Dress Codes

[NewGuise]

Having been off the forum for all too long yet again, I chose this thread to read all the way through. Sure enough, the same debates continue, which is a comfort of sorts.

I am of course a non-Scot who happily wears a kilt for all manner of occasions, formal and informal, but wears the Maple Leaf (Canadian national) tartan most specifically for tramping about with students in WWI cemeteries and former battlefields in honour of our kilted regiments; I like to think of my Highland Granite box-pleat (shades of grey and a little old-fashioned) and new Black Isle tank (black on black, very traditional) as nodding - differently - to my Mennonite heritage, while the Highland Cathedral (named for a pipe song written by Germans) signals the whole cultural mix/cross-over fairly nicely. (We can leave aside for now the academic inclinations that brought me the Macbeth military box-pleat ... and indeed the initial kilt-wearing.)

But Canadian national costume? I think I'd be stuck wearing a toque and snowshoes and very little else, which would not serve anyone very well at a banquet.

[CMcG]

Having been off the forum for all too long yet again, I chose this thread to read all the way through. Sure enough, the same debates continue, which is a comfort of sorts.

<snip>...

But Canadian national costume? I think I'd be stuck wearing a toque and snowshoes and very little else, which would not serve anyone very well at a banquet.

Long time no see my good sir!

People throughout this thread (and in others too) have jokingly referred to various forms of Canadiana as national dress: hockey jerseys, toques, checked flannel shirts, Maple Leaf branded items, etc. I think it might actually be true, but only in the most informal, whimsical, or self-mocking of circumstances. See Bob and Doub McKenzie:


For formal or semi-formal situations requiring national attire, hoser-wear is not appropriate. I maintain that Canadians who self-identify with their ancestors can sometimes choose to wear the ethnic attire of their own background. This does not, however, make the kilt, trachten, kimono, etc the national costume of Canada. It is the national costume of the country an individual Canadian's forebears hale from, not the national costume of all Canadians. That, to me, is a rather important distinction.

Another rather important consideration is that nation doesn't only mean country. It can also mean a confederation of peoples that is not necessarily bounded by a specific geo-political area e.g. the First Nations in Canada and the United States. This meaning lies not only at the root of my choice to wear the kilt as national attire, but also that of the adoption of the Irish kilt and Welsh Cilt as national attire. Remember the Gaelic words written on the standard lion rampant kilt jacket buttons? Clann na Gael an gradh le cheile or "descendents of the Gaels united in tradition" is the The Gaelic Nation or, more broadly, the Celtic Nation.

I know this doesn't sit well with parochial, nationalist views of the kilt based on citizenship, but the words "national attire" themselves are more inclusive Sorry that this is not much help to kilt-wearers without Celtic/Gaelic background or Scottish citizenship who would like to wear the kilt as national attire

[davedove]

I know this doesn't sit well with parochial, nationalist views of the kilt based on citizenship, but the words "national attire" themselves are more inclusive Sorry that this is not much help to kilt-wearers without Celtic/Gaelic background or Scottish citizenship who would like to wear the kilt as national attire

I think the problem is that too many blur the distinction between "national" attire and "ethinic or cultural" attire. Granted, sometimes they are one and the same, but not always. For instance, the kilt is national attire in Scotland, but nowhere else; however, it is cultural attire for many more.

The US, Canada, and other similar places are such a recent melting pot that they don't really have national attire, but many confuse the term with cultural attire, which is what they really mean.

It's all another instance of blurred and confused definitions. Like many have said, if you're unsure, check with the host.

[CMcG]

I think the problem is that too many blur the distinction between "national" attire and "ethnic or cultural" attire.

...<snip>

It's all another instance of blurred and confused definitions. Like many have said, if you're unsure, check with the host.

Indeed. Next time I get invited to an event with a national attire dress code, I'll be sure to ask the host if they mean "country of citizenship" or "ancestral heritage"... I can already imagine I'll get a strange look, but at least it will be more clear to me

[Macman]

For formal or semi-formal situations requiring national attire, hoser-wear is not appropriate.

Tell me it ain't so! In my part of the country, a checked flannel shirt (if lined) is called a Langford dinner jacket!

[CMcG]

Tell me it ain't so! In my part of the country, a checked flannel shirt (if lined) is called a Langford dinner jacket!

*Sigh* My mom lives in BC, so I think I know what you mean

I wish it was this:


But it's actually more like this:

[Jock Scot]

Indeed. Next time I get invited to an event with a national attire dress code, I'll be sure to ask the host if they mean "country of citizenship" or "ancestral heritage"... I can already imagine I'll get a strange look, but at least it will be more clear to me

Alright, I note that this post was posted in a light hearted way and I can imagine the "strange look" on the host's face if the question was indeed posed. However, even thinking of asking the question does smack of a rather a desperate attempt to justify wearing the kilt under the "national attire" definition.

In an attempt to understand this "ancestral heritage" thing, can you explain how it works? I quite understand that we all probably have an "international" past etc., but I just cannot fathom how that "past" can be used to jump into claiming that you(in the broad sense) are a member of another nation when clearly you are not.

Please, I ask this question in an attempt to genuinely understand the thought processes here and have absolutely no wish to stir up a hornets nest.

[CMcG]

Alright, I note that this post was posted in a light hearted way and I can imagine the "strange look" on the host's face if the question was indeed posed. However, even thinking of asking the question does smack of a rather a desperate attempt to justify wearing the kilt under the "national attire" definition.

