National Trust AGM

[PRAMtran]

I’ve received an email from the National Trust inviting me and all other members to vote in their AGM. Does anyone know if there are any things a woman’s rights advocate should vote for or against. Eg TWAW by stealth.

This is complete nonsense - utterly factually incorrect.

Great post @RebelliousCow

At any time in history ( including now) great wealth and opulence is predicated on some form of exploitation of someone, somewhere. If you live in a society it is virtually impossible for someone to be separate from the running or workings of its economy. How many of us buy cheap or fashionable products made on the backs of bonded labourers somewhere in the world? How many of us work for big corporations which have vested interests in activities or products which now elicit social disapproval?

Exactly. And I'm going to do some shoehorning here, because whilst one can have an appreciation of the abuses of the past, the same people pushing this agenda are likely the same ones who think it's fine to go overseas to obtain a baby. Yes, my favourite topic : surrogacy.

We have a U.K. lawyer, Natalie Gamble advertising to offer help with surrogacy arrangements in Mexico and Colombia. Does anyone really think these Mexican and Colombian women just love breeding babies to gift to sad rich westerners who can't get a baby any other way?
If this isn't modern day colonialism, outsourcing birth to women who are kept in slave conditions I don't know what is. Yet the very people who are pushing popular current agendas down our throats at every turn, who probably wouldn't dream of eating a battery farmed egg, are likely to be the same people outsourcing pregnancy and childbirth to poor women in poor countries. BBC journalists who chatted happily about obtaining theirs from India for instance.

Cutting and pasting a section from an interview discussing delivery arrangements with a couple of Australians who used a woman from Georgia via a clinic in Greece. Possibly the same clinic that has been in the news recently for a range of crimes including people trafficking.

"Nick: She was quite adamant that she wanted a natural birth. And we preferred a natural birth too. Her main reason for it was that she hadn't told her mother back home. So she didn't want a C-section and have to explain the scars and everything. But we got told by the clinic in no uncertain terms that we would not be having a natural birth.
Why not?
Nick: They want full control. Most of the women give birth at the 37th week, from what we understand.
And she didn't know that was the clinic's policy when she got into it? She didn't know when she'd signed up?
Nick: That's a good question. Maybe she didn't. I don't know. Did we know?
Alex: We didn't.
Nick: Did we? I think they did mention it to us.
So what happened?
Nick: We got a call to say, 'It's happening today, come to the clinic.' And we thought C-section. Because, you know, we'd been told that. But as we're approaching the clinic, we meet both of the ladies that run the surrogacy program. And one of them says to us, 'You know, you're having a natural birth.' I didn't believe it. And she goes, 'No, no, she's been here since seven o'clock. She's very close to giving birth.'
Alex: We were very much an exception. We don't advertise it.
Nick: The doctor was happy for it to happen. She was low risk. She said she wanted it. The parents wanted it. So you know, they obliged.
Alex: She was very persistent.
.......

