Non-Scottish Kilts? HUH?!?

[Alan H]

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.

Bubba, after talking to this guy once for about ten minutes, about a totally unrelated topic about which he knows nothing but I have three degrees in and spent ten years teaching....ten minutes spent, unable to complete a sentence to shed some light on the actual facts which we were disucssing...ten minutes lisstening to him expound his view and not let anyone with a different view get a whole sentence out...

....I figured out that talking to the man about much of anything at all was a complete waste of time.

[MacWage]

phil h,

I do apologize, I thought you meant Matt's comments. For other readers, I went back and looked at Matt's blog and found 8 Comments noted VERY SMALL under the blog itself. The comments refered to are:
Glenn McDavid said...
Why: The kilt screams "I am not English". This is important to many peole of Irish, Welsh, Cornish, etc. descent as well as those of Scottish ancestry.

Unlike, say, the old Irish leine and brat, the kilt has evolved into a form of modern European dress. It can be worn with modern shoes, shirts, and sweaters. Thus it can plausibly be 21st century clothing as opposed to costume.

Furthermore, consider what may be the second most frequent question the kilt wearer gets: "What tartan is that?" This provides the wearer of the kilt to talk about his heritage, and how the tartan symbolizes that. The actual history of kilts, tartans, and ethnicity need not have much to do with this.

When: You suggested the answer yourself, with the evolution of the rather modern "pan-Celtic" concept. I suspect you will find some correlation there. Perhaps we can think of it as a modern parallel to the post-1707 popularity of tartan in the Lowlands as a protest against the Act of Union.

This is all speculation on my part, but it does seem to fit the current circumstances.

Matt responds to this as:
Matthew Newsome, FSA Scot, GTS said...
All very good thoughts, Glen. I suppose when a Welshman, or someone from Cornwall, wants to identify themselves as "not English," then they really do not have much in the way of visual aspects of their carraige that they can use. The Welsh, for instance, dressed very much like the English, in the twelfth century as well as today.

Only in Scotland do you find so distinct a mode of dress. So we should be honored that others find it so appealing that they want to adapt it.

What really bothers me, however, are the false "histories" that are manufactured to justify the wearing of the kilt. You don't need to justify it! Just wear it!

3:27 PM

Note-> Matt says NOT ENGLISH, not anti-English!!! He goes on to bring it back to HIS point-> "What really bothers me, however, are the false "histories" that are manufactured to justify the wearing of the kilt. You don't need to justify it! Just wear it!"

My bad, I thought BOTH of your references were to Matt's comments. I was confused by the Not you, not Matt, but the comments on the blog. I thought it was in the vein of "not you, but your racist/sexist/etc comments upset me," which I find stupid as usually comments reflect their source.

As for:
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."

Again, the problem is half known history and a felt need to justify one's own feelings. THAT is the same mentality that leads to revisionist history and the stupidity that Cajunscot fights in his job as a parkranger.

It is one thing to poke light fun at one another, but another to ACTUALLY MEAN IT!!!!

Scots love to pick at the Irish and English, but few REALLY MEAN IT. Same with many others. It is a whole other thing down here, where many southerners poke fun at yankees and MEAN IT. Once at the store, one employee was from Buffalo, New York and was rude to a customer. The customer complained to me. To lighten the mood, I go for a cheap laugh and said, "Oh, She's a yankee from New York." The CUSTOMER smiles and says, "Oh, That explains it! Thanks!" and turns walking away singing happily to herself. I am dumbfounded!! Then I start laughing to myself, and tell the otehr employees, who die laughing. The one who seemed an Idiot was the customer!

Back to topic.

Kilts, as we know them, ARE Scot garb. It was ONLY adopted in fairly recent years by non-Scot celts and a bunch of revisionist history is created (it is all BULL!!!) to justify it. THAT is Matt's point. It is mine. And It is Todd's as well.

As to what contemporary kilts will be seen as in a few decades or centuries, THAT is still up for graps and will be seen (probably after my time).

Likely, we are in a period of return to essence, where kilts are again common barb for common wearing, like they were in the Victorian age IN Scotland. The motivating/initiating factor in that may have been Americans and Canadians (sorry about the bad terming) seeking their roots and what was done in the past, who then revived it with their own spin (such as non-wool and non-tartan kilts made from canvas and denim that can be machine washed. Also, such a movement REQUIRES kilts that are cheap enough for poor guys like me to get some and stock up a decent number of them for less than a Scot-made tank imported to the colonies. If I only had the latter, HECK NO I wouldn't wear a thousand dollar garb to the store or a car show.

[phil h]

thank you macWage, what I should have done was inserted a quote or two, like you did, and been more specific. sorry about that.

