To Wear A Tartan.

[James]

I often seem to be the odd man out when it comes to such things as to whom can wear this or that tartan, and without doubt my approach contradicts some of the experts, and will annoy those who look to the right to wear what they like. So I have decided to offer a fuller explanation of the reasoning behind my thinking.

Firstly as many have pointed out, there are in the main with a few exceptions no actual rules as to who can wear which tartan, so a one level the pundits are right. However at another level they are so very wrong, for the lack of rules was occasioned by a mixture of common sense, convention and good manners: so there was no need for rules, as kilt wearers knew or could if in doubt seek advice from their peers.

Now to another point, why do so many newcomers to wearing the male skirt, look to the kilt: rather than say the sarong, fustanella, maybe the lava-lava: after all would the Utilikilt be any less a male garment if it was called The Utilisarong?

My opinion is that they are justifying their choice of nether garment, by reference to the well established tradition of highland kilt wearing by both the military and civilians alike. So they are seeking credence for their choice by association with a well known masculine image: that of the bold highland clansman/warrior.

To demonstrate my point, think about the many posts where chaps have stated that their kilt/utilikilt or whatever is being worn ‘as a true Scotsman’: a statement that has little to do with their underwear, and much about establishing their credentials for wearing such a garment.

It is at this point that things start to go wrong, for though one can argue about such things as how long the clan-tartan system has been in place, even when clan tartans were created: there is no doubt that in Scotland at least, for nigh on two hundred years the concept of identifying a clansman by his tartan has been accepted. Remove that, and what are we left with: very little, for certainly the link to the clansman has been broken; and this in turn destroys the link to the highlands, and of course Scotland.

So what are we left with: not a lot, for with that link broken, it is really a case of wearing a pretty tartan coloured nether garment; and the exemplar for that choice could as well be one of the many girl’ schools where wearing a similar garment is a part of the uniform.

Having written that, I do think the increase in kilt wearing is a good thing for many reasons, and certainly I support newcomers to what some see as a movement.

I also support the development of new tartans, be they district, American State, or whatever. However this leads to a question: what is the point of developing say a State Tartan, if it can be worn by anyone, for that at once removes the whole point of having distinct and meaningful tartans.

So I would suggest that all kilt wearers should ignore the ‘anything goes’ idea, and wear a tartan with which they have a genuine connection: be that of family, State, district, arm of service/regiment or whatever. This way we would all be preserving our heritage, and oddly enough make the wearing of the tartan more interesting, for there would be a reason for our wearing this or that tartan: not just a case of liking the pretty colours.

Having said that, do not imagine I’m suggesting the creation of a so called Tartan Police: for I well appreciate that there are reasons ranging from money, through availability to whatever; which will on occasion come between a chap and his being able to sport his own tartan. So please accept that I’m suggesting reasonable common sense, rather than absolute rules.

However I do think that the principle should be then ordering a kilt, to look for one with which there is a genuine link, be it of clan or whatever. Failing that there is a long tradition of plain kilts, an entirely honourable option. However wherever possible the idea that anyone can wear any tartan should be rejected for the reasons mentioned above.

Well why not, or are you looking to destroy the very heritage you are seeking to claim?

I’m well aware that the above cuts across what people like Matt and Hamish would say, and without doubt they know much more than me on the academic side of tartans and the like. However the above has nothing at all to do with academics, rules and the like: it is to do with the heart and the blood, it is about one’s own folk, it is about those who would stand by you and who trust your word, and whose word you trust. That is the meaning which will never be found in books, or by membership of some self appointed authority. In fact it is something which will probably not be understood by anyone who has not had the real experience of such things as a clan and or regiment.

I regret that the above will appear harsh and unfeeling, possibly offensive to some, but on occasion it is necessary to take a possibly unpalatable line in the interest of the greater good.

So wear your kilt with pride, for it is not only displaying your manhood, it is also showing your genuine affiliation.

James





.

[Scott Gilmore]

I regret that the above will appear harsh and unfeeling, possibly offensive to some, but ...

Quoth James in yet another recent thread:

I'm sorry if the above appears harsh, but on occasion ...

