Non-Scottish Kilts? HUH?!?

[Hamish]

That's my real point Hamish. Just because the kilt I am wearing is Canadian made and designed doesn't mean the Kilt, as an entity, is not Scottish. Chris seems to be implying (correct me if I am wrong) that Scotland is loosing the grasp on the kilt, and the Kilt will one day be seen as American, or Canadian, or Pakistani, etc rather than as a Scottish garment.

Ah! I misunderstood. No that will NEVER happen - not to the kilt that everyone knows. I think it right, however, that the modern variations in styles removed from the traditional kilt, be they tartan or something else, should not be referred to as being Scottish, unless they have been designed and made in that fair land. The Kilt per se, however, will always be known as being Scottish - or am I contradicting myself here!?

[bubba]

I just think of kilts as Contemporary, which covers Utilikilts, most Freedom Kilts, RKilts, Union Kilts, etc, Casual Kilts which covers the usual 4 to 5 yard kilts, Traditional Kilts which covers the heavier weight kilts made on the Scottish model of formal kilts and Budget Kilts which covers the Stillwaters and other inexpensive tartan kilts. Personally, I really don't think much about nationality concerning kilts unless I'm reading up on history. I think kilts generically have transcended that today.

[RCallan]

Is this like saying "Blue Jeans" are from America...and "Twill Trowsers" are from Europe????

They are both pants...and we don't wear them anyways!

[Chris Webb]

Ah! I misunderstood. No that will NEVER happen - not to the kilt that everyone knows. I think it right, however, that the modern variations in styles removed from the traditional kilt, be they tartan or something else, should not be referred to as being Scottish, unless they have been designed and made in that fair land. The Kilt per se, however, will always be known as being Scottish - or am I contradicting myself here!?

Ham, you pretty much said the same thing I've been saying all along. You are not contradicting yourself, you are simply stating the obvious. A kilt made in America is not a Scottish Kilt, it is at best a Scottish-American kilt, as I have exhaustively explained in the "no more kilts for me" thread. No matter how much someone born in America, or Canada, wants to be Scottish the simple fact is that they are not Scottish, they are at best Scottish-American or Scottish-Canadia just like their American or Canadian made kilts. I've been accused of wishful thinking?

Some of you fellas are picking one line out of my posts, worthy of disdain or not, and throwing out my entire arguments not because they are with out merit but because you simply don't like them. "Which historians?" What about the rest of that paragraph? I've even been misquoted indirectly.

Colin, you said, "Chris seems to be implying (correct me if I am wrong) that Scotland is loosing the grasp on the kilt, and the Kilt will one day be seen as American, or Canadian, or Pakistani, etc rather than as a Scottish garment." You are implying that I think Scotland will lose it's claim to kilts. At your request I now present my correction from what I've already written.

I said, "Scotland will likely forever hold a special and well deserved claim to kilts as a mans' garment. I really don't think the modern kilting movement would have even began with out the fuel of Scottish Pride and Heritage behind it. Scotland took what always was and made it wonderful, I doubt that anyone will ever be able to hold ownership of the Kilt the way the Scots have. But ... Kilts are bigger than Scotland and they are getting bigger all the time. THERE WILL HOWEVER ALWAYS BE THE SCOTTISH KILT, OF THIS I'M SURE." Emphasis added.

Obviously Scotland is not going to "lose its grasp" on the Traditional Scottish Kilt made in Scotland. But, as surely as the Swiss lost their grasp of the fine watch industry to the inexpensive makers of quartz watches decades ago the Scots are losing kilts to, as Ham said, makers of "modern variations in styles removed from the traditional kilt, be they tartan or something else," well outside of Scotland.

This doesn't make a Traditional Scottish Kilt made in Scotland any less fine than a Swiss Watch made in Switzerland. But how many of us are wearing Swiss made watches? How many of us are wearing Scottish made kilts? What percentage of us actually own a Traditional Scottish Kilt made in Scotland, or at least made by somebody from Scotland? There are some mighty fine watches made elsewhere, mighty fine kilts too.

Ham is right to distinguish kilts by where they are made. No matter what the product every manufacturer takes pride in clearly labeling the origin of its production; Made in China, Made in Scotland, Made in Canada, Pakistan, England, Tiawan, South Korea, wherever. Frankly, no kiltmaker is required to call his kilts Scottish. My recommendation to call non-Scottish made kilts Scottish-Whatever honors both Scotland and the Kiltmakers no matter where they are from.

Is a Cuban cigar made in Florida really a Cuban cigar? Is a Scottish Kilt made in America really a Scottish Kilt? No and No.

Respectfully,

Chris Webb

[Colin]

Some of you fellas are picking one line out of my posts, worthy of disdain or not, and throwing out my entire arguments not because they are with out merit but because you simply don't like them. "Which historians?" What about the rest of that paragraph? I've even been misquoted indirectly.

That entire paragraph was quoted and most of my previous post addressed the rest of the paragraph. Which historians are you refering too? I don't see it, but maybe I am missing it.

Based on the rest of your argument and comparisson to Swiss watches, Am I too believe that this entire time you have been simply saying that Scotland has lost it's exclusive manufacturing rights to the kilt?

If that is the case, than yes, your messages have been misinterpurated. I have always taken your continued message to be that kilts will no longer be associated with Scotland, but instead with countries like the US. To me this is rubbish as the kilt will always be associated with Scotland. A lot of people here seem to think the kiltwearers that wear their $100-$200 kilts everyday are better than the Scot that only brings out his $500-$800 Scottish made heavy wool family tartan kilt for special occasions. That's just another form of tyranny IMHO.

