TRADITION: let's (re)define it.

[WillieMacG]

[xman]

Cool thread, but I think this is all a misunderstanding. Whatever 'traditional' really means is almost entirely irrelevant to why it is used and that is obviously to direct people to the correct forum. Let's keep questioning what is and isn't traditional, and let's find the real culprit shall we. We're talking about the period of dress one thinks of when they think of highland attire so that's right too. Maybe it's all in the delivery?! Here's what I'd do:

The place for discussion of Traditional and Classic Highland Apparel and Style. (popular from the reign of Edward VII onward)
*my changes in bold*

That clearly yet loosely defines without limiting.

Nice discussion though.

PS

[DWFII]

Jock,

I was going to bow out of this discussion and clearly that would still be a good idea, if for no other reason than I am obviously the odd man out here.

But I just don't see the relevance of whether your photos were taken in 1903 or 2003. Anymore than the fact that the kilt, as we know it today, originated somewhere in the 1800's.

I think the 1980 demarcation is as good as any...with, if my suspicions are correct a great deal of thought informing that choice.

But for those objecting to it, I think the whole issue has been overthought and that the date specific is a red herring.

Regardless of when the photos were taken, Jock, everything you wear in those photos was being worn 1980. Some of it was being worn in 1880. Some maybe even in 1780. And hopefully, if Tradition is given its due...if culture and history and the pride of a people are respected and honoured...most, if not all, of it will be being worn in 2080.

If someone wanted to look at my life and determine what part of it was the most important in informing who I am today and wanted to say..."1960 to 1980" I would have no objection. I would probably agree wholeheartedly. I became who I am during those years. That I am still here...I didn't end in 1980...despite the fact that I wasn't recognized, published or photographed much before or during that period, doesn't change the fact that those were the years that made the difference.

[sigh]

[Cowher]

But the desciption is still flawed with your definition. If we were to say
Traditional Highland Dress
The place for discussion of Traditional and Classic Highland Apparel and Style. (Originating from the Reign of Edward VII to the 1980's)

But to leave it how it is still leads one to assume that traditional highland dress ended in the 80's.
DWFII I assure you no one wants the content of XMTS or the sub forums within to change. The content is good the sections of this forum are good. The forum is really well thought out. But the description of some styles of dress is incorrect as stated now.

No one is holding anyone down and putting white hose on their legs.

[Cygnus]

I see DWFII's point - and said as much in an earlier post. The 1980 cutoff is really assuming that if it hasn't been around for 31 years, it can't be considered "traditional".

I tend to agree with this. It takes time for something to become traditional.

I can understand how somebody would be confused by the cut-off date and think that tradition is no longer evolving, but to leave it off completely leaves what is actually traditional a little too open-ended for my liking.

Maybe five years from now someone will decide to change the date on the traditional forum to 1990; though something tells me that "modern" kilts still will not have gained acceptance among the traditional crowd by that time.

So, how can you give a clear demarcation of what is or is not traditional to somebody visiting this forum for the first time without providing a cut-off of some kind? After all, I don't think the forum veterans have any trouble understanding what goes where, it is for the newcomers and visitors that such descriptions exist.

[Cowher]

Snip…. So, how can you give a clear demarcation of what is or is not traditional to somebody visiting this forum for the first time without providing a cut-off of some kind? After all, I don't think the forum veterans have any trouble understanding what goes where, it is for the newcomers and visitors that such descriptions exist.

I think that specifying that it originated in that time.
Is that reasonable? What do you think DWFII? (now that I am starting to understand what your saying do you understand what I am trying to say?)

[davidlpope]

Cool thread, but I think this is all a misunderstanding. Whatever 'traditional' really means is almost entirely irrelevant to why it is used and that is obviously to direct people to the correct forum.

Yes. The title could be simply "Traditional Highland Dress", and leave it at that. A newcomer to XMarks, upon reading two or three threads in this sub-forum, would understand the style of kilt-wearing that is being discussed herein.

[davidlpope]

So, how can you give a clear demarcation of what is or is not traditional to somebody visiting this forum for the first time without providing a cut-off of some kind?

Here's how: Instead of basing the demarcation upon a particular time period, base the demarcation on whether or not the kilt is worn in accordance with the traditional practices of Highland Scotland.

[DWFII]

I see DWFII's point - and said as much in an earlier post. The 1980 cutoff is really assuming that if it hasn't been around for 31 years, it can't be considered "traditional".

I tend to agree with this. It takes time for something to become traditional.

I can understand how somebody would be confused by the cut-off date and think that tradition is no longer evolving, but to leave it off completely leaves what is actually traditional a little too open-ended for my liking.

This!

I can remember when, in almost every discussion about kilts where someone expressed the opinion that white hose or denim kilts...or flat caps (which, if they're early 1900's style, I like)...did not represent Highland or Scots sensibilities, there would be a great hue and cry of "kilt cop" and "kilt police" from those who felt abused by such graceless and politically incorrect people.

And so, IIRC, the sub-forums were rearranged and everybody sighed a great sigh of relief because it was understood that this would solve...perhaps imperfectly...these problems.

There is an Internet wisdom that I ran across years ago--the first person to mention "hitler" or nazis" in a political discussion loses. Simply because everyone realizes that to do so is simply a cover for weak logic and inconsistency.

The same applies to the notion of "kilt police." Yet it has already been bandied about in this thread--this thread that seeks to undo (at least partially) the efforts of the moderators to bring some civility to these discussions.

That's not a good sign, in my opinion, that the motives of those wanting to change the focus of this sub-forum, are pure.

I think that specifying that it originated in that time.
Is that reasonable? What do you think DWFII? (now that I am starting to understand what your saying do you understand what I am trying to say?)

As for inserting the words "originating in", I can live with that.

Actually, I could even live with it if the bracketed words were removed entirely. I'm just not sanguine about the expectations or assurances that doing so will not take us back to the old same...pardon me...whining invective we have all heard before.

And which these sub-forums were set up to circumvent.

In passing, it is well to remember--these are discussion forums. We will not solve the world's problems here. It's just talk...to while away the hours and amuse ourselves. The term, the concept of, "kilt police" in this context...especially in the absence of any means of enforcement...is ignorant, narrow minded and meant really as a form of censorship and censuring.

There is no more room for "kilt police" than there is for "thought police."

[Cygnus]

Here's how: Instead of basing the demarcation upon a particular time period, base the demarcation on whether or not the kilt is worn in accordance with the traditional practices of Highland Scotland.

Which would be okay, I suppose; but I still think that people seeing "Traditional Kilt Wear (in accordance with the traditional practices of Highland Scotland)" right next to "Modern Kilt Wear" will wonder whether the brand-new, modernly-made, but otherwise traditional clothing and the related questions should be posted. I understand that people can read the threads in the various areas for a feel for the sorts of things that are discussed there, but we all know that not everybody does.

My personal opinion is that if something is clearly and concisely explained up front, it is also more comfortable and welcoming for newcomers. That's how I think X-Marks is (for the most part) and that's how I feel it should be.