Interesting email from an Irish fellow about Irish kilts.

[thanmuwa]

Thank you, Jon! I was looking for a graphic of that particular poster, but I couldn't find it. My bonnet's off to you, sir!

T.

Yes, that is interesting... I presume from WW1?

[BoldHighlander]

I wonder if the individual who wrote the original email moved back or has a relative with similar views?

By way of explanation, the other day I received my semi-annual copy of the "The Ulster-Scot", a publication of the Ulster-Scots Agency and some amadán wrote in the following letter:

ULSTER-SCOTS AND THE KILT

Dear Sir,
While contributors to your paper are at pain to emphasise that Ulster-Scots folk are of non-Gaelic Anglo-Saxon decent, [?!] why do such contributors, and present generation Ulster-Scots in general, here and in the wider colonial diaspora, transvesticise themselves by adopting the 19th century Victorian parody of Gaelic highland dress at Ulster-Scots functions.
Whereas tartan fetishism has become the stylised national dress in Scotland where there is no longer any distinction between Lowlander and Highlander, Scot and Gael, it is incongruous and hypocritical for Ulster-Scots to flaunt it as a symbol to differentiate themselves from the Gaelic, Norse, Norman, English, etc.. etc populations of Ulster and Ireland.
The wearing of formalised highland dress by diaspora Scots should only be valid for those whose ancestors emigrated from Scotland after the date when such dress was invented in the Victorian era.
If today's Ulster-Scots need an identifying form of "national" dress it should be the garb worn by their early 17th century lowland Scots ancestors.

D. Golden, A Scot in Ulster
Strabane

All I can say is "WOW!"
I don't even know where to begin with this one, and I think I'll leave it to others to dissect. However let me say that for the past 4 or 5 years I've been reading this paper, and during that time I have never seen any contributors take pains to emphasise that Ulster-Scots folk are of non-Gaelic Anglo-Saxon decent. Rather I've seen them emphasis both the Lowland & Highland roots of the Ulster-Scots.
As for his thoughts on wearing the kilt....whew!!
I don't understand people sometimes.
Like I said, he's either the first fool, moved back to North Ireland, or fell out of the same tree!!

[O'Callaghan]

I wonder if the individual who wrote the original email moved back or has a relative with similar views?

By way of explanation, the other day I received my semi-annual copy of the "The Ulster-Scot", a publication of the Ulster-Scots Agency and some amadán wrote in the following letter:

ULSTER-SCOTS AND THE KILT

Dear Sir,
While contributors to your paper are at pain to emphasise that Ulster-Scots folk are of non-Gaelic Anglo-Saxon decent, [?!] why do such contributors, and present generation Ulster-Scots in general, here and in the wider colonial diaspora, transvesticise themselves by adopting the 19th century Victorian parody of Gaelic highland dress at Ulster-Scots functions.
Whereas tartan fetishism has become the stylised national dress in Scotland where there is no longer any distinction between Lowlander and Highlander, Scot and Gael, it is incongruous and hypocritical for Ulster-Scots to flaunt it as a symbol to differentiate themselves from the Gaelic, Norse, Norman, English, etc.. etc populations of Ulster and Ireland.
The wearing of formalised highland dress by diaspora Scots should only be valid for those whose ancestors emigrated from Scotland after the date when such dress was invented in the Victorian era.
If today's Ulster-Scots need an identifying form of "national" dress it should be the garb worn by their early 17th century lowland Scots ancestors.

D. Golden, A Scot in Ulster
Strabane

All I can say is "WOW!"
I don't even know where to begin with this one, and I think I'll leave it to others to dissect. However let me say that for the past 4 or 5 years I've been reading this paper, and during that time I have never seen any contributors take pains to emphasise that Ulster-Scots folk are of non-Gaelic Anglo-Saxon decent. Rather I've seen them emphasis both the Lowland & Highland roots of the Ulster-Scots.
As for his thoughts on wearing the kilt....whew!!
I don't understand people sometimes.
Like I said, he's either the first fool, moved back to North Ireland, or fell out of the same tree!!

