Please explain...

[JakobT]

I have a letter on file somewhere that a friend of mine passed on from the inventor of the Utilikilt. He speaks of its design being based for the most part on a pair of men's cargo shorts -- not the Scottish kilt. It's origin and designs are removed from the Scottish culture. The word "kilt" was included in the name, I suspect, because of what has already been mentioned here -- namely, "kilt" is a term widely recognized to denote a skirt-like garment for men. If you want it to be known that the skirt-like garment you have designed is for men, what more efficient way than to label it a kilt?

I think the phenomenon of Utilikilts having booths at Highland Games and the like came about after the fact; that is to say, after they realized that there was a market for their product among the Scottish kilt wearing community.

But it seems plain that the origins of the Utilikilt are quite distinct from the organiz traditions of Scottish Highland attire, and while I have no problem with people wearing Utilikilts, I also see the point of those who argue that they should not be considered a Scottish garment; because they are not.

Whether or not that makes them a true kilt depends entirely on how you define the word "kilt." Different people use that word in different contexts. I, as a tartan academic and historian of Highland clothing, have a much more restrictive definition of the word than someone writing a fashion column in a New York magazine might, for instance. It's an interesting thing to discuss, but I don't think we are going to come to universal agreement on the issue.

I've seen a movie clip where the creator of Utilikilts tells that very story, and that the Utilikilt originally came about when he cut open a pair of cargo shorts and stitched them back together. So I agree that the origin is different. It's certainly not Scottish in any way, and they are quite explicit about that on their website as well. I also agree that the reason they appear at Highland games and festivals is because they find a market for their goods there.

But does it mean Utilikilts are not kilts? Personally, I think they are, because I feel the garments themselves do not differ significantly from traditional kilts from a construction standpoint. However, as you say, we're probably not going to come to an agreement on the issue. So let's amiably agree to disagree, although for the record I do not think the disagreement is as big as all that.

[macwilkin]

Yeah, that's what I expected. I knew someone would have a beef with the source. I really can't claim to have all of the answers on tartans, but I am regularly drawn the Scot painting of the man in the straight red kilt, and was simply trying to show the thread starter that straight colors exist and are accepted by the kilted.

Cornish still accept the straight black skirt as a tartan for a kilt. So, I do as well. Straight colors count on kilts as well.

Cheers.

Again, I have no problems with the Cornish wearing kilts, tartan or solid black. It's when someone tries to claim an ancient pedigree for kilts that I have my doubts.

T.

[Big Homestead]

Again, I have no problems with the Cornish wearing kilts, tartan or solid black. It's when someone tries to claim an ancient pedigree for kilts that I have my doubts.

T.

Agreed. History in time will be revealed, but as for now, pedigree is somewhat of a completly unprovable idea. We live in the information age which makes most information easy to come by and just as easily, corruptible.

Cheers

[SteveB]

I have had the same reactions as Nighthawk when walking around downtown Boston and along the "Freedom Trail". Boston sees millions of tourists every year from all over the world. Many come to see and learn of colonial American history. I am always pleased, when a visitor to our city stops me for directions or pointers on the historical sites and museums. I am obviously a local by my Boston Red Sox baseball hat, worn over a T-shirt with one of the local sports team's logo on it over a garment that is widely perceived to be a kilt. Many of Scot, Welsh, Irish and English nationality have told me they think it is great that I wear a kilt because I like to wear a kilt. The same comments are directed at me whether I am in a self colour denim kilt, a tartan P/V kilt, a tartan wool kilt, or a tweed wool kilt. Aprons in the front with a kilt pin displayed properly, sporran, and many pleats to the rear is all it takes to be perceived as a kilt.
I also agree with Matt that after wearing the full wool custom tailored knife pleated kilt, there is nothing better. That said, I still like the other forms of kilt for around the house, and down to the grocer or off at the pub. Much the same as I would wear jeans. Just as denim jeans are not proper for wear to many events, neither is the denim kilt. As Bishop pointed out, there are places one does not want to wear an expensive tuxedo for fear of damage, likewise the Worsted Wool Tartan kilt.
This thread has aired many opinions on what is a kilt. Trews, chinos, dockers, jeans are all pants. Whether self colour, or tartan, - wool, poly viscous, denim or acrylic fiber. The wrap around heavily pleated garment is a kilt. The wrap around tool apron that is marketed by Blacklader, or the modified cargo shorts, that wrap around, for their place in the garment line is hard to associate with anything else other than a man's kilt. I think of them as the pretenders that polyester is a pretend fabric.
People still by it thinking it is cloth. Wool and Cotton are cloth.
--- Steve

[The Wizard of BC]

MacMillan,

Would you define either of these two as "real kilt" by your definition?









And I must correct you on one small point. Here is your statement.

The "contemporary" is a recent phenomenon; the result of an enterprising guy modifying a pair of worn out cargo shorts. Like I've previously said, that doesn't mean they're not likeable or useful. It just means that they're different, and shouldn't be judged by, or held to, the same standard as the traditional kilt. Likewise, they should not be compared to the traditional kilt because they have vastly different origins.

Actually I am the person who coined the phrase "Contemporary Kilt". I did it to clarify a garment with the styling of a "Traditional Kilt" as made by Barb Tewksbury, (The Highland Granite Kilt above) but using some different techniques and with the addition of pockets (as in the X Marks Tartan FK Tartan Model above). Your statement actually describes a MUG (Male Bifurcated Garment) which started as a pair of cargo shorts.

