Military tartans

[Manu]

And thats exactly what my reply was gonne be. Camo is just too universal, not even digital camo is exclusive to Marines anymore, so not a good comparison. Now, a military tartan is not a uniform, therefore I dont think its such a horrible thing to wear it (except brittish militay tartans), but wear it right, wear it proud.

[macwilkin]

Thread moved. Once again, please post all tartan-related threads in the heraldry & tartans sub-section under "Kilt Accessories":

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...play.php?f=135

This is why that area was created!

I'll try to post a reply to your question later.

Thanks,

Todd

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Once again, I want to begin by first saying that it's a bit silly to couch these discussions in terms of having the "right" to wear a particular tartan. There are all kinds of things that people can have a right to -- free speech, freedom of worship, and the like. Compared to that, tartans just seem trivial to speak of in terms of "rights."

The long and short of it is that in the vast majority of cases, there is absolutely no legal restriction placed on wearing any tartan design, so yes, anyone at all can wear it. However, if someone wanted to copyright a new design (which usually only restricts the production of the design, not the use thereof) or otherwise take legal actions to restrict its use, and that person tells you that you do not have the "right" to wear his tartan, then you don't.

Keep in mind that with all of the US military tartans, the only one that I know of that is actually officially sanctioned by the military is the Coast Guard tartan. All of the other ones are fashion tartans. That means that someone designed them with that particular branch of military in mind, with the intent of honoring and representing that military branch, but the tartans themselves have no official standing with the military whatsoever.

Since the US Army tartan (to use an example) is only the US Army tartan because the woolen mill in Scotland that designed it (Strathmore) decided to call it the US Army tartan, then I suppose a non-Army type has just as much "right" to wear it as anyone else.

HOWEVER, practically speaking, if you are wearing a tartan called US Army, you can expect that people will assume that you are in, or have been in, the Army. Either they will recognize the tartan, or if not, they will ask you what it is. Any kilt wearer will tell you they get asked that all the time. "Hey, nice kilt! What tartan is that?"

So, the question to ask yourself is, are you comfortable with people mistaking you for someone who has served? I'm not, and the reason for that is that people tend to treat those who have given military service with a degree of respect and honor -- I know this from people I know and work with that have served in the military. I have not ever served in the military, and to me it would not do to give the impression that I had.

For the same reason I wouldn't wear the Clergy tartan if I were not a member of the clergy.

Now I don't necessarily have the same qualms about wearing another clan tartan. After all, the history of the clans themselves is one of wearing lots of different tartans. The modern day clan tartans were mostly selected in a fairly arbitrary way, anyway. And frankly, it just doesn't bother me to think that someone might mistakenly assume I'm descended from Clan MacGregor or Clan Sutherland, that to assume that I'm a veteran, or a minister. I suppose that it's because the former have to do with supposed anscestral connections centuries in the past, whereas the latter have to do with personal commitments, achievements, and duties.

Aye,
Matt

[MacWage]

Once again, I want to begin by first saying that it's a bit silly to couch these discussions in terms of having the "right" to wear a particular tartan. There are all kinds of things that people can have a right to -- free speech, freedom of worship, and the like. Compared to that, tartans just seem trivial to speak of in terms of "rights."

The long and short of it is that in the vast majority of cases, there is absolutely no legal restriction placed on wearing any tartan design, so yes, anyone at all can wear it. However, if someone wanted to copyright a new design (which usually only restricts the production of the design, not the use thereof) or otherwise take legal actions to restrict its use, and that person tells you that you do not have the "right" to wear his tartan, then you don't.

Keep in mind that with all of the US military tartans, the only one that I know of that is actually officially sanctioned by the military is the Coast Guard tartan. All of the other ones are fashion tartans. That means that someone designed them with that particular branch of military in mind, with the intent of honoring and representing that military branch, but the tartans themselves have no official standing with the military whatsoever.

Since the US Army tartan (to use an example) is only the US Army tartan because the woolen mill in Scotland that designed it (Strathmore) decided to call it the US Army tartan, then I suppose a non-Army type has just as much "right" to wear it as anyone else.