Lowland Scots are largely Anglo-Saxon, and Ulster Scots (which Americans call Scotch Irish, although more properly that should be Scots Irish) are mostly the descendants of Lowland Scots, hence yes, mostly Anglo-Saxon. Notice I do say mostly, not entirely. It also has to be admitted that the Ulster Scots settled in Northern Ireland before the Lowland Scots adopted the kilt from the Highlanders. All that is true.

That said, if they want to wear tartan kilts to emphasize their Scottish roots, it's churlish to be so pedantic as to say they shouldn't. Only reenactors should have to concern themselves with avoiding anachronisms, nobody else should worry about it.

However, if they are doing it to distinguish themselves from Irish people who aren't Ulster Scots, such as those who are Gaels, then they should consider that the Irish kilt is hardly any more recent than the lowlanders adoption of the kilt. Not five minutes ago in another thread I read a comment that "the Irish never wore kilts". Never is a long time. If you accepted that as true, which I don't, then you would also have to accept that the Lowland Scots never wore kilts. Neither statement is quite true, although the kilt certainly originated in the Highlands, and the wearing of kilts by Lowland Scots and Irish Gaels, let alone Ulster Scots, doesn't go back to time immemorial.

IOW, I don't see why they shouldn't do it, but I don't think it marks the difference that they intend by it, or that they even have a much greater claim to the kilt than the "other side".

[BoldHighlander]

Lowland Scots are largely Anglo-Saxon, and Ulster Scots (which Americans call Scotch Irish, although more properly that should be Scots Irish) are mostly the descendants of Lowland Scots, hence yes, mostly Anglo-Saxon. Notice I do say mostly, not entirely.

As an aside, what I found when researching my family genealogy, is that those who were Ulster-Scots in my linage were mostly Highland Scots. The very few others were English it seems. So far none of Lowland stock (at least that I've been able to trace).

I guess mine are the exception rather than the norm

[gilmore]

Lowland Scots are largely Anglo-Saxon, ...".

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the Angles and the Saxons contributed relatively little to the British gene pool, much less that was thought formerly, DNA evidence now reveals.

Genetics and culture are two different things. While Lowland Scots might speak (or spoke) a language, Scots, closer to English than to Gaelic, it doesn't follow that they are or were a different people. They were, for the most part, the same people adopting different language and culture, of which dress is a part.

And culture is a harder to pin down, ever shifting thing. Fashions in clothing come, sometimes go, sometimes stay. Thus it is with the kilt.

[Rob]

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the Angles and the Saxons contributed relatively little to the British gene pool, much less that was thought formerly, DNA evidence now reveals.

Genetics and culture are two different things. While Lowland Scots might speak (or spoke) a language, Scots, closer to English than to Gaelic, it doesn't follow that they are or were a different people. They were, for the most part, the same people adopting different language and culture, of which dress is a part.

And culture is a harder to pin down, ever shifting thing. Fashions in clothing come, sometimes go, sometimes stay. Thus it is with the kilt.

You are absolutely spot on. Unfortunately there are still many, such as some Highlanders, Irish, Welsh and Cornish, who do not want to believe that those of Anglo-Saxon ancestry are in a small minority, even in England and Lowland Scotland.

Then there are the Anglo-Saxon history and re-enactment groups who don't want to believe the facts either, because they want to believe that the English are the descendents of great Anglo-Saxon warriors who drove the savage Britons out of what is now England.

Even those English (mainly in the East) who do have some genetic ancestry from Northwest Europe are usually unaware that their ancestors came to Britain long before Roman times even, and not in the 5th/6th centuries AD. Such people argue that the population geneticists must have got it all wrong, because what they say does not fit in with their deeply held beliefs.

There are a lot of heads buried in some very deep sand.

