Cultural Appropriation?

[freep]

If this from the article noted above doesn't say it all, it says most of it:

"The 'old world' of tartan has to take care that it is not hidebound by the past: it may raise an eyebrow but it should not disdain the 'new world' of tartan. After all, the north American 'Kirkin' o' the Tartan' is not too distantly removed from the Gaelic sentiments of spirituality from Carmina Gadelica: the symbolism of colours used in new tartans is not too distant from the Victorian invention of the funeral tartan; the speckled grey of Prince Albert's Balmoral tartan or the blue and green of the Rangers and Celtic football club tartans."
--http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan/tartan-today/

A professor of Native American history once expressed strong dislike for the statue called, "End of the Trail" which shows a warrior on horseback, his shoulders are slumped, his head hanging as does that of his horse, his lance points earthward. . . It is the end of his people.

Except for one minor detail, his people are still here. They have changed, however. Evolved to meet the needs of time's onward press. They are still here, still proud, still embrace their culture and religion and still Native American.

I kind of see the kilt in the same light. From its inception as a modification of a brat through feileadh mòr, onto feileadh beag, into the modern 'formal' kilt, and thence to utility kilt it has likewise evolved. It is against nature to try to stop evolution, of peoples, of governments, of . . . well, anything. Especially fashion!

So, where will the kilt go from here? Beats me. I do know that I'm probably going to wear my kilts in ways that would cause more than few on this forum to grind their teeth. Sorry for that, but you see, I can't help it. I'm wearing a garment rooted in the past (a past that is partly mine, but truly, that's irrelevant) in ways that make me smile. Not in laughter, but in the satisfaction of doing something that works for me and feels right. I respect the origins of the kilt and its creators and truly believe I do nothing with my kilt that any of those who created, then altered the kilt over centuries have not already done. I do hope it doesn't bother you overmuch. Sorry if so, but again, I can't help it. I'm just an unwitting agent of evolution, right?

Slainte

[Peter Lowe]

All clothing...whether we like it or not says something about who we are...and more importantly about how much and what we want to reveal about who we are.

I think a person can respect and revere their Scottish ancestry without being a citizen of Scotland. And I think if a person is truly mindful of what "respect" means and implies...and wears the kilt with respect for its Traditions...then it is not cultural appropriation. Maybe it's costume but all clothing is. Maybe it's posing/pretense but again all clothing is, to some extent. Only naked are we completely without artifice.

And in my opinion to wear the kilt with respect, you have to do it right. You have to, again, respect the kilt's Traditions, and its antecedents--respect it for what it is and has been, and not for what you want it to be. In that regard, tartan is almost the defining aspect of the Scottish kilt.

Anything else just piles pretense on pretense...in my opinion.

The main reason...again in my opinion...that people wear the kilt whether it be in Scotland or New Zealand or Nova Scotia is so that they and their children will not forget. Not forget who they are. And where they come from. Personally, I can find nothing wrong with that.

How many actual Scottish citizens wear the kilt...with or without respect? Not many, AFAIK. The real question in all this is..why not?

Maybe they want to forget??

Good post!
Your question is a minefield as there is not one answer - there are many!
I was born in Scotland to an English Father and Scots Mother.
I am proud to be Scots but I am also proud to be British thereby recognising my ancestry.
In the past year I have worn the kilt in Scotland and New Zealand but, sadly, not in Nova Scotia! I have worn it around 50 times. Not a lot you may say but more often than almost all the trousers (pants) that I own.
For many Scots the kilt is a big ticket purchase and therefore a "special occasion" garment. While I do not have figures to back this I think that a surprisingly high number will wear the kilt a few times a year with pride and respect.
I do not think that they want to forget. I think that their "remembering" mechanism may be different and diverse! Just my 2p's worth!

[DWFII]

I think the heart of the issue and the reason this question is so "fraught" and why it makes so many uneasy is simply the recognition that it "feels" a little arrogant to dismiss, or even talk about, cultural appropriation when in fact most of us aren't truly part of that culture.

If the kilt is going to "evolve" it has to evolve within the context of Scottish culture. Anything else is simply a distortion, if only because it is imposed from the outside. And as such, it runs a pretty good risk of being dismissive, at best and/or mocking at worst (even if not intentional).

I suspect most of us would be hesitant to interpret or modify Native American ceremonies or Traditional clothing even if we were partly native American ourselves.

As has been said here so many times that it is almost a veiled threat--"there are no kilt police." People can (and do) wear what they want to wear. But it seems to me that there's an element of self-delusion in thinking it doesn't make a difference. I've seen enough of these conversations to suspect that it does make a difference--to Scots, if no one else, and to whether the kilt (and by extension, Scottish culture), is respected.

