The Tartan Police!

[bubba]

There's one element that's been much overlooked concerning the traditional approach, and that's expense. There are many of us that simply can't afford to go the fully traditional route. Personally, I try to make what I'm wearing look decent and as coordinated as possible but there is simply no way I can afford to buy all the extras. This is a point that seems much ignored in the entire debate.

[macwilkin]

There's one element that's been much overlooked concerning the traditional approach, and that's expense. There are many of us that simply can't afford to go the fully traditional route. Personally, I try to make what I'm wearing look decent and as coordinated as possible but there is simply no way I can afford to buy all the extras. This is a point that seems much ignored in the entire debate.

Bubba,

That is a good point you bring up: yes, the traditional "rig" is somewhat expensive. I've found the best way to go about it is to buy a little at a time. I certainly do not make enough to go out and buy everything I need in one fell swoop. I've been wearing Highland attire for over a decade now, and I've aquired most of it over time -- a few things here and there, some as birthday, Christmas, anniversay presents, and some "field expedient" items, such as converted "Saxon" sport-coats and formal tail coats.

In the circle I run around with, all "traditionalists", when a fellow new to kilt-wearing joins the local Scottish Society, we try to do our part and help -- we recommend alternative sources, and loan or even sell old pieces of servicable kit -- and most of all, we try to patient and understanding with the gent, and answer questions. We even held a kilt "fashion show" program at the local library with handouts, catalogs from J. Higgins, and different styles of dress to help educate folks and show them how to get into a kilt with little expense.

Cheers,

Todd

[awoodfellow]

The wearing of a kilt type garmet is not a tradition created by the Scots. The Scots, however, adapted the unbifurcated garmet to suit their needs. Adjustments were made and a Scottish tradition was born. I think those with a knowledge and deep respect of their Scottish ancestry fully appreciate the "traditional" aspects of the kilt. And I think those with that knowledge will migrate toward the traditional teachings in making and wearing the kilt.

Those that wish to wear non-traditional, kilt looking unbifurcated clothing with jack boots and chains to terrorise the public are fooling themselves into thinking they are terrorising the public. Have at it. Frankly, the public doesn't care. Frankly, I don't care. It's like pink and green hair. It just doesn't matter anymore. Because it's all showmanship. It is all marketing. This too shall pass.

But what will remain is the Scottish Tartan and Kilt and all that it represents. The tartaned kilt is a tradition in the grandest sense of the word. A thousand years from now unbifurcated dress for men may be mainstream again. Who knows. But in the libraries and museums you won't read about the leather Rkilt or the UK canvas with brass buttons and pockets of the 21st century. In the history books and encyclopedias you'll read about the Scottish Kilt and Tartan and how the finest weavers and kiltmakers in Scotland created the tartan kilt. You'll read about thread count, sett and pleating to the stripe. About how the kilt was suppressed in an attempt to demoralize a society. You'll still read about the struggle of those vagrant and poverty stricken Scotsman, who under duress or oppressive governments, dispursed around the globe and created a new world for themselves taking their tartaned kilts with them. That is history and tradition.

brose

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Wow, this thread is really developing a life of its own. I came late to it, but I can see that many of us are, perhaps, talking past one another because we have differing ideas of words like "tradition." I think we are all talking about slightly different things here.

First of all, usually when I hear the words "tartan police" it is in the context of someone questioning whether or not someone has a "right" to wear a certain tartan. And, yes, if someone tries to espouse the point of view that one must in some way be "entitled" to wear a tartan, they are likely to get criticized on this board. Is this "traditional"? Well, yes. The tradition has seemed to develop that some rule-book or code of law exists dictating what tartan people can and cannot wear. This is a bad tradition because no such law in fact exists, and thankfully more and more people are coming to realize this and move beyond this point. It is also a relatively recent tradition, in the grand scheme of things.

