It's both funny and sad seeing online (and in this case anonymous) "journalists" scrambling to get a hold on who "redcoats" are in the wake of a recent inflated faux outrage about a caf茅 in Edinburgh. This article in particular is a wild one.
"The uniform was used by British soldiers from the 16th to 19th century in several conquests on behalf of the the British military around the world."
No, unless we're counting some niche Scottish and English retinues in the 16th c. it was used from the 1640s by the English and the 1660s by the Scottish (almost half a century before the Act of Union). Nor did the uniform stop being worn in the 19th century, it only ceased being battlefield dress - it's still ceremonially worn today (by Scottish regiments as well).
"For those unaware (take note, Edinburgh Castle), from 1725 onwards, garrisons manned by government soldiers or "redcoats"聽sprung up all over the Scottish Highlands, most notably at Fort William and Inverness."
I love the condescending tone of this part, with the anon author totally schooling Historical Environment Scotland for their lack of history knowledge. But no, garrisons didn't suddenly start appearing from 1725 onwards. Prior to 1745 Scotland was not an "occupied" country. The redcoats being talked about were mostly Scottish regiments holding the Scottish garrisons they'd occupied for decades (the basic problem with the premise of this article is people think "redcoat" = "English." Ironically for at least half of the historical timeframe the English were a minority of "redcoats").
"Redcoats took an aggressive hand聽to Scots across the country who did not support the king and attempted to cling to their national identity."
Which king? The exiled Stuart king? The "Hanoverian" king? This "national identity" stuff is also fabricated hokum, again, there was no effort at repression in Scotland by "redcoats" prior to the 1745 uprising, just the usual service performed by the 18th c. military. Scotland had one of the lowest ratios of soldiers-to-population in Europe during the period! These soldiers were almost all Scottish themselves. The author is just writing what they vaguely think is the case as fact.
"The government army, clad in red,聽massacred Scots at the Battle of Culloden Moor, marking not only the defeat of the Jacobite movement, but the聽destruction of clan and聽Gaelic Highland life. From 1745, Highlanders were forbidden to carry weapons 鈥撀爄ncluding聽the famous broadsword. The playing of the bagpipes was banned. Tartan and highland dress was outlawed."
The clan structure was dying a death before Culloden and the battle didn't mark its final "destruction" (people seem to also think the redcoats were responsible for the Clearances, so at this stage anything's fair game). The bans on the things mentioned as outlawed were barely enforced and largely repealed within a few decades.
"And clansmen who dared to defy? Fines, imprisonment, exile, and death at聽the hands of... you guessed it,聽the redcoats. However, as one user wrote, "history is complex", highlighting that Scots wearing redcoats聽were on the side of the British army on the moor."
They finally managed to mention that "redcoats" aren't just the English. In fact most of the "fines, imprisonment, exile and death" being meted out was by fellow Scots against the Jacobites, who didn't have the support of the majority of the country. And this wasn't just a lowlanders vs highlanders thing, highlanders were behind repressing *other* highlanders, as has been the case throughout history.
The best part of all this is the caf茅 has been operating under that name for 32 years without comment, but they've only just noticed so now it's become a thing.
tl;dr
33 notes
路
View notes