Kilts in school?

[mustanger98]

The first time i was asked by a chick what I wore under the kilt I replied back: "My boots".

A few years ago I was aquainted with a high school teacher who also did Scottish re-enacting. He said he gave a similar response to that question.

On the other hand, I recall an episode of Home Improvement where Tim donned a kilt and visited the Highland Games where he tossed a cabor (sp?)through Al's station wagon. Right after Al told him he was in fact supposed to wear his undershorts with the kilt.

Which ways technically correct here?

Oh and they don't ride up if you are wearing "regimental".

This comment along with the "skirt" jokes reminds me of the William Holden film "The Devil's Brigade" in which a join US/Canadian unit- the 1st Special Forces- was formed and trained in Montana. The scene in particular is the one where the Canadians marched into camp and two or three of their members uniforms- the piper's in particular- included a kilt.

 

[bratch]

I good friend of mine really got into his Scot heritage during high school. He took up the bagpipes and joined a local pipe band. I believe he even opened an assembly at school in his Kilt with his pipes.

He attended a Scot college on a piping scholarship for a while.

For his wedding he wore his Kilt and everything associated with it. I thought he looked fine and his bride didnt mind.

If the kid looked good other than his kilt I hope he puts it to the school.

 

[yonderway]

Which ways technically correct here?

This is a matter of great controversy.

The saying "strictly regimental" is how most kilt wearers that I know would refer to it. This is a reference to the Scottish Regiments of the Queen's armed forces. The enlisted men used to wear the kilt into battle. Their commanding officer could perform an inspection in which a mirror was placed on the ground and the officer would ask each enlisted man to step forward over the mirror to ensure that he is wearing his uniform, and nothing else (i.e. no underwear).

HOWEVER, it's pretty widely accepted that for highland dancers and practitioners of scottish heavy athletics, where maintaining ones modesty is nearly impossible whilst going regimental, it is appropriate to wear something underneath. Usually very dark colored briefs to better hide in the shadows of the kilt during any brief flashes. Though athletes usually can go with a broader spectrum of undergarments than dancers.

This comment along with the "skirt" jokes reminds me of the William Holden film "The Devil's Brigade" in which a join US/Canadian unit- the 1st Special Forces- was formed and trained in Montana. The scene in particular is the one where the Canadians marched into camp and two or three of their members uniforms- the piper's in particular- included a kilt.

Canadians have a long proud tradition of including Scottish regiments in their ranks.

 

[AStone]

Ah, life is good. For the 2nd time in as many weeks, kilts are being discussed on THR, and a surprisingly large number of members admit to wearing one. I feel so at home.

OK, so I'm at least a bit on topic, I support the young man's right to wear a kilt at his school's formal function, particularly as long as he wore other formal attire with it.

I have two utilikilts: one black, one urban camo. (Utilikilt once made a 'formal tux' kilt, but it appears they no longer do.)

I'd like to have one of their workman kilts next.

IMO, they are extremely comfortable, especially in summer. I tend to wear mine when I want unrestrained flexibility, as when I'm doing a project where I need to be unrestrained by pants legs.

No, I don't wear it when doing roofing work.

I hear complaints about their expense regularly. They are expensive, but I've worn out three pairs of denim pants & a pair of Carhartt's that I bought since I bought my kilts, yet neither of the kilts is showing ANY wear even though I've worn them as much as I wore the pants. Properly cared for, kilts will last a long time.

Oh, yeah: so far, Preacherman, you've got the nod for 'worst' (= best) humor in this thread. Your korny pun just kilt me.

Nem

 

[Herself]

The odd thing is seeing a woman in a UK (UtiliKilt). It always seems to smack of transvestitism to me.

Yeah, well, considering that I'm a gal and I wear jeans to work each and every day, the Utilikilt looks to me more like a way I could wear a skirt-like garment to work and not have to worry about destroying it.

It's difficult to find a denim or canvas skirt made of strong enough material and long and full enough to be both modest and functional doing the kinds of very active Bigtime Broadcast Engineering stuff I do. Those UKs look like they'd be just the ticket!

I really do not get what the fuss is over a HS boy wearing a kilt to class or to the prom. Kilts are boyclothes, and if properly worn are less immodest than baggy, rump-exposing slacks. In a society where people mind their own business unless invited not to or presented with a clear threat, boys in kilts would be a non-issue. For that matter, boys in dresses and girls in BDUs would be a non-issue. These things are only a big deal if we make 'em a big deal.