Now, someone can be against this particular "tradition" but not be against the traditions of Highland Dress, per se. I say you should wear whatever tartan you want, for whatever reasons you have. I recognize the choice of tartan to be an entirely personal one, and I'm not going to ask anyone for credintials. Maybe I am not-so traditional when it comes to that. But all my kilts are Scottish-woven (with the exception of one Donegal tweed) twill weave wool of medium or heavy weight, and all hand tailored. I wear them with a leather sporran, kilt hose, and all the rest. So I am very traditional when it comes to what kind of kilts I wear and how I accessorize them.

I think part of why tempers may be flaring here is because some people see a criticism of one tradition as a criticism of all traditions. So I think it's important to clarify just what we are talking about.

Another error is to equate tradition with history. When we are talking about history, I can say, point of fact, that the Scottish Highlanders dressed themselves this way at this specific date. It's a matter of historic record. Now, when we talk about the traditions of Highland dress, we will most often be talking about the traditions that we have today, that developed and were handed on to us by past generations. I don't think we need to necassarily define it, but we all realize that when we speak of "traditional Highland Dress" in modern parlance, we don't mean the clothing of 1750 or 1850, or even 1950. We are talking about contempory, but traditional fashions, circa 2005.

In other words, it is traditional to wear a formal jacket or doublet of some sort to an evening, black tie affair, like a Robert Burns dinner. Even though a ratty feileadh-mhor may be a "traditional" form of Highland Dress, it would not be traditional to wear it to such an occasion today. I have no doubt that all of us can see the difference in these two uses of the word traditional in context. So let's make sure we are arguing about two different things.

Lastly, there seems to be some question as to how we define a kilt. Is a utilikilt a kilt? Did it evolve from the kilt? Well, that's a problem. The truth is that there is no set, formal definition of a kilt. People just seem to know it when they see it. And therein is the rub. Without a formal definition, there is no criteria to say this is or this is not a kilt. We are left to our own opinions.

I knew a man who said if it was not tartan, it was not a kilt. This was despite the fact that the London Scottish, the Marine Corp pipe band, many Irish pipe bands, et al wore solid colors kilts. I even showed him a portrait c. 1635 of someone in a solid feileadh-mhor and he didn't budge. If it was not tartan, in his mind, it was simply a skirt. Tartan was the defining issue for him.

Do I like Utilikilts? No. I admit I was intrigued by them when I first saw their web site, but after seeing so many of them in person, I just don't like the way they look. Does that mean I don't think they are a well made garment? No. Does that mean I don't think they should be called a kilt? No. Does that mean I don't think others should wear them? No. I just don't like them, I'm not going to buy one, and you won't see me wearing one. But then again, there are a lot of other styles of clothing you won't see me in, either. Just not my style.

I'll have to paraphrase the Hon. Stuart Ruardri Erskine, author (in 1901) of "The Kilt and How to Wear It." He made some remark such as "far be it from me to dictate to another man the manner of his dress." Good advice. But that did not stop him from writing a whole book about how he thought a dignified Scottish man ought to wear his kilt. He is entitled to share his opinion, just like we are. But what I want to stress is this -- though there are no "rules" to kilt wearing, there are rules of fashion and common sense. No one can tell you "you can't wear that with a kilt!" But they can advise you, "that doesn't look good with that kilt."

One final point, and I will end this long post. I think it quite obvious that many of us here wear kilts for different reasons. Some wear it for the "shock value." Some wear it just because they find a kilt comfortable. By and large, most people wear the kilt because they want to honor their Scottish heritage -- but even there we have those who wear their kilts casually, on a regular basis, or maybe just to the games, or maybe just once a year to a formal event. That's fine, and that should be expected.

This is exactly why, when I am selling a kilt to a client, I ask him questions -- why, when, what for, and how much? Why are you wearing the kilt? How often do you plan on wearing it? What occasions do you plan on wearing it for? And how much can you afford to spend right now? Based on this information, I can reccomend a particular style of kilt, and particular accessories, to fit his needs.

