I would like to submit a proposal to the membership

[CMcG]

I like having three categories. I'd suggest this tweak:

Traditional Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing the kilt which emulate the way the kilt has been traditionally worn in the Highlands of Scotland. Everything from casual to formal in a kilt, if worn in a traditional way, goes here.

I propose a counter-tweak by borrowing some of your syntactic improvements, but avoiding repetition of the word(s) tradition/traditional. I've also retained the word contemporary in order to differentiate this category from the Historical one. For convenience I'm re-posting with the other (unedited) section headings from my post #107.

Historical Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing the kilt from a bygone era—whether accurate, theatrical, or anachronistic. Everything from great kilts to uniforms goes here.

Traditional Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing the kilt as Highland attire that have been passed down from generation to generation and remain in contemporary use. Everything from casual to formal in a kilt, if worn in time-honoured ways, goes here.

Modern Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing kilts as everyday clothing, street wear, or fashion that privilege personal interpretation. Everything from utility kilts to tartan kilts worn in new ways goes here.

[MacGumerait]

I propose a counter-tweak by borrowing some of your syntactic improvements, but avoiding repetition of the word(s) tradition/traditional. I've also retained the word contemporary in order to differentiate this category from the Historical one. For convenience I'm re-posting with the other (unedited) section headings from my post #107.

Historical Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing the kilt from a bygone era—whether accurate, theatrical, or anachronistic. Everything from great kilts to uniforms goes here.

Traditional Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing the kilt as Highland attire that have been passed down from generation to generation and remain in contemporary use. Everything from casual to formal in a kilt, if worn in time-honoured ways, goes here.

Modern Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing kilts as everyday clothing, street wear, or fashion that privilege personal interpretation. Everything from utility kilts to tartan kilts worn in new ways goes here.

Kudos , I like this approach . It keeps the general categories simple and only three options with a good explanation of each option .

I think simplicity on the front end helps folks decide where to go ... after that ... they can discuss particulars .

I do understand that trying to offer many categories is intended to help reduce the misunderstandings and squabbles between traditionalists and modernists .... however ... I'm not sure that will do the trick .

I could be wrong , but I think many folks log onto Xmarks and click on " what's new " and respond to the " headline " of a thread without noticing what forum or sub-forum to which it was posted .

Thus , a large number of categories in a particular forum may somewhat help the person posting the thread , although , it may have minimal effect on those responding ( as they may not realize the sub-forum to which they are responding ) .

Perhaps this would be an option ... simplicity on the front end and civility on the back end . ( i.e. those responding )

[HarveyH]

Dear All

I've just worked my way through the entire thread - and a fascinating read it is.

I am an academic working in humanities and the thread has presented an extraordinary example of different methodological approaches to categorization. Creating definition and trying to delineate between sub-species has been a pre-occupation of some strands of scientific and quantitative study. But the problem with too narrow a subject definition is that you miss cross-fertilization, of both facts and ideas.

The rather broad categories that these posts have slowly been heading towards, may not suit that scientific approach, but may actually help the sort of general discourse a forum like this should be encouraging. Let us not sit in our particular narrow holes but let us learn from each other and grow in the process.

My own academic studies are in an area where understanding the development of tradition is a key concept (the study of worship). The specifics of my subject are outside the scope of the forum, but I think that there is something I could usefully share on the meaning of tradition. Tradition is not static - it is not a set of historic customs which do not change. Part of the difficulty is that there are voices who wish to argue for a particular point in history as the 'correct' tradition, so you get modern stuff diluting tradition, and you get older stuff looking fusty or historic and no longer being seen as traditional.

Tradition, in its best sense, is alive and changing. It is not some static standard against which change can be judged. Before the second world war the kilt in Scotland would, if seen much at all, have been worn as day wear with a tweed jacket, in what is now rather disparagingly described on X-Marks as a Saxon style. The short tweed kilt jacket is indeed a very modern thing. But now it would be considered very traditional.


Tradition is created culturally as well, so in Scotland the approach to the kilt is very different from those outside Scotland (as Jock keeps trying to explain). I have not found any particular sociological study of the scottish diaspora in North America, but, I suspect that, away from Scotland, the tartan kilt is being claimed as a sign of a distinct heritage, be that Scottish or Celtic generally. If that is the case there is likely to be a specific claiming of identity and, perhaps, a greater degree of seeking a 'right' or 'proper' way of doing things.