--Herself

 

[Gunsnrovers]

During the cold WWI winters, there was an attempt to provide undershorts to highland units in the trenches and it was part of their winter uniform list.

However, it only added to the lice problem. It was bad enough for regular wool uniforms. The lice simply thrived in the pleats of the kilt.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Wow, 81 posts on kilts and no one has brought up the whole nine yards issue.

 

[mustanger98]

Wow, 81 posts on kilts and no one has brought up the whole nine yards issue.

Why? Is a kilt made from 9yds of material? I understood from the History Channel the saying "...the whole nine yards" came from the B-17's .50cal Brownings being fed by belts 9yds long. I guess either or both versions could be true.

 

[confed sailor]

i fail to see the problem, i wore one every single friday for 2 years, whether i liked it or not

this teacher you see, has to understand its like he's wearing the flag. only problem is when the wind picks up, you tend to see the mast

 

[roo_ster]

I warned y'all of a crumudgeonly response. If'n you wanted plain-text production of Hair you came to the wrong place.

The fundamental point is not if kilts are the next man-purse fashion craze, but just what (usually) minor dependants have in the way of leeway when:
1. They are minors/dependants
2. Have their schooling paid by others

In the immortal words of BB King, "I Pay the Cost to Be the Boss." If someone else is paying your way (taxpayers or your parents by way of tuition), you can just sit back and drink a nice, warm glass of **** when the folks who are paying your way say so (or their representatives say so). If they want your happy self to wear boring, squeaky-clean garb, deal with it. If you are over 18, you have no obligation to be in school and can go elsewhere to revel in your kiltedness. If you are under 18, drink that nice, warm glass when your folks say so and be downstairs at the appointed time, in appropriate dress.

One common theme I found in responses is that of promoting "non-conformity." I don't think much of "non-conformity," because unless the non-conformist is also a hermit who runs off all visitors, potential followers, etc; that non-conformist is part of a social group and will conform to the norms of that group, to include attire.

Also, if somebody can't hold their act together for 8 hours/day in such a low-pressure environment as the average high school, they need some discipline imposed on their flighty selves. Life after high school only get more pressureized.

------------

School's purpose is not to let every wiseacre and unemployable anti-authoritarian type act out every lame idea that pops into their head.

Of course not - the purpose of public schools is to ingraine herd mentality and obedience to your masters.

I'm not too keen on government/public schools, myself. My experience in them was that most wanted to teach me the usual academics, encourage participation in some athletics, instill some self-discipline, inculcate a contemporary/conventional lefty political orientation, and impart a disdain for traditional Christianity. I would have been satisfied if the public schools I attended had omitted the last two.

That said, most gov't schools' avowed/admitted purpose is the above (less the two latter items). Here is an example: http://www.eastlake-hs.pinellas.k12.fl.us/index.html

The community of East Lake High School will promote highest student achievement by aligning curriculum, instruction, assessment and classroom learning tools in a safe environment.

The private schools I attended had purposes similar to the following: http://www.stpeter.pvt.k12.mn.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=6&Itemid=2

The purpose of St. Peter's Lutheran School is to assist parents in the education of their children by providing a Christ-centered learning environment which emphasizes academic excellence, personal Christian growth and service to God and community.

"Act like a knucklehead and distract others from getting an education" is conspicuously absent from any gov't or private school mission statement I have bothered to actually read. So is, "Mock the values of those who are paying for your education so you don't spend the rest of your days an ignorant schlub." I also can't find "Actualize one's inner Scot." Public or private, others are paying the cost of these minors' education. As long as they live on and benefit from the efforts of others, those others get to call the shots.

Once they are on their own, they can act/up/out as they please...and reap the consequences.

-------------

Kilt-boy likely already knew the dress code & decided to break it. Who cares if his kilt-wearing was in accordance with some historical or re-enactors' standard? Send him home to be dressed properly by his mommy, since he can't manage the task.

How is a kilt any worse than a skirt? Females have the choice nowadays. Why not the men? Heck, I think that a kilt looks better than those baggy jeans with the underwear showing.

Without the occasional incident like this, schools will simply continue to expand their attempts to fit all students into the same mold.

"Worse" or "better" than what females wear is irrelevant. You may have noticed that men & women are different in more ways than dress. What matters is that kilt-boy is living and attending school on the sufferance of others & those others get to make the rules if he wants to benefit from their tax dollars or tuition payments.

