FAO Jock Scot / Phil re: Tat and the Scottish Identity

[PEEDYC]

If the kilt is worn "properly" and with dignity and is a celebration of Scottish heritage or even just out of respect then I cannot see a problem even although it is deemed to be our National Dress.

I for one would not ask a member of the Gurkha Regiment to stop wearing the tartan trews or disband their pipe band because they are not Scottish or even of Scottish descent. (I once danced the Highland Fling at a New Years celebration in London with a Gurkha piper playing) I also just reviewed the 2009 Edinburgh Military Tattoo when the Jordanian Army pipe band were on parade wearing their own distinctive uniforms. Even 42 Commando of HM Royal Marines has a pipe band and used to wear the kilt with special permission and one of the RM depots has its own tartan designed by an RM Colonel. This is done either because ....... You fill in the blanks !!!!!!

[Lyle1]

This thread has strayed far from its original theme and, although that is hardly new here, it might be time to return to the original subject which was the debasement of a culture by the commercialisation of the symbols and traditions of that culture.

OK, Phil; I'll try.

While I agree that cultural symbols and traditions are often debased through commercialization or even by well meaning folks who are descendants of the involved cultures, I also think that these very activities often keep those cultural symbols and traditions alive. If not in use or at least in view, culture withers and dies. If it survives in an altered state, at least some germ of the culture lives. Most immigrants to the Americas brought at least some of the practices of their homelands with them, but in order to continue those practices, creative adaptation was required, as has been discussed in this forum in other threads. I am not a purest. I do believe that some things are worth doing well or not at all, but compromise is often necessary to have any piece of the pie.

Personally I do not much care what people from other countries think about the way in which I observe, and thus continue, the cultures of my ancestors, and that sentiment extends to when, where, and how I wear a kilt. Quite frankly, I don't understand why they seem to care so much about something that they have no reason to think they can control. I expect to be in Scotland in April 2012, and I have not yet thought much about whether I will take a kilt or leave it at home. If I take a kilt, I will probably, out of respect, try to wear it in a more traditional way than I normally do, but, then again, the Scots in whose company I would likely wear a kilt do not wear their kilts traditionally!


No one owns a culture. Culture is fluid; it constantly evolves. You can love a culture or hate it, but you can never really control it.

[kilted scholar]

Two tangential comments.
I lived in the USA for nearly 30 years. When I first arrived a fellow student introduced himself: "Hi, my name's Vanderbrink, I'm Dutch." "Pleased to meet you," I replied, "when did you come over?" "Oh, my ancestors came over three hundred years ago!"
Here was I, assuming everyone who lived in the USA was an unqualified "American" and anyone describing themselves in terms of another country could only be a recent immigrant.
My Dutch friend - while of course considering himself American - thought of himself also as Dutch. I assure you, he was play-acting at neither.
In fact, I soon discovered that the Dutch settlements were often in areas greatly resembling the Netherlands - Michigan, northern New Jersey - in very flat terrain. Moreover, there still exists interaction in the circles with which I am familiar - ecclesiastical ones - between the Netherlands and north America. The Dutch Americans have retained a distinct cultural identity, supported by strong educational and religious institutions of their own, within the American scene. Hence the slogans often seen "if you're not Dutch, you're not much."
The second concerns the English language. My mother was English. I was taught that deviation from the OED was little short of criminal. "How dare these upstart people in Scotland, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, and now India and elsewhere meddle with this great language and the culture it represents" she might fume (if ever she wanted). What nonsense that would be. The genie is now well and truly out of the bottle and a language spoken originally in one country has spread, evolved and developed in countless ways elsewhere. To fume at that would be pointless and little short of ... well, I'd better not say. Certainly education in good English is needed but the times have changed ...

