Cultural Appropriation?

[KyleAisteach]

I just want to thank everyone again for all the thoughtful replies. It's proving very helpful.

It's sounding to me like this:

Registering a tartan = almost certainly not appropriative.
Using your own tartan for various non-kilt products = not appropriative.
Wearing / encouraging members to wear a non-tartan kilt = probably not appropriative.
Wearing /encouraging members to wear a tartan kilt = potentially appropriative (with the standard followup conversation of where we draw the line between inappropriate cultural appropriation and normal and healthy cross-cultural influences).

What do y'all think? Could I take a (more detailed, of course) consensus like that back to the board?

(More discussion is, of course, encouraged. I'm not going to start writing anything up for several days at least.)

[Steve Ashton]

In your catagory "Wearing /encouraging members to wear a tartan kilt" I would make a distinction between a Clan Tartan and your company Tartan.

Wearing a tie in your company Tartan or even a kilt in your company Tartan would be different that wearing a Clan Tartan as a company one.

[Liam]

I just want to thank everyone again for all the thoughtful replies. It's proving very helpful.

It's sounding to me like this:

Registering a tartan = almost certainly not appropriative.
Using your own tartan for various non-kilt products = not appropriative.
Wearing / encouraging members to wear a non-tartan kilt = probably not appropriative.
Wearing /encouraging members to wear a tartan kilt = potentially appropriative (with the standard followup conversation of where we draw the line between inappropriate cultural appropriation and normal and healthy cross-cultural influences).

What do y'all think? Could I take a (more detailed, of course) consensus like that back to the board?

(More discussion is, of course, encouraged. I'm not going to start writing anything up for several days at least.)

Registering your tartan... Perhaps to provide a record of its details for the future
I see no issue with non-kilt use of tartan, ie ties, hand bags, scarves, blankets, wraps, women's dresses, vests, hats, capes etc.
There is no cultural significance in a non-tartan kilt so fill your boots
Wear a tartan kilt with respect, unless you are part of the "tartan army on manoeuvres" as Jock Scot puts it, then traditional rules are relaxed.
Just my thoughts....
Cheers!

[KyleAisteach]

Wear a tartan kilt with respect

I think this is exactly where much of the current cultural appropriation discussion has come from, because there is so much culture-specific dress being turned into Halloween costumes lately. If you're putting it on because it's funny, just don't. That one's easy.

The interesting cultural appropriation discussion to me is about the people who are trying to be respectful by wearing it, but don't really understand what they're doing, and how different rules seem to apply to different cultures. We're a weird species.

Again, everyone, thanks for the thoughts. I really, really appreciate it.

[Nathan]

My view is probably going to ruffle some feathers. I don't mean any disrespect to the erudite and eloquent folks that posted their thoughtful comments before me.

In my view, Highland attire has already long-ago been appropriated by non-Highland Scots. The particular combination of tartan, kilt, sporran etc... that was once a recognizable sign of a Gael is no longer symbolic of this cultural group. Rather, the costume of the Gael as well as his music has been appropriated and nationalized by his historical antagonist, the non-Gaelic Scots and, as evidenced by this thread, is now considered "Scottish" attire by many.

The fact that CDN says the Scots were not an oppressed group speaks to the fact that many don't make a distinction between the English Speaking Tobacco and Plantation giants of Glasgow and the poor Gaelic-speaking crofter of the Hebrides. Some Scots were the oppressed and others were the oppressors.

It gets more complicated when we consider the role of class rather than just ethnicity in this history. Land owning Lairds and Chiefs, while ethnically Gaelic were educated in the English system and became culturally distinct from their tenants. That notwithstanding, they still inherited the traditions of Highland attire and music intergenerationally through their families.

This all happened at a very different time in history and, to be sure, sensitivities were not as they are today around such matters. This particular act of cultural appropriation happened during a period when Highland culture was romanticized and exoticised. Ironically, whilst the culture of the Gael was being celebrated in books and songs, the actual Gaels were facing abject poverty, famine and clearances.