In Scotland, it is part of a native evolving tradition, and it is as much tradition to wear a cheap kilt with trainers and a rugby shirt when attending a Scotland match, as it is to wear the 'full fig' at a wedding (or to go barefoot fishing). The difference would be immediately understood as part of a broad culture. But in a modern society, which wants to be seen as a modern industrial and financial society, whilst accepting the Tartan and Kilt as heritage, it becomes very important that it is a modern thing also, hence Howie and 21st century. This is still traditional - it is just that the tradition is evolving.


The point I am making here is that you can't tie down the definitions too tightly because the definitions themselves are not static - if you seek to tie them down and prescribe them - you actually stultify them, and tradition quickly becomes historicism.


I think the thread has been fascinating, you can tell that I will support broader categories rather than narrower ones, but I hope that this little contribution helps some of the ongoing discussion.

[Nathan]

Tradition as a concept is at least as easy to define as modern or contemporary. Any dictionary will do an adequate job of getting across this idea.

Every definition I've seen of tradition involves transmitting practices from generation to generation with the understanding that it will also evolve with each generation.

Let's look at some quick online definitions to see if there is a tie that binds.

Wikipedia

A tradition is a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past.[1][2] Common examples include holidays or impractical but socially meaningful clothes (like lawyer wigs or military officer spurs), but the idea has also been applied to social norms such as greetings. Traditions can persist and evolve for thousands of years—the word "tradition" itself derives from the Latin tradere or traderer literally meaning to transmit, to hand over, to give for safekeeping.

Dictionary.com

the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice:a story that has come down to us by popular tradition.
2.something that is handed down:
the traditions of the Eskimos.
3.a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting:
The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition.
4. a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.
5. a customary or characteristic method or manner:
The winner took a victory lap in the usual track tradition.

Mirriam-Webster.com

tra·di·tion noun \trə-ˈdi-shən\
: a way of thinking, behaving, or doing something that has been used by the people in a particular group, family, society, etc., for a long time: the stories, beliefs, etc., that have been part of the culture of a group of people for a long time

1a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)
b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable
2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions

So we see that tradition can be easily defined. Traditional is simply the adjective that means adhering to a tradition.

I don't think I need to go into the detailed definitions of the words "kilt" and "attire".

It seems to me, therefore, that Traditional Kilt Attire or Traditional Kilt Wear are indeed definable.

Xmarksthescot.com is a forum for kilt wearers to discuss the kilt. It is not a place to legislate the reasons people wear the kilt and approaches that people take to wearing the kilt, but a place to discuss those things and more.

Why do people wear kilts?

Some wear it because they are pipers - many pipers take up the pipes because they are Scottish or of Scottish ethinic origin.

Some wear the kilt because they compete in heavy events at Highland Games - many choose to participate in Highland athletics because they are Scottish or of Scottish ethnic origin.

Must one be Scottish to play pipes or toss cabers? Certainly not. It's just that they usually are because these are Scottish traditions.

Some people wear the kilt because they want to represent their heritage. A huge number of people who do this are expressing their Scottish or Highland heritage whether they live in Scotland or abroad. Some people use the kilt as a means of expressing other Celtic heritage.

Some people wear the kilt because they saw Scottish people doing so and realized how good they look.

Some people wear the kilt because they like the look of it and choose to.

Some people wear it to make a statement or for a variety of other reasons.

The vast majority of kilt wearers do so because of some perceived connection to Scotland or Scottish culture.

Do you have to be Scottish to wear the kilt? Absolutely not. But, if you are wearing a Scottish outfit, you are wearing a Scottish outfit.

With these facts in mind, it seems to be to be very wrong headed to attempt to completely divorce the garment from the culture to which it belongs. To claim that it does not belong to the culture is to commit the crime of cultural appropriation.

Is someone who wears a utility kilt, knee high boots, a hemp shirt and dreadlocks wearing a Scottish outfit? I don't think so. Is the fact that their outfit is not Scottish a bad thing? I don't think so. Should they dress like that if they wish? I think so.

Is traditional normative? Is it wrong to dress in ways that don't conform to the customs that have been transmitted from generation to generation?

