Interesting email from an Irish fellow about Irish kilts.

[S.S.Muldoon]

IMHO one huge stumbling block so many people have is that they forget that things evolve over time. There are many recognized 'clan' tartans that came into existence long after the clan system had passed from practical history. Rightly or wrongly, many people today associate kilts and bagpipes with the Scots, and to a lesser extent the Irish... and any cop funeral or St Patrick's Day parade (in America) reinforces this association.
We have many members of Clans here on this board- does this mean they owe the same allegiance to their clan chief as a highland clan member owed to his in the 17th century? If your clan chief declared an armed rising-out on his neighbor over a boundary issue of his would you feel required to fight and die if necessary?
Consider the boom in heraldry-themed trinkets over the past few decades... Yes a few people DO have coats-of-arms these days, but even those are merely curiosities (I highly doubt ANYONE today has a coat of arms because as a noble, they may be required to raise and lead an army on the field and need a personal device to paint on their shield to identify them during battle!). But plenty of people proudly display coats of arms borrowed from some historical figure that just happens to share the displayer's last name, whether they realize the bogus nature of their use of the device or not. When I hear some keyboard scholar telling some 'plastic paddy' that he really shouldn't have the Kelly coat of arms on his key chain because the coat of arms really isn't his, I think of an in-law of mine whose last name is Case...he wears a belt buckle from the Case Knife company because what-the-hell, it has his name on it!
In the long run, what harm?
Its nice that we have so many scholars who have sorted out the facts from the fiction for those of us who really care, but if your goal is to enlighten those who have absolutely no desire for enlightenment, I'm afraid it will be nothing but tears and headaches for you in the end.
So while you could say that the Irish have no HISTORICAL claim to wearing of kilts, you'd technically be wrong: its just that Irish (and especially Irish diaspora) kilt wearing is fairly recent and by no means widespread. At one time, kilts were strictly highland clothing- not so anymore. Feile beag, plaids, fly plaids, buckles, lowlanders wearing kilts, belt loops, hundreds of recognized tartans, piper's sporrans, utilikilts, and even Irish-themed kilts, these are ALL just stops on an evolving continuum.
I've seen baseball played in a park right outside Dublin by Irish kids. I wonder what the angry subject of the OP would have to say about that?

[macwilkin]

Consider the boom in heraldry-themed trinkets over the past few decades... Yes a few people DO have coats-of-arms these days, but even those are merely curiosities (I highly doubt ANYONE today has a coat of arms because as a noble, they may be required to raise and lead an army on the field and need a personal device to paint on their shield to identify them during battle!). But plenty of people proudly display coats of arms borrowed from some historical figure that just happens to share the displayer's last name, whether they realize the bogus nature of their use of the device or not. When I hear some keyboard scholar telling some 'plastic paddy' that he really shouldn't have the Kelly coat of arms on his key chain because the coat of arms really isn't his, I think of an in-law of mine whose last name is Case...he wears a belt buckle from the Case Knife company because what-the-hell, it has his name on it!
In the long run, what harm?

Respectfully: the "harm" is that arms belong to individuals, not surnames, in the heraldic traditions of the British Isles. If your point is to honour your ancestors, then it is bad form to usurp arms that do not belong to you. This "keyboard scholar" really doesn't care what someone displays on their key chain, but as an educator, I'm not going to hide the truth from them if they ask -- if they don't, then fine. The intentions may be honourable, and by all means, display the arms -- just don't claim them as your own.

Its nice that we have so many scholars who have sorted out the facts from the fiction for those of us who really care, but if your goal is to enlighten those who have absolutely no desire for enlightenment, I'm afraid it will be nothing but tears and headaches for you in the end.

Welcome to the world of a teacher. Of course, most teachers worth their salt will tell you that you do not teach for those who do not have the desire for enlightenment, but rather for the ones who do. Apathy and lack of desire should never be a deterrent against education. Better to seek out the one who does care than the 99 who don't...

T.

[Highland Logan]

Respectfully: the "harm" is that arms belong to individuals, not surnames, in the heraldic traditions of the British Isles. If your point is to honour your ancestors, then it is bad form to usurp arms that do not belong to you. This "keyboard scholar" really doesn't care what someone displays on their key chain, but as an educator, I'm not going to hide the truth from them if they ask -- if they don't, then fine. The intentions may be honourable, and by all means, display the arms -- just don't claim them as your own.