I think also that any kilt made in Scotland, bet it tartan or otherwise, is Scottish, how can it be anything else? tartan kilts made in America or Canada can still be seen as Scottish, if they are made of Scottish tartan, none tartan kilts? well, they have Scottish influence, and can show that pride.

even Scottish kilt makers make American influenced kilts, like TFCK and others, I think it is the Americans and Canadians who have sparked this revival of kilt wearing, how many kilts do you see being warn in Scotland today? not many, I was in the local Celtic FC club, and was told I put the Scots to shame, and than more Scots should be wearing their kilts, most Scottish people think it is great to see someone, even a Englishman wearing a kilt, shows we ( the English ) may finally show them ( the Scottish ) some respect. the greatest form of compliment is imitation.

another member in this post made a comment I use a lot, " you don't have to be an American to wear jeans"
the kilt is an evolving thing, like any other garment.

[Colin]

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.

That entire paragraph was quoted and most of my previous post addressed the rest of the paragraph. Which historians are you refering too? I don't see it, but maybe I am missing it.

Based on the rest of your argument and comparisson to Swiss watches, Am I too believe that this entire time you have been simply saying that Scotland has lost it's exclusive manufacturing rights to the kilt?

If that is the case, than yes, your messages have been misinterpurated. I have always taken your continued message to be that kilts will no longer be associated with Scotland, but instead with countries like the US. To me this is rubbish as the kilt will always be associated with Scotland. A lot of people here seem to think the kiltwearers that wear their $100-$200 kilts everyday are better than the Scot that only brings out his $500-$800 Scottish made heavy wool family tartan kilt for special occasions. That's just another form of tyranny IMHO.

Now if you are simply refering to the Scots losing the exclusive manufacturing rights to the kilt, you are correct. Kilts are being designed, produced, and marketed in other parts of the world. I must say though that the crusade of some is not really the cause of this. There have been shops on the Royal Mile and in other parts of Scotland selling cheap versions or imitations of traditional kilts made off shore for ages. Long before there was a Utilikilt, or a USA kilt, or a Bear Kilt, or even a Sport kilt, there were knock off shops producing cheaper versions of kilts for tourists.

Now I must add that the quality has greatly improved, the resources have improved, and the market has grown and become more knowledgable, and that is thanks to people like the members of this forum and a few others that wanted a middle of the road good quality product that was still affordable. We have gotten that with US companies (USA Kilts, Utilikilts, Neokilts, etc), Canadian companies (Rkilts, Freedomkilts, Canadian Casual kilts, Bear(?), etc), and even from US firms that sell offshore made kilts, but still have their ear to the ground to see what consumers really want (Stillwater). We have a great selection of quality made goods from around the world at our disposal.

So yes, Chris Scotland has lost it's exclusive manufacturing rights to the kilt, but the kilt will always be associated with Scotland no matter where it is made.

For what it's worth, if I want a Swiss watch I will buy a really good Swiss watch. If I want something more affordable, I will find some of the better quality non-Swiss made watches. What I won't buy is the $10 watch that needs a new battery every week. I don't need 15 watches when none of them tell me the time

[auld argonian]

So, let me get this straight...is a kilt made in Pakistan for an American seller anything like my "American" Mercury Station Wagon that was full of parts marked "made in Mexico" or is it like my "Japanese" car that was made in Ontario, Canada?

Best

AA

[Colin]

So, let me get this straight...is a kilt made in Pakistan for an American seller anything like my "American" Mercury Station Wagon that was full of parts marked "made in Mexico" or is it like my "Japanese" car that was made in Ontario, Canada?

Best

AA

Good question, I will have to go and sit in my Ontario made Toyota and think about it. Of course to muddy the issue, aren't USAK kilts and Canadian Casual kilts made from PV that is produced in England of Scottish and Irish tartans? I think of where it is made personally. I don't think there is much that is made without foreign parts these days. Think of it as owning a little piece of everywhere

[phil h]

another thing to remember is this: we are not like the rest of Joe public, when it comes to kilts, we, as kilt wearers are very much different. we wear kilts a lot of the time, understand the difference in all the kilts out there, average Joe, just thinks in most part that kilts are Scottish.

also historians and people telling of history, have their own agendas, like the Thomas Rawlinson argument. he was an Englishman who was supposed to have taken the great kilt, cut it down and "invented" the small kilt, so his Scottish workers would have a more practical garment to wear.

now, anyone with an open mind may just accept this as maybe true, but anyone who is ant-English or just too pro-Scottish, will denounce this a a fairy tale, or say I have not seen the letter where this story is mentioned.

read about Rawlinson here under "small kilt" http://www.tartansauthority.com/Web/...land_Dress.asp

[Chris Webb]

Colin, Thank you for your response and for taking the time to actually read my posts. Phil H, loved your post, man. Also, someone asked "what historians?" so here's my answer:

I got the idea that some historians were not so certain as to whether or not the Scots ever wholely owned the kilt from Cajonscots' post in this thread. Cajonscot said, "MacWage mentioned the blog article by our own Matt Newsome about Irish tartans; another good blog entryof Matt's deals with the kilt as a "pan-Celtic" garment." Matt said in his article, "So why the change? When did the kilt become a "pan-celtic" garment? Again, I'm not saying here that non-Scots should not wear the kilt. But when did this shift occur?"

