Arrogance and Antagonism

[kiltedscot]

Although I said I would not post again, Robbie’s decision to leave this group has prompted me to break silence one last time, before I, too, unsubscribe.
I am sure that Robbie’s hide is as tough as anyone else's when it comes to argumentative discussion, and he is used to dealing in a mature manner with those who have differing opinions. However, even in this “rough diamond”, nothing-that-can’t-be-solved-over-a-pint-of-beer group, which contributors, such as Bear, claim we are, there are ways of expressing opinions which are acceptable and ways which are not. There is a level of antagonism in some of phil h's postings on the subject of History of the Kilt, which I consider goes well beyond the bounds of acceptability.
I am pretty sure that the message by phil h which caused most offence was the one which contained the twice-repeated phrase: I don't give a ***** about what our grandfathers did. I found that (and much of the rest of the message) pretty offensive myself for several reasons – not least being the fact that in a discussion on history what our grandfathers did – and their grandfathers before them, and so on – is highly pertinent.
I cannot speak for Robbie, but I suspect that, like me, he may have been attracted to this site because of the name “X Marks the SCOT” (my bold capitals), and on reading the subsidiary phrase (kilts not skirts), he may have concluded, as I did, that the majority of members would be interested in the wearing of what I would describe as ‘Scottish kilts’, of the type whose history has been so contentiously debated in the recent thread.
To switch from surmise about Robbie to fact about myself, when my expectation that few of the members would be Scottish was confirmed (the majority are American residents: 123 out of the 222 total membership, which narrows down to 123 out of 174 of known provenance, since 48 list no location), because of the word “Scot” in the title I made the erroneous (but not unreasonable, I maintain) assumption that the discussions would centre around the wearing of kilts of the traditional Scottish style; and I was actually delighted to think that apparently so many non-Scots were interested in wearing the kilt. But that is where my arrogance lay: I thought that as a Scottish wearer of the kilt for over fifty years (fifty years represent roughly one quarter of the roughly two-hundred years that the ‘little kilt’ has been “established” as the national dress for Scotland) I might have something valid to contribute, and, indeed, something to learn.
Before anyone accuses me of joining because I wanted to pontificate about kilt-wearing to a group possibly less knowledgeable than myself, I must say that I innocently and sincerely hoped that discussion on the forum would broaden my perspective on the wearing of Scottish kilts. But, unfortunately, this has not happened, because most of the vociferous members (well over a quarter have made no posts at all) of this group - with a few notable exceptions - appear to have little interest in Scottish kilts at all; instead, their interest seems to lie more in the direction of escaping the “tyranny of trousers” by wearing skirt- and kilt-like garments. Apparent in many of the recent posts is, at best, a lukewarm interest in and, at worst, a pronounced antagonism towards traditional Highland dress. Consider the many messages where the poster has asserted his defiance [I paraphrase]: “I wear it my way with whatever I like” – of course, that is fine, I would agree, if the “it” is not a Scottish kilt.
This much broader approach seems to be confirmed if one looks, as I have done, at the pictures in members’ personal galleries. Of the 45 galleries (there are actually 48, but in two no kilt is visible, and there is one of a lady in her kilted skirt – her description, not mine) which show members in kilted garments, giving the benefit of the doubt to at least six where the angle does not permit a full view of the kilt, 25 show what are probably kilts in the traditional Scottish style, but 20 show pleated garments which I would not classify as Scottish kilts.
The impression I take with me is that the vocal majority of members has actually little interest in Scottish kilts, and I would seriously recommend a change in the title of the group to eliminate the word “Scot”. As I wrote in one of my earlier postings, I have no quarrel with anyone wearing any garment he chooses, but please re-consider using “Scot” in association with a discussion of outfits which are really not Scottish. In that way, people such as myself will not be tempted to join; there will be no irritating voices (mine, for instance) saying: “When I was young, there was no such thing as white hose”; and there will be far less likelihood of the sorts of postings which upset Robbie.

David (KiltedScot)

[Alaskan Celt]

[Plastic Paddy]

I am sad to see both you and Robbie leave the site. I know that I have a greater knowledge because of your posts, so thank you.

I hope you can overlook the views of one or two for the greater good.

I have had differences with a few here, but I have chosen to walk away from the topic, but not the site. I think there is more good than bad here, and you both are part of the good.

I hope that you don't, but if you both leave, cheers and health to you and yours.

Slainte,

Tobie

[Alaskan]

I am afraid any effort we make to keep Robbie and Kiltedscot here by posting our lamentations here may be futile. If Kiltedscot and Robbie have decided that the forum does not hold any value for them, then they may not be back to see if anyone is responding to their good-bye's.

I hope that they both stop in and see that there are a number of people here that do appreciate what they have to say and can just ignore the one's that don't.