That having been said, the appropriation of Highland culture and its symbols adopted as pan-Scottish culture has actually had a unifying effect on the Scottish populace. Gael and Anglophone alike today regard kilts and bagpipes as Scottish, rather than Highland/Gaelic things. This national unity is certainly not without its good points.

What must next be recognized is that Gaels and Anglo-Scots alike benefited (and continue to benefit) financially from the export of these cultural products to diaspora communities around the world. They also spread throughout the British empire via the military.

It is, therefore, difficult to say that something has been stolen when it has, in fact, been sold. Woolen mills, weavers and outfitters in Inverness and other Highland communities have been enriched from the export of this culture as much as anyone.

In summary, many identifiable elements of Gaidhlig culture have been appropriated but it happened so long ago that there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. At this point, all that can be hoped for is that some respect be shown toward these things by those who are enthusiastic about them.

Especially in the Scottish context, the walls between nationality, language, territory, culture and class are porous rather than tall and rigid so the language used to describe the European American's adopting of Aboriginal North American symbols and culture don't really fit like a glove. Still, they can provide some food for thought.

Slàinte mhath!

Natan

[Liam]

My view is probably going to ruffle some feathers. I don't mean any disrespect to the erudite and eloquent folks that posted their thoughtful comments before me.

In my view, Highland attire has already long-ago been appropriated by non-Highland Scots. The particular combination of tartan, kilt, sporran etc... that was once a recognizable sign of a Gael is no longer symbolic of this cultural group. Rather, the costume of the Gael as well as his music has been appropriated and nationalized by his historical antagonist, the non-Gaelic Scots and, as evidenced by this thread, is now considered "Scottish" attire by many.

The fact that CDN says the Scots were not an oppressed group speaks to the fact that many don't make a distinction between the English Speaking Tobacco and Plantation giants of Glasgow and the poor Gaelic-speaking crofter of the Hebrides. Some Scots were the oppressed and others were the oppressors.

It gets more complicated when we consider the role of class rather than just ethnicity in this history. Lond owning Lairds and Chiefs, while ethnically Gaelic were educated in the English system and became culturally distinct from their tenants. That notwithstanding, they still inherited the traditions of Highland attire and music intergenerationally through their families.

This all happened at a very different time in history and, to be sure, sensitivities were not as they are today around such matters. This particular act of cultural appropriation happened during a period when Highland culture was romanticized and exoticised. Ironically, whilst the culture of the Gael was being celebrated in books and songs, the actual Gaels were facing abject poverty, famine and clearances.

That having been said, the appropriation of Highland culture and its symbols adopted as pan-Scottish culture has actually had a unifying effect on the Scottish populace. Gael and Anglophone alike today regard kilts and bagpipes as Scottish, rather than Highand/Gaelic things. This national unity is certainly not without its good points.

What must next be recognized is that Gaels and Anglo-Scots alike benefited (and continue to benefit) financially from the export of these cultural products to diaspora communities around the world. They also spread throughout the British empire via the military.

It is, therefore, difficult to say that something has been stolen when it has, in fact, been sold. Woolen mills, weavers and outfitters in Inverness and other Highland communities have been enriched from the export of this culture as much as anyone.

In summary, many identifiable elements of Gaidhlig culture have been appropriated but it happened so long ago that there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. At this point, all that can be hoped for is that some respect be shown toward these things by those who are enthusiastic about them.

Especially in the Scottish context, the walls between nationality, language, territory, culture and class are porous rather than tall and rigid so the language used to describe the European American's adopting of Aboriginal North American symbols and culture don't really fit like a glove. Still, they can provide some food for thought.

Slàinte mhath!

Natan

I would go further and say as a result of the "Clearances" Highland culture wasn't sold, but thrown out in many cases. Those who were thrown out spread their Highland culture around the world.

[Nathan]

I would go further and say as a result of the "Clearances" Highland culture wasn't sold, but thrown out in many cases. Those who were thrown out spread their Highland culture around the world.

You'd be right about that!