That depends on your perspective. Traditions all claim that they are normative and that there is a right way to do things. Within every tradition in each generation there are conservative and progressive elements. The winner of their argument is decided by the generation that follows by what they choose to keep and what they choose to discard. To try to force traditionalists to abandon stewardship over their tradition is wrong.

That said, there is also nothing wrong on a forum like this with choosing not to dress in accordance with the received tradition. As was pointed out above, nobody on this forum is going to say that wearing the pleats in the front is just as good as wearing them to the back, so we are talking about degrees. I have read voices in this thread that say that they don't want to be called non-traditional but why should we twist everything around to accommodate wishful thinking? If something would be regarded as a nontraditional choice in the Highlands, it is what it is. If someone lives in New Mexico and isn't all that concerned with the hypothetical opinion of Highlanders in the Highlands, it is what it is. Make your call and do your thing with confidence. Your unconventional choice will still be nontraditional regardless of what xmarksthescot.com has to say about it.

So it is clear that the words tradition and traditional are as easy to define as the words modern and contemporary and that they are useful concepts when discussing the kilt which is itself a traditional garment.

What is and is not Traditional Highland Civilian Dress doesn't need to be defined in the sub-forum heading. It needs to be discussed in the sub-forum itself.

[Peter Crowe]

Dear All

I've just worked my way through the entire thread - and a fascinating read it is.

I am an academic working in humanities and the thread has presented an extraordinary example of different methodological approaches to categorization. Creating definition and trying to delineate between sub-species has been a pre-occupation of some strands of scientific and quantitative study. But the problem with too narrow a subject definition is that you miss cross-fertilization, of both facts and ideas.

The rather broad categories that these posts have slowly been heading towards, may not suit that scientific approach, but may actually help the sort of general discourse a forum like this should be encouraging. Let us not sit in our particular narrow holes but let us learn from each other and grow in the process.

My own academic studies are in an area where understanding the development of tradition is a key concept (the study of worship). The specifics of my subject are outside the scope of the forum, but I think that there is something I could usefully share on the meaning of tradition. Tradition is not static - it is not a set of historic customs which do not change. Part of the difficulty is that there are voices who wish to argue for a particular point in history as the 'correct' tradition, so you get modern stuff diluting tradition, and you get older stuff looking fusty or historic and no longer being seen as traditional.

Tradition, in its best sense, is alive and changing. It is not some static standard against which change can be judged. Before the second world war the kilt in Scotland would, if seen much at all, have been worn as day wear with a tweed jacket, in what is now rather disparagingly described on X-Marks as a Saxon style. The short tweed kilt jacket is indeed a very modern thing. But now it would be considered very traditional.


Tradition is created culturally as well, so in Scotland the approach to the kilt is very different from those outside Scotland (as Jock keeps trying to explain). I have not found any particular sociological study of the scottish diaspora in North America, but, I suspect that, away from Scotland, the tartan kilt is being claimed as a sign of a distinct heritage, be that Scottish or Celtic generally. If that is the case there is likely to be a specific claiming of identity and, perhaps, a greater degree of seeking a 'right' or 'proper' way of doing things.


In Scotland, it is part of a native evolving tradition, and it is as much tradition to wear a cheap kilt with trainers and a rugby shirt when attending a Scotland match, as it is to wear the 'full fig' at a wedding (or to go barefoot fishing). The difference would be immediately understood as part of a broad culture. But in a modern society, which wants to be seen as a modern industrial and financial society, whilst accepting the Tartan and Kilt as heritage, it becomes very important that it is a modern thing also, hence Howie and 21st century. This is still traditional - it is just that the tradition is evolving.


The point I am making here is that you can't tie down the definitions too tightly because the definitions themselves are not static - if you seek to tie them down and prescribe them - you actually stultify them, and tradition quickly becomes historicism.


I think the thread has been fascinating, you can tell that I will support broader categories rather than narrower ones, but I hope that this little contribution helps some of the ongoing discussion.

Thanks Harvey, I absolutely agree and appreciate your post which better explains my own beliefs around tradition. Obviously within a particular tradition there is discussion and even disagreement about where that dynamic is going in the present. Even in the academic study of history (related to but distinct from tradition), the past is contested.

