A Great Letter, I think . . .

[andyfg]

Members of the forum who are also members of the Scottish Tartans Authority will have seen the latest newsletter. There is a great letter in it from Cyndi Balfour-Traill of the Thistle Stop Shop. The context of the letter was a reply to a native Scot who was questioning why Cyndi had designed a Traill family tartan. Her correspondent had suggested that anyone not Scottish by birth has no right to wear the tartan or refer to themselves as "Scawttish-Americans." I was so impressed with her letter that I asked Brian Wilton (of the STA) and Cyndi if I may post it to Xmarks. They agreed and here it is:

"Dear [A Scots Traill],

Thanks for your interesting and provocative email. Prepare yourself; I have a lot to say in response!

You and I are probably cousins of some degree -- according to the extensive genealogical research of others, it seems the Traills are all fairly closely related. As you say, there are Orkney Traills, Fife Traills, and Aberdeen Traills -- also a contingent in Ireland going back pretty far, and in the (dare I say it?) "Traill Diaspora", we now find Australian, New Zealander, Canadian, Jamaican, Barbadian, and even Fijian Traills. And, not least, American Traills, most of whom spell it Trail, with a single "L". I know for sure that the Orkney Traills were transplants from ye olde hame at Blebo (and environs), in Fife, about 450 years ago. I expect the Aberdonians were out of Fife originally, too. I don't suppose you'd dispute that they are all Traills, whatever their current nationality.

I think that's the essence of what pe ople are trying to express, when they want to wear a clan or family tartan -- a connection with other people who share a common ancestry. It so happens that in the cultural heritage of Scotland there appeared, in certain times and places, a rather colorful and attractive way of signifying kinship, in the tartan. Let's call the romantic notion attached to it "Balmorality", rather than Brigadoonery, since it's in the real Scotland (lowland Scotland, at that!), rather than the Scotland of the imagination, that a rather contrived revival of interest in tartan and kilt-wearing first took hold, at the instigation of Sir Walter Scott, and under the patronage of George IV, when HM visited Edinburgh in 1822. (He wore his kilt with pink tights, by the way. I have to say I'm glad that article of his attire didn't catch on.)

The Victorians brought this Balmorality to its full, not to say overblown, flower, in Royal Deeside. Prince Albert, himself, designed the Balmoral tartan. He wasn't Scottish by birth, nor yet by genetic heritage, and he was only British, at all, by marriage. But then, as now, the royals all wore tartan when tramping round north of Hadrian's Wall. And ever since, for good or for ill, tartan has represented Scottish cultural heritage to the rest of the world. I don't think that's particularly to be regretted. Tartan has earned its romantic image. It started out as no more than an artistic expression, probably, and grew to be a kind of badge of identity for the Highland clans. The Proscription banning it naturally fanned the flames of ardor for it amongst those with Jacobite leanings and Scottish national pride. Maybe the willingness of the clan chiefs to rush their "artificial and generally ludicrously spurious" tartans (as you call them) into production for George IV's visit was at least partly motivated by a pent-up desire to re turn to former days of glory, after a long period of suffering and privation for their Highland people. Who could blame them? No one wants to be persona non grata, particularly in his own country.

Not surprisingly, the former British colonies were founded and developed by their fair share of Scottish immigrants, my forebears amongst them. The 28th American president, Woodrow Wilson (also of Scots descent), said, "Every line of strength in American history is a line colored with Scottish blood." By blood he was referring mostly to genetic inheritance, rather than the liquid stuff, though plenty of American blood bearing the DNA of Scottish ancestors has been spilled in battle, too. There were several other national and ethnic origins amongst early American settlers, of course, and much more diversity in the population of the present day. As we all know, America is a nation of immigrants. Excepting the "red Indians", whom we now call Native Americans (or First Nations, in Canada), every native-born American is descended from someone who came here from some other country not very long ago, in the scope of history.&nbs p; What you bide-at-hames often fail to understand about the American character is that most of us preserve a sense of our families "being from" somewhere else. So, while we are proud of our American heritage, we are often equally proud of our Old Country heritage, whatever that may be. We call ourselves Scottish-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Irish-Americans, African-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc. You may even hear people say, in a kind of shorthand well-understood by other Americans, but often misinterpreted by foreigners, "Our family is Irish" or "We're Italian".

