Wearing another clans Tartan?

[Nathan]

I agree, Nathan, but I would point out something: Not everyone who wears clan tartans that they have no affiliation with feel they ARE doing something wrong. It boils down to how the individual feels about it (which is where this conversation usually comes full circle). If you personally don't feel comfortable wearing another clan's tartan, don't. If you do, go ahead. You may be wise to understand there are 200 years of history surrounding the clan tartans (with the understanding that they were 'made up' by a mill to move cloth), but ultimately, the decision is up to the individual.

Where I tend to veer slightly off the path of the discussions laid out here is in the use of clan tartans in other articles of clothing. Not sure why someone would be uncomfortable wearing a Dress Godron kilt, but boxers or shirts are completely fine. If it b/c it's "accepted in society" to wear tartans as a shirt, but when you wear it as a kilt, it's a symbol of who you are? If so, then I would ask when that rule started? It's still Dress Gordon. The tartan and it's meaning don't change b/c one is a kilt and one is a shirt. People fiercely protect clan tartans in kilts, but let it slide in other articles of clothing.

It's the black / white mindset vs. the grey area. Individuals pick and choose what parts of the argument to pull into their beliefs... where on the "tartan enforcement agency" scale they want to fall between "wear any tartan at any time for any reason" all the way to "only ever wear your father's clan tartan, no matter what article of clothing, period". There's plenty of room in the middle of that scale for differing view points.

1. I don't agree with "If you personally don't feel comfortable wearing another clan's tartan, don't. If you do, go ahead." I think it's wrong and don't want people who aren't affiliated with my clan wearing our tartan. I can't stop you legally, but that doesn't mean you are being respectful of the 200 years of tradition and symbolism upon which this is founded. If some westerner wants to dress like a Samurai full time, I can't stop them. It's their right to look like a poser but it would also be right of a Japanese guy with Samurai roots to roll his eyes.

2) I wouldn't knowlingly wear a ANY item in another clan's tartan, although I consider the government sett (Black Watch) to be a generic and open to all and not a Campbell tartan. If I had my druthers, clan tartans would be trademarked by the chief and companies wouldn't be allowed to manufacture items in clan tartans without permission and identifying them as such. Sadly, there is often no way of knowing if your plaid pj bottoms or your table cloth is in a clan tartan or just in a checked plaid fabric designed by an apparel company. To confuse matters further, Burberry recently filed suit against several tartan mills for producing camel Thompson/MacTavish as a violation of their trademark! The sheer gall of it!

3) The fact that the kilt is a Scottish garment means that people correctly percive the plaid in that garment as tartan, where your boxer shorts are percieved as plaid. Nobody can memorize every colour and fabric combination possible for such a ubiquitous fabric, however, if you're wearing a kilt, you can be pretty sure it's a tartan.

[Tobus]

Tobus,

I respect the articulate way you've addressed the subject and we mostly agree. However, the stress on considering your audience makes me a little uncomfortable. My mother likes to say, "character is what you are in the dark". To me the logic of "just don't wear MacOnion at a MacOnion gathering" amounts to, "It's ok to do it as long as you don't get caught."

I think the objective of good etiquette is founded in respect. It's not just to avoid the hassle of being accosted by someone you have offende. Rather, it's having the good taste and class not to behave offensively in the first place....

Also, keep in mind in today's day an age of cell phone cameras and facebook posts and YouTube videos, one's audience could be the whole world.

Wait, wait, wait. Let's remember what we're talking about here.

In principle, I absolutely agree that character and morals are defined by what you do when others aren't watching. Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of who sees. But when it comes to wearing a piece of cloth, where the only relevant concern is the arrangement of the colours, the only point of debate here is its significance to others - i.e., "am I misrepresenting myself?" Without that context, there is no moral (for lack of a better term) issue. It's just a piece of cloth. It's not a holy symbol, nor does it even carry the same significance as, say, a national flag (which is usually associated with rules/regulations on its treatment). Wearing the tartan when no one else is around is neither moral nor immoral, since no misrepresentation can happen.

Now it may very well be that you don't like other non-clan-associated individuals even being allowed to possess a scrap of 'your' clan tartan, but that's your baggage, not theirs. As long as they are not wearing it or otherwise misrepresenting themselves with it, I fail to see how the character/morality angle comes into play. This is why, as I said, after many discussions on this topic, I've arrived at the conclusion that knowing one's audience should be one of the deciding factors.

For instance, my family heritage is of Clan Colquhoun. But a few years ago I bought a used box-pleat kilt from another member here in the (MacDonald) Lord of the Isles tartan. I wanted a low-yardage box-pleated kilt for hiking and outdoors, and that's precisely what I use it for. I wear it on the trail where I'm unlikely to come into contact with anyone else. In any context where there's even a slim chance that clan association would come into play, I wear one of my Colquhoun kilts. But out on the trail, the deer and rabbits have no idea what tartan even is. With no clan tartan context, why would there be any element of character/morality at play?

[Nathan]

Wait, wait, wait. Let's remember what we're talking about here.

In principle, I absolutely agree that character and morals are defined by what you do when others aren't watching. Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of who sees. But when it comes to wearing a piece of cloth, where the only relevant concern is the arrangement of the colours, the only point of debate here is its significance to others - i.e., "am I misrepresenting myself?" Without that context, there is no moral (for lack of a better term) issue. It's just a piece of cloth. It's not a holy symbol, nor does it even carry the same significance as, say, a national flag (which is usually associated with rules/regulations on its treatment). Wearing the tartan when no one else is around is neither moral nor immoral, since no misrepresentation can happen.