In general each succeeding generation adapts the tradition handed down to it to suit contemporary life, hence a kilt being worn with a Barbour Jacket and Hunter wellies is traditional but would have been unknown in the 1930's. I also like what you state about cross-pollination and as a Scots expatriate in the United States I have become very aware that this happens in both directions (across the Atlantic) in a constant dialectical process in all aspects of culture and has done for a very long time. Not everything translates to the other exactly, and often has to be modified to fit in with the existing cultural norms of any given place in a process called acculturation. I see this in my own personal life and experience and more generally. It is nothing to be fearful of, and in fact very enriching.

You are right of course that tradition cannot be set in aspic because then it becomes anachronism which is a different animal entirely, and not something I for one have any interest in.

I have no problem with innovation in Highland dress as in any other facet of life, but still wish to express my identity vis-a-vis the Kilt within the broad parameters of traditional Highland civilian dress. Consequently that is the area of XMTS that I am most likely to discuss and contribute to, however, I am open to new ideas and experiences and learning from a wide variety of opinions and sources.

[Carlo]

In this discussion I have arrived at a point where I'm not sure if my limited english is good enough to express my thoughts accurately.

I think that we are only discussing about the definition of traditional because that is the only section most of our members do really care about. It is the one section that actual emotions are poured into (as the brilliant Definition and Guide by Nathan and CMcG shows).

Not that long ago there was a discussion if Steve is dressed traditional or modern. Doesn't that show, that the definition of modern as we use it is just as much a circular definition? After all it is more or less saying, that modern is UTKilts and tartan kilts that are not worn with the traditional style in mind.
I've not seen anyone complaining about that, even with it beeing as much saying "I know it when I see it".

What we can do is stay with what we have now, it doesn't work that bad (apart from the fact that the tartan place should be used for tartan questions), or we can follow the path of:

...

Historical Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing the kilt from a bygone era—whether accurate, theatrical, or anachronistic. Everything from great kilts to uniforms goes here.

Traditional Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing the kilt as Highland attire that have been passed down from generation to generation and remain in contemporary use. Everything from casual to formal in a kilt, if worn in time-honoured ways, goes here.

Modern Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing kilts as everyday clothing, street wear, or fashion that privilege personal interpretation. Everything from utility kilts to tartan kilts worn in new ways goes here.

There will always be blurred lines because the Traditional dress per definition is Modern as it is still worn today.

I hope you were able to follow me, if not, sorry.

[MinusHD]

Passions run deep, so no one should be surprised that there is a lot of disagreement between what is modern vs. what is traditional. Yes, there are clear differences at each end of the spectrum, but as traditional and contemporary styles converge it's is not so clear... so we now have discussion about "contemporary traditional" attire. I realize I'm just repeating the obvious. As a newer XMTS member it's been a great discussion to follow, but it always ends up with the lines more blurred, or more knit-picky tweaking of words and definitions... and not a whole lot of consensus.

What gets less attention is the boundary between "Historical" and Traditional" Is it a specific date or year (like 1782, or early 1600's)? Please pardon my ignorance if this has been determined already. I'm just unaware. Can someone's current style of highland dress be both "traditional" AND "historical"? If so, would anyone admit it? Then could that mean it is also "contemporary" at the same time?

In the photo below (sorry for the poor cell phone quality) I'm wearing what I would describe as "Modern Street Wear" or "Modern Kilt Wear". However, I'm also wearing some "traditional" items as part of my wardrobe:

• 8 yard wool tartan kilt with a kilt pin (it may have slipped a little… hard to tell, but I try to at least start out with the selvedge at mid-knee)
• Day Sporran (yes, I’m wearing a day sporran at night – I only have one presently)
• Tan Hose (a little hard to see… perhaps worn a little high – if so, just call it a rookie mistake and accept my apology)
• Flashes (hard to see)
• Kilt belt/buckle
• My black shirt is not a traditional color (personal flair encouraged?), but it is a buttoned-front “dress shirt”, sleeves rolled up due to the heat)
• No sgain dubh
• No head cover
• Then there are those paratrooper boots - not traditional, but their fellow foot-protecting cousins, hiking boots, might have been acceptable to some traditionalists.

