Ponderings of an ancient Scot.

[Tobus]

Just as the denim jean (a symbol of the U.S.) is now proudly displayed on many a Scot's body

That statement prompted me to respond to something I've been pondering ever since I first read this thread.

While I respect the idea that clan tartans are distinctly Scottish and I can understand the desire for Scots to keep the clan tartans rather proprietary (i.e. maintain a tradition that discourages the clan tartans from losing their significance through non-clan usage abroad), it makes me wonder why the Scots don't embrace their own tradition that they want to protect.

If Scots want to preserve the clan tartan kilt in a meaningful way, they're going to have to revive the tradition of wearing their kilts for something besides special occasions. As Jock Scot and other native Scots on this board will readily attest, kilts simply are not worn in Scotland on a regular basis. They mostly wear pants. And even American style blue jeans. How can they preserve the tradition if they aren't actually preserving the tradition? And why would they discourage others (non-Scots) from doing so if they won't do it themselves?

I don't want this to sound insulting or controversial, but I'll use the phrase anyway to convey the point: it is reminiscent of the proverbial "dog in the manger". And at this point, I'll also note that the native Scots on this board are not who I'm talking about here; I'm not accusing anyone here of that. But I think we all know that there is a contingent of Scots who are (perhaps justifiably) possessive of the use of clan tartans and are very critical of anyone outside Scotland wearing a clan tartan. At the same time, for those of us outside Scotland, we wonder why the Scots in general would not want to embrace their use of clan tartans and wear their kilts on a regular basis to honor their traditions.

I'll put it another way:

The tradition of wearing clan tartans in America (and elsewhere in the world, for that matter) started when the Scots were fleeing their homeland and there was a real fear that the tradition and culture would be lost forever. With the end of proscription and the revival of tartans (also the beginning of the idea of "clan tartans"), those who were still fleeing the hardships there were actually encouraging the use of these tartans outside Scotland. The idea being that they could preserve their culture in "lifeboats", or pockets of Scottish culture in America, Canada, or Australia.

It seems that now some Scots want us to stop. Perhaps they (again, justifiably so) think that the tradition is safe now and they needn't rely on "lifeboats" abroad to preserve the culture. But those of us descended from the original "lifeboat" culture may not necessarily agree. We see the Scottish tradition in Scotland still being lost, since they never quite returned to regular use of the kilt or clan tartans (and it seems that modern Scots at large have no interest in them except for rare occasions). And we also would feel a bit cheated of our own "lifeboat Scot" heritage by the suggestion that we should move on and find our own tartans to wear.

It's an emotional issue for sure. I can see both sides. And when we gaze into our crystal ball to see what the future will hold, I think we'll have to take these issues into account. People of Scottish heritage very much want to preserve that, even if it's only a symbolic wearing of the clan tartan. Inventing new distinctly non-Scot tartans seems a bit like turning one's back on one's own lineage. By continuing to wear clan tartans, we are doing what our forefathers wanted us to do: preserve their history and culture, even if it's not in Scotland.

*edited to add: I hope this post didn't cross over the line, since I know the thread wasn't intended to rehash the idea of "entitlement" to tartans. But I don't see how the future of clan tartan wearing can be discussed without it. So hopefully my comments will be viewed in that light...

[KFCarter]

Inventing new distinctly non-Scot tartans seems a bit like turning one's back on one's own lineage. By continuing to wear clan tartans, we are doing what our forefathers wanted us to do: preserve their history and culture, even if it's not in Scotland.

This is a thoughtful post, Tobus, but I'd like to comment on just the last bit above. I actually feel that kilts and tartans are and always have been a living expression of Scottish heritage and as such they will always evolve somewhat in their use and expression. Perhaps less so in their country of origin where clan ties (or lack thereof) are clear and distinct, but evolve they will.

I think that someone of Scottish heritage who creates a tartan to reflect their more recent lineage and home is most certainly not "turning their back" on their ancient lineage, but rather bringing it forward, alive and kicking, into current relevance for themselves and their descendants.

I've already seen the effect this can have on my family. My children respect my interest in our family's ancient roots, but are somewhat bemused by it all. The first time I saw a glimmer of real tartan-interest in my son's teenage eyes was when I showed him the tartan I'm designing to reflect our family and our Savannah home. He asked if I planned to make it into a kilt and I told him I planned to see it made into many kilts. He got it...and he smiled.

It's pretty safe to say that one day, hopefully in the far distant future, when he stands by my grave, he'll find it much more meaningful to be in a kilt made from this more recent tartan. But even though the tartan isn't ancient, he'll be in a kilt, and that kilt will be in a family tartan. And that act in itself will be in honor of his deeper roots that run all the way back to Scotland.

[Tobus]

I think that someone of Scottish heritage who creates a tartan to reflect their more recent lineage and home is most certainly not "turning their back" on their ancient lineage, but rather bringing it forward, alive and kicking, into current relevance for themselves and their descendants.

