A question on ethics...

[macwilkin]

This leads back to the idea that tartans are not just pretty patterns, they have a meaning-be that meaning of Clan-a pattern reserved for the Chief , or maybe The Royal Family, and so on-maybe for an American Police Pipe Band or whatever. The last might be of recent origin, but albeit new-a tradition that I for one would respect, and a part of that respect would be to not wear that tartan, for to do so would be to masquarade under a false flag.

Coming full circle, if there is to be any validity to the kilt as we know it, we need to see it as more than just a sensible way to dress: rather it is something linking us to our heritage, a heritage of which we are, or should be proud. A heritage of which we cannot cherry pick the bits we like and ignore the bits we feel do not suit our wishes of the moment.

It is our choice, we either buy into the entire package as an entire package: or we throw it out of the window and lose any right to claim that wearing the kilt is anything other than a possibly eccentric, albeit sensible way of dressing.

Well said, James, especially the last paragraph.

Cheers,

Todd

[ronstew]

James, I think you are taking the argument too far by saying that we must accept all or none of the Highland kilt tradition. Kilt style evolution is a historical reality, but had stalled until recently. Now it is moving again, in different ways in different regions. I don't see that as a problem.

[arrogcow]

Frankly, no matter what you do, you're going to offend someone. In actuality most tartans were not created to be a "Clan" tartan, but most people now recognise them as being associated with specific clans today. Some clans don't care who wear their tartan, some get offended if you can't prove close family ties. Districe tartans should be available to anyone, but if you actually check, district tartans are linked to family names that have no other clan affiliations (for instance the tartan I'm "supposed" to wear is the Aberdeen tartan).

But then there are the univeral tartans (Black Watch, Royal Stewart). Some don't have any problem with anyone wearing these. I on the other hand still pick and choose (I would never wear BW because I was not in the BW, It would be like me wearing the USMC tartan when I was in the Army). But there are plenty of tartans that have no clan/regiment/family etc ( Heritage of Scotland, Granite, Braveheart, ad nausium).

Again some will be offended by someone not a "Scot" wearing a kilt, though when does someone become or not become a "Scot". I can't join my local Caledonian Society because the closest relative I have actually had on the ground in Scotland was 11 generations and nearly 350 years ago (and his last name was Tullos - no clan there). However, I have Thompsons, Wilsons, Langfords, Lightfoots, Robersons (Robertsons) and and others in my family tree.

As for the Saltre, most Americans are more concerned with the treatment of flag icons than people in the UK (though this thread has shown that some people in the UK are offended by it as well). Americans have a near religious facination with flags (and I could go into that being one of the warnings of a facist state, but that would get this thread nipped in a hurry). My own thought is that the Saltre kilt was designed in Scotland, and is being sold by Scots. On the other hand I find it ugly and would not wear one myself. As for it being a desicrations, think on this, when was the last time you heard someone bashing Rebok for having a Brittish flag on them (I mean your walking in dirt and mud and puddles and what not)?

I guess basically what I'm saying is you have to do what feels right to you, and realize that no matter what someone is going to think you're wrong.

Adam

[Iolaus]

It is our choice, we either buy into the entire package as an entire package: or we throw it out of the window and lose any right to claim that wearing the kilt is anything other than a possibly eccentric, albeit sensible way of dressing.

That's my arguement. Not that I don't want a tank in the particular tartan that I am stongly connected with, but after giving the this idea a lot of thought when I first starting wearing them, I realized that I'm not wearing kilts as a way of celebrating my heritage, but rather to be both eccentric and comfortable - to "non-conform," I guess, in a way that is different from the other "non-conformists" - and I'm not going to let the traditional standards of another culture limit what I wear casually.

That said, I still have to agree with your other statement:

In respect of the Saltire kilt with the flag displayed upon the buttocks-it is one of the most offensive things I have seen in my life. Certainly I'd not sit upon the Union Flag, and manners would stop me sitting on the American Flag or any other such standard. The Saltire is a most noble emblem, and should not, rather must not be demeaned in such a way: and certainly anyone doing so, can only be described as odious.