Our [insert Old Country nationality]-American families continue to observe customs originating in that other land. The part of Maryland where I now live was settled mostly by German immigrants, so a great many local place-names are of German origin, the oldest and most numerous churches are those founded by German immigrants, family Christmas traditions include pork with sauerkraut at the holiday table, and fund-raising dinners in the community are replete with typically German dishes. The village where I live has one Lutheran church and one church descended from the German Church of the Brethren (and no other churches), and the headstones in the cemetery wouldn't look out of place in, say, Bremen. I, on the other hand, grew up in an area settled by Scots and Englishmen, was christened in a Presbyterian church and married in an Episcopal one, and have turkey for Christmas dinner. My earliest American Traill ancestor was amongst the settlers of New Scotland Hundred, now part of Maryland and Washington DC.

We're not idiots -- we do know the difference between being of Scottish ancestry and being Scottish by virtue of birth in the Scots homeland. Yes, I am American, not Scottish, by nationality. But then... you aren't Scottish by nationality, either, if the passport you bear is the criterion -- you're British. There isn't a sovereign nation of Scotland any more, the SP and wishful thoughts of the SNP notwithstanding. You speak of proudly wearing the tartan of MacDonald of Clanranald, because of strong family ties with that clan. How many generations back is that connection -- over 4 generations, you said? I have family connections to the Stewarts (I'm descended from James V through his bastard son, Robert Stewart, Earl of Orkney), going back a few hundred years, so I suppose I'm marginally entitled to wear the Royal Stewart tartan, and I do, sometimes -- but more because I think it's attractive than out of any strong feeling of Stewart-ness. In point of fact, I'm as much of a Stewart, genetically speaking, as any member of the Royal Family. But I'm a Traill and a Balfour more recently. The Balfour tartan was designed a few years ago by my fellow tartan designer, Maj. Peter MacDonald, of Perth. Since the Balfours and the Traills have intermarried and lived as neighbors more than a few times down the years, I based my design of the Traill tartan on the general pattern of the Balfour tartan -- though the thread count isn't identical -- using colors that are significant to the history of the Traills.

Why a Traill tartan? Granted, as lowlanders, the Traills of past centuries surely never wore tartan, except possibly in the spirit of Balmorality. The MacDuffs, considering themselves to be the hereditary kings of Fife (which they were -- once), have given the Traills leave to wear their tartan, although there was no concept of "septs" connecting the names at any time that I know of -- simply, the Traills were landowners in Fife. But in my own ancestry, the slim thread connecting me to Duffs or MacDuffs is even farther back than the Stewarts, so I don't have much desire to wear MacDuff tartan. You would probably say I have no rhyme nor reason to wear any tartan at all. But my reason is really the same as yours -- to honor my ancestors and my connection to others with whom I share a common ancestry, in particular the Traills, all of whom are of Scottish descent, according to the genealogists. As is de monstrated by the existence of Stewart and MacDuff tartans -- older than the Balfour and Traill tartans, at any rate, though perhaps you consider them bogus, too (both date from the 1819 Pattern Book of Wilson's of Bannockburn, though possibly in existence before that) -- one doesn't have to be of a Highland clan to have and wear a tartan. And since the tartan symbolizes family/clan affiliation (rather than nationality), why would one have to be born on Scottish soil to wear it? Emigrants of the "Diaspora" carried Scots genes and family connections with them when they left Scotland, and we who are their descendants still do. I'm not the only one wanting a Traill tartan, by the way -- Traills and Traill descendants in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the U.S. -- and Scotland! -- are wearing it.

[andyfg]

This is the second part of the letter . . .

"Why a Traill tartan, now? New tartans have been designed and codified by the various weaving houses and registrars -- the tartan industry -- more or less continually for over two hundred years; there is no moment in time when some voice of authority decreed there should be no more tartans introduced. It's a dynamic industry, in fact -- both tartan design and tartan weaving -- rather than merely a nostalgic conceit. Obviously tartan and tartan apparel is a niche market, but a thriving one. "Highland Dress"-- the kilt, the sporran, the Prince Charlie jacket, etc. -- is a lucrative enough market to attract ambitious entrepreneurs in Pakistan, who are now flooding Princes Street with cheap tatty kilts -- but the Americans I know are not the ones going in for polyester tartan, as you suggest. I'm not sure who's buying it at the Scottish tourist emporia, but one sees very little of that here, whether at Burns' S uppers, Celtic festivals and Scottish Highland games events, or weddings -- the most common venues for wearing the tartan. In my experience, those who want to wear tartan, and the kilt, want to get the best quality product they can afford. They appreciate the excellent craftsmanship and top-quality fabric of bona fide Scottish-made goods. They're proud that something so well-made comes from the home of their ancestors. Accordingly, the majority of North American retailers selling tartan products are rather upscale shops offering real Scottish wool tartan and kilts, jackets, etc. made in Scotland. I am such a retailer, as well as a tartan designer. One couldn't sell much polyester tartan over here. Plastic models of the Empire State Building, yes; Mickey Mouse ears, yes, George W. Bush masks, perhaps... but not polyester tartan. The tartanistas ain't buyin' it.Besides all the heritage and family connotations, I love tartan for its aesthetic qualities. From a design perspective, I am enthralled by the infinite variety of beautiful patterns that can be produced merely by stringing stripes of colored wool on a loom. Tartan is elegant in its simplicity of means, and eloquent in its complexity of expression. When I design a tartan, I try to incorporate another layer of meaning by making the colors, and often, the pattern, expressive of the family, organization, or individual commissioning it. To me, tartan isn't just a piece of cloth -- it's a work of art.