There was a fellow (actor? comedian?) back in the '30's or '40's (?) who wore the kilt and affected Scottish mannerisms so broadly that he (and his "look" and "character") became a laughing stock world-wide. Robin Williams did a schtick in which he did verbal expositions in bogus Doric or Scots. My first thought when I heard it was "Is he Scottish?" "Is he even of Scottish "ancestry? Or does he just feel entitled?"

In any case, many people thought it was funny...and on some rather superficial level, I suppose it was.

But it was also sad because no matter how you cut it, it was fundamentally mockery. Mocking a unique and invaluable cultural heritage. One that he perhaps didn't understand enough to appropriate.

--

[KyleAisteach]

I just want to thank everyone again for all the thoughtful replies. It's proving very helpful.

It's sounding to me like this:

Registering a tartan = almost certainly not appropriative.
Using your own tartan for various non-kilt products = not appropriative.
Wearing / encouraging members to wear a non-tartan kilt = probably not appropriative.
Wearing /encouraging members to wear a tartan kilt = potentially appropriative (with the standard followup conversation of where we draw the line between inappropriate cultural appropriation and normal and healthy cross-cultural influences).

What do y'all think? Could I take a (more detailed, of course) consensus like that back to the board?

(More discussion is, of course, encouraged. I'm not going to start writing anything up for several days at least.)

[Steve Ashton]

In your catagory "Wearing /encouraging members to wear a tartan kilt" I would make a distinction between a Clan Tartan and your company Tartan.

Wearing a tie in your company Tartan or even a kilt in your company Tartan would be different that wearing a Clan Tartan as a company one.

[O'Callaghan]

Comrades,

Excuse the intrusion but just to clarify -- the tartan kilt as we know it isn't Irish but is Scottish in origin unless I'm mistaken (which is entirely possible). Also, "Celtic" descent doesn't really matter as not all Celtic cultures had a tartan kilt. Since I currently don't live in Ireland or Scotland and am not Irish or Scottish, I will be very careful about my response to the cultural appropriation question. I agree with Jock, Steve, and CDN -- I don't think it's cultural appropriation in this situation at all. If I were to get tattooed with spiritual and sacred images of another culture, or to wear another culture's spiritual head-dress then that's an entirely different story.

(Further, which I hesitate to include ... but six of my eight great-grandparents were born in Ireland and subsequently moved to the US. I have spent years traveling and living in Ireland, I am a fluent Irish-speaker, and play traditional music but I don't consider myself Irish. I'm American ... yes, with Irish background but when people ask, "Are you Irish?" my response is "No, I'm American." One doesn't have to be French to enjoy French wine or to speak French after all.)

Regards,
Jonathan

The kilt is Scottish in origin, but like most things in life, it isn't that simple.

The great kilt (a sort of toga like garment) originated in the Scottish highlands, but was derived from an Irish cloak called the brat (pronounced like bratwurst, not like an unruly kid) by the simple expedient of fastening it with a belt around the waist instead of fastening it at the neck, some say to combat the windy highland weather. Modern kilts then evolved from the great kilt, also in Scotland, in several further simple stages, for which I will spare you their gaelic names.

Fast forward to the 19th century, a period that some say is not historic, but as it was over a century ago, my question to them is are they old enough to remember it? No? Then it is historic. Some people in Ireland, including the Gaelic League, decided that they wanted to promote traditional clothing as a symbol of Irish separatism (both parts of Ireland were still under British rule in those days). Some wanted to promote the leine (plural leinte). This is gaelic for shirt, but they meant the linen garment worn by their ancestors without trousers, and traditionally dyed with saffron. What emerged instead was the solid colour kilt, dyed either saffron or green (how green emerged as a symbol of Irish nationalism is a story in itself). In truth, that was not something their ancestors had worn, but has certainly been around long enough now to have become part of history in its own right.

As we get even closer to the present day, Irish tartans began to be registered, usually by the tartan mills themselves. Now, whilst the Irish brat (which, you may recall, was the forerunner of the Scottish kilt) was commonly made in various tartans, the sett (pattern) had no significance, and the Irish kilts of the 19th century were specifically non-tartan to distinguish them from their Scottish counterparts, but where there's money involved, things have a habit of going astray.

To balance the other side of the ledger, the setts of early Scottish tartan kilts had no significance either. It is estimated that by the Battle of Culloden (1745) only about two dozen Scottish clans had their own clan tartan, and that only half of those were the same sett as worn today by the same clan. Today there are around 200 Scottish clans with their own registered tartan, and we will draw a veil over how many of those even existed as clans in 1745, but certainly not a majority of them. Most of them were considered to be merely septs (divisions, not the same word as sett) of other clans back then, and for that matter, still were even a couple of centuries later. But, as with the Irish, the tartan industry has added a lot of rather new tartans!

