The Kilt's use in Irish Nationalism

[MacSpadger]

I'm not great at Irish, but I know that 'Celtic' translates as 'Celteich', which is the same in Scots Gaelic. And a similar word in Welsh,' Celtaiddh', Translates as the same.

Now, I dont know if these words are the original source, or have been formed from the English word 'Celtic'.
You're asserting that the only reason the word exists is for commercial purposes, so what would be the point of having it in the Gaelic languages? To see us natives back our own stuff?

I can't think of an instance where a gaelgoir would need to be convinced of the 'Celtic link', in other to sell him something from Scotland.

I'm not saying that the only reason the word exists is for commercial purposes, but it certainly helps.

The term has certainly lost a lot, (if not all), of meaning and can now be found in unlikely places. It's becoming rather pan-European, in these modern times the Asturians, Galicians, Portuguese, French, Swiss, Alpine Italians, Germans, Austrians and Belgians also claim "Celtic" roots.

The actual word Celtic was first used by the Greeks, Κελτοί (Keltoi) and later used by the Romans, (Celtus, Celti, Celtae). It wasn't until the 17th Century that "Celts" and "Celtic" were used the way they are today, and this was down to the writings of Edward Lhuyd.

The phrase was used by English speakers, particularly in the Romantic period and later translated/inserted into the Irish, Scottish, Welsh, etc, languages from the English term. Often these translations were done by the Celtic Twilight "scholars" that were to add so much kak to actual fact and reality. The irony is that originally the Irish, Scottish, Welsh had no inkling of or wish to be "Celtic" at all. They did not call themselves Celts, they did not know of the word or of anything "Celtic". They were what they were, without the need to dress it up.

[Father Bill]

The actual word Celtic was first used by the Greeks, Κελτοί (Keltoi) and later used by the Romans, (Celtus, Celti, Celtae). It wasn't until the 17th Century that "Celts" and "Celtic" were used the way they are today, and this was down to the writings of Edward Lhuyd

And thus, our friend John who is a sponsor here (see the banner at the top.)

[Blackrose87]

The irony is that originally the Irish, Scottish, Welsh had no inkling of or wish to be "Celtic" at all. They did not call themselves Celts, they did not know of the word or of anything "Celtic". They were what they were, without the need to dress it up.

What time period are you talking about here? When the Celtic Congress was formed in 1917 it had representatives from all the 'Celtic nations'.
And De Valera even became a patron of the organisation in the 1930s.

I know this is all very recent, but people were aware of the idea of Celtic nations, and the different countries were obviously trying to hold on to their traditional customs in the modern world.

I am aware that the idea of Celtic identity is commonly used to sell things to Americans, but I still think it had, and has some use here.

[MacSpadger]

What time period are you talking about here?

To be specific, from the very beginning of the 18th century, after the publication of Archaeologia Britannica: an Account of the Languages, Histories and Customs of Great Britain, from Travels through Wales, Cornwall, Bas-Bretagne, Ireland and Scotland by the aforementioned Edward Lhuyd .

This book put forward the hypothesis that the peoples of Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales were descendents of either French/Swiss Gauls or Iberians, (modern day Spain/Portugal). Lhuyd came to this conclusion through the study of language. DNA has proved his Spain/Portugal theory to be partially correct, the original pre-Celtic Irish and the Portugese do share DNA, but it seems likely that this comes from an older central European culture that was pushed to the fringes by the expanding European population.
From Lhuyds book the the peoples of Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales became known increasingly as Celts. There is absolutely no record whatsoever of these people's being known as Celts before Lhuyd. Lhuyd's book sparked an interest that led to the publication of other writings such as William Stukely's, where he wrote about "Ancient Britons" constructing the "Temples of the Ancient Celts" such as Stonehenge. He also wrote very fancifully about Celtic Druids. It was all hogwash, of course, but very popular.
On the back of this crest of popularity, James Macpherson published his "discovered" poems of Ossian in the 1760's. Ironically it was Irish scholars such as Charles O'Conor that first realised that these were not old Celtic legends, but forgeries. Even more ironically O'Conor was ignored and Ossian was massively popular in Ireland, with cries that the work was in fact ancient Irish, not Scottish, in origin.
Interest in Ireland reached a peak after the Emancipation Act of 1829. By the late 1800's the term "Celtic" was probably thought of as being more Irish than anywhere else and this was to continue into the 1920's, thanks to the Irish Literary Renaissance, also known as the Celtic Twilight movement. The Celtic Congress was formed in 1902, (I think), on the back of the surge of interest in the Celtic Twilight. As you say, very recent, but dealing with a theme that keeps re-occuring through this thread;
The invention of a new tradition to please contemporary mindset or fashion at the expense of the discarding of the old, while at the same time presenting the new tradition as the old one.