Mold, schmold. As long as they are minors they can do what their parents and those who their parents designate tell them to do. When they are adults, let them pay their own way and do as they will.

I really don't care if callow youths feel stifled when told they can not wear their kilts in school. School's purpose is not to let every wiseacre and unemployable anti-authoritarian type act out every lame idea that pops into their head.

And smash every free thinker and innovator into the mold, huh? I hardly think that wearing a kilt is an indicator of unemployability. Heck, this board is often very anti-authoritarian.

I don't mind this stuff at a private school much, but at a public?

Riiight. All non-conformists like to think they are "free-thinkers" and "innovators." Bullhockey. They are still conformists...conforming to a different set of norms for whatever reason. Human nature does not change, no matter the garb; humans are social creatures.

If the wearing of a kilt is a non-negotiable for the prospective employee, many opportunities will be closed to them. Try getting a job at wearing a kilt at Perot Systems, for instance. Some employers aren't willing to fool with such. This is reality outside of the coffee house.

If a kilt-wearer manages to find employment, good for them & good for their employer. I hope they are both happy with the arrangement. God Bless America.

----------

I really don't care if callow youths feel stifled when told they can not wear their kilts in school. School's purpose is not to let every wiseacre and unemployable anti-authoritarian type act out every lame idea that pops into their head.

Surely you can't be that ignorant?

Ignorant http://m-w.com/dictionary/ignorant

Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED
- ig·no·rant·ly adverb
- ig·no·rant·ness noun
synonyms IGNORANT, ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED mean not having knowledge. IGNORANT may imply a general condition or it may apply to lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <an ignorant fool> <ignorant of nuclear physics>. ILLITERATE applies to either an absolute or a relative inability to read and write <much of the population is still illiterate>. UNLETTERED implies ignorance of the knowledge gained by reading <an allusion meaningless to the unlettered>. UNTUTORED may imply lack of schooling in the arts and ways of civilization <strange monuments built by an untutored people>. UNLEARNED suggests ignorance of advanced subjects <poetry not for academics but for the unlearned masses>.

I do believe I have an understanding of the concept of a kilt and its wear. I also have some small first-hand experience.

I wear a kilt almost daily. Yes, I wear it to the office. I am an IT professional that consults for Fortune 100 companies, and the kilt usually makes a splash in the first hour I'm there but then people forget I'm wearing it. I can't say I see a lot of people doing this in offices but I do know a number of office workers who wear the kilt to work without a problem. I do know some blue collar workers who cannot wear the kilt, but only for safety reasons (i.e. loose fabric getting caught in machinery could be disastrous, at the very least to one's modesty, with the possibility for terrible physical injury).

Good for you. You, I presume, are an adult and pay your own way. You make your own decisions and deal with the consequences. Kilt-boy in the original article is not in your position of independance.

Among those consequences you bear is the lack of employability by many employers who take issue with your favored mode of dress.

Every now and then you run into an intolerant ignoramous who can't stand to see a man in a kilt, usually because they lack the cajones to wear one in public themselves. It does, after all, take a certain amount of dignity, self-esteem, and backbone to stand out from the crowd. Something that the hardcore naysayers usually lack in abundance.

If you say so.

----------

I really don't care if callow youths feel stifled when told they can not wear their kilts in school. School's purpose is not to let every wiseacre and unemployable anti-authoritarian type act out every lame idea that pops into their head.

Wow, Comrade... you're absolutely right, we should all be carbon copies of the Perfect Worker, to better serve our Kremiln masters...

Thanks, I'd rather any child of mine be a unique individual, with the self esteeme and confidance necessary to stand out from the herd, then to be One of Many marching to the drum of conformity...

Yep, requiring minors & dependants to dress appropriate to the occasion is just like Communism. Or not.

Wearing a kilt is not non-conformist. It is merely conforming to a different standard. An example of such risible "non-conformity" was the pathetic Goth dress of a few years back. Oh, yeah, those folks were real non-conformists...
...despite dressing the same way
...despite listening to the same bad music
...despite dyeing their hair the same jet black
...despite avoiding the sun to preserve their fish-belly-white complexions (of those who can attain such an exalted state of fish-bellyness)

-------

Kilt-boy likely already knew the dress code & decided to break it.