[Phil]

I am not sure why this, or the previous thread, has become a discussion about who may or may not wear a kilt. While the kilt is the outward symbol of the Scottish identity - at least in the minds of the rest of the world - being Scottish is much more than that. It is about living and working in this country, about wishing the best for all its people, and it is a state of mind that is not universally found. Whenever anyone visits a Scottish house they will be offered hospitality, irrespective of who they are. They will be treated with respect and welcomed into the household. These are not unique to Scotland, I know they also belong in Ireland and Wales and I am sure in other countries of the World too. I do know from personal experience that such hospitality is not always found in other parts of the United Kingdom so it must be a part of the cultural identity.
For the best part of two hundred years and more this country of mine has been a playground for rich people, firstly English then the wider world. And virtually none of them has shown the slightest interest in investing time and money in the country beyond fostering grouse moors and deer stalking. None of their precious capital has been invested in the infrastructure or industry of the country. None of their time has been spent here beyond brief sojourns to massacre the local wildlife. Not a penny of theirs has gone towards raising the living standards of the general population. They have been happy to visit occasionally and become "pretendy" Scots once or twice a year then decamp back to wherever they really belong, leaving everything as it was.
But of one thing you can be sure. They will all have been wearing kilts while they were here.

[Phil]

The second concerns the English language. My mother was English. I was taught that deviation from the OED was little short of criminal. "How dare these upstart people in Scotland, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, and now India and elsewhere meddle with this great language and the culture it represents" she might fume (if ever she wanted). What nonsense that would be. The genie is now well and truly out of the bottle and a language spoken originally in one country has spread, evolved and developed in countless ways elsewhere. To fume at that would be pointless and little short of ... well, I'd better not say. Certainly education in good English is needed but the times have changed ...

I won't go into Dutch culture but would imagine that as a small minority in an overwhelmongly Anglo-Saxon society they would try to preserve their identity.

As far as spoken English is concerned, you have to appreciate that America achieved independence before dictionaries and literacy were general among populations. As a result, by the time written language became the norm spelling had deviated and has remained distinctive ever since. Also the way people ate in those days was different before the current use of a knife and fork. So you could say that their culture is, to an extent, still that of the late 18th century and has subsequently evolved separately to that of Western Europe. Do not confuse the Scots language with English, however, and this is a whole separate can of worms, but suffice it to say that ignorance is no substitute for education. I hope I do not need to remind you that the Scots language is a more ancient form than English but that both are derived from a common root.

[slohairt]

The commercialization of traditional cultures occurs everywhere. Tourists and outsiders (including diaspora) are not completely to blame. Many native folk are quite content to 'pimp' their heritage for a quick buck (or quid). Ireland is great example of this. Besides leprechaun paraphernalia, one can find plastic shillelaghs, cast-mould lumpy sheela-na-gigs, and T-shirts proclaiming things like 'Kiss Me, I'm Irish" or "Tis Herself". Yet the Irish will still wonder why the world has a stereotyped view of their nation...

Scotland is certainly no different. There are many Scots merchants who will happily sell you an acrylic kilt imported from Pakistan or a See You, Jimmy hat that was made in China. Did they create a market or respond to a need? Probably a bit of both.

As to the side discussion of kilt-wearing among Scottish-Americans, I can't comment much, as the Scottish-Canadian experience is not analogous to the Scottish-American one. (Despite being lumped together from time to time! ;) )

[macwilkin]

The commercialization of traditional cultures occurs everywhere. Tourists and outsiders (including diaspora) are not completely to blame. Many native folk are quite content to 'pimp' their heritage for a quick buck (or quid). Ireland is great example of this. Besides leprechaun paraphernalia, one can find plastic shillelaghs, cast-mould lumpy sheela-na-gigs, and T-shirts proclaiming things like 'Kiss Me, I'm Irish" or "Tis Herself". Yet the Irish will still wonder why the world has a stereotyped view of their nation...

Scotland is certainly no different. There are many Scots merchants who will happily sell you an acrylic kilt imported from Pakistan or a See You, Jimmy hat that was made in China. Did they create a market or respond to a need? Probably a bit of both.

As to the side discussion of kilt-wearing among Scottish-Americans, I can't comment much, as the Scottish-Canadian experience is not analogous to the Scottish-American one. (Despite being lumped together from time to time! ;) )

Exactly, John. Here in the Ozarks, a number of natives, many of them from well-educated and "progressive" families, learned very quickly that the "slickers" and "comeheres" wanted to see a bona-fide hillbilly, and quickly created that persona to attract tourists to the area.

T.

[Phil]

Scotland is certainly no different. There are many Scots merchants who will happily sell you an acrylic kilt imported from Pakistan or a See You, Jimmy hat that was made in China. Did they create a market or respond to a need? Probably a bit of both.