Welcome to the world of a teacher. Of course, most teachers worth their salt will tell you that you do not teach for those who do not have the desire for enlightenment, but rather for the ones who do. Apathy and lack of desire should never be a deterrent against education. Better to seek out the one who does care than the 99 who don't...

T.

Well said.

Frank

[2176agp]

Not wanting to stray too far off topic here, but I can tell you that the 'plastic paddy' phenomena is alive and well in Slavic cultures too.

Back many years ago, I won a stack of 45 rpm records from Radio Prague in what was then Czechoslovakia. I played them for some family members who were very disappointed that the records were Slovak or Czech language covers of western pop hits by Abba, Blondie, etc, and not polkas.

Likewise in the mid 90s after Croatian independence, people from Hrvatska Radio TV came to my (Croatian heritage) church to speak about 'the old country'. Several people complained because they only played pop/ rock music and not polkas and waltzes.

There seems to be this mindset amongst some that the 'old-country' is somehow preserved in amber, and that everyone dresses 24x7 in folk costume, has ox drawn carts for transport, and listens to the folk music of the culture only.

The culture of the 'insert your heritage here' diaspora is somewhat idealised and, while worth preserving, is IMHO generally more based on external influences than reality.

Tony

[O'Callaghan]

A lot of the argument is over when history ended and the modern day began, which is a ludicrous and unanswerable question. A century or a few decades may be recent history, but still history to anyone born after it happened, and to many who weren't. I think Muldoon summed it up correctly.

On another topic that has come up here, I read elsewhere recently that most ihhabitants of the British Isles are mainly of Iberian pre-Celtic descent, i.e. not only not Anglo-Saxon, but not Celtic either. Who knows who is right? I'd wager that we are the sum of all cultures that have passed through, and probably all their genes as well.

[The Thing]

This is absolutely true because the Irish Government-- in a rare moment of infinite wisdom-- twigged to the fact that the kilt isn't Irish. Just like they haven't "recognized" the ubiquitious baseball cap which is seen on street corners and on trams throughout the nation.Ah yes. The Gaelic League. And let's not forget about Lady Gregory and the Celtic Dawn, either. These folks were in a distinct minority at the end of the 19th, beginning of the 20th century, and were generally regarded as cranks and crackpots by most of the Irish. Their espousing the wearing of the kilt had nothing to do with Irish history, and everything to do with wanting to look "Irish". Lacking any sort of distinctive native Irish dress, they borrowed the kilt from the Scots-- they could have as easily dressed in knee britches and buckle shoes-- and created the myth of "ancient celtic dress" right there on the spot.

As far as the Irish government "rendering a decision" on whether or not the kilt is "Irish"-- the Irish people are intelligent enough to not need government directives on what to wear or how to dress. I realize that government directives of this sort may be useful in some parts of the world to prevent people from wearing their underwear backwards, or some such, but in Ireland such is not the case.

They know, without need of an act of the Oireachtas, that the kilt isn't Irish.

That's hardly a fair assesment, the Gaelic league had massive following in Ireland, it kick started the modern interest in the Irish language, music, dance, sport and the adoption of the modern kilt in replacement for the Leine and Brat, that were lost to time. If it wasn't for the Gaelic league there would be little to distinguish Modern day Ireland from Modern day England, so much of Ireland's historical traditions had been surpressed or forgotten.
The Irish Government never adopted any form of national dress for the nation of Ireland after independence. The kilt in Ireland has been worn for long enough to warrant it a special place in Irish culture, one which thankfully is starting to gain popularity again amongst the Irish people.

[Highland Logan]

That's hardly a fair assesment, the Gaelic league had massive following in Ireland, it kick started the modern interest in the Irish language, music, dance, sport and the adoption of the modern kilt in replacement for the Leine and Brat, that were lost to time. If it wasn't for the Gaelic league there would be little to distinguish Modern day Ireland from Modern day England, so much of Ireland's historical traditions had been surpressed or forgotten.
The Irish Government never adopted any form of national dress for the nation of Ireland after independence. The kilt in Ireland has been worn for long enough to warrant it a special place in Irish culture, one which thankfully is starting to gain popularity again amongst the Irish people.