Before I get slammed here, remember that I don't consider my appearance to be very traditional, but to some it might not be that far off. If I wore dress shoes or hikers and a white shirt I might almost be mistaken for a traditionalist dressed in a casual yet contemporary style for a summer night's musical performance. Maybe not... but if you think this is anywhere near the brink of being acceptable for a traditional (yet contemporary) casual outfit, what specifically disqualifies it (besides any typical newbie errors)? And how offensive are the disqualifiers? Do we need to develop a THCD point system to judge each item (or lack thereof) and rate the overall traditional-ness of the outfit? Yes, I'm joking. Now, If you don’t think my outfit remotely fits in with any kind of “traditional” form of highland casual dress, that’s OK. I was going for a modern casual look, but I like to include some traditional elements.

I think several people have touched on this, and have done so more eloquently, but “traditional attire” seems to encompass a broad range of styles with some basic guidelines that also allow for personal flair and evolution. Even the newly documented “Current General Conventions of THCD” at the most conservative end of the traditional spectrum allow for some variation and personal expression. AND not all modern/contemporary kilt wearers are wearing tee shirts and sandals with an X-Kilt, Alt.Kilt, Sport Kilt, Freedom Kilt… or the quintessential modern American scapegoat, a Utilikilt. Some do wear “modern” kilts for Modern Street Wear. Some wear “traditional” kilts for Modern Street Wear. And while I wouldn't expect to see a canvas utility style kilt dressed up with a bounty of formal highland accessories for a wedding, it’s not uncommon for someone to include several elements of traditional highland dress to wear in a more modern style. Some own and wear multiple styles of kilts to be worn in both traditional and non-traditional manners. Even if I’m not trying to look as traditional as the next guy the lines are blurred. Perhaps partially-traditional really means non-traditional. I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere, but XMTS has proven that difficult to do.

So… all that to get to this… Does the name of your (or my) specific kilt attire forum really matter? Do we really need such specific wording in the forum names to ensure nobody mistakenly posts an “almost-traditional” dress question in the “hard-core-traditional” forum? Does the site dictate where I post, or do I? The lines are blurred, so I’m not sure more exclusive forums with very specific titles are a great answer. I think the direction Steve was moving in his original post was a great idea. Could his suggested forum names be tweaked? Maybe, but I don’t have any better suggestions myself. I think the concept is to group members' posts a little more inclusively based on our own general styles of dress, and not necessarily based on our kilts being tartan or not... or who is the epitome of THCD. I know that idea is not popular with everyone.

But here's how it would work... If you feel like you’re somewhere in the traditional camp, post in the traditional forum and hopefully you’ll be accepted to discuss the finder points of TCHD and all that is closely related to it. You might accidentally find out that you’d be better off in the modern forum, even if you’re wearing a tartan tank. Maybe you'll discover that your posts should be divided between the traditional and modern forums because sometimes your casual kilt apparel isn't quite traditional enough for you to be considered a tried and true traditionalist 100% of the time. Maybe the opposite is true.
If you’re fully committed to the historical accuracy of your ancient highland dress replicas for research, ren-faires or reenactments, you'll know where to go. Just understand that most people will consider that to be a “costume”. Don’t be offended by that; it’s just a description, not a judgment. And don’t be upset when Braveheart posts his comical Halloween photo. There won’t be many of those anyway, so roll with it and enjoy the humor. Who knows… you might be able to give him some encouraging pointers to help improve his costume for next year. And wouldn't that be cool?

Or we can keep segmenting the forums into: Trad; Semi Trad; Sort-of Trad; Pseudo Trad; Not-so Trad // Tartan Mod; Partially Mod; Mostly Mod; Uber Mod; Not-even-a-Kilt Mod... and so on... With sticky posts like "10 Looks for 10 People who Can't Agree on Anything". Yep, I'm joking again...

I will continue to find benefit in all of the XMTS forums, no matter what they are called. Maybe the blurred lines can be good, and maybe they can help us all learn a thing or two.

I appreciate all the other members’ insightful contributions to this thread. I very much enjoy reading everyone’s perspectives, even if some our views differ in the end. Thanks!

[creagdhubh]

I will continue to find benefit in all of the XMTS forums, no matter what they are called. Maybe the blurred lines can be good, and maybe they can help us all learn a thing or two.

I appreciate all the other members’ insightful contributions to this thread. I very much enjoy reading everyone’s perspectives, even if some our views differ in the end. Thanks!