[S.S.Muldoon]

IMHO one huge stumbling block so many people have is that they forget that things evolve over time. There are many recognized 'clan' tartans that came into existence long after the clan system had passed from practical history. Rightly or wrongly, many people today associate kilts and bagpipes with the Scots, and to a lesser extent the Irish... and any cop funeral or St Patrick's Day parade (in America) reinforces this association.
We have many members of Clans here on this board- does this mean they owe the same allegiance to their clan chief as a highland clan member owed to his in the 17th century? If your clan chief declared an armed rising-out on his neighbor over a boundary issue of his would you feel required to fight and die if necessary?
Consider the boom in heraldry-themed trinkets over the past few decades... Yes a few people DO have coats-of-arms these days, but even those are merely curiosities (I highly doubt ANYONE today has a coat of arms because as a noble, they may be required to raise and lead an army on the field and need a personal device to paint on their shield to identify them during battle!). But plenty of people proudly display coats of arms borrowed from some historical figure that just happens to share the displayer's last name, whether they realize the bogus nature of their use of the device or not. When I hear some keyboard scholar telling some 'plastic paddy' that he really shouldn't have the Kelly coat of arms on his key chain because the coat of arms really isn't his, I think of an in-law of mine whose last name is Case...he wears a belt buckle from the Case Knife company because what-the-hell, it has his name on it!
In the long run, what harm?
Its nice that we have so many scholars who have sorted out the facts from the fiction for those of us who really care, but if your goal is to enlighten those who have absolutely no desire for enlightenment, I'm afraid it will be nothing but tears and headaches for you in the end.
So while you could say that the Irish have no HISTORICAL claim to wearing of kilts, you'd technically be wrong: its just that Irish (and especially Irish diaspora) kilt wearing is fairly recent and by no means widespread. At one time, kilts were strictly highland clothing- not so anymore. Feile beag, plaids, fly plaids, buckles, lowlanders wearing kilts, belt loops, hundreds of recognized tartans, piper's sporrans, utilikilts, and even Irish-themed kilts, these are ALL just stops on an evolving continuum.
I've seen baseball played in a park right outside Dublin by Irish kids. I wonder what the angry subject of the OP would have to say about that?

[macwilkin]

Consider the boom in heraldry-themed trinkets over the past few decades... Yes a few people DO have coats-of-arms these days, but even those are merely curiosities (I highly doubt ANYONE today has a coat of arms because as a noble, they may be required to raise and lead an army on the field and need a personal device to paint on their shield to identify them during battle!). But plenty of people proudly display coats of arms borrowed from some historical figure that just happens to share the displayer's last name, whether they realize the bogus nature of their use of the device or not. When I hear some keyboard scholar telling some 'plastic paddy' that he really shouldn't have the Kelly coat of arms on his key chain because the coat of arms really isn't his, I think of an in-law of mine whose last name is Case...he wears a belt buckle from the Case Knife company because what-the-hell, it has his name on it!
In the long run, what harm?

Respectfully: the "harm" is that arms belong to individuals, not surnames, in the heraldic traditions of the British Isles. If your point is to honour your ancestors, then it is bad form to usurp arms that do not belong to you. This "keyboard scholar" really doesn't care what someone displays on their key chain, but as an educator, I'm not going to hide the truth from them if they ask -- if they don't, then fine. The intentions may be honourable, and by all means, display the arms -- just don't claim them as your own.

Its nice that we have so many scholars who have sorted out the facts from the fiction for those of us who really care, but if your goal is to enlighten those who have absolutely no desire for enlightenment, I'm afraid it will be nothing but tears and headaches for you in the end.

Welcome to the world of a teacher. Of course, most teachers worth their salt will tell you that you do not teach for those who do not have the desire for enlightenment, but rather for the ones who do. Apathy and lack of desire should never be a deterrent against education. Better to seek out the one who does care than the 99 who don't...

T.