ETA: I see you speak Irish Gaelic, whereas I only have a cupla focal, but, for example, leine in this context does not simply mean a modern shirt.

[Liam]

I just want to thank everyone again for all the thoughtful replies. It's proving very helpful.

It's sounding to me like this:

Registering a tartan = almost certainly not appropriative.
Using your own tartan for various non-kilt products = not appropriative.
Wearing / encouraging members to wear a non-tartan kilt = probably not appropriative.
Wearing /encouraging members to wear a tartan kilt = potentially appropriative (with the standard followup conversation of where we draw the line between inappropriate cultural appropriation and normal and healthy cross-cultural influences).

What do y'all think? Could I take a (more detailed, of course) consensus like that back to the board?

(More discussion is, of course, encouraged. I'm not going to start writing anything up for several days at least.)

Registering your tartan... Perhaps to provide a record of its details for the future
I see no issue with non-kilt use of tartan, ie ties, hand bags, scarves, blankets, wraps, women's dresses, vests, hats, capes etc.
There is no cultural significance in a non-tartan kilt so fill your boots
Wear a tartan kilt with respect, unless you are part of the "tartan army on manoeuvres" as Jock Scot puts it, then traditional rules are relaxed.
Just my thoughts....
Cheers!

[KyleAisteach]

Wear a tartan kilt with respect

I think this is exactly where much of the current cultural appropriation discussion has come from, because there is so much culture-specific dress being turned into Halloween costumes lately. If you're putting it on because it's funny, just don't. That one's easy.

The interesting cultural appropriation discussion to me is about the people who are trying to be respectful by wearing it, but don't really understand what they're doing, and how different rules seem to apply to different cultures. We're a weird species.

Again, everyone, thanks for the thoughts. I really, really appreciate it.

[Nathan]

My view is probably going to ruffle some feathers. I don't mean any disrespect to the erudite and eloquent folks that posted their thoughtful comments before me.

In my view, Highland attire has already long-ago been appropriated by non-Highland Scots. The particular combination of tartan, kilt, sporran etc... that was once a recognizable sign of a Gael is no longer symbolic of this cultural group. Rather, the costume of the Gael as well as his music has been appropriated and nationalized by his historical antagonist, the non-Gaelic Scots and, as evidenced by this thread, is now considered "Scottish" attire by many.

The fact that CDN says the Scots were not an oppressed group speaks to the fact that many don't make a distinction between the English Speaking Tobacco and Plantation giants of Glasgow and the poor Gaelic-speaking crofter of the Hebrides. Some Scots were the oppressed and others were the oppressors.

It gets more complicated when we consider the role of class rather than just ethnicity in this history. Land owning Lairds and Chiefs, while ethnically Gaelic were educated in the English system and became culturally distinct from their tenants. That notwithstanding, they still inherited the traditions of Highland attire and music intergenerationally through their families.

This all happened at a very different time in history and, to be sure, sensitivities were not as they are today around such matters. This particular act of cultural appropriation happened during a period when Highland culture was romanticized and exoticised. Ironically, whilst the culture of the Gael was being celebrated in books and songs, the actual Gaels were facing abject poverty, famine and clearances.

That having been said, the appropriation of Highland culture and its symbols adopted as pan-Scottish culture has actually had a unifying effect on the Scottish populace. Gael and Anglophone alike today regard kilts and bagpipes as Scottish, rather than Highland/Gaelic things. This national unity is certainly not without its good points.

What must next be recognized is that Gaels and Anglo-Scots alike benefited (and continue to benefit) financially from the export of these cultural products to diaspora communities around the world. They also spread throughout the British empire via the military.

It is, therefore, difficult to say that something has been stolen when it has, in fact, been sold. Woolen mills, weavers and outfitters in Inverness and other Highland communities have been enriched from the export of this culture as much as anyone.

In summary, many identifiable elements of Gaidhlig culture have been appropriated but it happened so long ago that there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. At this point, all that can be hoped for is that some respect be shown toward these things by those who are enthusiastic about them.

Especially in the Scottish context, the walls between nationality, language, territory, culture and class are porous rather than tall and rigid so the language used to describe the European American's adopting of Aboriginal North American symbols and culture don't really fit like a glove. Still, they can provide some food for thought.

Slàinte mhath!

Natan

[TRWXXA]

LoL @ Google Fu! I think I'll be using that term from now on.

You can't use it. The term itself is "cultural appropriation".



This may be the dumbest discussion on this forum.

Is life so free of problems that we have to go around inventing them? "Cultural appropriation"? Really?! Give me an effing break.