You are nearing the end of your second Greek surrogacy. This is not the same surrogate, though, right?
Nick: No, she is. She is the same person.
Oh, that's great!
So when is this third baby due? Are you going early this time too?
Nick: Well, we were told the delivery date. But what we weren't told is that that was the full term date.
Ah.
Nick: Every time we would speak to the surrogate mother, she would try to convince us that we should come earlier. But we know that the sooner we go, the sooner everything will happen. And the sooner she gets to go back home and the sooner she gets her post-birth payment. And we also know that the baby puts on most of its weight in the last two or three weeks of gestation, so it's better for the baby that it stays.
So we've resisted, you know. She'll tell us our baby's turned, getting in position, you should come and we're thinking, hang on, the clinic's not telling us that. The doctors aren't saying, 'You've got to get here quick.'
She is like, 'It's between you and the baby.' No, it's actually not. We'll just let God decide! Hopefully I don't have to eat my words.
So she might give birth a few weeks before the date you were given.
Nick: She might give birth tomorrow.
Oh!
Nick: We booked flights fairly early. To change those flights now would be quite costly.
What happens if she gives birth before you get there? Who looks after the baby?
Alex: The baby stays in the hospital.
Nick: Yeah, for three to five days anyway.
Will she do a natural birth again? Does she have the option again?
Nick: She wants to do natural birth again.
Alex: We haven't had that discussion with her this time.
Nick: I think she has mentioned it. Early on, she mentioned it.
You'd think the clinic would prefer it. She's done it already, it'll be quick, she'll recover within a day or two... Not like after a C-section.
Nick: I think they're more about mitigating risk and being able to control the timing of it. They're probably not generally concerned about her health or the baby's health entirely. So, you know, we will ask for it. If she's low risk again, there'd be no reasonable way they would deny us.
It got pretty tense last time, because there was friction between us and her and us and the clinic. And she kept hounding us, quite frankly, to insist on a natural birth. And we said, 'Listen, we want a natural birth, you want a natural birth, but unfortunately, it's whatever the doctor wants.' And I said, 'We want to return as well. So we don't want to sour the relationship.' But thankfully, they, yeah, they gave us the natural birth, so it was good for everyone.

If forced LSCS (which this surrogate mother managed to avoid by delivering early, quickly and naturally) isn't modern day slavery I don't know what is. So personally I am less interested in past crimes and more interested in the present day ones being committed by the current great and good and fashionable.

(Apologies for derail)

There are always going to be errors in some history writing, and a multitude of interpretations of the past. The very nature of history writing reflects the biases and interests of the people producing it, whatever their political stripes.

There’s plenty of conservative-minded historians (and amateurs who write history) who create such work. Jacob Rees-Mogg’s dreadful book on the Victorians springs immediately to mind.

Your mode of argument does you no favours

@GodessOfThunder
There are always going to be errors in some history writing, and a multitude of interpretations of the past.
Well, EXACTLY. So why is ONE interpretation currently in the ascendant with the NT, and why are people being criticised for being pissed off about it?

Yes, there will always be errors. If you find a handful of non-significant ones in a book, you think, 'Hey, we all make mistakes'. When you find a whole series of them, some of them material to the argument being put forward, you entirely lose faith in the researcher in question.

Not all interpretations are valid.

Some are just plain wrong.

Yeah, but there is >1 valid interpretation, isn't there? So why are posters on this thread being criticised for not being keen on having the current fashionable and modern version shoehorned in even where it is of dubious relevance (queer nit comb, etc)?

I don’t think “one” interpretation or topic of focus is “ascendant” at the NT. A quick look at its guidebooks, captions and other materials show that.

Perhaps a more accurate question would be “why is the NT championing new interpretations of its properties?” To re-iterate what I posted earlier, one way of thinking of what the purpose of history is, is to tell us the story of how “we” got to who we are today. And, as who we are changes, then this story should evolve. As Britain becomes more diverse then it is right that we should place more emphasis on the story of where this diversity came from. And this, of course, includes the stories of British involvement in colonialism and slavery.

It doesn’t however mean “anything goes”. Some interpretations aren’t credible because they aren’t based on sufficient evidence, or leave out crucial considerations.

You seem to be suggesting you believe newer interpretations are more likely to be erroneous or unfounded than what came before. But this isn’t my experience at all. It’s hard to respond to you as all you’ve provided is two examples from unnamed books about a topic you won’t disclose.

You’ve misunderstood the Mary Rose “Queering the collection” initiative.

It’s not suggesting the comb is “queer” or was used by a “queer” (or a sodomite - to use an early modern term) person in the past. It’s simply viewing the collection through todays queer lens and highlighting how that gaze might throw up different perspectives. In this respect it’s not acachronistic.

I don’t think it’s the best example of this interpretative strategy I’ve seen, but it seems to be a small initiative.

There’s a great book called “Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition” which examines sodomitical practices at sea in the early modern period. Would be interesting to see the MR museum lean into that topic.