And this is precisely what makes this forum (and the rabble) so wonderfully unique.

[Nathan]

What gets less attention is the boundary between "Historical" and Traditional" Is it a specific date or year (like 1782, or early 1600's)? Please pardon my ignorance if this has been determined already. I'm just unaware. Can someone's current style of highland dress be both "traditional" AND "historical"? If so, would anyone admit it? Then could that mean it is also "contemporary" at the same time?

The dividing line between traditional and historic is not a date but whether the item or style has fallen out of use by tradition bearers. In the early 20th Century, plaids and dirks were considered traditional by most for evening wear. Nowadays they are considered by many to be historic. Obviously there is grey area as older people dress how they learned to when they were young and younger people discard things they perceive to be over the top or old fashioned. There is consensus that great kilts and flint lock pistols are historic attire but there is not consensus around plaids and hair sporrans for example. Some feel they have crossed the line into historic and others think they are splendid.

This is also complicated by the fact that fashion in general is going through a vintage craze where movements like steam punk, new gentleman and chap hop are reviving the 19th Century aesthetic. Since Highland fashion moves slower than Saxon fashion, this resurgence of classic style may save some styles that were heading toward historic before they cross the line into the dustbin of history.

Once something falls out of use and the tradition is broken, to wear it becomes an exercise in anachronism and a historic costume. There are times when this is appropriate but it is not the same as traditional clothing.

In the photo below (sorry for the poor cell phone quality) I'm wearing what I would describe as "Modern Street Wear" or "Modern Kilt Wear". However, I'm also wearing some "traditional" items as part of my wardrobe:

• 8 yard wool tartan kilt with a kilt pin (it may have slipped a little… hard to tell, but I try to at least start out with the selvedge at mid-knee)
• Day Sporran (yes, I’m wearing a day sporran at night – I only have one presently)
• Tan Hose (a little hard to see… perhaps worn a little high – if so, just call it a rookie mistake and accept my apology)
• Flashes (hard to see)
• Kilt belt/buckle
• My black shirt is not a traditional color (personal flair encouraged?), but it is a buttoned-front “dress shirt”, sleeves rolled up due to the heat)
• No sgain dubh
• No head cover
• Then there are those paratrooper boots - not traditional, but their fellow foot-protecting cousins, hiking boots, might have been acceptable to some traditionalists.

Before I get slammed here, remember that I don't consider my appearance to be very traditional, but to some it might not be that far off. If I wore dress shoes or hikers and a white shirt I might almost be mistaken for a traditionalist dressed in a casual yet contemporary style for a summer night's musical performance. Maybe not... but if you're think this is anywhere near the brink of being acceptable for a traditional (yet contemporary) casual outfit, what specifically disqualifies it (besides any typical newbie errors)? And how offensive are the disqualifiers? Do we need to develop a THCD point system to judge each item (or lack thereof) and rate the overall traditional-ness of the outfit? Yes, I'm joking. Now, If you don’t think my outfit remotely fits in with any kind of “traditional” form of highland casual dress, that’s OK. I was going for a modern casual look, but I like to include some traditional elements.

I think you achieved the look you were going for and your look would be regarded as traditional by some and not by others. You are right that the dark shirt and paratrooper boots would be less common in most traditional contexts, but, that being said, the lack of sgian dubh and bonnet are not a problem at all.

I have been labeled as a traditionalist here but I would wear an outfit like that on stage for sure. I respect tradition but tradition is not static. If people of our generation dress like that in the Highlands, the look will be viewed as traditional eventually. If they don't it won't. What we do abroad doesn't determine what is traditional Highland attire.

I think several people have touched on this, and have done so more eloquently, but “traditional attire” seems to encompass a broad range of styles with some basic guidelines that also allow for personal flair and evolution. Even the newly documented “Current General Conventions of THCD” at the most conservative end of the traditional spectrum allow for some variation and personal expression. AND not all modern/contemporary kilt wearers are wearing tee shirts and sandals with an X-Kilt, Alt.Kilt, Sport Kilt, Freedom Kilt… or the quintessential modern American scapegoat, a Utilikilt. Some do wear “modern” kilts for Modern Street Wear. Some wear “traditional” kilts for Modern Street Wear. And while I wouldn't expect to see a canvas utility style kilt dressed up with a bounty of formal highland accessories for a wedding, it’s not uncommon for someone to include several elements of traditional highland dress to wear in a more modern style. Some own and wear multiple styles of kilts to be worn in both traditional and non-traditional manners. Even if I’m not trying to look as traditional as the next guy the lines are blurred. Perhaps partially-traditional really means non-traditional. I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere, but XMTS has proven that difficult to do.

