majority of Highlanders in the colonies were Loyalists; many were former Jacobites who already been through one revolution. The most famous example was Flora MacDonald. In fact, it has been said that the last Highland Charge occured at the Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge in North Carolina, with Loyalist Highland troops yelling "King George and Broadswords!" as they charged the Patriot forces, most of whom were Scots-Irish/Ulster-Scots. Many left after the Revolution and went to Nova Scotia and Ontario. Some Jacobites, like Hugh Mercer, did serve with the Patriot forces -- but I can't say I've ever seen any evidence of him wearing Highland garb.

Scots at one point were villified by the American colonials, even to the point of Jefferson mentioning the "Scotch mercenaries" in the Declaration of Independence -- the Rev. John Witherspoon, himself a Scot asked TJ to remove that line. I also remember a reference to Scottish POW's being insulted by colonials as they were escorted behind the lines, and most of said colonials would have been Scots-Irish!

BTW, watch Webb's book -- more personal opinion than documented evidence. Leyburn's "the Scotch-Irish: a Social History" is far better. You might also take a look at James Hunter's "A Dance Called America" Celeste Ray's "Highland Heritage", Duane Meyer's "The Highland Scots of North Carolina" and Fischer's "Albion's Seed". Much more reliable sources on the Ulster Scots. I've seen several very negitive reviews of Webb from very good scholars. I wasn't impressed with it when I read it, for what that's worth. Leyburn is much more reliable, and he debunks the myth of the Scots-Irish wearing kilts in the introduction.

Regards,

Todd