Was Tartan ever actually banned?

[Kilted-Marine]

CajunScot

I was not trying to argue your point either. I understand where you are coming from, I was sort of suggesting that some traditions start in fact, move to fiction and end up as legend.

The question for ME is - "Is it important that people KNOW why they are doing something or is it more important that they are doing it"

Depending on the event the answer to that question may be different.

Kirkin of the tartan - Is to ask a blessing on the tartans (and those families which fall under them).
Does it REALLY matter when, how, why it started?
If a person never knows the real story - does it matter?

Just a few questions i have to ask myself

[macwilkin]

CajunScot

I was not trying to argue your point either. I understand where you are coming from, I was sort of suggesting that some traditions start in fact, move to fiction and end up as legend.

The question for ME is - "Is it important that people KNOW why they are doing something or is it more important that they are doing it"

Depending on the event the answer to that question may be different.

Kirkin of the tartan - Is to ask a blessing on the tartans (and those families which fall under them).
Does it REALLY matter when, how, why it started?
If a person never knows the real story - does it matter?

Just a few questions i have to ask myself

As a history instructor, I feel that it does matter, because the original intent of the service wasn't even to "bless" tartans, given that it was a Presbyterian minister who started it. Dr. Marshall was trying to rally Scottish-American organizations (he was a member of the St. Andrew's Societies of Atlanta and Washington DC) to raise money for an effort to relocate children in Glasgow and Edinburgh to the Highlands to escape Nazi bombing raids in a "Kirkin' of the tartans".

As an Epsicopalian, I have no problem with blessing tartans and the families they represent. My issue is with a inaccurate history of the service which is now accepted as "gospel" by many. As any native Scot will tell you, they have never heard or participated in such a service in the auld country. I personally believe the Scottish diaspora community should embrace the Kirkin' as our own tradition, and not try to create some romantic legend as a justification. To me, it's far more inspiring to have the descendants of Scottish immigrants helping the auld country during WWII than the legend that has sprung up.

I know a lot folks subscribe to the John Ford School of history -- "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend" -- while I love John Ford, as a historian, I fight against that way of thinking everyday.

T.

[davidlpope]

As a history instructor, I feel that it does matter, because the original intent of the service wasn't even to "bless" tartans, given that it was a Presbyterian minister who started it.

As an Epsicopalian, I have no problem with blessing tartans and the families they represent.

Todd,

Excellent point. As a Presbyterian, myself, I am always amazed at how many Presbyterian churches do a "Kirking of the Tartans" observance in which the tartans are "blessed". Knox is positively spinning in his grave!

David

[macwilkin]

Todd,

Excellent point. As a Presbyterian, myself, I am always amazed at how many Presbyterian churches do a "Kirking of the Tartans" observance in which the tartans are "blessed". Knox is positively spinning in his grave!

David

That's why when our St. Andrew's Society holds our annual service at a local Presbyterian Church, we tend to focus more on the Scottish roots of the Presbyterian Church. We rotate between that church and the Episcopal parish I attend, and each service is distinct in terms of liturgy, etc.

T.

[Bugbear]

As a history instructor, I feel that it does matter, because the original intent of the service wasn't even to "bless" tartans, given that it was a Presbyterian minister who started it. Dr. Marshall was trying to rally Scottish-American organizations (he was a member of the St. Andrew's Societies of Atlanta and Washington DC) to raise money for an effort to relocate children in Glasgow and Edinburgh to the Highlands to escape Nazi bombing raids in a "Kirkin' of the tartans".

As an Epsicopalian, I have no problem with blessing tartans and the families they represent. My issue is with a inaccurate history of the service which is now accepted as "gospel" by many. As any native Scot will tell you, they have never heard or participated in such a service in the auld country. I personally believe the Scottish diaspora community should embrace the Kirkin' as our own tradition, and not try to create some romantic legend as a justification. To me, it's far more inspiring to have the descendants of Scottish immigrants helping the auld country during WWII than the legend that has sprung up.

I know a lot folks subscribe to the John Ford School of history -- "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend" -- while I love John Ford, as a historian, I fight against that way of thinking everyday.

T.

Kind of sounds like folklore... I suppose it might be interesting to look at the ways folklore plays a role in how people of an era view their history.

[Slag101]

I know a lot folks subscribe to the John Ford School of history -- "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend" -- while I love John Ford, as a historian, I fight against that way of thinking everyday.

T.