HOWEVER, practically speaking, if you are wearing a tartan called US Army, you can expect that people will assume that you are in, or have been in, the Army. Either they will recognize the tartan, or if not, they will ask you what it is. Any kilt wearer will tell you they get asked that all the time. "Hey, nice kilt! What tartan is that?"

So, the question to ask yourself is, are you comfortable with people mistaking you for someone who has served? I'm not, and the reason for that is that people tend to treat those who have given military service with a degree of respect and honor -- I know this from people I know and work with that have served in the military. I have not ever served in the military, and to me it would not do to give the impression that I had.

For the same reason I wouldn't wear the Clergy tartan if I were not a member of the clergy.

Now I don't necessarily have the same qualms about wearing another clan tartan. After all, the history of the clans themselves is one of wearing lots of different tartans. The modern day clan tartans were mostly selected in a fairly arbitrary way, anyway. And frankly, it just doesn't bother me to think that someone might mistakenly assume I'm descended from Clan MacGregor or Clan Sutherland, that to assume that I'm a veteran, or a minister. I suppose that it's because the former have to do with supposed anscestral connections centuries in the past, whereas the latter have to do with personal commitments, achievements, and duties.

Aye,
Matt

Here, Here!!!!
Couldn't have said it better myself.

The only confusion is the Clergy/ Clark thing. The tartan is essentionally the same, though more modern mills try to differenciate them by the colors used. The meaning is QUITE different, as would the assumptions of those who see it-> That a nice clan tartan vs. That man must be a minister/pastor/preist/preacher (term varies by denominational affiliation).
Military has that same affiliation, as does wearing a Marine or Army shirt around, only more so.

[SingleBarrelBourbon]

...
Keep in mind that with all of the US military tartans, the only one that I know of that is actually officially sanctioned by the military is the Coast Guard tartan. All of the other ones are fashion tartans. That means that someone designed them with that particular branch of military in mind, with the intent of honoring and representing that military branch, but the tartans themselves have no official standing with the military whatsoever.
...

Aye,
Matt

Everyone, please note that the Polaris tartan is recognized by the US Navy in that it is the official tartan of the US Naval Academy Pipe Band.

From the ElectricScotland website, www.electricscotland.com, "The Polaris tartan was designed for the officers and men of the American Submarine base at the Holy Loch - making the Polaris submarine the first ship in history to have its own tartan. The idea came from Captain Walter F Schlech, Commander of the submarine base. It proved very popular with the men who served there, as it provided a very powerful symbol of there newly found link with Scotland." More including discussion of the design and what the actual colors used are included at the site.

[macwilkin]

Two more tartans associated with the US Military:

The West Point tartan, worn by the Pipes and Drums of the US Military Academy at West Point, New York:

http://www.usma.edu/USCC/dca/clubs/C...Info/pipd.html

And the tartan for the 7th US Cavalry Regiment*, which at one time, had a pipe band:

http://www.us7thcavalry.com/7-cav-k.htm

*At one time, the pipers of the 7th Cavalry wore saffron kilts, as their uniforms were based on the Pipes and Drums of the Royal Inniskilling Fusilers of the British Army. It appears that the tartan was adopted sometime in the 1990's, although the information is not clear.

On the US Coast Guard Pipe Band's web site, there is a reference to other Army Pipe Bands:

the modern era has seen official recognition of U.S. Army pipe bands wearing uniform kilts with U.S. military uniforms organized by the 2nd infantry Division, the 5th Infantry Division, the 8th Infantry Division, the 31st infantry Division, the 42nd Infantry Division, and the Sixth Army. The U.S. Army currently recognizes the right of members of the pipe bands of 91stDivision, U.S. Army Reserve, California National Guard and Oregon National Guard Reserve to wear kilts of a prescribed pattern with their Army uniforms.*

-- http://www.uscgpipeband.org/pages/faq.html

The 91st Division Band's web site has this to say:

In addition to the traditional brass, woodwind and percussion sections, the 91st Division Band is distinctive in that it also features a bagpipe section. There is only one other Army band in the United States with a bagpipe contingent: the band of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

-- http://www.usarc.army.mil/91div/band.asp

The story continues...

Cheers,

Todd