As for visiting the land of one's ancestors, maybe only someone whose family is "from away" (as natives of the state of Maine refer to anyone not born there) can understand the appeal of exploring one's roots in a distant land. Your Traill ancestors have lived in Scotland, I assume, literally since time immemorial. But the history of my Traill forebears in America covers only about 6 generations before living memory. If I want to walk in the footsteps of my forefathers who lived before 1700, I have to go to Scotland to do so. You're surrounded by your family's history. Over here, a house that's two hundred years old is considered extremely antiquated. It's quite a different perspective on personal history. I am a modern American, and you are a modern Scot, but we both come from ancient Scots (and Normans and Picts and Vikings, probably). Both of us are "Scottish" -- genetically, not in terms of citizenship or nationality -- by "an accident of ancestry", to use your phraseology. One of my ancestors left Scotland to take up land and raise his family in the New World, for whatever reason. By that act, he enriched my heritage, enlarging its parameters to include America, but he didn't cancel out the Scottish portion of it. How does it "smack of condescension" to want to acknowledge one's cultural heritage by visiting the land of one's ancestors? Having that personal connection with a place makes the events of history, and their locales, come alive in the imagination. I don't look on Scotland or the Scots condescendingly, but with appreciation for the beauty of the landscapes, the history of the country, and the national character (which is constantly evolving) of the Scottish people -- the same things I admire about America and Americans, in fact.

You seem to resent we "Scawttish-Americans" quite a bit. Or, at best, you "actually don't care" about our motivations for visiting the Old Country or wearing the tartan, as long as we leave our tourist dollars behind when we go (the sooner, the better). Thanks for enduring my recitation and defense of those motivations, anyway. I'm sorry to hear you haven't got time for "the bonnie heather hills, the tartan, [and] the clans", because there's nothing inherently bad about any of that, and it might provide a spot of pleasure in an otherwise bleak existence, since, as we all know, it rains nonstop in Scotland and most "modern Scots" are violent, drug-addicted psychopaths, maudlin alcoholics, or pitiful trainspotting geeks, right? "A tad harsh, perhaps" ...and not really how it is, any more than the typical modern Scottish-American is a polyester-kilted, bagpipe-wheezing Briga-Toon come over to Scotland to smack you puir wee folk around with his haggis-fisted (a Scawttish version of hamfisted?), patronizing condescension. By the way, it's actually "Scawddish", not "Scawttish" -- listen more carefully this summer. We Yanks just don't do "T's" like the Brits.

Dear cousin [A Scots Traill], maybe our paths will cross someday, out on the heathery braes or in the mean streets of Glasgow. I think I'd enjoy meeting you -- you seem to be a rather intelligent, articulate guy. A bit dour, perhaps -- but you're a Scot, after all, so that's to be expected.

All the best to you, too -- and no hard feelings, not a bit of it! It's always been my view that we're all fools, drifting about on this ship of fools we call the Earth, and that makes me highly tolerant and forgiving of my fellowman. Even the (real, born-and-bred) Scots.

Kind regards,

Cyndi"

Quite a letter!

[James MacMillan]

Nice letter!

[Colin]

Cyndi is a member here, but we haven't seen her around for awhile.

[hallmarktex]

Very well put.

[andyfg]

Cyndi is a member here, but we haven't seen her around for awhile.

Yes, she said she loves Xmarks but at the moment is not able to take part. I think her letter erudite (if a bit long as on online thread!)

[jackson1863]

An impressive letter! Well said!

[BEEDEE]

Cyndi makes well thought out and well argued points. Thanks for posting her response here.

Brian

[Alan H]

<i>waves to Cyndi, as I miss her input here at X-marks....quite a letter, lass!

[Mr. MacDougall]

Well... I do wear polyester kilts, and I am one of them thar Scawddish 'Mericans.

But I also wear high quality wool, and if I went to Scotland, it'd be the later, and not the former, that I'd be a'buyin'.