Uhhh...sorry to break this to you, but most places of employ or schooling do no have a dress code that mentions kilts for men. My workplaces sees kilts every now and again. I work in a switch room where it is COLD so I don't think i would be wearing one, but my workplace has established "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander". Therefore, if gals can wear skirts, guys can wear kilts.

Ban skirts for both and you can be safe in not having to look at a boy's knees.

You are an adult who works in a place that allows kilts. Good for you. Just how does that bear on a schoolboy who is not supporting himself and is attending a school paid for by someone(s) else?

Here is a gov't school district dress code for an example: http://www.pinellas.k12.fl.us/Planning/files/585E983476A84057B0C49E61419DFFF6.pdf

The dress and grooming of Pinellas County students shall be neat and clean, promoting a positive educational environment. Apparel that disrupts educational activities and processes of the school will result in the removal of the student from the regular school environment until acceptable apparel can be secured for the student. The administration will be the final judge about whether a student’s clothing is appropriate for school or whether it will create an environmental climate that is distracting to learning. Principals, faculty, and staff members will enforce the dress code.
Individual schools may have additional requirements if supported by a majority of School Advisory Council (SAC) members, and if they are placed in the school handbook or planner.
Requirements for student dress in all schools are listed below:
1. All shirts and blouses must cover midriff, back, sides, and all undergarments including bra straps at all times. All shirts, tops, and dresses shall have sleeves and cover the shoulders.
2. Shorts, skirts, divided skirts, dresses and culottes are allowed. They must be hemmed and be mid-thigh length or longer.
3. All trousers, pants or shorts must totally cover undergarments, including boxer shorts.
4. All clothing, jewelry or tattoos shall be free of the following: profanity; violent images, wording or suggestion; sexually suggestive phrases or images; gang related symbols; alcohol, tobacco, drugs or advertisements for such products.
5. Safe and appropriate footwear must be worn. Inappropriate footwear includes, but is not limited to, roller skates, skate shoes and bedroom slippers.
Further clarification/other requirements:
a. Form fitting leotard/spandex type clothing (including sport bras) is not allowed unless proper outer garments cover it.
b. See through or mesh fabric clothing may only be worn over clothing meeting requirements.
c. Clothing must be appropriate size, with the waist of the garment worn at the student’s waist.
d. Clothing not properly buttoned, zipped, fastened, or with inappropriate holes or tears shall not be worn.
e. Clothing and footwear traditionally designed as undergarments or sleepwear shall not be worn as outer garments.
f. Sunglasses may not be worn inside unless a parent provides a doctor’s note to the school.
g. Bandanas or sweatbands are not allowed to be visible on school grounds during the regular school hours.
h. Hats or other head coverings may be worn during outside P.E. activities and may not be worn during any portion of the regular school day without the expressed permission of the principal.
i. If the school has a mandatory school uniform policy, the student must adhere to those requirements.

No, kilts are not referenced, but Section 5.i. would mandate a no-kilt-zone (outside of Scotland), I expect. Also, the first paragraph would likely be kilt-unfriendly.

Here is an article about attire in the business world: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2002_May_1/ai_88679443

Dress Code - US corporations reinstituting business dress policies
Unless you work for one of the handful of surviving Internet start-ups, wearing vintage Pumas and a Def Leppard T-shirt to work may no longer cut the mustard...more than half of large businesses (56 percent) maintain a business attire policy - that means a suit and tie for the gents and a suit or dress for the ladies.

To write, "but most places of employ or schooling do no have a dress code that mentions kilts for men," may be correct, but doesn't really mean much in that most codes requirements preclude kilts.

For folks who may be ignorant of the norms of attire in the private sector:
Business Casual http://careercenter.tamu.edu/Students/S1/S1B2C.shtml
Business Attire/Interview Attire http://careercenter.tamu.edu/Students/S1/S1B2B.shtml

 

[confed sailor]

jfruser, do you feel better after that little tantrum?

 

[Zedicus]

The Funny thing is that the Kilt has been in Existence century's longer than Pants have....

That Principle needs to wake up and smell what he's shoveling.