So… all that to get to this… Does the name of your (or my) specific kilt attire forum really matter? Do we really need such specific wording in the forum names to ensure nobody mistakenly posts an “almost-traditional” dress question in the “hard-core-traditional” forum? Does the site dictate where I post, or do I? The lines are blurred, so I’m not sure more exclusive forums with very specific titles are a great answer. I think the direction Steve was moving in his original post was a great idea. Could his suggested forum names be tweaked? Maybe, but I don’t have any better suggestions myself. I think the concept was is to group member posts a little more inclusively based on our own general styles of dress, and not necessarily based on our kilts being tartan or not... or who is the epitome of THCD. I know that idea is not popular with everyone.

But here's how it would work... If you feel like you’re somewhere in the traditional camp, post in the traditional forum and hopefully you’ll be accepted to discuss the finder points of TCHD and all that is closely related to it. You might accidentally find out that you’d be better off in the modern forum, even if you’re wearing a tartan tank. Maybe you'll discover that your posts should be divided between the traditional and modern forums because sometimes your casual kilt apparel isn't quite traditional enough for you to be considered a tried and true traditionalist 100% of the time. Maybe the opposite is true.
If you’re fully committed to the historical accuracy of your ancient highland dress replicas for research, ren-faires or reenactments, you'll know where to go. Just understand that most people will consider that to be a “costume”. Don’t be offended by that; it’s just a description, not a judgment. And don’t be upset when Braveheart posts his comical Halloween photo. There won’t be many of those anyway, so roll with it and enjoy the humor. Who knows… you might be able to give him some encouraging pointers to help improve his costume for next year. And wouldn't that be cool?

Or we can keep segmenting the forums into: Trad; Semi Trad; Sort-of Trad; Pseudo Trad; Not-so Trad // Tartan Mod; Partially Mod; Mostly Mod; Uber Mod; Not-even-a-Kilt Mod... and so on... With sticky posts like "10 Looks for 10 People who Can't Agree on Anything". Yep, I'm joking again...

I will continue to find benefit in all of the XMTS forums, no matter what they are called. Maybe the blurred lines can be good, and maybe they can help us all learn a thing or two.

I appreciate all the other members’ insightful contributions to this thread. I very much enjoy reading everyone’s perspectives, even if some our views differ in the end. Thanks!

Traditional outfits are by definition both historic and contemporary. Many of their elements have their roots in previous generations but they are still contemporary or modern because they have not fallen out of use.

Confused? Think about a business suit. It's modern but you can find a photo of someone wearing something very similar from 100 years ago.

Your points are well made. I think the sub forums clarify how someone wants a pic post to be perceived. If someone posts an almost traditional photo in the traditional forum and asks for feedback, my response would be different than if they posted it in the contemporary forum.

In the former, I'd tell them what they could tweak to take it from almost to all the way traditional. In the latter, I'd judge the look on purely aesthetic grounds about whether I think the person looked well put together regardless of traditional views.

That's where the true value of the different sub-forums comes out.

[CMcG]

... I was going for a modern casual look, but I like to include some traditional elements.
...

I think you achieved your style goal quite nicely

As for the sub-forums, clarity of structure provides a framework that facilitates discussion. In the open sections of the forum, such as General Kilt Talk, it can be necessary to preface everything one writes with a disclaimer, apology, and statement of perspective. This helps to promote civil discussion amongst people with very different points of view on kilts, but it can also be quite tedious. It can then be a relief to post something, without all the preamble, in a narrower style sub-forum where the regulars all understand the context and will respond in kind.

I agree that there is overlap and grey area between Historical, Traditional, and Modern. Some people's style is very clearly one way, but other people switch between styles and/or dress in a way that is neither here nor there. That's all cool! That's also why we have the catch-all General area, as well many other niche sub-fora where people can just posts pics or discuss a specific accessory