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.

Because you have twisted what posters have said to support your position. I thought I had made that abundantly clear. Which makes me wonder, again, about your reading comprehension/blinkers/moral compass.

You've also not bothered to answer a couple of questions which I asked in what I hope was a civil, if possibly slightly tetchy, manner.

I also still baffled by the comment by @DatumTarum about 'Give me a man who has read one book' in response to my observation further up this page about a book by an academic historian passing moral judgement on the past. It was just one of dozens that I read, along with original documents, memoirs etc while doing my own research.

Presume it's an attempt to suggest you've only read one book, Edith.

Another way to suggest we are 'uneducated' or 'uncritical thinkers' etc. All synonyms for 'stupid'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_unius_libri

Given Godess's (unwarranted) air of confidence in her posts, I begin to wonder whether well-educated means "went to the same fee-paying school as Godess".

I wouldn't worry about her opinion, Edith. Nothing on this thread so far has suggested that the school was academically selective.

That is what I suspected, Arabella. I'd like @DatumTarum to trot along and confirm, though, rather than just being snide about my level of education and intellectual grasp.

And you know, I know quite a few people with limited education who are very astute, very bright and excellent company, as well as being experts in their own (non-academic) fields. Looking down on people for being uneducated is foolish as well as unpleasant.

@EdithStourton

You want me to explain that remark? I would not dream of patronising you like that.

Looking down on people for being uneducated is foolish as well as unpleasant.

It is, but I guess many people in the world are in fact foolish and unpleasant. Nice to have this sample from the heritage sector though, puts a few things in perspective tbh.

Looking down on people for being uneducated is foolish as well as unpleasant.

it's often insecurity.

Quite the contrary: Godess makes big play of being anti grammar schools and has much antipathy to fee paying schools. As someone else has already suggested, I think it is more a case of defensive chippiness.

Ok , to respond to your points.

Citing one unnamed book doesn’t overturn the proposition that the overwhelming convention is academic history is not to pass moral judgement on the past - especially by today’s standards. The job of the historian is to explain what happened, how and why.

This concept is driven home from at least A-level onwards, never mind higher education. I can’t really respond regarding your evidence - one book - as you haven’t named it. And, again, an exception doesn’t make a rule.

As American historian Barbara Tuchman once said, “Nothing is more unfair than to judge the men of the past by the ideas of the present”.

Many non-historians however, do fall into this trap. I suspect one thing that annoys people about connections to slavery being pointed out regarding the “great men” associated with NT properties, is that they then decide for themselves he was “bad” by today’s standards and interpret the efforts of people like myself as “vilifying” (term
used upthread) the individual.

Re . “well educated”. No one way to get there: can be self-instructed, higher educated etc. But there has been a great deal of wilful ignorance, false equivalences referred to, logical fallacies and so on on this thread regarding slavery (I’ve highlighted it through two not going to waste my time retyping). Essentially the sort of stuff you get from people poorly educated in history. Or, if I were to be kind, perhaps they are just a bit out of date.

Me: State school - Oxbridge - professional doctorate.

You?

I think I’ve only made a couple of posts regarding grammars - hardly a “big play”.

Citing one unnamed book doesn’t overturn the proposition that the overwhelming convention is academic history is not to pass moral judgement on the past
That's true. But by God, it happens. It can be very subtle, building up in slow layers, or it can be more blatant, as in raging polemics (and I know one author of same who is a history lecturer in a university: he ended his seminal work with a rousing call to revolution. No, not gonna name him either, you'll have to take it on trust).

My contact with academic historians was eye-opening. Some of them - probably the majority - are even-handed and utterly scrupulous and I admire them and their work. Others... Not so much. Maybe I just had too much contact with a shitty department.

This thread has not changed my view that some historians twist their sources to suit their agendas.

I don't think it is a good move, nor particularly wise to keep making insinuations about other people's level of education, or background experience, simply on the baisis that they don't agree with your campaign drive....it is not a good look; and unless you are purposefully attempting to 'queer' or 'decolonise' the language, Goddess is the coreect spelling. Oxbridge doesn't mark SPAG these days?

You kep repeating the same statements, no matter how people attempt to explain, in different ways, over numerous days, their own perspective.
Resulting to insinuations about being old, middle class, 'karens' ( no doubt), 'White Feminists" ( a pejorative) and ignoramuses is unforunately pare for the course when involved in discussion with people who adhere to social justice type narratives. Diversity of viewpoint is not something that can be tolerated.

