Was Tartan ever actually banned?

[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.