Jump to content

Member Picture Thread


Słash

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Not to correct you or anything, but the accepted story is that the short kilt was designed by Rawlinson who then took the idea to his Scottish partners who thought it a most capital idea and the wearing of it spread from there.

So, a new garment, designed by an Englishman and worn by Scotsmen. That is to say, that when you wear your wee little kilt you are wearing something of English design, not Scottish. I do like how you attempt to rewrite history though to make the walking kilt more "Scottish".

I don't think I'm rewriting history any more than you are with your phrases the "English Kilt" and your portrayal of the walking kilt as a "New Garment" with no relation to the Feileadh Mor which you use to suit your own narrative of it being oh so perversely funny that the Scots proudly adopted an entirely foreign invention (one made for them by their culturally dominant Southern neighbours) as a national symbol of Scotland. That's at best ignorant of context and at worst disingenuous. 

"Numerous illustrations exist of Highlanders wearing only the bottom part of the belted plaid that date long before Rawlinson ever set foot in Scotland. The belted plaid consisted of two widths of material stitched together. If the widths are not stitched together and only the bottom 4 yards are worn pleated and belted around the waist, the resulting garment is called the feilidh-beag (little wrap). The word is often spelled phillabeg in English. There is some suggestion of its use in the early 17th century, and it was definitely being worn by the 18th century. It most likely came about as a natural evolution of the belted plaid and Rawlinson probably observed it and quickly deduced its usefulness in his situation and insisted on introducing it among his workers. The first instance we have of the pleats being sewn in to the phillabeg, creating a true tailored kilt, comes in 1692, before the time of Rawlinson. This kilt, currently in the possession of the Scottish Tartans Society, is the first garment that can truly be called a kilt as we know it today."

http://www.heritageofscotland.com/articles/history-of-the-kilt

I have no problem with Rawlinson's role in the proceedings anyway. Scotland's a mongrel nation, people have been coming here for centuries and making great contributions to our culture and society. If an Englishman played an important role in the spread and popularisation of what became our national dress then so be it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Graeme said:

I don't think I'm rewriting history any more than you are with your phrases the "English Kilt" and your portrayal of the walking kilt as a "New Garment" with no relation to the Feileadh Mor which you use to suit your own narrative of it being oh so perversely funny that the Scots proudly adopted an entirely foreign invention (one made for them by their culturally dominant Southern neighbours) as a national symbol of Scotland. That's at best ignorant of context and at worst disingenuous. 

"Numerous illustrations exist of Highlanders wearing only the bottom part of the belted plaid that date long before Rawlinson ever set foot in Scotland. The belted plaid consisted of two widths of material stitched together. If the widths are not stitched together and only the bottom 4 yards are worn pleated and belted around the waist, the resulting garment is called the feilidh-beag (little wrap). The word is often spelled phillabeg in English. There is some suggestion of its use in the early 17th century, and it was definitely being worn by the 18th century. It most likely came about as a natural evolution of the belted plaid and Rawlinson probably observed it and quickly deduced its usefulness in his situation and insisted on introducing it among his workers. The first instance we have of the pleats being sewn in to the phillabeg, creating a true tailored kilt, comes in 1692, before the time of Rawlinson. This kilt, currently in the possession of the Scottish Tartans Society, is the first garment that can truly be called a kilt as we know it today."

http://www.heritageofscotland.com/articles/history-of-the-kilt

I have no problem with Rawlinson's role in the proceedings anyway. Scotland's a mongrel nation, people have been coming here for centuries and making great contributions to our culture and society. If an Englishman played an important role in the spread and popularisation of what became our national dress then so be it. 

There is no narrative on my part other than the narrative of the truth. The fact of the matter is that the modern kilt, known as the walking kilt, was designed by Rawlinson, an Englishman. That makes it, by my reckoning, an English design and therefore an "English Kilt". The fact that your fellow Scots adopted an English design as a symbol of their national identity is neither here nor there (though it is eminently funny) nor is it disingenuous. You also adapted bagpipes, whiskey and haggis, none of which are remotely Scottish either.

