Originally Posted by
Copperknickers II
The kilt is the symbolic dress of Scottish men.
Except very few ever wore it. It was a Highland garment worn approx 1600-1800 chiefly until the "Scots Revival" of Sir Walter Scott. Incidentally until the 19th century it was seen as the costume of a thief, and the Highlanders who wore it were called Erse or Irish. EG the oldest engraving I know of shows mercenaries in kilts and the German who made it calls them Irrlanders, although they were probably what we call anachronistically Highlanders.
Have you watched Btraveheart too often mate?
Originally Posted by
Copperknickers II
There are no kilts in other countries.
Kilt is a term that can be applied to the traditional skirts of Hittites, Egyptians etc as the meaning is clearer than terms like shendyt. Don't have my OED on hand but I will lay long odds the definition includes other non-Scots gentleman's skirts.
Originally Posted by
Copperknickers II
There are similar garments perhaps, but they are not kilts.
Words mean what people use and accept them to mean and your definition is an isolated one.
Originally Posted by
Copperknickers II
Just as there are many high quality sparkling white wines, but only the ones from the region to the East of Paris are champagne.
Kilt is originally a Scandinavian term used by people called Irish (their own term might have been Gael or their clan name) that the people calling themselves Scots set out to conquer, convert and effectively genocide through Highland clearances. If you want to talk about legal protection for specific regional products please do but the kilt has a long and convoluted history for such a young garment, its production is not reserved to a geographic region and its meaning is not what you seem to think it is.
Originally Posted by
Copperknickers II
As regards bagpipes, however, I'm happy to let the Hittites take the blame.
We are all to blame.
Originally Posted by
Copperknickers II
Wrong. Music belongs to the person who writes it, and those who keep their memory alive by performing it.
Writing is not playing. If I write the words "Beethoven's Ninth" on this page does it become mine? Music is a shifting morass of theft, influence, borrowing, homage, unconcious effect and other words for pinching.
Originally Posted by
Copperknickers II
Combining and developing music into new forms is of course crucial, but we should not forget where those songs came from, or allow fleeting modern fashions to erase our past.
You want to bag and tag the wind son.
Originally Posted by
Copperknickers II
Expensive clubs which many poor black men would be barred from entering by their income or even their skin colour. That doesn't sound to me like something to celebrate. On the contrary, it's theft. Don't get me wrong - music is an idea, and as with any idea, if one person shares their idea with another person, the giver still retains it.
Yeah IP lawyers have tried to make an industry out of that, usually in favour of Disney and Sony. In real life musicians ferment ideas in their heads and no song is ever played the same way twice.
So we should arrest rich white men unless there's a black man in the club listening to the jazz, because if the black man is playing it and getting paid its theft? Your thesis is pretty wonky.
Originally Posted by
Copperknickers II
But the key word is 'share'. When it is no longer shared, it has been stolen.
Its only stolen if some daft twerp claims it belongs to one person.
Originally Posted by
Copperknickers II
They absolutely are. Or are you telling me you'd happily pay for Russian mozzarella, Saudi vodka, Canadian cigars and Cuban maple syrup...
I drink Japanese Australian and Scots whisky as well as real Irish whiskey. Just because the Irish "invented" (by which I mean pinched) Uisce beatha by adapting a Near eastern perfume recipe that doesn't mean Laphraoigh is some inauthentic stolen item.