In an attempt to understand this "ancestral heritage" thing, can you explain how it works? I quite understand that we all probably have an "international" past etc., but I just cannot fathom how that "past" can be used to jump into claiming that you(in the broad sense) are a member of another nation when clearly you are not.

Please, I ask this question in an attempt to genuinely understand the thought processes here and have absolutely no wish to stir up a hornets nest.

OK Jock, I'll do my best. Thank you for your patient attempts to understand the differences of your fellow Xmarkers

Maybe this attachment to heritage thing is a bit of Canadianism. Though other New World countries share similar sentiments, we actually have a piece of law here called the Multiculturalism Act. Amongst other things, it enshrines the rights of people to preserve their culture, language, and religion. This policy recognizes the ethnic diversity of the country and states heritage should be not only be preserved, but promoted.

The result in a sort of hybrid identity where people understand themselves to be a citizen of Canada, while still to some extent being part of another or even several other nations. People who have completely cast off the culture of their ancestors are somewhat negatively viewed as culturally bland, especially in the absence of a strong Canadian culture.

Furthermore, as I explained in a previous post, the dictionary definition of "nation" includes both geo-political and culturo-ethnic meanings...

From a Canadian perspective then, it is perfectly reasonable to ask a host whose invitation specifies "national costume" whether they are asking for citizenship or heritage. In the case of the event that I recently attended with this dress code, the Vice Chancellor of CUHK was more than happy to have people do either or both! To wit, we had an ethnic Chinese student from New Zealand lead a group to perform the Haka (Maori war dance, as made famous by the All Blacks), two Canadians wearing the attire of their respective ancestors (Scottish and Chinese), as well some students in Korean national attire whose ethnicity and citizenship were one and the same.

While you may not agree with this answer, Jock Scot, I hope it is somewhat more clear now. I think that deep down inside you is the desire to reserve the kilt for Highlanders born and raised, so allow me to ask you a question in return. If you hosted a party and asked your guests to wear their national costume, where would you draw the line for anyone who wished to wear the kilt?

We already know you don't approve of the Scottish diaspora, the Irish, the Cornish, or the Welsh wearing the kilt as national attire, but what about expat Scots who have more recently become citizens of other countries? Or recent immigrants to Scotland (say Chinese or Pakistani) who are no longer citizens of their former country? What if someone has dual-citizenship through birth in Scotland but was raised elsewhere?

I think you might grudgingly accept kilted Lowlanders, as long as they are Scottish citizens. But can we even speak of being a Scottish citizen? Here I'm showing my ignorance of how things work in the United Kingdom, but I was under the impression that you were all on a British passport... doesn't that mean that your nation is technically the UK, not Scotland? I'm not trying to start a political discussion but we are splitting national hairs, so I think it is fair game

[Jock Scot]

Gosh so many answers to give, so please forgive me if I miss a few first time around!

With the greatest of respect to the Canadian government and the people of Canada, I think they are mistaken in encouraging their population to think the way that they do. It may work out world wide in a thousand years time and perhaps it should, but the Utopian ideals that it encourages does lead to present day misunderstandings when others(some) from other nations do not necessarily see things the same way.

Now I have to be careful here and not speak for the whole of Scotland, but I do I think, speak for more than a few. But, to be safe these are my personal views and I am talking civilian wear here.

Yes, I would prefer the kilt was retained by the Highlanders of Scotland only , but accept that the kilt has been adopted by the rest of Scotland and is now our national attire.

Yes, I would prefer that the kilt was only worn by Scots, but accept that that is not possible these days. In point of fact, it is quite flattering that non Scots should wish to. However-----

No, I do not accept the kilt is the national attire of any other nation other than Scotland.

Yes, I accept that people from other nations want to celebrate their ancestry, from wherever it comes, on occasion.

Yes, I accept that a Scot of Pakistani extraction(for example) might wish to celebrate his ancestry by dressing up in his ancestors styled attire.

No, I would not expect him to call his ancestors attire "his national attire".

Yes, I do consider myself as British-------but very much from the Scottish part! I also accept that the young Scots of today would almost certainly regard themselves as Scots first rather than British.

No, I would not expect a non Scot to wear the kilt at "my National attire" party, nor would I expect a Canadian(for example) with Russian ancestry to wear a Cossack outfit.

I hope I have answered some of your very reasonable questions and I have no doubt that if I have missed something you and others will point it out!

[Phil]

I have to broadly agree with Jock Scot here in that for someone to assume the national dress of a country that they are neither a citizen or inhabitant of, other than for, perhaps, playing a theatrical role is misleading by purporting to be something that they are not. While there are no specific laws prohibiting this such as there are for impersonating a police officer, for example, and, accepting that there is probably no criminal intent to deceive it still remains questionable as to whether an individual should be passing off as a Scotsman.
There is, of course, a simple solution available to all and that is to relocate to Scotland, preferably somewhere in the Highlands (Jock will clarify just exactly where), obtain citizenship of the UK of course and then enjoy untrammelled kilt-wearing.
By the way some of our recent arrivals from the Indian sub-continent have already embraced kilt-wearing (Google Sikh tartan) and as fully-fledged Scotsmen, resident tax-payers contributing fully to the community, I believe they are fully entitled to do so.