After reading Cajonscots' post and Matt's article it is was clear to me that Matt, maybe the most respected historian here, couldn't explain why so many folks 'not of Scottish descent' so quickly took to thinking the kilt was theirs too. By Matts' article it appears the Scots were 'losing their grip' on the kilt very early on. To me it begged the question of whether or not they ever had a firm grip on the kilt to begin with.

I was further led to wonder about the 'historical certainty' of the kilt ever being wholey Scottish when reading Kizmet's post, "There are other cultures where men have worn pleated skirt garments. If you look up Greek, Bulgarian and and Albanian costumes for men, you'll find some. I don't know if Kizmet is an historian or not but I'm guessing the articles she mentioned were written by historians.

Given that some of these other cultures, such as Greece, have given us so much, it's no giant leap to wonder if the Scots didn't get the kilt from someone who came before them who wore strikingly similar garments to kilts ... given the consistent use of skirted garments for men over the rise and fall of some rather notable civilizations it just seems unlikely that any country founded within the last 2000 years can stand up and say with a straight face, "The kilt is mine!"

I tend to agree with historians that see the kilt not as beginning specifically in Scotland, but the kilt in Scotland being largely the same as a Utilikilt is now, a derivative of something older than itself, born of the wants and needs of a few and spread in use to the many. Utilikilt didn't invent the kilt, neither did Scotland ... at best they both reinvented it and gave it a new name. Cudos for the both of them and may they both enjoy their distinctiveness forever!

Two great truths regarding the past and future of kilts remain:

1. The Scottish Kilt began in Scotland.

2. The Scottish Kilt will forever be associated with Scotland.

BRILLIANT!

Kilt On.

Chris Webb











__________________
Kilted Mom

[macwilkin]

I got the idea that some historians were not so certain as to whether or not the Scots ever wholely owned the kilt from Cajonscots' post in this thread. Cajonscot said, "MacWage mentioned the blog article by our own Matt Newsome about Irish tartans; another good blog entryof Matt's deals with the kilt as a "pan-Celtic" garment." Matt said in his article, "So why the change? When did the kilt become a "pan-celtic" garment? Again, I'm not saying here that non-Scots should not wear the kilt. But when did this shift occur?"

After reading Cajonscots' post and Matt's article it is was clear to me that Matt, maybe the most respected historian here, couldn't explain why so many folks 'not of Scottish descent' so quickly took to thinking the kilt was theirs too. By Matts' article it appears the Scots were 'losing their grip' on the kilt very early on. To me it begged the question of whether or not they ever had a firm grip on the kilt to begin with.

Chris, please go back and read the article. Matt is discussing the fact that there is no historical evidence for other Celtic nations wearing the kilt, but that the kilt has been adopted by members of those nations, like the Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Bretons, etc. as a way to display their Celtic heritage and as the product of a nationalistic movement that began in the late 19th - early 20th centuries, and not as part of their "ancient past" as some have portrayed it.


And btw, it is "Cajun", not "Cajon". :mrgreen:

Regards,

Todd

[Chris Webb]

Sorry, Todd, it's that danged Texas drawl tripping up my spellin' again.

I looked back at Matts' article and see what you mean. I think I suffer from the 'American Effect' when it comes to history ... I sometimes find myself forgetting that most of the world has a much longer history than the United States ... Shoot, the history of the State of Texas doesn't go back but about 175 years. I guess my definition of the word 'ancient' is scewed by our own short history and my sense of time regarding the evolution of the Scottish kilt impacted by the rapid evolution of all things Texas, like our standard gitup, as we call it.

My timeline may be off in terms of centuries, but I'm still fascinated by Matts' observation of the kilts' drift towards being pan-celtic and even more fascinated by the question he posed at the end of his article. The pan-celtic drift is turning into a pan-world drift as more and more folks take to the kilt as we have. It's almost as if the introduction of the Scottish kilt represents a juncture in the timeline of kilts going all the way back to the first man in a pleated garment.

The Scottish kilt is somehow special ... I suppose kilts, despite their almost universal existence in ancient civilizations, had given way to trousers by the time the Scottish kilt arrived. But once it arrived it began to spread and has continued until this day. Imagine an hour-glass filled with kilts ... that smallest point where the kilts fall from the past into the present is Scotland. I know this analogy is a stretch, please be kind.

Anyway, Todd, thanks for the forgiveness!

Chris Webb