As you can see from the examples above, a Contemporary Style Kilt can stand side by side with one of the finest examples of Traditional Style Kilts.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

MacMillan,

Would you define either of these two as "real kilt" by your definition?









And I must correct you on one small point. Here is your statement.

The "contemporary" is a recent phenomenon; the result of an enterprising guy modifying a pair of worn out cargo shorts. Like I've previously said, that doesn't mean they're not likeable or useful. It just means that they're different, and shouldn't be judged by, or held to, the same standard as the traditional kilt. Likewise, they should not be compared to the traditional kilt because they have vastly different origins.

Two things:First, it's not my definition. I plucked it fromTHE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCOTLAND. Second, sure, those most definitely are kilts. From what I can see they appear to be shaped, and thickly pleated. That someone has added pockets (my 15 year old "Hill Walker" has concealed pockets) doesn't significantly alter the garment any more than box pleats would.

I used the word contemporay in quotes to denote any wrap around garment that did not meet the definition of a kilt. I see now that referring to wrap around cargo shorts, and their like, as "quasi-kilts" would have caused less confusion so I will amend my original posting to clarify this point.

As you can see from the examples above, a Contemporary Style Kilt can stand side by side with one of the finest examples of Traditional Style Kilts.

Absolutely. I never intended to imply otherwise. I don't think anyone would have a beef with a contemporay kilt being called, or thought of, as a real kilt. In fact, I think that the word "traditional" applies equally to a kilt whether or not it has concealed pockets, so long as it otherwise fits the general definition.

However, I do stand by my statement that the "quasi-kilt", by definition, isn't really a kilt.

[Makeitstop]

Two things:First, it's not my definition. I plucked it fromTHE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCOTLAND. Second, sure, those most definitely are kilts. From what I can see they appear to be shaped, and thickly pleated. That someone has added pockets (my 15 year old "Hill Walker" has concealed pockets) doesn't significantly alter the garment any more than box pleats would.

However, I do stand by my statement that the "quasi-kilt", by definition, isn't really a kilt.

I would argue with your definition of a kilt. You've taken a description of a kilt from an encyclopedia (one that is specifically about Scotland), and then added to it by describing some common features of traditional kilts, then declared those to be the criteria which determine whether or not a garment is a kilt. So yes, this is your definition of a kilt. And it is inherently flawed (at least, for the purposes of this discussion) because you defined a kilt with a description of a traditional kilt, and then said if it doesn't meet the definition, it isn't a kilt. You're defining kilts as being traditional kilts, then saying that non-traditional kilts aren't kilts, and pointing to your definition as evidence. It's a little circular, don't you think?

So, let's just check a dictionary for a definition. From websters:

1 : a knee-length pleated skirt usually of tartan worn by men in Scotland and by Scottish regiments in the British armies
2 : a garment that resembles a Scottish kilt

If you don't like that one, here's a whole bunch to choose from

I think this is a bit more usable as a definition. A pleated knee-length manskirt. Works for me.

[Racer96]

All I have to say is,

1) I have no need to explain why I wear a kilt.

and

2) If it ticks you off (original poster) , well, I feel pity for you.

Mike

[Mike1]

OK, it appears it is time for me to rant a bit.

This forum is made up of individuals that wear only tartan kilts, individuals that wear only contemporary, non-tartan kilts, individuals that wear both styles of kilts and even those individuals that wear no kilts at all.

Scarcely a day goes by without a member posting how he is looking for tolerance from today's society, as he wears his kilt/s.

Yet, every time this discussion crops up (and it seemingly happens all too often, in my not-so-humble opinion), all of these individuals seeking tolerance from others turn into intolerant, bickering nags.

"That's not a kilt, kilts are made from tartan."

"That's not a 'real' kilt, as 'real' kilts are all hand-sewn."

"That's not a kilt, as 'real' kilts are all made in Scotland."

"That's not a kilt, a 'real' kilt costs $600+."

There are days when this place sounds like a hen house with all the clucking going on. Somehow, a community that was designed for men who wear and appreciate kilts becomes a bitch-fest for those that want to cram their personal opinions down another's throat.

We all have our own opinion of what constitutes a good meal, a good evening on the town, good music, good art and every other aspect of our lives that we are blessed to be able to make our own choices about. And from where I sit, that includes the personal definition of a kilt.

I own a charcoal Freedom Kilt that is every bit as much a kilt as my tartan kilts. In my own opinion, of course. Perhaps you have a different opinion, but the truth of the matter is your opinion means nothing to me. <shrug> You're quite entitled to have your opinion, just as I am, myself.

However, when you cross over the line of common courtesy to tell me my charcoal kilt is not a kilt, stand prepared for the equally impolite response you will hear. When you start paying for my garments, then I'll consider wearing what you want me to wear. Until then...

We are all different. That's part of the design process, we were meant to be that way. As such, we all have different likes and dislikes. Get used to it. Or get over it. Either way, learn to get along and tolerate another individual's opinions and choices.

I'm curious about something - every time one of these contentious 'What makes a kilt a kilt' or 'What makes a Scot a Scot' threads shows up on the forum, can you hear the collective groan coming from the forum staff members?

So please take the time to think about any response you want to add to this thread. If you feel it is remotely contentious, then do everyone a favor and keep it to yourself. It's all about tolerance.

[davedove]

I'm curious about something - every time one of these contentious 'What makes a kilt a kilt' or 'What makes a Scot a Scot' threads shows up on the forum, can you hear the collective groan coming from the forum staff members?

I don't think the groaning comes just from the forum staff, Mike. I think a lot of the regular members groan as well.