Can we define THCD?

[Ron Abbott]

I'm not sure when exactly the white hose thing became popular in pipe bands, however daywear outfits have certainly been worn by pipe bands for a fair few decades, often as a secondary outfit.

I have photos of the Edinburgh City Police in daywear in the early 1960s at which time they were wearing plain, tweed jackets and tan coloured hose.

Certainly by the 1970s, the white/cream coloured hose were 'in', so you may well be right about it starting out in the 60s.

[MacLowlife]

I believe THC is popular in the high lands of Colorado. Though it may have strong "grass roots" support in other places, too.

[creagdhubh]

I believe THC is popular in the high lands of Colorado. Though it may have strong "grass roots" support in other places, too.

Hahahaha! Quite. Places such as northern California and the Pacific Northwest.

[Alan H]

Hahahaha! Quite. Places such as northern California and the Pacific Northwest.

..... Hey, mostly MacMillans Son and Panache. Well, and I can do a passable imitation thereof, when pressed, as can WalkerK.!

[Benning Boy]

There are two ways to define a thing, conceptually and operationally. Conceptual definitions just give you some vague general idea of what a thing is. They leave things open for debate. Operational definitions tell you exactly how to know a thing when you see it. They leave no room for argument. A thing either satisfies the definition or it doesn't. Nothing offered here so far is anything more than a conceptual definition. So, how are you actually going to know traditonal highland dress when you see it?

[Steve Ashton]

BB,

You have just spent the last two days being shown examples of the difference between a kilt that is made in the Traditional way, AKA "ToAK" and kilts made in the modern way, AKA Freedom Kilts, USA Kilts, AmericaKilt, Alt.Kilt, kilts made as MUG's AKA Utilikilts, and Kilts made in the Pub/Tourist style, AKA Gold Bro's, Stillwater Kilts.

I fee confident that at least you can understand when I say that there truly is a difference between these types of kilts that is concrete and definable . You can see and feel the difference. The difference is not open to personal interpretation or individual feelings. You can hold them in your hand and tell right away that they are different.

You have also seen that how you accessorize your kilt is does not change the basic and fundamental difference between the how these kilts are made.

And because this difference is so much a part of the garment itself, and so concrete and definable, that this is the only criteria that we can realistically use. Especially in the light of this and previous threads where those who use the acronym TCHD can't even define it among themselves or agree among themselves what it means.

I honestly believe that we need to take a serious look at how terms are used. If you can't define a word or acronym, then why would we continue to use it and defend it beyond all reason?

This is really beginning to remind me about the old phrase "Family Friendly" that used to be used so freely on this forum. People were being held to a standard, even while those who used it, could not define it.

I never said, or even implied, that anyone who dressed in a Tweed with Argyle cuffs looked like a 1930's catalog. I did say that the same people who seem to enjoy carrying a cromach always seemed to post the same 1930's catalog photos to prove how traditional they were dressing.
I really don't care how another person dresses. Just don't put words in my mouth that I did not say.

What I did say is that I do not use the acronym TCHD. I don't like to use words or phrases or acronyms that have no definition or meaning. It was made up out of nothing here on this forum, and is used only by a small handful. It is held up as some ideal or something to aspire to. And yet in 5 pages on this thread, and how many pages on other threads, that small handful of individuals can't explain to the rest of us what the heck it means.

[Father Bill]

... which is the only reason that right at the beginning of this thread I questioned the concept of defining it.

[Nathan]

A practice either has widespread acceptance in the tradition or it doesn't. The acronym isn't hard to define, it's just that a) it is always evolving and b) One person might not be able to observe the totality of its regional variations. One has to see a lot of examples of it in order to grasp the platonic ideal of what is or is not being traditionally dressed.

Definition: Traditional Civilian Highland Dress means wearing the kilt, not as part of a uniform, in a fashion that would be considered normal and in keeping the current practice of so doing by Highlanders in the Highlands.

That's what it is.

Now, what does it look like? That too is definable, but takes up a lot more ink. There is context, place and time to consider. There is the room for individual flair, but there is going too far.

The same thing can be said about any "look". It's easy to describe a classic example but it's awkward to capture in writing a definition that encapsulates all possible expression of the look that would pass muster by the other scenesters. That said, you know it when you see it.

Take "office attire" as an example. We all know what this means, but it depends on the business and the office environment etc... It can be everything from khakis and a golf shirt to a suit and tie. We know what it's not though. It's not swimming trunks or ripped jeans and t-shirts. It's not a tuxedo. You may do a job that allows you to dress that way, but that's not what people mean when they refer to "office attire".

What is "biker style"? Well, we know it involves leather and denim but you can wear leather and denim and look like Justin Beiber. Perhaps facial hair is popular but probably not required. What about tattoos? Necessary or optional? It's all academic because once we've seen enough bikers, we know it when we see it.

The internal construction of a kilt may separate a modern constructed tartan kilt from a traditionally constructed tartan kilt but it doesn't tell us anything about the "look" the kilt wearer is going for. I would argue that the TCHD "look" can successfully be achieved wearing a Freedom Kilt, USA kilt etc...

What if we say, "usually" a lot? Does that leave room for the odd exception?

We can get into some kind of lengthy things such as:

Head: Usually bareheaded or with Balmoral bonnet. Usually with a clansman's badge. Plant badges are rarely seen nowadays and are leaning toward historic. Feathers etc... are not to be worn unless entitled to do so. Other far less common variations for headdress include the Glengarry bonnet, fore and aft hats and deerstalkers. Traditional Highlanders are practical so wearing a brimmed hat like a tilly hat in a sunny climate would not look traditional but would be traditional good sense and therefore not raise eyebrows.

Feet: Varies somewhat based on the activity one is doing. Typically black brogues or oxfords for smarter affairs. Sensible exceptions can be made for weather and terrain concerns though not usually just for fashion's sake. Evening wear invites the optional use of bar and buckle brogues etc...

Hose: Woolen or woolen looking long stockings, usually three fingers below the knee. Solid colour or solid colour with pattered tops are usually the right choice for day wear. Diced or Argyll hose are nice to have for the most formal occasions.

The problem with doing this is that traditional hill walking attire and traditional white tie attire look very different. If you wanted to describe, "contemporary American fashion" it would be difficult to put all the possible variations down on paper, but you'd know when someone looked out of place. An Indian man in a kurtha pajama can be seen in New York, but his garb would not be considered "contemporary American fashion" by most Americans observing him. They wouldn't go out and buy an outfit like his and wear it because it's outside the boundaries of what they feel is kosher for them to wear. A novelist could describe the attire of a character in a way you would recognize as typically American, but again, a typical example does not a totality of possibilities make.

The acronym simply reminds people that you CAN look out of place. It reminds people that there are limits to what outfits would be perceived as normal and tasteful by a Highlander in the Highlands.

[Calgacus]

​Yeah, what he said!

[creagdhubh]

Us Macphersons still wear our plant badges (Boxwood or White heather, and sometimes Red whortleberry) with the ferocity of Felis silvestris grampia!