NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/culture/celtic/8830

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 1.6 KB | 40 lines

Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Path: sparky!uunet!clarkson!news
From: [e-mail] (Walker)
Subject: Re: Kilts
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: sun.soe.clarkson.edu
Organization: Clarkson University
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:21:05 GMT
Lines: 27

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Robert Singers):
> Aengus Lawlor <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>> >  Note that tartan is only prohibited from being used in great coats or
>> >  upper coats -- no use of tartan on other piecing of clothing, or other
>> >  uses such as tableclothes, bed clothes, etc, are mentioned.  So tartan
>> >  didn't really go out of use or production.
>
>> Assuming, of course, that tartan was actually used for tableclothes, bed
>> clothes, etc. (I don't know whether it was or not, but it seems reasonable
>> that if the tartan was an important enough political symbol to be banned, it
>> would be too important to be used as a table cloth. This may be a peculiarly
>> modern sensibility, but, without anything to indicate otherwise, it seems
>> like a fairly obvious conclusion).
>
> I don't think it is an obvious conclusion.  I would think
> the ban against tartan as a clothing material would lead to
> it being used for other purpose, as an act of legal defiance
> against oppression.
>

I am have not been following this thread (pun intended) about kilks, but
I though that it was Highland Dress that was banned rather than tartan
per se. Please correct me if I am wrong.

                                                    GW