Yes, thank goodness the Irish have been able to latch onto the Scottish National Dress in order to not look quite so English. If there was ever a reason to claim the dress of another not wanting to look English is a good reason.

"What tartan is that Sir?"
"Why it's the Irish National tartan."

"What tartan is that Sir?"
"Why it's the German National tartan."

So should the Germans also take a run at saying the kilt is theirs too? It may make them less frightening to the French.

If anyone wants to wear a kilt.. power to them. But all this backtracking and re-inventing history to say their country also wore kilts is a tad crazy.

Frank

[Bart_In_A_Kilt]

Card Carrying member of the Plastic Paddy club. Now that we have that taken care of...who wants to kilt up and hit an Irish pib ?

[dfmacliam]

Of all the research out online... it is overwhelmingly in support of the kilt being Scot.. and the Irish adopting the Scottish National Dess, is really a non fact.. but what we have is a movement that was to revive the Irish culture that was almost lost, due to English suppression. The Irish grasped their Celtic past and turned to its close Scottish relation, and borrowed the kilt, and turned to saffron as a color to show their Irish Identity... mind you.. saffron kilts were first used by the military as early as 1859, by the Royal Tyrone Fuisiliers Militias adopted the Saffron kilt for their pipers.. The first Irish President wore the Saffron kilt as a way to show an Irish Identity and not an English one.
First the Irish borrowed the kilt, then the Welsh, who wished to identify with their Celtic roots, and they had their own revivalist movement, it was followed by the Cornish, who had to have their language reconstructed, because so much of it was lost, The Galacians, and Bretons, followed suit...all of these Celtic Nations have National Tartans.. and all have taken to wearing kilts as a way to show pride in their common Celtic roots... but then again.. is it really that much different to Lowlanders adopting the Highland dress as a way to show pride in Scottish Nationalism, and to seperate themselves from the English?
I am not saying Ireland and the other Celtic Nations are adopting the kilt as their National dress.. but some choose to adopt it to show a pride in a culture that was once unified, through trade and cultural exchange, and to seperate themselves from the English, who in the past had suppressed these cultures.. of course.. that was part of colonialism was to suppress the languages and culture.. My mother talks about having to whisper in Gaelic when the English were around.. and she is in her late 60's..

[Highland Logan]

Of all the research out online... it is overwhelmingly in support of the kilt being Scot.. and the Irish adopting the Scottish National Dess, is really a non fact.. but what we have is a movement that was to revive the Irish culture that was almost lost, due to English suppression. The Irish grasped their Celtic past and turned to its close Scottish relation, and borrowed the kilt, and turned to saffron as a color to show their Irish Identity... mind you.. saffron kilts were first used by the military as early as 1859, by the Royal Tyrone Fuisiliers Militias adopted the Saffron kilt for their pipers.. The first Irish President wore the Saffron kilt as a way to show an Irish Identity and not an English one.
First the Irish borrowed the kilt, then the Welsh, who wished to identify with their Celtic roots, and they had their own revivalist movement, it was followed by the Cornish, who had to have their language reconstructed, because so much of it was lost, The Galacians, and Bretons, followed suit...all of these Celtic Nations have National Tartans.. and all have taken to wearing kilts as a way to show pride in their common Celtic roots... but then again.. is it really that much different to Lowlanders adopting the Highland dress as a way to show pride in Scottish Nationalism, and to seperate themselves from the English?
I am not saying Ireland and the other Celtic Nations are adopting the kilt as their National dress.. but some choose to adopt it to show a pride in a culture that was once unified, through trade and cultural exchange, and to seperate themselves from the English, who in the past had suppressed these cultures.. of course.. that was part of colonialism was to suppress the languages and culture.. My mother talks about having to whisper in Gaelic when the English were around.. and she is in her late 60's..

I don't dispute what you say here, but not all countries have a National Dress. Ireland has many symbols that are importaint, I find it hard to see pride in adopting the symbols of others rather than showing off your own. And the unified culture you mention... I don't think that ever exsisted, not according to all I have read.

Frank