Now if you are simply refering to the Scots losing the exclusive manufacturing rights to the kilt, you are correct. Kilts are being designed, produced, and marketed in other parts of the world. I must say though that the crusade of some is not really the cause of this. There have been shops on the Royal Mile and in other parts of Scotland selling cheap versions or imitations of traditional kilts made off shore for ages. Long before there was a Utilikilt, or a USA kilt, or a Bear Kilt, or even a Sport kilt, there were knock off shops producing cheaper versions of kilts for tourists.

Now I must add that the quality has greatly improved, the resources have improved, and the market has grown and become more knowledgable, and that is thanks to people like the members of this forum and a few others that wanted a middle of the road good quality product that was still affordable. We have gotten that with US companies (USA Kilts, Utilikilts, Neokilts, etc), Canadian companies (Rkilts, Freedomkilts, Canadian Casual kilts, Bear(?), etc), and even from US firms that sell offshore made kilts, but still have their ear to the ground to see what consumers really want (Stillwater). We have a great selection of quality made goods from around the world at our disposal.

So yes, Chris Scotland has lost it's exclusive manufacturing rights to the kilt, but the kilt will always be associated with Scotland no matter where it is made.

For what it's worth, if I want a Swiss watch I will buy a really good Swiss watch. If I want something more affordable, I will find some of the better quality non-Swiss made watches. What I won't buy is the $10 watch that needs a new battery every week. I don't need 15 watches when none of them tell me the time

[auld argonian]

So, let me get this straight...is a kilt made in Pakistan for an American seller anything like my "American" Mercury Station Wagon that was full of parts marked "made in Mexico" or is it like my "Japanese" car that was made in Ontario, Canada?

Best

AA

[Colin]

So, let me get this straight...is a kilt made in Pakistan for an American seller anything like my "American" Mercury Station Wagon that was full of parts marked "made in Mexico" or is it like my "Japanese" car that was made in Ontario, Canada?

Best

AA

Good question, I will have to go and sit in my Ontario made Toyota and think about it. Of course to muddy the issue, aren't USAK kilts and Canadian Casual kilts made from PV that is produced in England of Scottish and Irish tartans? I think of where it is made personally. I don't think there is much that is made without foreign parts these days. Think of it as owning a little piece of everywhere

[phil h]

another thing to remember is this: we are not like the rest of Joe public, when it comes to kilts, we, as kilt wearers are very much different. we wear kilts a lot of the time, understand the difference in all the kilts out there, average Joe, just thinks in most part that kilts are Scottish.

also historians and people telling of history, have their own agendas, like the Thomas Rawlinson argument. he was an Englishman who was supposed to have taken the great kilt, cut it down and "invented" the small kilt, so his Scottish workers would have a more practical garment to wear.

now, anyone with an open mind may just accept this as maybe true, but anyone who is ant-English or just too pro-Scottish, will denounce this a a fairy tale, or say I have not seen the letter where this story is mentioned.

read about Rawlinson here under "small kilt" http://www.tartansauthority.com/Web/...land_Dress.asp

[Chris Webb]

Colin, Thank you for your response and for taking the time to actually read my posts. Phil H, loved your post, man. Also, someone asked "what historians?" so here's my answer:

I got the idea that some historians were not so certain as to whether or not the Scots ever wholely owned the kilt from Cajonscots' post in this thread. Cajonscot said, "MacWage mentioned the blog article by our own Matt Newsome about Irish tartans; another good blog entryof Matt's deals with the kilt as a "pan-Celtic" garment." Matt said in his article, "So why the change? When did the kilt become a "pan-celtic" garment? Again, I'm not saying here that non-Scots should not wear the kilt. But when did this shift occur?"

After reading Cajonscots' post and Matt's article it is was clear to me that Matt, maybe the most respected historian here, couldn't explain why so many folks 'not of Scottish descent' so quickly took to thinking the kilt was theirs too. By Matts' article it appears the Scots were 'losing their grip' on the kilt very early on. To me it begged the question of whether or not they ever had a firm grip on the kilt to begin with.

I was further led to wonder about the 'historical certainty' of the kilt ever being wholey Scottish when reading Kizmet's post, "There are other cultures where men have worn pleated skirt garments. If you look up Greek, Bulgarian and and Albanian costumes for men, you'll find some. I don't know if Kizmet is an historian or not but I'm guessing the articles she mentioned were written by historians.

Given that some of these other cultures, such as Greece, have given us so much, it's no giant leap to wonder if the Scots didn't get the kilt from someone who came before them who wore strikingly similar garments to kilts ... given the consistent use of skirted garments for men over the rise and fall of some rather notable civilizations it just seems unlikely that any country founded within the last 2000 years can stand up and say with a straight face, "The kilt is mine!"

I tend to agree with historians that see the kilt not as beginning specifically in Scotland, but the kilt in Scotland being largely the same as a Utilikilt is now, a derivative of something older than itself, born of the wants and needs of a few and spread in use to the many. Utilikilt didn't invent the kilt, neither did Scotland ... at best they both reinvented it and gave it a new name. Cudos for the both of them and may they both enjoy their distinctiveness forever!

Two great truths regarding the past and future of kilts remain:

1. The Scottish Kilt began in Scotland.

2. The Scottish Kilt will forever be associated with Scotland.

BRILLIANT!

Kilt On.

Chris Webb











__________________
Kilted Mom