Non-Scottish Kilts? HUH?!?

[macwilkin]

Which historians were those again? I haven't seen any historians on this board acknowledge that kilts were more than just Scottish in the past.

Quite right, Colin; if anything, Matt is arguing in his articles that the traditional Highland attire was adopted by other Celtic countries as a way to establish their own national identities, not that the Irish and the Welsh had their own district versions of the kilt.

T.

[Colin]

Point taken, Colin. I agree that the traditional kilt is thought of as Scottish - as it should be - but I still maintain that the contemporary variations of it, unless designed and produced in Scotland, are not and should not be labelled as Scottish. I do all I can to emphasise this whenever my contemporary kilts attract comments.

That's my real point Hamish. Just because the kilt I am wearing is Canadian made and designed doesn't mean the Kilt, as an entity, is not Scottish. Chris seems to be implying (correct me if I am wrong) that Scotland is loosing the grasp on the kilt, and the Kilt will one day be seen as American, or Canadian, or Pakistani, etc rather than as a Scottish garment.

[Hamish]

That's my real point Hamish. Just because the kilt I am wearing is Canadian made and designed doesn't mean the Kilt, as an entity, is not Scottish. Chris seems to be implying (correct me if I am wrong) that Scotland is loosing the grasp on the kilt, and the Kilt will one day be seen as American, or Canadian, or Pakistani, etc rather than as a Scottish garment.

Ah! I misunderstood. No that will NEVER happen - not to the kilt that everyone knows. I think it right, however, that the modern variations in styles removed from the traditional kilt, be they tartan or something else, should not be referred to as being Scottish, unless they have been designed and made in that fair land. The Kilt per se, however, will always be known as being Scottish - or am I contradicting myself here!?

[bubba]

I just think of kilts as Contemporary, which covers Utilikilts, most Freedom Kilts, RKilts, Union Kilts, etc, Casual Kilts which covers the usual 4 to 5 yard kilts, Traditional Kilts which covers the heavier weight kilts made on the Scottish model of formal kilts and Budget Kilts which covers the Stillwaters and other inexpensive tartan kilts. Personally, I really don't think much about nationality concerning kilts unless I'm reading up on history. I think kilts generically have transcended that today.

[RCallan]

Is this like saying "Blue Jeans" are from America...and "Twill Trowsers" are from Europe????

They are both pants...and we don't wear them anyways!

[MacWage]

there is some drivel in this blog. why does it have to be anti-English? why does it have to be anti-anything? isn't it more pro-Scottish? and how do you explain me, an Englishman wearing a kilt, by these standards?
when was the last time you put on a kilt thinking, I hate the English, I'll put on my kilt to prove it?

Interesting . . .

Matt, by the way, is of English blood (his last name is English), as well as Scottish. He is also American by birth. He was NOT being anti-English, just assertig that Scots and others have attributed kilts as a Celtic identity, and adopted a particularly highlander Scot garb that was not historically Irish, Welsh, Brittony, or anything else. If I READ IT RIGHT, he was pointing out that it is a HIGHLANDER garment, not a pan-celtic. It was not anti-English.

Historically, Kilts are Scottish, but they are becoming more and more common and used for more everyday usage. I do think that it is Americans (US and Canadian both) driving this, which is cross-filtering to Scotland.

Also-> I think that contemptory kilts are possibly more American in roots than Scottish, so may be called something to that in effect in a future time. UNLESS, kilts become more common and we have "modern" kilts and "traditional" kilts or "Scottish Kilts"

PS-> I prefer the term American as ALL North and South Americans. Yet, I'm not sure what else to call us who live in the US besides "us." Canadians have it lucky that they can be "American if they want to be OR Canadian OR "Her Majesty's Loyal Subjects."

[Chris Webb]

Ah! I misunderstood. No that will NEVER happen - not to the kilt that everyone knows. I think it right, however, that the modern variations in styles removed from the traditional kilt, be they tartan or something else, should not be referred to as being Scottish, unless they have been designed and made in that fair land. The Kilt per se, however, will always be known as being Scottish - or am I contradicting myself here!?