The Scottish Tartans Society, eh? Are they the same tartans which are almost entirely 19th century Victorian fabrications?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2016 at 8:55 AM, Slash787 said:

Well I thought to make this thread as the last thread got closed, I usually don't post my pics on the internet and especially not on forums and I would be like the last person to make a thread like this, but well I guess no one over here will do me any harm.

So well this is me, this was taken Last Year in Singapore.

12063778_10207363191425195_5530473421778

you're cute! you remind me of Raj from Big Bang Theory :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PappyTron said:

There is no narrative on my part other than the narrative of the truth. The fact of the matter is that the modern kilt, known as the walking kilt, was designed by Rawlinson, an Englishman. That makes it, by my reckoning, an English design and therefore an "English Kilt". The fact that your fellow Scots adopted an English design as a symbol of their national identity is neither here nor there (though it is eminently funny) nor is it disingenuous. You also adapted bagpipes, whiskey and haggis, none of which are remotely Scottish either.

The Scottish Tartans Society, eh? Are they the same tartans which are almost entirely 19th century Victorian fabrications?

Except it's not unequivocally the "fact of the matter". 

Even if we dismiss any evidence that the short kilt was worn in Scotland before Rawlinson, by my reckoning, it was at most an adaptation/variation of a pre-existing Scottish design (the same word is applied to both, in English and Gaidhlig), developed in Scotland, used exclusively by Scots in Scotland and that makes it as Scottish as it needs to be for me to be comfortable wearing it as national dress.

You haven't made me think , all things considered, "Oh, what a dupe I am, better take it back...".

I made no claims about haggis, whisky and bagpipes...

Bagpipes are used in many cultures and predate modern Scotland. Doesn't change the fact that the distinct design that emerged in Scotland (The Highland Bagpipe) has become the most globally recognisible nor the importance of the distinct traditions of Piobaireachd and Ceol Beag to Scottish culture.

Haggis? I think there's speculation it goes all the way back to Ancient Rome, but we're the only place in the world where it's popular so I reckon it's ours now... If the Romans want it back they can come and get it.

 Whisky... I couldn't care less to be honest. The majority of the world's Whisky drinkers seem to like the stuff made here more than that made elsewhere, more power to them...

As for the tartans? All traditions are, by definition, artificial... Someone had to make them up at some point. What difference does it make to the modern wearer if they were designed in the 1840s, the 1740s or the 1640s?

Edited by Graeme
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Except it's not unequivocally the "fact of the matter". 

Even if we dismiss any evidence that the short kilt was worn in Scotland before Rawlinson, by my reckoning, it was at most an adaptation/variation of a pre-existing Scottish design (the same word is applied to both, in English and Gaidhlig), developed in Scotland, used exclusively by Scots in Scotland and that makes it as Scottish as it needs to be for me to be comfortable wearing it as national dress.

You haven't made me think , all things considered, "Oh, what a dupe I am, better take it back...".

I made no claims about haggis, whisky and bagpipes...

Bagpipes are used in many cultures and predate modern Scotland. Doesn't change the fact that the distinct design that emerged in Scotland (The Highland Bagpipe) has become the most globally recognisible nor the importance of the distinct traditions of Piobaireachd and Ceol Beag to Scottish culture.

Haggis? I think there's speculation it goes all the way back to Ancient Rome, but we're the only place in the world where it's popular so I reckon it's ours now... If the Romans want it back they can come and get it.

 Whisky... I couldn't care less to be honest. The majority of the world's Whisky drinkers seem to like the stuff made here more than that made elsewhere, more power to them...

As for the tartans? All traditions are, by definition, artificial... Someone had to make them up at some point. What difference does it make to the modern wearer if they were designed in the 1840s, the 1740s or the 1640s?

Why would I want to make you think "Oh what a dupe I am for wearing an English kilt"? What a silly thing to say.

