Was Tartan ever actually banned?

[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?

[macwilkin]

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

Respectfully, Mark -- I would tend to agree that your speculation above is possible -- in fact, I've cited two documented stories that bear a resemblance to it. The issue I have is with the undocumented story of an organized liturgy coming out of the days of the Act of Proscription that is promoted today.

I can only speak for myself, but I am not bitter towards you -- as Barry Goldwater said, we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

T.

[artificer]

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

Debate (even hard fought) isn't bitter, unless people allow personal feelings to be hurt. I don't think anyone is really bent out of shape here, it's just a logical argument. I'd be willing to bet that anyone on either side would gladly sit down after all this is through and enjoy a pint together.

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....

Mark, this is exactly the scenario I illustrated above. But one wife/mother/sister going for a personal blessing ISN'T "The Kirkin of the Tartans" service. It's a personal prayer.

Blessings for loved ones in harm's way aren't new. I don't think anyone would argue that they weren't done SOMEWHERE along the way in Scotland's rather turbulent history.

An whole 'Historical" mass dedicated to "The Tartans" is what I think the Historian side is arguing against (or, certainly, against proof of).

Edit:

I would argue that you can argue from a position of ignorance, because logic would dictate that if you are unaware of your ignorance, you are therefore not ignorant in you thought or belief. Also, logic does not equal a win lose scenario. Win/lose is only a possible outcome, not an end result. I digress, it is ultimately defiant of us to the greater utility of this forum to continue to debate logic. Clearly you would then see the logic in this argument being won or lost, as we have circumvented what is of greatest utility to anyone of us or all of us. As this forum also has rules, we even fail in the acceptance of rule utilitarianism because we have all high jacked the OP's thread.

Unfortunately, "we know there are things that we don't know" only carries us so far. You cannot, in logic, define things with wishes and ignorance.

Historians are well aware that they are not in command of all the facts, and that documentation is tainted by POV. This is imperfect, and part of life. The end goal of logic isn't a WIN, but less 'illogic'.

I do agree that the thread has been highjacked. In that I think we can all agree and share a measure of culpability.

[macwilkin]

I'm not so sure I agree that the thread was "hijacked"; the OP was about the Act of Proscription, and the Kirkin' legend supposedly stems from that period. Just as the OP discussed the myth of the ban on kilts & tartans, the kirkin' legend would also technically fall under that heading.

T.

[Slag101]

I would argue that you can argue from a position of ignorance, because logic would dictate that if you are unaware of your ignorance, you are therefore not ignorant in you thought or belief. Also, logic does not equal a win lose scenario. Win/lose is only a possible outcome, not an end result. I digress, it is ultimately defiant of us to the greater utility of this forum to continue to debate logic. Clearly you would then see the logic in this argument being won or lost, as we have circumvented what is of greatest utility to anyone of us or all of us. As this forum also has rules, we even fail in the acceptance of rule utilitarianism because we have all high jacked the OP's thread.

The more important argument of logic here is:
If no one is around, and god is dead, can the tartan be kirked? (no offense to anyone's spiritual/religious beliefs, it's a philosophy joke)

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.




"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.

Did a battle happen, or was it a skirmish? Fistfight? Scuffle? How you define a battle may differ from what everyone else thinks, therefore, to you, your thoughts are truth, to others not so. Your thoughts might even be outright lies, and intentional at that. Once again proving that the truth is intangible, everything is reported with prejudice and predetermination, and cannot be true.