To feel sympathy to the National Trust volunteers at Felbrigg Hall?

[lucydogz]

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-norfolk-40825660&ved=0ahUKEwjXzYeYwb_VAhUDB8AKHfOABAsQiJQBCJcCMCU&usg=AFQjCNESdvsFPzoWQVu_7i8WHq_3mutfKA&ampcf=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">link
I'm pro-inclusion of minority groups, but think the NT should stick to doing it's job - looking after old houses. As most of its volunteers are retired, who might not want to be representatives of whatever right-on case the Trust decide to espouse,it's also short sighted of them to treat volunteers this way.

Countess Why not? You thought enough of it to comment about it on here, where it changes nothing. As you say, the volunteer didn't realise it was inappropriate and it was a rather different case to that granny was describing. Maybe had you brought it politely and nicely to the attention of the manager - who can't watch every volunteer every minute of the day - something might have been done.

You also said You can acknowledge the NT has a problem with staff training in that area and wonder why they haven't prioritised it enough to sort it out, though. Perhaps because people who witness it can't be arsed to raise it at the time where it might actually be remedied, they just bitch about it online instead.

^ Well, your experience is quite different from mine!

granny So you didn't complain on the day? Did you write about it afterwards where you wouldn't have made a scene?

On a day out when you are spending money, trying to have a nice time are you really expected to start conducting a campaign to encourage an organisation to train its staff or encourage the staff to behave in an appropriate manner?

I've voted with my feet and will never visit another NT property. If enough people who witness this sort of thing do the same maybe the NT will get the message.

I meant write about it to the house manager, so they knew what had happened and could look into it to prevent it happening to other people?

ShatnersWig, they "couldn't identify the volunteers."

Convenient hey?

That'll be a no, then.

How can an organisation get a message if no one actually TELLS them about their experiences?!! Madness.

Maybe Shatnerswig, I would be reluctant to do so when I was effectively eavesdropping. The volunteer in question would probably have said 'but he didn't mind, we were having a lovely conversation'.
There needs to be a will to deal with this from the top down and research into its prevalence carried out among the actual recipients rather than well meaning bystanders, for it to get dealt with effectively.

ShatnersWig they said they couldn't identify the volunteers concerned. How is that a no then?

TheCountessofFitzdotterel, that is the trouble now, it is done in a way that they can justify. Oh I didn't mean anything, Oh I didn't see them, Oh I thought they were waiting for someone else. Or in my case, lots of volunteers that day, sorry we can't identify them.

granny I crossposted because in your first reply you didn't mention that you had written.

This is why it's important, really, to say something at the time. In a properly that relies hugely on a large number of volunteers, it's actually relatively easy to not know which volunteer was on which desk at which time on which day.

It's like being in a restaurant. If you are unhappy about something, speak to the manager at the time, rather than leave it until later.

The volunteer in question would probably have said 'but he didn't mind, we were having a lovely conversation'.

In fairness, so might the man being spoken to. You can't always take offfence on someone else's behalf. I have a British Chinese friend who gets this sort of thing sometimes (how long have you lived here? Etc). I was the one to take umbrage, until he himself asked me not to get snippy about it. From his point of view - which is, after all the one that matters - if he felt someone was being friendly, then he preferred to respond in a friendly manner, rather than correct their incorrect assumptions.

That said, fully agree that if someone does feel aggrieved, they should definitely write and tell the NT, or point it out directly at the time. As Shatner says, how else can they improve?

I went to a National Trust property last week where they had scarecrows, made by local schoolchildren. Some were dressed in traditional folk costumes from other cultures. But amongst them there was a stereotypical xenophobic caricature of a Frenchman (stripy top and garlic) and a 'Muslim' scarecrow (dressed in a normal headscarf and Shalwa Kameez, of the kind you see every day in any major UK city). It felt very 'othering', bordering on insulting, particularly because these were actual scarecrows in an actual garden.

I left thinking that this was maybe not the most progressive organisation. This story just reinforces that impression.

Bemused So, you left with a bad impression of the whole organisation of the NT because of a school's scarecrows? OK, perhaps this particular venue (remember, they do have some autonomy from head office) should have told the school that they wouldn't have displayed these two scarecrows but the issue is surely with the school and the teachers and not the NT???

What the volunteers need to understand is that it is entry fees that keep the NT alive and telling gay people they aren't welcome is obviously a bad idea

How is not wearing a badge telling anyone they aren't welcome? Don't be so silly.

. But amongst them there was a stereotypical xenophobic caricature of a Frenchman (stripy top and garlic) and a 'Muslim' scarecrow (dressed in a normal headscarf and Shalwa Kameez, of the kind you see every day in any major UK city). It felt very 'othering', bordering on insulting, particularly because these were actual scarecrows in an actual garden

I can see the issue with the French scarecrow, but how is a scarecrow in a headscarf a bad thing? It's not othering, its the exact opposite, its presenting it as a normal part of the make up of society. It's quite possible it was made by muslim children to represent themselves.

Shatners - sorry, I should have been clearer. I believe that the NT organised the whole scarecrow thing and choose the theme and that an artist 'helps' the schools.

In this case, the theme was supposed to be nations of the world, which apparently include France, the 'Viking' nation, the 'Roman' nation (?!), as well as the 'Muslim' nation. The problem is the total mixture of historical and folk dress with modern dress worn by average people in the UK every day (in what way is a Viking like a modern Muslim?), as well as the xenophobic 'othering' of using scarecrows for children to explore other cultures.

www.nationaltrust.org.uk/trengwainton-garden/features/around-the-world-in-12-scarecrows-at-trengwainton-garden

Bemused Now, I get you. It sounds a bit 'Allo 'Allo (but that hasn't been banned from repeats yet but then every single nation is stereotyped so perhaps that's why).