[CMcG]

I'm not sure that civilian kilt wear in Ireland can be fairly described as having declined, given that only a miniscule percentage of the civilian population wore the kilt in the first place. If one looks at the period 1900-1939 I think one would be hard pressed to find any evidence to suggest even 1/10th of 1% of the Irish population went about kilted.

Ah, MoR! So nice of you to join the fray

Perhaps it was not so much the amount of people who went kilted as the impact they had? I'm thinking particularly of Patrick Pearse and his influential thoughts on the matter of the kilt. Also, after the brief and small -- yet still significant -- flourishing of early 20th century civilian kilt wear in Ireland, the pipe bands and Irish dancers also made their contribution to solidifying the image. What started as a trickle gradually grew into a river.

Rather than being a tradition sustained by the diaspora, it more than likely seems to be an attempt by some in the diaspora to create a national costume and, at that, an attempt that really only started to pick up steam with the proliferation of "Irish tartans" and "Irish kilts" and "Irish kilt jackets" in the 1990s.

Indeed. I actually wrote that Irish kilt wearing "gained strength in the diaspora, who have now sustained it to the point of becoming established as a tradition" not that the diaspora sustained a tradition.

I suppose the diaspora should thank you, as I believe you had a hand in designing some of those Irish jackets, no?

...
Ironically the creation of this "national costume" in the USA has led to feelings of homogenisation and a threat of loss of cultural identity over here. What was once instantly recognisable as Scottish is no longer so. We are a small nation and the few things we have appear to be getting taken from us by a large nation.

I think 'folk dress' or 'ethnic costume' would be a better terms, as "national costume" is too loaded a term. And it's not fair to lay all the blame on the US either, it happens in Canada, probably in Australia as well.

Now perhaps we're getting down to the meat of your opposition. I can recognize that the kilt is THE national attire of Scotland even as I observe how it has been appropriated by other Celtic peoples (there is that word again!). It is understandable to wish to reserve such a wonderful form of attire for the Scots, but the cat is well and completely out of the bag at this point.

What is the solution? You wrote a way back in post #47 that you don't mind if anybody wears the kilt, including "punks, fashionistas, members of the gay community, (particularly down Soho in London on a Saturday night), pop stars, entertainers," which is quite open minded of you

So if the Irish kilt wearers just went about wearing their Irish tartans and Irish kilt accessories, without making any claims to symbolic value, would that be enough? Then they could enjoy the kilt like anyone else?

I'm actually being serious in my questioning. It would be fantastic to find a way to ease some of the hurt and tension that the issue of the Irish kilt brings up for some people...

One of these fine days I would like to buy you a drink!

MacSpadger definitely deserves a drink, not only for his excellent posts, but also (if he uses the same name on SoundCloud) for his piping

In the end does it really matter. No amount of banter is going to reverse the emergence of the Irish kilt. Whether you view the kilt as strictly Scottish or not doesn't matter. Other Celtic nations have adopted it as well...

Well, if this thread has shown anything, it is that it really does matter. It matters both to people who wish the kilt was only for the Scottish, as well as for people who -- for a variety of reasons -- would like to make connections to kilt wear...

[MacSpadger]

So if the Irish kilt wearers just went about wearing their Irish tartans and Irish kilt accessories, without making any claims to symbolic value, would that be enough? Then they could enjoy the kilt like anyone else?

I'm actually being serious in my questioning. It would be fantastic to find a way to ease some of the hurt and tension that the issue of the Irish kilt brings up for some people...

I don't have any opposition to anyone at all wearing the kilt, not one jot. My point of view is one of complete confusion as to why there are so many in the USA that seem to have the view that the kilt originated in Ireland or is derived from Irish dress or is the Irish national dress as it is "Celtic". Simple as that. Sometimes people have been very heated about this but it is very disorientating when we see pictures or videos from USA St Patrick's day events where people, to express their Irishness, wear clothing that is symbolic of Scotland, or derived from design that the British army wear. Even the Great Highland bagpipe has been used in the British army for over 300 years, yet it is used as a symbol of Irishness in some of these events. I know a lot of forum members are from a different cultural background to me, but surely the source of my puzzlement is obvious? I have lived and worked on both sides of the Irish border and there is nothing like some of the hypothesis I have seen presented by some on here, (especially when history is bent out of shape). So, to cut it short, then my answer to your question is yes, without doubt.

Besides, I understand that the design and production of Irish tartans and Irish kilt accessories generates a healthy revenue for the Scottish firms that supply them, so it cuts both ways.

I have no hurt and tension on the subject at all, merely bafflement. That's all, folks.

