Bravura!

[Archangel]

Lemme let you all in on a secret...

I am that rough unsavoury character that James is talking about in the first post!

That's why I don't care much for neckties and all this proper do this and that talk. I just do what comes natural to me. I am the other end of the spectrum when it comes to kilt wearing. I am the wrinkled unkept looking wildman, with dreadlocks and a fully dreaded beard. I do not looked civilised or tame. I am the boorish oaf that stands on the sidewalk guzzling ginger beer, and then belches with enough explosive force to blow the leaves off a magnolia tree. And there isn't a soul alive that could convince me that I do not honour my ancestors by acting in such a fashion. I take pride in being barbaric. I am masculine. And I have no shame as to what I am.

While I can be quite charming and even kind (when nobody is looking mind you) make no mistake... I am earthy and crude and unrefined. I am vulgar and prone to violent response. And I have been trying to make this point for a long long time that kilt wearing is not just about being proper and prim and well dressed. Infact, I have ruffled a lot of feathers round here with my views. Our ancestors were not a bunch of prim prancing Nancy boys... They were hardasses. They were brawlers. Warriors. Fighters. While some of them might have dressed up on occasion (The Noble sorts I am sure, they had to put on a show) most of them were probably dirty, foul smelling, and looked nothing like the highly romantised image that we have now. They were the sorts of men that would have kicked *** and took names, and when it was all said and done, lifted up the front of their kilt and pissed in somebody's eye.

That's why I love the great kilt so much. A simple garmet for simple men.

Paul to Timothy again.....

Reality is most people were this way, in fact most people still are. Think of it like pro sport, very few athletes are in the aristocratic position. Most are grunts. In the same way, the number of "soft elite" in the world past and present is a lot less than history/Hollywood discusses. Not only is most of our history for, by, and about "dead white guys", it's also by, and about winners and the rich written for the rich and winners. Be very jaded about it.

The point is to remember what a warriors' role is: protect children, therefore protect the mothers and infrastructure. Think tribal, protect "their" children, bringing "them" into the clan. Most people understand the concept of "stand by me and mine, I'll stand by you and yours".

The global clan concept is what is missing and if I say anything more, I'll be crossing Hank's lines again (respect), if I haven't already (peace).

[Dreadbelly]

I take great comfort in looking and acting the way I do. It drives folk away.

People are very, very suprised to find that I am actually well spoken, educated, and a completely different person under this frightful shell. Many never learn this... They are driven away by the image I project. They judge a book by it's cover. And I don't want them around me. I cultivate my image to drive people away from me, it is my armor, my protection. The people that look past all of it to see me for what I really am as a person are the people I want around me.

Always keep people guessing.

And I do see my self as a "tribal" sort of person. I am clannish. I am all about loyalty and protecting women and children. I get penalised for this quite often, "sticking my nose where it don't belong" and "what gives you the right to go and bust somebody's chops for that" and all that.

The kilt, the culture, the history, and most importantly the ideals behind all of these things, these are what I identify with deep inside my spirit, my soul. I have values, concepts, and beliefs that are not well accepted in this day and age. I am a romantic. I am earthy. I like to let the mud squish between me toes and the rain to run down in to my beard.

The wearing of the kilt has been an awakening to me.

[Doc Hudson]

Dreadbelly wrote:

They were the sorts of men that would have kicked *** and took names,

Sorry Dr. Douglas. I must disagree.

Unless there was a bounty on the asses to be kicked, I doubt if they bothered to take the names.

I figure that kicking *** and not bothering with the names would be more their style.

[Dreadbelly]

Dreadbelly wrote:


Sorry Dr. Douglas. I must disagree.

Unless there was a bounty on the asses to be kicked, I doubt if they bothered to take the names.

I figure that kicking *** and not bothering with the names would be more their style.

Actually, that bit about taking names is pretty important a long time ago after a melee.

After a battle, if there were mecenaries involved, a house or clan fighting in the emply of another house or clan, it was common practice to torture or otherwise pry out information. "Taking names" was extracting information. "Who sent you?" "Why did you attack me?" "Who is paying you!"

Sending hired thugs was all to common at the time.

Of course, uttering a name would likely get you killed later by your employer. Or you could utter the wrong name and get a war started.