But then this is the stuff I don't get. It has fuck all to do with the NT's charitable aims. Invite a local school to make scarecrows, fine. Pay an artist to oversee some vaguely historical theme which has fuck all to do with both the NT charitable aims of the history of the particular property? Barking mad tick boxing exercise and a waste of money.

n this case, the theme was supposed to be nations of the world, which apparently include France, the 'Viking' nation, the 'Roman' nation (?!), as well as the 'Muslim' nation.

The link clearly states that the scarecrow in the headscarf is representing India, not some "Muslim nation".

If that is the case, then my bad! I think, however, there was a placard giving the name of the scarecrow as a Muslim (they all had names, e.g. 'Pierre the Parisian').

I'm doubting myself now though! I'll have a look at my pictures when I get in.

ShatnersWig I know it is easier if you report it at the time but it was a day out, I didn't want to embarrass the friends who chose the location. I can't do battle every day, although some days it feels like it and I've done my share over the last 40 years. For me I chose not to support them any more, their volunteers are their problem.

LRD: he planned, consciously, to give Felbrigg to the NT because he would not be having an heir.

It has been known for people to marry and have heirs as 'cover ', to keep the line going etc DESPITE their homosexuality (arguably much of the history of Sissinghurst sits here).

Are you saying that there have been no LBGT owners / residents in the history of properties now owned by the NT? How is it anachronistic to point out that there must have been?

I went to a property not mentioned on this thread this year. You can only visit by arrangement and go on a guided tour. After a while it became obvious that the former owner had been gay. So many things were 'alluded to', and in the end I felt as if the (hugely informative and passionate volunteer) was avoiding the actual statement because our visitor sensibilities might need protecting. Which is surely insulting and ridiculous. Why didn't they just say? It influenced the way he lived and socialised and therefore built his house!

Granny.
My family are not white. Thankfully in tne many trust houses we have visited we have not encountered any dodgy behaviour at all, though the description of one famous residents colonial attitudes and behaviour had me raising my eyebrows at one point.

The NT actually belongs to you. The NT holds these properties on OUR behalf. They are given to the nation. All you have to do is fill in the visitor feedback card to give them a chance to deal with it. They are not a commercial company you are boycotting and blocking profit, you run the risk of cutting off your nose to spite your face!

I don't think having an heir is proof of anything very much. Certainly not proof he would have wanted the NT to do this. Plenty of people don't procreate (and some notoriously otherwise-inclined people, such as Oscar Wilde, do procreate).

I'm saying it's anachronistic to apply terms like 'gay' to people who lived in times where the term (and the reality it describes) weren't in use.

We can certainly talk about histories that are of interest in a LGBT context. I can think of various places (Sissinghurst, but also Anne Lister's home) that would seem suitable - because their owners left us enough evidence to suggest that they were interested in making their sexuality visible and were conscious of it being a same-sex sexuality. Even there, though, I would shrink away from slapping on anachronistic labels like 'gay' or 'LGBT'.

The problem with a term like 'gay' is that it describes a reality that might be totally different from Ketton-Cremer's actual life or feelings about that life.

How do you know if someone is gay? They have sex with men? Well, so did many Ancient Greek men who saw it as an entirely routine part of every man's sex life and entirely compatible with sex and marriage with women. They form intense relationships with the same sex and discuss how physically attractive those other men are? There was a huge fashion for this in the 1920s (not coincidentally, just after WWI), and many men did not see it as anything but an aesthetic and affectionate practice.

It's really hard to know how to interpret the sexuality of someone who lived in a different time. To take clues and say 'oh, they were clearly gay' is fundamentally wrong, especially when that person might find it upsetting or hurtful. We must remember that, even if we all think being gay is perfectly acceptable, it may have been a source of real shame for this man, and not how he would have wanted to be remembered.

Incidentally, when you thought that someone's sexuality was 'alluded to' in his house, it makes me wonder. There's a character I've done some work on, who everyone in the 1990s was convinced was a gay man. There were loads of articles written about it - because he slept with men and cross-dressed in order to hang around soliciting men to sleep with. Loads of people interpreted the cross-dressing as an 'obvious' part of gay culture, by analogy to Canal Street.

These days it is the fashion to claim, instead, that this character is patently trans. She cross-dressed, and even had sex with men while cross-dressing, so clearly she identified as a woman.

In just a couple of decades, there's been a total about-turn in terms of interpretations, and there are people who get very acrimonious and very certain they're 'right' about the sexuality/gender of this person, who died centuries ago.

Myself, I'm pretty sure we simply can't know - and more than that, we can't even begin to expect that a long dead person would have understood or related to our terminology and our concepts, used to describe their lived experience.

Bemused it states:
There’s a scarecrow for roughly each continent plus a few extra historical characters to add to the fun. So alongside Ari the Maori, you’ll also find Vadik the Viking staring fiercely out from amongst the vegetables.
Regulus the Roman is keeping watch over his section while Pierre the Parisian is riding high on a bicycle atop one of the sloping beds.
All 12 scarecrows have been given authentic names from the nations they represent and it may be that visitors recognise a name from their own country.
Personally, I would struggle to be offended by that, but I can see how some people might take offence by the mix of historic and present day.