[davidlpope]

I don't have any opposition to anyone at all wearing the kilt, not one jot. My point of view is one of complete confusion as to why there are so many in the USA that seem to have the view that the kilt originated in Ireland or is derived from Irish dress or is the Irish national dress as it is "Celtic". Simple as that. Sometimes people have been very heated about this but it is very disorientating when we see pictures or videos from USA St Patrick's day events where people, to express their Irishness, wear clothing that is symbolic of Scotland, or derived from design that the British army wear. Even the Great Highland bagpipe has been used in the British army for over 300 years, yet it is used as a symbol of Irishness in some of these events. I know a lot of forum members are from a different cultural background to me, but surely the source of my puzzlement is obvious? I have lived and worked on both sides of the Irish border and there is nothing like some of the hypothesis I have seen presented by some on here, (especially when history is bent out of shape). So, to cut it short, then my answer to your question is yes, without doubt.

Besides, I understand that the design and production of Irish tartans and Irish kilt accessories generates a healthy revenue for the Scottish firms that supply them, so it cuts both ways.

I have no hurt and tension on the subject at all, merely bafflement. That's all, folks.

Simple answer:

1. Most Americans are ignorant concerning these things.
2. Most Americans would rather stay ignorant because it serves as easy justification for their illogical behavior, rather than confront their erroneous beliefs.

I recognize that you, and many others, are quite baffled by the behavior of many Americans. it is very understandable. We have this odd way of getting things very wrong, but being so earnest, invested, and opinionated about these things that we don't change our views even when confronted with empirical truth.

For the most part, the issue is one of ignorance, taking the word in its true sense. Americans are generally uninformed about the profound differences in the history and cultures of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England. In our ignorance most Americans tend to lump these these countries together, hence so much confusion over the origin of tartan, bagpipes, kilts, etc.

A good bit of this confusion is due to a romanticism-fueled re-identification with our (alleged? imagined?) heritages. By this I mean that very, very few Americans (Ryan Ross, Sandy MacLean, Scott MacMillan, etc. excluded) can point to an unbroken Scottish/Highland tradition in their families, complete with hand-me-down kilts, photos of Grandpa in his Highland regimentals, etc.

Instead, most folks who frequent American highland games kilted are those who "discovered" that their surname was "Scottish" by consulting Black's Surnames of Scotland or the internet. As a result many Browns, Smiths, Clarks, and Youngs of German, Dutch, or English origin now believe that they are ethnically Scottish. Add on top of this the fact that those who are descended from Irish immigrants have caused the bagpipe and kilt to be a symbol of their culture by association with fire and police departments, St. Patrick's Day celebrations (which are another example of us making up "traditions" from whole cloth), and fraternal societies. The result is confusing.

So why does all this occur? Here are my theories:

1. The kilt and bagpipes are cool. Americans want to wear kilts and play/listen to bagpipes. Most folks understand that there is a cultural aspect to these things, so they try to establish a connection, albeit a tenuous or erroneous connection (ex.- "I wear a kilt to honor my Irish/Scots-Irish relatives.") Since they're really looking for a "justification" to wear a kilt, they don't really care when their flawed theory is debunked, and tend to perpetuate misinformation, instead of just saying "I like wearing kilts" or "I like playing bagpipes, because they make me feel *tingly* inside."

2. We are a large country filled with heterogenous people. As a result, there really isn't a monolithic American culture. Instead we have American cultures, usually regional, although these are going away as we become a more mobile society. As a result Americans tend to "look back" and romantically imagine a time when their (personal) culture was richer and more compelling. Since romanticized Scotland has a rich and compelling past, many gravitate to this aspect, though often marginal, of their ancestry.

Cordially,

David

[hkjrb623]

Great post David. I never have understood the Irish wearing kilts or playing bagpipes to show their heritage, I just accepted it. Just like accepting how a religious holiday became about green beer and getting totally hammered.
Somehow the "Celtic" traditions are simply American traditions.

[Blackrose87]

Great post David. I never have understood the Irish wearing kilts or playing bagpipes to show their heritage, I just accepted it. Just like accepting how a religious holiday became about green beer and getting totally hammered.
Somehow the "Celtic" traditions are simply American traditions.

I have to disagree about this. The original question was about the kilt being used in the early 20th century in Ireland, by Irish Nationalists. America was not mentioned at all.
For many reasons, the proposed adoption of the kilt did not occur, but the idea of Celtic identity was definitely taken up by a few of the leaders. Again nothing to do with America.

[davidlpope]

I have to disagree about this. The original question was about the kilt being used in the early 20th century in Ireland, by Irish Nationalists. America was not mentioned at all.
For many reasons, the proposed adoption of the kilt did not occur, but the idea of Celtic identity was definitely taken up by a few of the leaders. Again nothing to do with America.

I was responding to MacSpadger's post. While OT, I think that this discussion is worthwhile.

I believe that HKJRB623's reference to "the Irish" also refers to "Americans of Irish-descent in America", although I hope he'll chime in and clarify.

My contention is that most Americans are wholly unaware of Padraig Pearse and the use of the kilt in Irish Revivalism. Most Americans who discover XMarks seem to be unaware of this, as well, and have some vague notion that the early Irish wore the kilt in the current, Scottish manner.

Cordially,

David