Of course, this is all trivia and is dangerously close to being off topic, which is frowned upon.

[Archangel]

Actually, that bit about taking names is pretty important a long time ago after a melee.

After a battle, if there were mecenaries involved, a house or clan fighting in the emply of another house or clan, it was common practice to torture or otherwise pry out information. "Taking names" was extracting information. "Who sent you?" "Why did you attack me?" "Who is paying you!"

Sending hired thugs was all to common at the time.

Of course, uttering a name would likely get you killed later by your employer. Or you could utter the wrong name and get a war started.

Of course, this is all trivia and is dangerously close to being off topic, which is frowned upon.

No, I don't think we're off-topic...yet. The original post was about good he-man barbarian as opposed to bad unmanly civilized. We're in the process of defining the terms. You brought up a good point and Doc Hudson challenged it. You in turn defended your position. I'm going to suggest that you're closer to fact.
Coincidentally, you're supporting my post. Most of what we know as etiquette evolved from warriors working out how to negotiate, especially how to come to the table. Names become important for prisoner exchange and ransom, also to recognize those in power who may be the voice necessary in future negotiations. If you're not one of those people, Doc is right, you're toast.

You're not likely to find autobiographical barbarians, the civilized write about "them". Barbarian is not "us". You will find all barbarians trying to negotiate in a civilized manner at some point in their history.

(hmm, I'm using absolutes again, dangerous, aha, I can say the attempts at negotiation weren't not documented to support the civilized view that "they" were, indeed, barbarians, that oughta work>)

[Blu (Ontario)]

Anyone want ketchup with their fries??

[Dreadbelly]

I live by a sort of warrior code. Like, hmm, in my confrontation with the meth head in the general store, I popped him one good one and warned him not to move or he was gonna get it again. And had he lied still, I would have left him alone. While I can be quite cruel and merciless on those that deserve it, in general, confrontations must follow certain rules. I issued an ultimatum. And he failed to comply with the terms and conditions. Thus, I was forced to apply brutal methods to make him comply with my wishes, and thus preserve the safety of all those around me.

Here I go exposing my self again, but Sun Tzu's Art of War was, and still is, very much like a Bible for me. A handbook on how to live your life and conduct your self. I read it as a young boy actually, for the first time. I was looking for a book on how to conduct war. My enemies were the bullies of the school. The book was profound. Life changing. Even as a child. When I got older and read it again, even was even more profound and life changing. It was something I understood, something already deep inside me, but I lacked the wisdom and the vocabulary to put it in to words. And somebody done put it in to words for me.

I am fairly sure warriors all over the globe had their own code. Some were better than others, some held to more honourable causes, and some had no honour at all. Scotland was no different. Infact, even though I only know a little on this subject, I would dare venture a guess that the Scots were far more honourable in their warrior code than the English, who time and time again broke treaty after treaty and was constantly backstabbing anybody and everybody they could.

Being violent and dangerous and dare I say, "barbaric" does not make you any less of a human being. Quite the opposite. Some of the greatist people on this earth have been barbarians. Ghengis Khan. Atilla the Hun. William Wallace. (Yes, he was considered a barbarian by the victors, those who write history)

There is no shame in being considered earthy and crude. One should take pride in it. To further prove my point, a kilt looks just as noble and provokes just as much emotion on a dirty, bloodied, battle weary fellow as it does when dressed to the nines in some ballroom.

[Dreadbelly]

Anyone want ketchup with their fries??

Fries are best served in one of two ways. With malted vinegar, or with salsa and grated cheese.

Harumph.

[motorman4life]

Fries are best served in one of two ways. With malted vinegar, or with salsa and grated cheese.
Harumph.

I agree. Can I get a cold beer with that?

[Ranald]

[QUOTE=motorman4life]Painting in broad strokes, it is easy to see why and how a 17th and 18th century Highlander would have been a rough character. But, I am sure there was a degree of kindness, compassion and hospitality among their ranks and within their communities (Same as the Vikings and Normans that brought the kilt to the British Isles and introduced it to the Anglo-Saxons that had settled there after the Romans departed).


Where did you get this snippit of info, if you refering to the sagas I think you need more evidence to support your line of thought.
Sorry for being off topic but evidence I sought out suggests that vikings and saxons did not wear kilts.