[Rhino]

Much the same as with Robbie, I'm afraid I would be classed as one, by kiltedscot's definition, wearing a 'skirt or kilt like garment'. And I am also one who, whilst having a passing interest in my heritage, I've never really understood why others are so fascinated by it. Surely we should all be studying African customs and history since thats where we started.
The point is there's a place for all on this forum, and whilst I might not agree with what you're saying I would defend to the last your right to say it.
As for others being insulting or antagonistic I'm pretty sure this last post of yours could be taken that way, forums by their nature are imperfect means of communicating.
I say again we NEED all forms and all opinions, but lets not read insult into posts where none was intended.
BTW David, my personal gallery has probably the least kilt related photos but it is personal.
Cheers Rhino

[bear]

Robbie and KiltedScot,
You can come or go as you wish, though we'd all rather you stay.
I will point out that the most popular thread on this forum has been 'Sporrans for lassies' and it seems to me the majority have sided with the traditional argument.

As far as I can tell from Phil's post, it was a gruffly written, "let's shake and agree to disagree," post. Phil's not one to sugar-coat his words and most of us have been on the receiving end of a shot or two.
Blunt honesty is the most truthful. If I wanted an opinion on a new kilt style, I know I'd get Phil's true reaction to the kilt. I've been to dozens of writing workshops and learned the most from writers who will 'give it to me straight.'
I like Phil and I'd hate to see him take any more shots simply because he speaks from the heart and bluntly.
If he feels the need to apologise, he will. If not, he shouldn't. Pushing anyone to apologise makes an empty apology that doesn't make the offended or the offender feel any better.
I don't think Phil meant to insult Robbie, nor do I think the post was anywhere near as bad as it has been made out to be.
Leaving is an over-reaction, especially when you can simply skip a person's posts.

[Donnie]

I really hate to see Robbie and Kiltedscot go. There are things to be learned from everyone, whether we agree with everyone or not. Please just ignore the posts you don't agree with or like the tone of. the opinions of any one person do not reflect the opinions of all!

[Ugly Bear]

... 25 show what are probably kilts in the traditional Scottish style, but 20 show pleated garments which I would not classify as Scottish kilts.

The definition of "kilt" is changing. Even Scottish kiltmakers are altering the rulebook. Get used to it.

The traditional Scottish kilt, along with its highland accoutrements, is closer to being an ethnic costume than to being clothing. Even on its own, a traditional Scottish kilt is a difficult garment to wear: material, pattern and price doom it to occasional wear, at best.

If it bothers you that the new styles are popular here, you can comfort yourself in knowing what I suspect: that the great majority of men in this forum have great respect for the traditional Scottish kilt, despite our insistence that freedom and individuality are what draws us to the kilt's modern descendents. Those are not contradictory positions.

One more thing: although the domain "www.xmarksthekiltandotherkiltlikegarmentsnotinthe scottishtradition.com" is almost certainly available, don't expect the forum title to change.

[Rob]

Consider the many messages where the poster has asserted his defiance [I paraphrase]: “I wear it my way with whatever I like” – of course, that is fine, I would agree, if the “it” is not a Scottish kilt.

David (KiltedScot)

David (Kiltedscot) claims to be posting in support of Robbie, but I feel that David’s agenda and objections are entirely different from those of Robbie. When reading his posts, I have always got the impression that David objects to the wearing of a traditional Scottish Kilt in any way that could not be described as full Highland Regalia. The above quote and the photos, which David has put in his gallery, tend to back up this impression. I would suggest that David should carefully consider the meaning of the word ‘traditional’, as used in ‘traditional Scottish Kilt’. I am sure that Highland men, such as crofters, traditionally wore kilts, but they would not have dressed like David in his photo gallery. If David takes issue with casual kilt wear, he should take a good look at the web sites of three of Scotland’s most respected kilt makers, i.e. Geoffrey (Tailor), Kinloch Anderson and Hector Russell. Here, in addition to the formal kilt outfits, he will find a whole variety of casual kilt styles, so if he objects to these, perhaps he might like to take the matter up with these kilt makers. I have a suspicion that he would not get very far. If I have deduced David’s attitude correctly, then I would agree with him that Xmarksthescot is not the right forum for him.

On the other hand, we know (from his personal gallery) that Robbie is certainly not a slave to the formal look, and that his objections to this forum are entirely different from those of David. Robbie correctly presented evidence that Rawlinson did not invent the little kilt. Phil told Robbie (using impolite language) that he was wrong, but failed to provide any evidence for this assertion. If I had been Robbie, I would have immediately challenged Phil to provide evidence for his claim. I have found, from much experience on other (non kilt related) forums, that when people are challenged in such a way, and they have no real evidence, they usually go strangely silent.

So Robbie, please come back. We value your insights, but if you feel that you have been ‘insulted’, challenge that person to provide validated evidence in support of their view, or withdraw their insult and apologise. Remember Robbie, Scots are noted for their persistence in adversity.

Rob (who is part Scottish and goes in for the kill when he has sufficient evidence to be certain that he is in the right)

[Blu (Ontario)]

Robbie and kiltedscot...

Your posts have always been noteworthy and informative for me and your voices will be missed. You both have given me pause for thought.

blu