That statement wasn't meant to teach a way of thinking, it was an artistic reflection of the reality of the world. John Ford used that line to represent that people want "legends" and what they symbolize. The average person doesn't want the real history behind William Wallace, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc. To quote yet another great movie that made the same point (My Favorite Year, starring Peter O'Toole), "People don't want the real Alan Swan, they want their Alan Swan larger than life, they want him as big as he comes."

This explains the reason why you have encountered resistance to the truth behind the Kirkin O the Tartans. I bet most people, if you really sit down with them, will admit that the legend is BS, but they like the story, and if you tell them the true story, they will say it is nice that "we" helped people out, but after all that, talk to them the next time and they will still be talking about the legend. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I love history too, but I don't believe in teaching it to people, who don't want to learn it, at gun point.

[Slag101]

I would like to say, for all of us out there that like to keep an open mind, KiltedMarine is my hero today.

CajunScot, and everyone else, what part of, "Cannot prove or disprove" do you not get?

While I will agree it to be unlikely to have occurred before the first service in the US, you cannot disprove it either. Just admit to it.

To take logic one step further, there is no knowable truth. The truth is intangible by its very nature, as its interpretation is skewed by the observers morals, beliefs, understanding, knowledge, and physical ability. You name one historical "fact" and there are probably hundreds of versions of information about the same fact, and all of them will be slightly different.

Oh, and My reference for the above statement about logic is as follows:

Siegel, A.J. (2010). The Weakness of Act Utilitarianism.

Should I post all my responses on here in APA or MLA? What do you non-science types with degrees in history use?

[artificer]

CajunScot, and everyone else, what part of, "Cannot prove or disprove" do you not get?

While I will agree it to be unlikely to have occurred before the first service in the US, you cannot disprove it either. Just admit to it.

Unfortunately, in a logical argument, you cannot argue from a position of ignorance.

To argue that because there is a LACK of evidence to disprove doesn't equate to proof (or a 'win') in logic. "Cannot disprove" isn't a logical position. If you are proposing something, the burden of proof falls on your head, there is no burden to disprove.



That said;
From a purely deductive standpoint, and using countries in rural Europe as a model, it isn't out of the realm of possibility that on certain occasions (clan wars, conscription, long and dangerous journeys) that a Scottish wife might take some small memento of her beloved husband or son to the Kirk for a blessing.

Since many in the highlands were quite poor, a token might be as small as a lock of hair, or indeed a scrap of fabric from their clothes (POSSIBLY tartan).

Things like this were done (and probably still are in some places). What is missing here is ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that it was done in any organized fashion (ie "The Kirking Of The Tartan").

More damning still is the fact that Highlanders, by all historical accounts, didn't lend to their tartans the meaning that would be assigned later in Victorian times.

Thus, we COULD infer that while tartan MIGHT have been blessed in isolated cases, Tartan is unlikely to have been blessed en-mass (notice that I didn't say WASN'T).

I don't think anybody is denying that a Kirking couldn't have happened, somewhere along the way, I believe that most are saying that this particular service, especially in it's current form, originated in America.
This is based on all available historical evidence.

To take logic one step further, there is no knowable truth. The truth is intangible by its very nature, as its interpretation is skewed by the observers morals, beliefs, understanding, knowledge, and physical ability. You name one historical "fact" and there are probably hundreds of versions of information about the same fact, and all of them will be slightly different.

"Truth" is for Religion or Philosophy. Fact for the sciences. Conclusions can change given new information. As for History, you are talking about interpretations of facts.

A huge victory for one side may be an horrible betrayal and slaughter to the other. The fact that a battle happened on a given day is THE fact, everything else is POV.

[Kilted-Marine]

Through this debate I have not taken a side as to when I THOUGHT a kirkin may have first happened. My stances has been that we can not prove it did not happened prior to 1940's in the USA.
I am surprised at the level of argument this has caused. because it is a true statement and a fact.
There is no proof it did not happen- IN FACT - if one mother or daughter or wife or sister on one day at one church took a piece of tartan and had it blessed while thinking about her son or husband or brother who was away from home in 1790, or 1823, or 1857, or 1901.. THEN it was done prior.....
It is impossible to prove this did not happen....

Not sure why this idea is so hard to agree with or why it is causes such bitter debate

[xman]

Not sure why this idea is so hard to agree with or why it is causes such bitter debate

*sigh* Simply because your thinking is upside down and you don't seem to be acknowledging it.

We can all imagine all sorts of fanciful notions that, 'well you can't prove it didn't happen', but that's not how critical thinking works. It might be true to say it that way, but it's truer to state that because there is NO evidence for it and NO reason to believe it except that we appreciate the romantic notion that we should logically conclude that it's a fantastic idea with no basis in fact. Can you admit that?