Now it may very well be that you don't like other non-clan-associated individuals even being allowed to possess a scrap of 'your' clan tartan, but that's your baggage, not theirs. As long as they are not wearing it or otherwise misrepresenting themselves with it, I fail to see how the character/morality angle comes into play. This is why, as I said, after many discussions on this topic, I've arrived at the conclusion that knowing one's audience should be one of the deciding factors.

For instance, my family heritage is of Clan Colquhoun. But a few years ago I bought a used box-pleat kilt from another member here in the (MacDonald) Lord of the Isles tartan. I wanted a low-yardage box-pleated kilt for hiking and outdoors, and that's precisely what I use it for. I wear it on the trail where I'm unlikely to come into contact with anyone else. In any context where there's even a slim chance that clan association would come into play, I wear one of my Colquhoun kilts. But out on the trail, the deer and rabbits have no idea what tartan even is. With no clan tartan context, why would there be any element of character/morality at play?

The distinction here is that while I don't think someone should wear the venerated symbology of another clan, you don' think they should be seen wearing it. I don't know if it's baggage, but that is clearly where we differ.

[Tobus]

1. I don't agree with "If you personally don't feel comfortable wearing another clan's tartan, don't. If you do, go ahead." I think it's wrong and don't want people who aren't affiliated with my clan wearing our tartan.

The distinction here is that while I don't think someone should wear the venerated symbology of another clan, you don' think they should be seen wearing it. I don't know if it's baggage, but that is clearly where we differ.

OK, fair enough. But I'd like to ask you a question, if I may. Taking your two statements above, it appears that you have attached a moral judgment to it (viz. "I think it's wrong"). What exactly makes it wrong when there is no element of misrepresentation? How can it be wrong to privately put on a coloured piece of cloth with no malintent?

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Similarly, if someone dons a clan tartan and no one is around to be offended, is any wrong committed?

[creagdhubh]

OK, fair enough. But I'd like to ask you a question, if I may. Taking your two statements above, it appears that you have attached a moral judgment to it (viz. "I think it's wrong"). What exactly makes it wrong when there is no element of misrepresentation? How can it be wrong to privately put on a coloured piece of cloth with no malintent?

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Similarly, if someone dons a clan tartan and no one is around to be offended, is any wrong committed?

Valid questions.

[Nathan]

OK, fair enough. But I'd like to ask you a question, if I may. Taking your two statements above, it appears that you have attached a moral judgment to it (viz. "I think it's wrong"). What exactly makes it wrong when there is no element of misrepresentation? How can it be wrong to privately put on a coloured piece of cloth with no malintent?

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Similarly, if someone dons a clan tartan and no one is around to be offended, is any wrong committed?

It's not just about misrepresentation, it's also about birthright. The symbols of a clan are the birthright of the members of that clan. That's the convention, etiquette and tradition. It's not just about consequences.

As for the tree in the forest, I can't answer that without getting into theology which is not appropriate for this forum.

Now if you see the error of your ways and want to unload that MacDonald, Lord of the Isles kilt... jk

[TheOfficialBren]

Valid questions.

Agreed.

I agree to an extent with both sides of what Tobus and Nathan are saying. No insult intended, no harm no foul. Cherishing the symbols of one's familial identity, equally legitimate.

[McElmurry]

Valid questions.

I agree it is a valid question in philosophy but etiquette is more of a community standards issue like decency. You are never going to be 100 percent certain your actions won’t offend anybody. Some people are easier to offend than others and the same person might be easier to offend in the morning (before they have had their beverage of choice) than later in the day. Then there is the old what you inferred is not what I implied issue.

Most folks who start these threads are obviously considering limiting the potential for offense. If they want to significantly reduce the potential for offense they can follow the recommendations of Tobus. If they want to go to the next level and really get into the spirit of what it means to be a member of a clan and in so doing additionally limit the potential for offending someone they can follow Nathan’s recommendations.

I do not have a family history of kilt wearing. When I decided to wear a kilt I did a ridiculous amount of research and soul searching and ordered over a dozen swatches. My absolute favorite swatch at the time was MacDonald of Clanranald in HOE muted or better yet WoB colors. I ended up connecting McElmurry to Morrison and now wear Morrison Red. If I had decided to go with the MacDonald I suspect my kiltmaker (X. MacDonald) would have been gracious and said he would be pleased for me to wear MacDonald. What he would actually think about it I don’t know but I am glad I didn’t end up putting him in that position.

I am comfortable wearing one clan tartan. That is just the way I am wired and I would council like-minded individuals that they would likely find satisfaction doing the same. But I have been around long enough to recognize we are all not wired the same way and if someone else comes to a different conclusion for themselves I am not going to expend anywhere near the energy required to roll one’s eyes over it. We are all on journeys and that individual may eventually work his way around to my way of thinking or (gasp) I might find myself drifting toward his way of thinking.

[Father Bill]

Lovely comparison between "doing things right" and "doing the right thing."

[Jock Scot]

Rocky.

I think we agree that what people choose to do in their tartan choice is an individual thing.

As you "tend to veer slightly off the path" over the quetion of mixing, wearing, assorted tartans with assorted non kilt attire-------shirts, underpants etc.--- when "someone" is very particular over their kilt tartan choice. You seemed to think that many were not being consistent with their choices and perhaps they are, but, all I was pointing out that in my experience the Scots are far more particular and consistent over this by rejecting tartans other than their own---even down to shirts and underpants. To be clear, its "their tartan" and nothing else will do. So perhaps now that you are aware of this, you may "veer" rather less!