Ham, you pretty much said the same thing I've been saying all along. You are not contradicting yourself, you are simply stating the obvious. A kilt made in America is not a Scottish Kilt, it is at best a Scottish-American kilt, as I have exhaustively explained in the "no more kilts for me" thread. No matter how much someone born in America, or Canada, wants to be Scottish the simple fact is that they are not Scottish, they are at best Scottish-American or Scottish-Canadia just like their American or Canadian made kilts. I've been accused of wishful thinking?

Some of you fellas are picking one line out of my posts, worthy of disdain or not, and throwing out my entire arguments not because they are with out merit but because you simply don't like them. "Which historians?" What about the rest of that paragraph? I've even been misquoted indirectly.

Colin, you said, "Chris seems to be implying (correct me if I am wrong) that Scotland is loosing the grasp on the kilt, and the Kilt will one day be seen as American, or Canadian, or Pakistani, etc rather than as a Scottish garment." You are implying that I think Scotland will lose it's claim to kilts. At your request I now present my correction from what I've already written.

I said, "Scotland will likely forever hold a special and well deserved claim to kilts as a mans' garment. I really don't think the modern kilting movement would have even began with out the fuel of Scottish Pride and Heritage behind it. Scotland took what always was and made it wonderful, I doubt that anyone will ever be able to hold ownership of the Kilt the way the Scots have. But ... Kilts are bigger than Scotland and they are getting bigger all the time. THERE WILL HOWEVER ALWAYS BE THE SCOTTISH KILT, OF THIS I'M SURE." Emphasis added.

Obviously Scotland is not going to "lose its grasp" on the Traditional Scottish Kilt made in Scotland. But, as surely as the Swiss lost their grasp of the fine watch industry to the inexpensive makers of quartz watches decades ago the Scots are losing kilts to, as Ham said, makers of "modern variations in styles removed from the traditional kilt, be they tartan or something else," well outside of Scotland.

This doesn't make a Traditional Scottish Kilt made in Scotland any less fine than a Swiss Watch made in Switzerland. But how many of us are wearing Swiss made watches? How many of us are wearing Scottish made kilts? What percentage of us actually own a Traditional Scottish Kilt made in Scotland, or at least made by somebody from Scotland? There are some mighty fine watches made elsewhere, mighty fine kilts too.

Ham is right to distinguish kilts by where they are made. No matter what the product every manufacturer takes pride in clearly labeling the origin of its production; Made in China, Made in Scotland, Made in Canada, Pakistan, England, Tiawan, South Korea, wherever. Frankly, no kiltmaker is required to call his kilts Scottish. My recommendation to call non-Scottish made kilts Scottish-Whatever honors both Scotland and the Kiltmakers no matter where they are from.

Is a Cuban cigar made in Florida really a Cuban cigar? Is a Scottish Kilt made in America really a Scottish Kilt? No and No.

Respectfully,

Chris Webb

[phil h]

I'm not saying mat was being anti-English. but someone who posted a reply to his blog, mentioned the term "anti-English" and that some people wear a kilt to show their anti-English attitude.

my personal opinion is this: I can't see anyone wearing a kilt to be anti-English.
I can however see someone wearing a kilt for comfort or to show their Scottish pride. I'm not accusing anyone here or on mats blog of being anti-English. just because you mention something does not make you anti-anything.

IF you read my other post I said
"sorry I wasn't referring to you, you just linked to the post, and I was not referring to mat, just the comments on his blog."

[bubba]

Lesson I learned many years ago, people that throw the "anti- (insert subject) are usually following an agenda of their own and should generally be ignored since the rarely have anything of value to contribute to any discussion.

[Alan H]

At the Highland Games I attend, there's one tent where the guy who holds forth is pretty vitriolically anti-English. The only problem is that his history is only about two-thirds correct and he ignores things done by his own ancestors that weren't so wonderful, either.

I must say that it really bothers me to hear this attitude and I've taken to just passing over that clan tent when he's there. If your ancestors, nine generations ago,did something horrid to my ancestors, eleven generations ago, I'm going to treat it as "history" not a personal vendetta. What makes it hurtful in my mind is that when peope cometo his tent to ask about geneology information, he wraps up a lot of anti-English with his helpful information, and for someone who really doesn't know anything, that's not very productive.

The Scots areguilty of jut as much bloodshed and persecution as the English are,who have just as gray a history as the Irish. Here in the USA most of us are "mutts" anyway, and to hold a grudge andmake comments like that just seems stupid to me.