Correct ( I do sometimes, myself, attempt to correct typos)

Throughout the thread there seems to be an assumption that the NT is there to educate, and specifically to educate on topics du jour.

The main direct benefit I gain from my life NT membership is use of their car parks. Next would be stewardship of local countryside, and to me that includes a level of care for their long standing workers and surrounding communities. I would then consider their maintenance of national assets such as historic buildings. Education falls in there somewhere, but to be honest my own visits are quite often by chance. If I am planning a long car journey I might add a visit to a NT property on the route, with a chance to stretch my legs, visit the loo, have something to eat and a little light education about the history of the area as part of the warp and weft of English history. (And in my case a chance to spot different colour schemes.) I have young adult children who are more than happy to tell me I am a dinosaur, so I don't need the NT to also "educate" me what I ought to think.

“You kep [shouldn’t that be “keep” ?] the same statements, no matter how people attempt to explain, in different ways, over numerous days, their own perspective.”

At least get your own spelling in order before berating others. I don’t care though - it’s the internet - I (we?) type this stuff on buses and in queues - it’s not a book. “Goddess” was taken :)

Not sure which points you are referring to, but I have re-iterated several because certain posters’ “experience” seems to be dislocated from reality. For instance, complaining about the content of houses/exhibitions when an examination of that content reveals their concerns were unfounded.

I agree with you ad hominem points are weak. So, in terms of moving on, what do you make of this point I made earlier:

One common misconception sometimes made (not necessarily by you personally) is that slavery links are a “POC concern” that have been “shoehorned” into NT properties post George Floyd/BLM/Critical Race Theory - take your pick. See the many posts complaining about this. The truth is though, that these links are very much all part of all of our history (white, black, working class, rich etc.). Slavery and colonialism changed what we wore, ate and drank; what we made; helped fund the Industrial Revolution; where people served in the army and navy; how we thought about the world and continue to do so, and much more. It’s everyone’s history in Britain. Many people don’t understand this and so feel a niche subject is being “forced upon them”. Exhibitions can help. That doesn’t mean people should feel
guilty of course.

I freely have admitted I have a tendency for lots of typos ( see my earlier posts- if you actually read them at all). I type quickly and sometimes don't spend long enough checking for inaccuracies.

But it has been you calling out people for being ill educated, stupid, old, and so on........It is about time you had dose of your own medicine....especially when it comes to something as fundamental as your own username.

Shrug.

Don't patronise me = don't disagree with me.

But yes, I do think it's seen as something for POC to deal with.

Sounds like a combo of NCP, Welcome Break and Wild Bean Cafe, coupled with some Downton episodes would fulfil your needs just as well without putting yourself in danger of being “educated”. Just my 2 pence. :)

None of the points you have made about the impact of slavery are unacknowledged by people; the point is that in a general gallery or NT property of any type there is only so much that can be covered, and there are so many contexts to history.

Where obvious connections exist then they should be explored, but not at the expense of other equally as important ( even if not to you) contexts - especially if they are local figures who had multiple social contributions locally.

I explained early on how I attended the re-opening of some re-furbed rooms at my local gallery - and how even the most tangential references to slavery had been shoehorned in - whilst other very important contexts and information had been omitted. This gave a one sided and false impression - certainly for those that didn't know any better.

This is the issue.

I don't think we're talking about patronising here. Unless it's been substantially redefined

Exactly. However because of the number of NT car parks near me, NT life membership is a better deal.

My point though is that people do not always visit NT places for "education". Indeed you see lots of families having a day our a bit like a visit to a park or a beach. Equally many people will feel that the NTs role is as much about stewardship as education...which is in my mind why the Restore Trust came into being.

I am lucky in that I get free access to properties. The NT should want me to visit as I spend money. The fact I rarely bother is partly about the increasingly corporate nature of the catering, dullness of gift shop offerings, and partly about the seemingly odd focus on the "history bites" the NT chooses to provide. Nothing against knowing that a significant owner had to flee England because of homosexuality laws, but to be told the same thing by volunteer guides in every room was too much.

Could you perhaps expand on your second comment? By ‘it’ are you referring to the history of the slave trade? Or education about it? And the comment about POC having to ‘deal with it’? Is that educationally or research wise? If white people do the research or education are they taking on a bit of a ‘white saviour’ role?

Difficult questions to answer I know when it comes to topics closely relating to race and oppression.

@Needmoresleep

When I visit it's generally with children and they should definitely be exposed to the real history of the properties- including the slavery aspect.