I am very patriotic, and, stylized or not, the Saltare on the kilt is still being used to portray the Scottish flag and should be treated as respectfully as any other national symbol.

[macwilkin]

District tartans should be available to anyone, but if you actually check, district tartans are linked to family names that have no other clan affiliations (for instance the tartan I'm "supposed" to wear is the Aberdeen tartan).

I disagree with this statement. Some sources, such as "Tartan for Me!", do list specific district tartans that certain surnames are affiliated with, but the whole purpose of the district/state/provincial tartan is to provide a tartan that anyone one can wear -- read the offical literature regarding the US state tartans, and many of them will state that anyone may wear it. Some choose a district tartan because they are from that place; others wear it because of a family connection, or because they happen to like that particular place.

Again some will be offended by someone not a "Scot" wearing a kilt, though when does someone become or not become a "Scot". I can't join my local Caledonian Society because the closest relative I have actually had on the ground in Scotland was 11 generations and nearly 350 years ago (and his last name was Tullos - no clan there). However, I have Thompsons, Wilsons, Langfords, Lightfoots, Robersons (Robertsons) and and others in my family tree.

Does your local Caledonian Society have that strict of membership requirements, or are you just assuming that they do? Most Caledonian/Scottish societies do not require that much documented proof of Scottish ancestry, and many today only require an interest in "all things Scottish" for membership, mostly due to non-profit status qualifications with the IRS. In our society, for example, one of hardest working members is a full-blooded German Lutheran from Nebraska!

Regards,

Todd

[KiltedKnight]

I dunno...there are so many great posts here and I won't respond to all of them, mainly because I was born lazy and have been losing ground ever since. What I will say is this; there are so many kilt-makers these days trying to sell their product that they will do anything, make up any tartan and invent any 'custom' to sell them and generally it is the ignorant but ernest person that falls for the ruse and buys something like that Saltaire Kilt or that rediculous American flag material kilt and later learns what an insult, (in my opinion), it is.

I can't stand and will never do any bargaining with any outfit that will go to these lengths to make a quick buck. There are plenty of great outlets that sell some quality goods that suffer because of what I can only refer to as a fad. Remember fads? They come and they go and folks just spend a lot of bucks on them and they stay in your bedroom closet until they are just thrown out because nobody wants them anymore.

Chris.

[way2fractious]

...after giving the this idea a lot of thought when I first starting wearing them, I realized that I'm not wearing kilts as a way of celebrating my heritage, but rather to be both eccentric and comfortable - to "non-conform," I guess, in a way that is different from the other "non-conformists"...

I agree fully with Iolaus on this one. Not a drop of Scot in me, though my wife (and therefore my kids and grandkids) has a drop or two.

Do kiltmakers have to be Scottish, too? As an aspiring kiltmaker, I am awed and fascinated by the materials and the construction of these garments. Many societies worldwide have similar garments for men, but the so-called "traditional Scottish kilt" is an amazing and intricate form. Thanks for that goes mainly to the English military and the English court, which institutions tried both to eradicate highland heritage, and to preserve and restore it.

Flags are icons of people's common values and symbols of their governments; regimental tartans (and badges and mottos and...) are icons of brotherhoods forged on battlefields; once "clan" and "district" tartans were chosen and codified, they became iconic; the Scottish kilt, itself, is an icon recognized worldwide. If "emulation is the sincerest form of respect," then as we adopt - and adapt - these icons, we are handling images that require understanding and deep respect for their proper application. That DOES NOT mean we have to follow every written or unwritten tradition regarding it, but we DO have to approach it from a positive angle and try not to GIVE offense, even if some TAKE offense.

It is a shame that these discussions often devolve into turf fights. Small group dynamics (A.K.A. cliques, clannishness, provincialism) serve an individual's needs to belong and to exercise a degree of control, but these same dynamics seem to block the interchange for which this forum was designed.

A very large percentage of the members of this board have expressed their interest in wearing kilts as a way to demonstrate their masculinity in an "eccentric, non-conforming" way. Their stories bear out the huge amount of positive response and acceptance the public returns. I have also discovered this relatively new way to expand other parts of my personality by making my own wonderfully expressive kilts, sporrans, and other pieces of my own regalia.