As for the short kilt, it is entirely possible, indeed probable, that some Scots wore a shortened kilt before Rawlinson, but the fact of the matter is that the short kilt with built in pleats has no record before Rawlinson. If you in turn wish to state that Rawlinson's design is simply an adaptation of an existing Scottish design then it should be mentioned, as you know, that the Scots didn't invent the Highland kilt either as it was an Irish design of clothing.

I made no claims of your own position on haggis, bagpipes, whiskey, deep-fried Mars bars or heroin. I simply stated that Scotland has adopted them much the same as Scotland has adopted Rawlinson's kilt design, and did so in reply to your remark of me being "disingenuous" for stating the fact that the "Scottish" kilt is indeed English.

What difference does the date of design matter to the modern wearer? I'd say it matters a great deal when Scots can be found (not yourself, of course) bleating on about how their ancestors wore their family tartan at the Battle of Bannockburn as they bravely fought for Robert the Bruce against the vile English invaders, no doubt pissed up on more than a wee dram of whiskey, when in fact their "family tartan" was designed in England in the 1890s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Why would I want to make you think "Oh what a dupe I am for wearing an English kilt"? What a silly thing to say.

As for the short kilt, it is entirely possible, indeed probable, that some Scots wore a shortened kilt before Rawlinson, but the fact of the matter is that the short kilt with built in pleats has no record before Rawlinson. If you in turn wish to state that Rawlinson's design is simply an adaptation of an existing Scottish design then it should be mentioned, as you know, that the Scots didn't invent the Highland kilt either as it was an Irish design of clothing.

I made no claims of your own position on haggis, bagpipes, whiskey, deep-fried Mars bars or heroin. I simply stated that Scotland has adopted them much the same as Scotland has adopted Rawlinson's kilt design, and did so in reply to your remark of me being "disingenuous" for stating the fact that the "Scottish" kilt is indeed English.

What difference does the date of design matter to the modern wearer? I'd say it matters a great deal when Scots can be found (not yourself, of course) bleating on about how their ancestors wore their family tartan at the Battle of Bannockburn as they bravely fought for Robert the Bruce against the vile English invaders, no doubt pissed up on more than a wee dram of whiskey, when in fact their "family tartan" was designed in England in the 1890s.

Well, I don't regard it as an "English Kilt". I wear the kilt, in full awareness of the historical discussion around its origin, as Scottish national dress. I regard it as a culturally valid, modern expression of Scottishness for the contextual reasons I've outlined, irrespective of one Englishman's involvement in its development. Given that to be a dupe carries connotations of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, your contributions to this conversation thus far would possibly imply I was possessing such characteristics.

However, I feel your use of the term "English Kilt" carries discursive implications that the garment was created in England (it was not), that the garment was worn commonly by the people of England (it has never been) and that the garment is of any significance to the culture of England (it is not). It did originate in Scotland, one way or another, it has been worn commonly by the people of Scotland for 300 years and it is, as a result, significant to the culture of Scotland. I would contest, therefore, that it is far less English than it is Scottish, irrespective of Rawlinson's country of birth.

Also, the kilt in the picture was 100% made in Scotland from Scottish wool, so it's a Scottish object, "English Kilt" is definitely contestable in that context too :P.

The original Scots of Dal Riada were an Irish tribe so you could argue that Ireland, such as it was, invented "Scotland"... Scotland's just an amalgamation of all the people who came to this bit of land at the end of Europe: Picts, Gaels, Britons, Normans, English, Italians, Indians, Chinese... all bringing their cultural baggage with them and adding it to the melting pot. Nationalities are imagined, but that doesn't mean they're not real and I don't care if it was adopted, Haggis Pakora is ours now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Graeme said:

Except it's not unequivocally the "fact of the matter". 

Even if we dismiss any evidence that the short kilt was worn in Scotland before Rawlinson, by my reckoning, it was at most an adaptation/variation of a pre-existing Scottish design (the same word is applied to both, in English and Gaidhlig), developed in Scotland, used exclusively by Scots in Scotland and that makes it as Scottish as it needs to be for me to be comfortable wearing it as national dress.