I couldn't help notice that on one hand you profess repeatedly your regrets for being "unfeeling" and "harsh", but on the other hand you certainly seem to expend considerable effort at repeating your so called regretable behavior.

Regards,
Scott Gilmore

[Tattoo Bradley]

While I certainly agree with a few of your statements, I must say that there was really no reason to start yet another one of these. These have become quite redundant and tiresome.

[David Dalglish]

While I certainly agree with a few of your statements, I must say that there was really no reason to start yet another one of these. These have become quite redundant and tiresome.

I agree-James is entitled to his opinion-Everyone else has a right to ther own opinion, & wear what they feel is right for them.

[Blu (Ontario)]

I personally would never wear a clan tartan unless I had an affiliation with it. That's just me. Having said that, I'd like to make a couple of comments...

... why do so many newcomers to wearing the male skirt, look to the kilt: rather than say the sarong, fustanella, maybe the lava-lava: after all would the Utilikilt be any less a male garment if it was called The Utilisarong?

What a concept! You just might start something James!

... My opinion is that they are justifying their choice of nether garment, by reference to the well established tradition of highland kilt wearing by both the military and civilians alike.

I agree.... poodle skirts just don't have the same punch!

... there is no doubt that in Scotland at least, for nigh on two hundred years the concept of identifying a clansman by his tartan has been accepted. Remove that, and what are we left with: very little, for certainly the link to the clansman has been broken; and this in turn destroys the link to the highlands, and of course Scotland...

I can appreciate where you're coming from with this but at the same time it troubles me a bit. I can understand how this may irritate the sensibilities of some staunch clansmen, but I have difficulty understanding how the lack of exclusivity of clan tartans somehow diminshes the highlands or even Scotland herself. I always believed Scotland and her people were stronger than that... wherever in the world they happen to be.

... it is really a case of wearing a pretty tartan coloured nether garment; and the exemplar for that choice could as well be one of the many girl’ schools where wearing a similar garment is a part of the uniform.

Zing!

..... I regret that the above will appear harsh and unfeeling, possibly offensive to some, but on occasion it is necessary to take a possibly unpalatable line in the interest of the greater good.

If you don't speak your mind, nobody will understand.

... So wear your kilt with pride, for it is not only displaying your manhood, it is also showing your genuine affiliation.

Including Xmarks I hope !

blu

[M. A. C. Newsome]

James,

You seem to think that you and I disagree on tartan philosophy, but when you get down to the heart of the matter, I don't think we are that far apart. Just like you said, people need to use common sense.

When I tell people they can wear any tartan they choose, I'm not instructing them to pick a tartan, willy-nilly, with no thought as to the history behind it.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the United States, I encounter people all the time who want me to help them determine what tartan they "have a right to," or what tartan they "are entitled to." People have some very erroneous ideas about tartan. Here are a few examples:

-The young man I mentioned in the other thread who was told in very strict terms by another kilt shop owner that he was not allowed to wear his mother's tartan.
-People who come in with an air of aristocracy who brag loudly that they are "entitled" to wear the Royal Stewart tartan (and act as if everyone else should be in awe over this fact).
-People who seem to think that there is "one true tartan" that is "theirs" and are so confused because they don't know if "their" tartan is the ancient MacDonald or the modern MacDonald or the Dress MacDonald, so they don't wear any of them for fear of offending someone.
-People who have been working for years to trace their geneaology back far enough in Scotland that they could "prove" clan membership so they can finally buy their kilt (a goal still years in the future, and they may never be able to do it!)

I could go on. But it is to people like this that I say, "use common sense! Yes, you can wear whatever tartan you choose to wear!"

But the tartans that they choose to wear are going to be those to which they feel some connection. It is going to be a clan tartan to represent their heritage. Or a district tartan to represent where they are from, or where their anscestors were from. Because they understand that the tartan means something.

Saying there is no such thing as a right or entitlement to a tartan means that you don't have to get licensed from some governing board for permission to wear a tartan. Some people get so uptight about wearing the "wrong" tartan and getting raked over the coals for it. So they never wear one at all.