We all wear the kilt differently, on different occasions, and for different reasons. Once we realize that, I think we can have some more fruitful discussion about some of the specifics.

Aye,
Matt

[highlander_Daz]

I think there is a distinction here if you asked a "layperson" to describe a kilt they would most likely say something like "Tartan and worn by people from Scotland" stuff like Utilikilts and stuff really do look to me like skirts for men, without wishing to offend anyone. I know there are plain patterend kilts and different pleating arrangements, but the the "man in the street" a kilt is Tartan and worn by Scots.

People can wear what they like but its if it looks OK or not just becase you can wear something doesnt mean it will look OK. its very easy to spoil the "look" of a highland outfit with the wron accesories, I saw a wedding party the other day and one guest was wearing white hose, I was waiting for the pipes to appear.

[MACKAY]

Does this mean I still can't wear white shoes and a white belt with a Kilt after Memorial Day? ;-)

Brian-

[Dreadbelly]

Well said Mr Newsome.

To address the whole shock thing... I do not intentionally wear it for shock value. I am actually very conservative in my dress. I wear things for comfort. I wear clogs for my wide satsquatch feet. I wear a kilt as a sign of my culture and heritage. And it is most comfortable. I tend to dress reasonably. People around me though are typically shocked, and would be, no matter what. I don't dye my hair. I don't have tattoos. I don't have any piercings. I do have dreadlocks... And those do cause all sorts of problems. People are simply shocked by the large hairy man wearing a skirt. In their minds, that is all they can see. Now, if I had purple and green hair, and my face looked like I tripped and fell in to a tackle box, and I had sleeve tattoos, yeah, I would confess to intentionally trying to shock people by how I look and what I wear. Now, that said, when people are shocked, do I enjoy it? Well, yes, on some level. I like to catalog people's reactions and tuck them away in to my mental filing cabinet.

Mostly, I just want to be my self, to be my own man, be comfortable, and be left alone. For me, a kilt is many things, all of them relevant and important. On any given day I could easily give you a dozen reasons why I am wearing it. And on the next day, give a dozen different reasons.

A kilt is fine and dandy for fancy dress. And it looks good. A kilt and a jacket would prolly be the only "monkey suit" I'd ever wear. People seem to forget that the kilt was also the garmet of farmers and peasants. Rough men that lived off the land. Hard men. Men who did not look the least bit frilly or dare I say, foppish. These were pragmatic idealists who wore the kilt because it did the job... Should we forget this in our rush to define tradition? Should we only embrace the "pretty" aspects of tradition and sort of stuff the rest of it back into the cultural closet?

I really WANT the kilt to evolve and change... That means that it is alive. If it were to stagnate, I think it would die a slow death, like anything else that stagnates. That's why I absolutely love to peek at Ham's posts when he has pictures... Now that is a kilt in full evolution! Everything from being dressed to the nines to dressed down for just lounging about day to day wear. I actually respect Hamish a great deal for how he has cataloged this evolution in pictures. Can't say I always agree with him... And that's to be expected considering we come from different backgrounds and different sides of the pond, but I hold a great deal of respect for him because he has done something that I hold near and dear to my heart. He has taken something that I cherish... And through pictures brought it out of the closet for special occasions and made an acceptable example of daily wear.

I guess what bothers me, and I think I have finally nailed it after seeing some posts in this thread... Is that there are some folk that hold to traditions a bit to tightly and please, don't take it wrong, this is NOT personal attack directed at any single soul here, but it is a broad sweeping generalisation, but there are some folks that flaunt the traditional full blown rig and their 8 yard tanks, and look down at the others that just make do. This draws a line in the sand between the haves and the haves not. And something about that always gets my hackles up and makes me all defensive and ugly and confrontational. I seriously do not like my local St Andrews Society because of this... I have had a couple of run ins with several members of the local chapter... And they are all a bunch of elitist pricks. This is not an attack... It is a statement based on fact. And it is an entirely local thing. If more folk from the local SAS had the same kindness and decency that some of the board members here have, it would be a whole lot better.