 

[mustanger98]

My personal perspective on the contraversy part of this thread is that I won't laugh at either side. Being an American native Southerner, I'm probably of Scots-Irish w/AmericanIndian decent. As such, if I traced my ancestry back, I might find kilt wearers- Scot or Irish, as believe it or not they both wore 'em and both countries have pipers- in my geneology. That said, I'm not a kilt wearer as some may have guessed from my posted comments and inquring on points I'd previously been ignorant on. No, I subscribe to another code of dress- that of the American Cowboy with boots, Wranglers and Stetson. On matters of unemployability, some employers don't like my mode of dress any better than they would a kilt, so it's good for me to be self-employeed in a "cowboy" craft, but don't call me a non-conformist. As has been more or less pointed out, all those non-conformists are all alike. What I'll say about that is that it's a matter of fitting in with conditions and attitudes you more or less agree with. I mentioned my Scots-Irish/Am.Indian decent- thing about that is I'm probably so far removed down the generations, I wouldn't know anything about "being Scottish" or "being Irish" or "being Indian". I wonder sometimes how close to the mark that is for some kilt wearers and some of those who go to the Highland Games. Kinda like my sister told me about in a college course on Ethnicity- some African-Americans talking about "being African, which is another story again, but when they visit their alleged homeland they find they really know nothing about it. I'm saying I observe this in several different ethnic directions.

Why did somebody have to bring up those Goth freaks. I remember that time a few years ago when I went to a suburban mall- I got so many looks from the Goth freaks... they thought I was the wierd one. I might as well have been wearing a kilt that day, for all the difference it makes. Country went to town was all it was. But now I gotta get that freaky image out of my mind. Thanks a lot.

 

[Firethorn]

In the immortal words of BB King, "I Pay the Cost to Be the Boss." If someone else is paying your way (taxpayers or your parents by way of tuition), you can just sit back and drink a nice, warm glass of **** when the folks who are paying your way say so (or their representatives say so). If they want your happy self to wear boring, squeaky-clean garb, deal with it. If you are over 18, you have no obligation to be in school and can go elsewhere to revel in your kiltedness. If you are under 18, drink that nice, warm glass when your folks say so and be downstairs at the appointed time, in appropriate dress.

Where attendance is mandatory, my teenage self had to go to school, under threat of law.

As for the 'dress code', I noticed that it doesn't restrict men to pants. As in my rebelious teenage self could show up in a sun dress*, for example, and there wouldn't be anything the principle could do about it. And I'd bet that that would be more disruptive than a utilikilt.

*I didn't do it, but yes, I have seen somebody pull a klingor during a deployment. My 'uniform' during high school was pretty much a pair of black pants and a print tshirt.

 

[Ian]

Jfruser, the kid wasn't kicked out of class for wearing a kilt, he was kicked out of an after-school dance. IMO, a kilt is a more formal garment than pants, given the same upper-body clothing. A kilt is perfectly appropriate for a formal or semi-formal dance. He wasn't booted for being improperly dressed, he was booted because of the principal's ignorance.

Fortunately, the principal at my high school wasn't such a schlub.

 

[El Tejon]

Right then! What's all this then? I see we have some Scot revisionists, no doubt reading Sir Walter Scott without the Crown's permission! You will remain nameless, *cough,cough* (hso), but you know who you are.

*puts on tweed jacket with leather elbow patches and reading glasses*

In 1727 at Inverness an Englishman, Thomas Rawlinson, had a lumber factory. He was shocked to find that the Scots did not wear pants, merely a shirt worn to the knees belted at the waist. Being a good Englishman, he did not give workers a raise, but invented the kilt.

Scotland was officially conquered in 1707 and there were still anti-English feelings about and kilts made Scots stand out instead of kneeling to the rock under the chair. Parliament sought to nip this Scottish insolence in the bud and did a remarkably stupid thing--they banned the kilt in 1745.

What happens when you ban something? Right, you multiple its popularity by tenfold.

After this, every Scot, wanted the low, mean working-class garment, the kilt. The Scot nobility latched onto the kilt as a symbol of resistance to lawful authority and suddenly the clans had "ancient patterns" of kilts.

Later 1805 Sir Walter Scott created the myth of the kilt claiming that it could be traced to before recorded history. It was all historical nonsense, but who can stop men who will ignore history to wear skirts? Certainly not me!

 

[AStone]

Right then! What's all this then? I see we have some Scot revisionists, no doubt reading Sir Walter Scott without the Crown's permission! You will remain nameless, *cough,cough* (hso), but you know who you are.

You mean there's something that we can't blame Steve for?

*puts on tweed jacket with leather elbow patches and reading glasses*

Nice bit of history, El T.

Here's some more.

Be sure to check out the revealing photo in the 'underwear' section. <Ahem>

The Scot nobility latched onto the kilt as a symbol of resistance to lawful authority and suddenly the clans had "ancient patterns" of kilts.