You haven't made me think , all things considered, "Oh, what a dupe I am, better take it back...".

I made no claims about haggis, whisky and bagpipes...

Bagpipes are used in many cultures and predate modern Scotland. Doesn't change the fact that the distinct design that emerged in Scotland (The Highland Bagpipe) has become the most globally recognisible nor the importance of the distinct traditions of Piobaireachd and Ceol Beag to Scottish culture.

Haggis? I think there's speculation it goes all the way back to Ancient Rome, but we're the only place in the world where it's popular so I reckon it's ours now... If the Romans want it back they can come and get it.

 Whisky... I couldn't care less to be honest. The majority of the world's Whisky drinkers seem to like the stuff made here more than that made elsewhere, more power to them...

As for the tartans? All traditions are, by definition, artificial... Someone had to make them up at some point. What difference does it make to the modern wearer if they were designed in the 1840s, the 1740s or the 1640s?

very well put @Graeme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Well, I don't regard it as an "English Kilt". I wear the kilt, in full awareness of the historical discussion around its origin, as Scottish national dress. I regard it as a culturally valid, modern expression of Scottishness for the contextual reasons I've outlined, irrespective of one Englishman's involvement in its development. Given that to be a dupe carries connotations of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, your contributions to this conversation thus far would possibly imply I was possessing such characteristics.

However, I feel your use of the term "English Kilt" carries discursive implications that the garment was created in England (it was not), that the garment was worn commonly by the people of England (it has never been) and that the garment is of any significance to the culture of England (it is not). It did originate in Scotland, one way or another, it has been worn commonly by the people of Scotland for 300 years and it is, as a result, significant to the culture of Scotland. I would contest, therefore, that it is far less English than it is Scottish, irrespective of Rawlinson's country of birth.

Also, the kilt in the picture was 100% made in Scotland from Scottish wool, so it's a Scottish object, "English Kilt" is definitely contestable in that context too :P.

The original Scots of Dal Riada were an Irish tribe so you could argue that Ireland, such as it was, invented "Scotland"... Scotland's just an amalgamation of all the people who came to this bit of land at the end of Europe: Picts, Gaels, Britons, Normans, English, Italians, Indians, Chinese... all bringing their cultural baggage with them and adding it to the melting pot. Nationalities are imagined, but that doesn't mean they're not real and I don't care if it was adopted, Haggis Pakora is ours now!

You're the one who mentioned the word "dupe" not me, so whatever connotations you implied for your use of it is down to you and no other.

You can surely apply whichever bracketing and importance you so wish to the history, cultural significance, popularity and place of design that you so wish, but that changes not one jot the facts at hand; the kilt which is commonly called a "walking kilt" and is embraced as a symbol of "Scottishness" was designed and first manufactured by an Englishman and is, ergo, an "English Kilt". You can contest whatever you so like, but that doesn't change what are fundamental facts.

As for where your particular English kilt was made that is by the by; I have Scottish shortbread in my cupboard that has most assuredly never been that side of the wall.

You are most welcome to your haggis and to your dreadful provincial poet Burns as well. :lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always like reading Pappy and Graeme's "discussions"' there is a certain tongue in cheek aspect to them that I enjoy :lol:

Having said that, a perspective from those of us not from either place: if two men were dressed in tartans, and one was Scottish, and the other English, I'd be wondering why the hell the English dude was in a skirt. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Whiskey Rose said:

I always like reading Pappy and Graeme's "discussions"' there is a certain tongue in cheek aspect to them that I enjoy :lol:

Having said that, a perspective from those of us not from either place: if two men were dressed in tartans, and one was Scottish, and the other English, I'd be wondering why the hell the English dude was in a skirt. :)

See! Context is important! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Graeme said:

As I said to @Whiskey Rose, she's engaged :P and I'm not the kind of lowlife that would ever try and wreck that.

@john lennon, your hair... stunning.

awwww you're a good guy. smart, sweet and with good morals. and a killer accent!  hope you find someone deserving of you :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...