Some of this is my own perception, so in the future I would do well to make sure that I am not mistakenly thinking somebody is looking down their nose at the haves nots while detailing the finer points of "traditional kilt wearing."

Wow, I made a long post. I just hope I said something worth saying.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Here is one characteristic of all the kilts in my wardrobe, and I think it can be said to be the defining characteristic of a "good quality kilt."

Can you wear the exact same kilt formally and casually, depending on your accessories?

That, to me, is the kicker. Can I wear this with a polo-shirt, brown leather sporran, kakhi hose and walking shoes at the games, or around town? Can I then wear the same kilt with a pleated tux shirt, Prince Charlie jacket, wasitcoat, bow tie, and silver & fur sporran to an evening ball?

Now that I think about it, this is probably why I don't favor many of the "contemporary kilt" options. It's hard to dress them up. Whereas it is very easy to dress the traditional kilt down.

What pair of pants has this same versatility!?

Matt

[Colin]

There's one element that's been much overlooked concerning the traditional approach, and that's expense. There are many of us that simply can't afford to go the fully traditional route. Personally, I try to make what I'm wearing look decent and as coordinated as possible but there is simply no way I can afford to buy all the extras. This is a point that seems much ignored in the entire debate.

Bubba, I could not agree more with the expense aspect of the traditional approach. That is the main reason that I own PV kilts at the moment. I wanted to get a kilt, but was not willing to fork out $1000 to try it out.

However, I think the "I can't afford it, but want it" attidtude towards kilt wearing has started to eat away at this board. While I do hold a more "traditional" point of view regarding kilts, I respect the other aspects of kilt wearing. I do feel that there are some people on this board, whom may not be able to afford the "traditional" styles, so instead ridicule or belittle those that do take a more traditional approach to kilt wearing. Hey, I can't afford it, but I am not going to pick on someone beacause they can. It's not grade school anymore gents, we have a common interest, yet we are always trying to search out something to fight about.

There has been alot of knocking of guys that save their kilts for special occasions, you know the "weekend Wallaces". I have mentioned this before, and will do so again. If it was not for these people, the kilt would have disappeared years ago. They deserve our respect for keeping the kilt in the forefront, so that people could make more inexpensive alternatives to reach the masses today. Let's not make fun of them or resort to name callling because we have differing uses and views. After all, a good wool kilt costs a hell of a lot more than a good PV kilt.

In terms of defining the tradtions of kilt wearing, I think that if we all paid attention to the input going around, rather than just arguing against it, we would learn those traditions. We have several knowledgable sources on this forum, which are in danger of being run off, because they meet with hostility everytime they try and educate about subjects they have invested time and study into.

[Colin]

I guess what bothers me, and I think I have finally nailed it after seeing some posts in this thread... Is that there are some folk that hold to traditions a bit to tightly and please, don't take it wrong, this is NOT personal attack directed at any single soul here, but it is a broad sweeping generalisation, but there are some folks that flaunt the traditional full blown rig and their 8 yard tanks, and look down at the others that just make do. This draws a line in the sand between the haves and the haves not. And something about that always gets my hackles up and makes me all defensive and ugly and confrontational. I seriously do not like my local St Andrews Society because of this... I have had a couple of run ins with several members of the local chapter... And they are all a bunch of elitist pricks. This is not an attack... It is a statement based on fact. And it is an entirely local thing. If more folk from the local SAS had the same kindness and decency that some of the board members here have, it would be a whole lot better.

I think it's the other way around, I think that the people that cannot afford to partake in the higher end garments (myself included) are afraid of being looked down upon, and have instead gone on the offensive before they are scutinized. Whether than comes from our personal experiences in life, or a confidence issue, I don't know, it is a person to person matter. However, putting the cart before the horse is not needed. Most traditionalists that I know will show respect if it is given.