Hey! Anyone want to start an XMarksTheScot clan...?

[arrogcow]

I disagree with this statement. Some sources, such as "Tartan for Me!", do list specific district tartans that certain surnames are affiliated with, but the whole purpose of the district/state/provincial tartan is to provide a tartan that anyone one can wear -- read the offical literature regarding the US state tartans, and many of them will state that anyone may wear it. Some choose a district tartan because they are from that place; others wear it because of a family connection, or because they happen to like that particular place.

I'm not saying anyone can't wear a district tartan, just that someone (Tartan Authority especialy) has assigned names to most Scottish district tartans.

Does your local Caledonian Society have that strict of membership requirements, or are you just assuming that they do? Most Caledonian/Scottish societies do not require that much documented proof of Scottish ancestry, and many today only require an interest in "all things Scottish" for membership, mostly due to non-profit status qualifications with the IRS. In our society, for example, one of hardest working members is a full-blooded German Lutheran from Nebraska!

I haven't actually tried, but they do want documented Scot ancestry (which I can actually give, he was just 11 genetations ago). On a positive note in just the last year they are allowing women to join (not kidding , about a year ago the requirements were male over 18 with Scottish ancestry - this morning I saw that they had dropped the male requirement).

Adam

[M. A. C. Newsome]

If I may make a minor, but important point. The question over whether or not a given thing is ethical, and the question whether or not a given thing may offend some people, are two different and distinct questions.

It is quite possible for me to behave in a completely ethical and moral way and offend many people. It's also possible for me to behave rather unethically and few people be offended.

While a gentleman should always consider others' feelings and sensibilities, and should never do anything with the express intent to be offensive, one must also take into account that any given action is theoretically possible to offend somebody and if you make all your decisions based on fear of possibly offending someone, you'll end up a wishy-washy mess (and that I find offensive!).

For every individual who would actually get offended at the thought of someone wearing a clan tartan they are not "entitled" to (whatever that might mean to them), I can find you ten who feel otherwise.

I'll relate one story that is illustrative. A friend of mine, who is a Grant, was wearing his new Black Watch kilt at a Highland Games. (His father served in the Black Watch, and Black Watch is also used by clan Grant as a hunting tartan, so he has a double connection to the tartan). He was at a vendor's tent, browsing through some books, when a man whom he had never met stomped up to him, absolutely livid! "Why are you wearing that tartan?!" he demanded.

"Well," my friend calmly replied, "this is the Black Watch tartan and my father served in the..."

Before he could even get the sentence out, the man said, "That's the Murray clan tartan, and I'm a Murray and I want to know what gives you the right to wear my clan tartan!"

My friend attempted to explain that this was not the Murray tartan, that it was the Black Watch, but the man refused to listen. Eventually my friend just walked away, leaving the man in a huff. (Note, the men didn't even ask him if he was a Murray by chance -- he just assumed he was not for whatever reason).

The above example is extreme, but my point is that you might offend someone regardless of what "rules" you follow. So the question of whether this or that mode of dress is ethical, while related, is distinct from the question of how others may or may not be offended by it.

Clothing designed to be offensive (vulgar t-shirts, or clothing with racist or bigoted slogans or symbols) is unethical for that reason, yes. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about a positive symbol, like tartan, and whether or not it is possible for someone to be offended if you don't follow their percieved version of "the rules."

M

[macwilkin]

I'm not saying anyone can't wear a district tartan, just that someone (Tartan Authority especialy) has assigned names to most Scottish district tartans.


I haven't actually tried, but they do want documented Scot ancestry (which I can actually give, he was just 11 genetations ago). On a positive note in just the last year they are allowing women to join (not kidding , about a year ago the requirements were male over 18 with Scottish ancestry - this morning I saw that they had dropped the male requirement).

Adam

Adam,

Usually a district tartan is "recommended" for a certain surname because there might be a large of people with that surname living in that area, or did so at some point. But, only individual research really should determine where your particular branch came from, and what tartan to wear, if you would use that as your "claim" to a district tartan.

Todd