I absolutely agree! Maybe I should have worded it to mean that inventing new tartans out of a sense of guilt for 'hijacking' Scottish tradition would be turning one's back on his ancestry. I think an evolution of tartans to honor new family ties is great. But it shouldn't be done from any sense of pressure from native Scots. There should be room for both honoring our ancestry as well as forging a new identity.

[Jock Scot]

Tobus. You raise some interesting points and you ask some relevent questions, none of which, could anyone take umbridge with. I think many visitors are expecting too much when they visit here. The kilt was solely Highland Scots attire, the lowland Scots were, until very recently, non kilt wearers. In fact they were exceedingly vociforous with their scorn of the Highlanders and their kilts. Not only that, but the poulation of the Highlands has always been considerably smaller than the lowlands. Therefore everday kilt wearing is hardly likely to be everyday wear in Scotland as a whole. Now why is the kilt not worn more in the Highlands?In truth I am not sure, but most certainly a lot of it is down to the fact, unpalatable to some, that these days there are better options available to life in the modern world that we live in, than the kilt. To those with clan connections world wide of course they may wish to keep those connections, I was just wondering as time goes by if those connections will dilute. It seems as though some of us think they might. Who knows?

[Jock Scot]

Ahhhhh! Its done it again! My paragraphs have gone again! Sorry. Any suggestions why?

[Tobus]

The kilt was solely Highland Scots attire, the lowland Scots were, until very recently, non kilt wearers. In fact they were exceedingly vociforous with their scorn of the Highlanders and their kilts.

That's a fair and valid point. And it leads to a question, while we're on the subject.

When the kilt was officially made the national dress of Scotland, did it pertain to all of Scotland, or just the Highlands? And if it was for all of Scotland, was it meant to encourage Lowlanders to wear it as well, even though it wasn't their custom?

[KFCarter]

Ahhhhh! Its done it again! My paragraphs have gone again! Sorry. Any suggestions why?

I nearly had the same problem.

I don't know why it happens, but I discovered how to avoid it. Use the "go advanced" window to write a reply (rather than the "post quick reply" window) and use the "preview post" button to take a look at the post. The first time you preview you may find that it has collapsed all your paragraphs into one big lump... it did that to me just a few minutes ago.

I went back to the original window, re-entered the paragraph breaks, then hit "preview post" again and this time the preview retained my paragraph breaks. Then I submitted the post and it was fine. Haven't the foggiest idea why, but it worked.

[davidlpope]

When the kilt was officially made the national dress of Scotland, did it pertain to all of Scotland, or just the Highlands? And if it was for all of Scotland, was it meant to encourage Lowlanders to wear it as well, even though it wasn't their custom?

I don't think that the kilt has ever "officially" been declared the national dress of Scotland. Such things as national dress usually come about as a matter of custom.

Perhaps some of our academics can chime in, but I think the pan-Scottish connection to the kilt came about as a result of George IV's visit to Edinburgh in 1822. It seems to me that by that time a significant romanticised ideal surrounding the kilt/highland culture, etc. had grown up due to Sir Walter Scott's Waverly novels. As a result, Lowland and Border families jumped on the tartan/kilt bandwagon. Later added to that start was the fabulously good marketing that the Highland Regiments gave the kilt (I mean, come on, you get goosebumps hearing about the "Thin Red Line"...).

In some ways, then, it seems that the adoption of the kilt by Lowland Scots is not that really that far off from the "adoption of the kilt" by Irish kilt-wearers. The kilt was never part of Lowland culture, but it has been adopted nonetheless to signify an identity distinct from the dominant culture group.

Cordially,

David

[Jock Scot]

I don't think that the kilt has ever "officially" been declared the national dress of Scotland. Such things as national dress usually come about as a matter of custom.

Perhaps some of our academics can chime in, but I think the pan-Scottish connection to the kilt came about as a result of George IV's visit to Edinburgh in 1822. It seems to me that by that time a significant romanticised ideal surrounding the kilt/highland culture, etc. had grown up due to Sir Walter Scott's Waverly novels. As a result, Lowland and Border families jumped on the tartan/kilt bandwagon. Later added to that start was the fabulously good marketing that the Highland Regiments gave the kilt (I mean, come on, you get goosebumps hearing about the "Thin Red Line"...).

In some ways, then, it seems that the adoption of the kilt by Lowland Scots is not that really that far off from the "adoption of the kilt" by Irish kilt-wearers. The kilt was never part of Lowland culture, but it has been adopted nonetheless to signify an identity distinct from the dominant culture group.

Cordially,

David

Tobus raised the same point and I have not a sensible answer. However, I do think that astute marketing by tartan weavers had a great deal to do with the adoption of the kilt as our "national" dress.

[Tobus]

I don't think that the kilt has ever "officially" been declared the national dress of Scotland. Such things as national dress usually come about as a matter of custom.

Oh. I thought it had been officially declared as such by the government. But I can't find any reference to an official declaration, so I'll concede the point!