It doesn’t however mean “anything goes”. Some interpretations aren’t credible because they aren’t based on sufficient evidence, or leave out crucial considerations.
I know this, and I agree.

You seem to be suggesting you believe newer interpretations are more likely to be erroneous or unfounded than what came before.
I'm saying that they've not yet been put through the mill in the way that older interpretations have been. We know where the weaknesses are in older research.

It’s hard to respond to you as all you’ve provided is two examples from unnamed books about a topic you won’t disclose.
Well, yes. If I went off on one, in detail, I would out myself, and I'm not doing that. Suffice it to say that my experience of error-laden work in that field has not imbued me with much faith in the accuracy of modern historical writing, hence my unwillingness to accept new interpretations without question.

You’ve misunderstood the Mary Rose “Queering the collection” initiative.'
I don't think I have. I think you may have misunderstood my shorthand. 'Queer' is a very modern concept and trying to interpose that between the modern viewer and the Tudors just seems to have resulted in the production of a lot of waffle.

I don't think we're going to agree, and I do need to go and do some work.

You’ve misunderstood the Mary Rose “Queering the collection” initiative.

No, she just thinks it's bullshit, like me, I imagine. If there is direct evidence, tell that story.

How much “through-the-millness” would you like though?

Foucault’s “History of Sexuality” was published in 1976. This area of study has been around for decades in academia. Gender, sexuality, queer, race, power and so on aren’t new analytical categories. they are standard stuff for university students and at my DC’s school!

why do you think it’s “bullshit”?

This was discussed in detail on the other thread. It's just some wittering self absorbed intern using a nit comb to make an entirely tenuous connection to "queer" people having hairstyles.

You have your ideology and political sensibilities, and many other people don't share them. It's as simple as that.

Every single time we formulate a perspective on the past though we are doing it through the lens of the present, even though as historians we might strive for the past “as it really was”.

I see the Mary Rose thing as more akin to art than a typical
museum exhibition, and it specifically says it’s not suggesting anything about the sexuality or gender identity of people in the past.

if it’s not your thing, no problem, but I don’t think it’s the issue you think it is.

@GodessOfThunder yeah, well, I'm not a big fan of PoMo.

I've certainly used race and power as an analytical lenses, but I found the way it was all being pushed at me a few years ago (in academia) to be ahistorical and in denial of what the people around at the time had to say about their relationships.

Hence my handle-it-with-tongs attitude to the current stuff.

We're not going to agree. I've got things to do.

Also, this:
You have your ideology and political sensibilities, and many other people don't share them. It's as simple as that.
Thanks, @Ereshkigalangcleg for summing it up.

And what is your ideology?

I’m assuming you haven’t actually seen the nit comb post we are talking about, if you have to ask that question.

I am all for queer history and other perspectives but I want it to include actual scholarship and decent writing not self involved rambling by an intern who apparently knows nothing about either queer history or sixteenth century material culture.

And what is your ideology?

I don't consider I have one, apart from being a feminist.

British history has far more intimate involvement, with impacts on its social and historical make-up, with India, Ireland and other commonwealth ( ex colonies) countries than it does with slavery.

This brand social justice activism that is propelling the re-writing of everything has its origins in the U.S: in a particularly fraught U.S history. That is why it feels like an act of colonialism in itself.

Britain is, and has been, 'diverse' for a longer time than many countries on account of its role as a seafaring imperial power. Same with Ancient Rome. Rome was the world's first truly multi-cultural, diverse city.

I have seen it all. As I said, I don’t think it’s the best example, but it’s hardly worth getting hugely worked up about. There are many robust, well researched and worthwhile queer history initiatives and “queering” can be an enlightening analytical approach

Happy to respond but I’m not clear on exactly what it is you disagree with in my post.

There are many robust, well researched and worthwhile queer history initiatives and “queering” can be an enlightening analytical approach

Feel free to link to some, and we can express our views on it.