Ahh, there's the key.

I'll go along with anything that's a symbol of resistance to 'authority'.



Nem {who is secretly glad that the 'holidays' are nearly over for another year...}

 

[Gunsnrovers]

In 1727 at Inverness an Englishman, Thomas Rawlinson, had a lumber factory. He was shocked to find that the Scots did not wear pants, merely a shirt worn to the knees belted at the waist. Being a good Englishman, he did not give workers a raise, but invented the kilt.

The belted plaid, now more often called a great kilt, pre-dates Thomas Rawlinson. References to the great kilt show up in church writings as early as 1578. There are wood carvings from the early/mid 1600's showing the belted plaid as well.

Mr. Rawlinson's kilt consists of 1 half of the 2 widths of material sewn together to make a great kit. This was the feileadh-beag or little wrap. There are drawings and sketchs referencing a similiar garmet that pre-dates Mr. Rawlinson as well.

The box pleated kilt came about in about 1790 and became more common after the 1820's. The knife pleated kilt came in during the mid-1800's.

The length of material is NOT set. It's determined by the pleat and the tartan. Typically 6~10 yards.

 

[yonderway]

*puts on tweed jacket with leather elbow patches and reading glasses*

Don't forget the hip waders, because the stinky stuff is getting deep.

In 1727 at Inverness an Englishman, Thomas Rawlinson, had a lumber factory. He was shocked to find that the Scots did not wear pants, merely a shirt worn to the knees belted at the waist. Being a good Englishman, he did not give workers a raise, but invented the kilt.

Yeah, and Al Gore invented the Internet.

Kilt Myth #47: BUSTED

 

[yonderway]

Here's some more.

Be sure to check out the revealing photo in the 'underwear' section. <Ahem>

Heh... I'm one of the contributors to that article, as well as that specific section.

 

[yonderway]

The length of material is NOT set. It's determined by the pleat and the tartan. Typically 6~10 yards.

This is somewhat mythical, as well. The belted plaid was seldom more than 4.5 yards. The belted plaid was not just a very LOOOONG garment but it was also very WIIIIDE. A standard width of plaid from a loom was about half as wide as they needed it to be. So double the needed length was purchased, and then cut in half (lining up the sett between the two halves) and created a double-width length of fabric that was really only 3 to 4.5 yards in length.

4.5 yards is an extremely heavy belted plaid, even for a big fatso like me with a 53" waistline. Most men would have worn something closer to 3 yards. My philabegs average around 3.5 to 4 yards of pleated tartan. There is no exact perfect length for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that the different tartans require different pleat depths to pleat to sett (in other words, the tartan pattern does not look disrupted by the pleating).

 

[AStone]

Heh... I'm one of the contributors to that article, as well as that specific section.

Nice.

Even though I've read some (seemingly unwarranted) criticisms of Wikipedia from THR members, I like it a lot. The idea is great, and their collaborative processes for article review & revision seems reasonable to me (even if somewhat problematic in the short run for some articles where sufficient numbers of reviewers aren't present).

But I digress. The topic here is kilts.

Nem

 

[Gunsnrovers]

Yonderway,

Neat article. Funny that there is a Scottish Tartans museum in the Carolinas. Just never would have expected that.

I was briefly schooled on kilt history by Bob Martin, a kilt maker in South Carolina, during a few long winded phone calls. He and I swapped some London Scottish kilts a few years back. He was a wealth of information. Nice guy. If I ever get out that way...

 

[yonderway]

Funny that there is a Scottish Tartans museum in the Carolinas.

It actually makes a lot of sense, if you think about it.

The kilt was strictly a highlander garment. After the Highland Clearances, there were more highlanders in the Appalachia than there were in Scotland. Many believe that the culture of the Scots perservered better in America than in Scotland.

But I digress.

The Scottish Tartans Authority is based in Scotland. They just have a museum in North Carolina. Their curator makes some nice kilts, and he's one of the few that will do box pleating anymore.

 

[TallPine]

Funny that there is a Scottish Tartans museum in the Carolinas.

My understanding is that at about the time of the American Revolution ("Secession from England" for ET's benefit ) there were some number of Highlanders living among the Indians in the western Carolinas. The Gaelic and Native American cultures were analogous, and some Gaels were supposed to have even become chiefs.

I imagine that it was quite interesting to hear an amalgamation of Gaidhlig and the native indain (Cherokee?) tongues.