I couldn't agree more and it has always been the case, what with little dolls dressed up as pipers, that kind of cheap trash has always been on sale in tourist destinations here. The "acrylic kilt imported from Pakistan" is a fairly new phenomenon though and one that local traders have adopted probably taking the view "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
It still doesn't excuse the excesses of these shops, whether indigenous or not.

[Teufel Hunden]

This thread has strayed far from its original theme and, although that is hardly new here, it might be time to return to the original subject which was the debasement of a culture by the commercialisation of the symbols and traditions of that culture.

I think it's important to note that it is also tradition that times will, and always do, change.

While I certainly can agree that it's sad to see things being bastardized and imitated and full of tourists gawking and taking pictures... it's at the same time a sign of positive progress.

Think of the times when cultures themselves were frowned upon... Traditions were scoffed at, and people actively sought to destroy them.

Now, we see quite the opposite effect... not only do people NOT want to destroy these things, they want to experience them. Of course, the unintended side effect is price wars, and cheap chinese knock offs, but I think the intent is an important factor here. I can't say I view all situations like the one in the OP as very bad. Sure, lots of us grew up in small towns with private little fishing holes that are now BIG towns with no privacy, but think of if ALL of us grew up in a town that never changed. A perpetual state of stagnation.... seems like the opposite of progress to me. We'd all still be looking to grow up and work in the mines or at the old mill or something.

So explain to me/us why Americans go in for yes, as far as we are concerned, all this playing at being a Scot? Why can't you, be Americans, dress as Americans, whilst celebrating your assorted and undoubted roots? You appear to want it both ways and this idea is not understood and genuinely not understood by many over here.

So what of the enjoying of other Scottish themes? What if we play pipes, celebrate Scottish holidays, or any number of other things that are instantly recognizable as coming from that region of the world? Is it just the Kilt that's sacred? What if we wanted to learn Gaelic? Can we do all the other things and not be considered as "playing" at being a Scot, and only cross that line once a kilt enters the mix? Why does the celebrating of assorted roots have to stop there?

If you think about it, there are VERY few symbols that are both as instantly recognizable AND still acceptable in modern wear as a kilt. Most other pieces of national dress have fallen out of favor or are limited to specific holidays as just a fun part of the celebration. I'm hard pressed to think of any that carry the weight, and have kept up with modern times like a kilt has.

To me, it's rather odd to take that singular piece of Scotland, and lock it up in a vault left only to Scots. And, as Scots leave the country and move to others, at what point does the person cease being a Scot and lose their kilt privileges? A year later? 10 years? Is it their offspring that is no longer allowed? Must the child then be taught to dress only as whatever country they live in by kilt wearing parents?

So to me, there really is no answer to the question, "Why do you want to play at being Scots?" It's a fairly odd question to begin with, when you think about it... why is someone playing at being a Scot only when wearing a kilt, and not when enjoying other parts of their Scottish roots?

[OC Richard]

This thread has strayed far from its original theme and, although that is hardly new here, it might be time to return to the original subject which was the debasement of a culture by the commercialisation of the symbols and traditions of that culture.

That commercialisation began very quickly, for the vast numbers of Irish, Polish, Italian, and Greek immigrants who poured into our large Northern cities in the late 19th century.

Tin Pan Alley in New York cranked out hundreds (if not thousands) of corny sentimental songs designed to make money from these homesick people. The same songwriters wrote them all; the same guy would write a quasi-Irish song on Monday and a quasi-Italian song on Wednesday.

After the passing of a century or more these cultures are reduced to a caricature: the Irish-American who has two photos on the wall (the Pope and JFK), listens to CDs of New York Tin Pan Alley quasi-Irish songs, and every St Patricks Day goes to a parade and drinks green beer... or the Italian-American who wears a horn necklace, frequents the local mom-and-pop Italian restaurant, and has a CD of That's Amore! ... the Scottish-American who pulls on a kilt once a year and attends his local Highland Games, goes to see The Black Watch when they're doing a concert tour, has seven Alex Beaton CDs, and a bottle or Glenfiddich in the cupboard.

I'm not making fun of these people: I am one of them myself!