But that's not how it is. You pick the tartan, and wear it as you like. And 99% of the time people will pick one that has a meaning for them. And I think this is all you are asking, right?

Aye,
Matt

[Rex_Tremende]

I had considered responding to your post in the other thread some time back, and then thought better of it, but since you brought the subject up again, I have decided to post what I've been sitting on for a week or so. Matt alludes to the solution I had in mind.

[...]So when people say there are no rules they are in one sense correct: but in another sense they are only showing their abysmal igorance. Too I'd remind people that they should not confuse good manners with acceptance.

James, your words are always carefully meted out and you are resolute in your position on kilt traditions. I think this is a good thing, since while the prevailing opinion on this forum as to what's appropriate to wear seems to be (paraphasing) "whatever, with respect, and knowledge," it is not the only opinion. I know that your perspective - including your many years of kilt-wearing - inform other people's choices.

Unfortunately, your good manners come with a sneer ("so-called kilts," "faux kilts" in other posts), do not feel respectful (to me, at least), and read only as condescension and elitism. There is certianly no mistaking that for acceptance, so you needn't worry.

I can't help but wonder how much of this tradition you speak of was borne out of tribalism, where it was for one's own protection to wear the clan colors lest you be caught dead in someone else's. I heard that the Campbells and MacGregors had a long-running feud, for instance.

In order to ensure a proper amount of respect for your clan's tartans, I'd like to suggest that you look into licensing. Laws are something of a tradition, too; they help us settle our disputes without taking up arms. It's probably poor planning to count on others to stay away from your colors because you cluck and huff about tradition, who's in, and who's not in your club.

Respectfully,
Rex in Cincinnati

[macwilkin]

I also support the development of new tartans, be they district, American State, or whatever. However this leads to a question: what is the point of developing say a State Tartan, if it can be worn by anyone, for that at once removes the whole point of having distinct and meaningful tartans.

James,

But I would counter that a state tartan is a distinct and meaningful tartan because it does have a distinct meaning: representing a particular state/province/district. Usually, these tartans are designed to not only honour that place, but also the Scottish immigrants and their contributions to that particular region. I see nothing wrong with "anyone" wanting to honour those contributions which contributed to the area that they currently reside in, where their family was from, etc. It creates the very connection to a tartan that you mention in the first post of this thread.

To me, the creation of new district tartans only highlights the Scottish diaspora all around the world, and shows how strong of an influence the Scots have had in far-flung corners. The state/provincial/district tartan intermingles the old world with the new, much like those first immigrants did.

Regards,

Todd

[starbkjrus]

James,

Well thought out and well said. I tend to disagree with you on the subject of non-tartan kilts but when it comes to family tartans I just can't bring myself to wear one I don't have a connection to.

[Rex_Tremende]

I see nothing wrong with "anyone" wanting to honour those contributions which contributed to the area that they currently reside in, where their family was from, etc. It creates the very connection to a tartan that you mention in the first post of this thread.

I think you and James are actually on the same wavelength here. What James suggests is that only people from those districts ought to wear those tartans.

According to the Rules of James:

• I should not wear a MacGregor tartan because my connection is too remote
• I should not wear an Island of Innis tartan because I don't live there or am not from there
• I should not wear a gay tartan because it is too political and politics sullies the tradition of tartans
• I should not wear any symbols which might be mistaken by a handful of people as projecting my allegiance to some obscure religion to which I do not profess
• I should not wear a UK and call it a kilt
• I should not wear a sporran with anything except a traditional kilt because it demeans the proud traditions of the Scots

James is entitled to his opinions, of course, and he can spout them off as long as anyone, including myself, are willing to listen to him (and I do, actually). It's clear that James wants to preserve something he thinks is pretty special, and I'm sure that many who post here, lurk here, or can't be bothered with this forum, agree with him. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for someone like James to feel like they are fighting a rising tide.

But James has called those of us who don't share his opinion all but ignoramuses. Given that there is a wealth of information here at Xmarks about the history of the kilt and the tartan, that's simply insulting. What James sees as ignorance is just someone else's different order of priorities. It's a shame he doesn't seem to see the difference.

Regards,
Rex in Cincinnati