Corrine Fowler: My writing on colonialism made me a hate figure – so I replied to my trolls

[NonLinguisticRhetoricIsMyKryptonite]

Corrine Fowler is a brave woman, the author of the National Trust report that scarcely anyone read but generated a lot of heat and light. Considering other newsworthy stories at the moment and women unders similar pressure, this is inspirational.

Could this happen with Cass and on other issues?

During the first few months of controversy and coverage, I was rarely given a right of reply. Instead, I watched with mounting dismay as I was presented as an enemy of the British people. Embroiled in a culture war, I encountered opinions I’d never heard before. But the experience unexpectedly transformed the way I relate to people who aren’t like me.

When people heard politicians denouncing the Trust report, or saw me characterised as politically “biased”, finger-wagging, or generally doing down Britain (often a combination of all three), it’s hardly surprising that they felt wronged. The actual content of the Trust report and the evidence it presented was rarely discussed.
…
For over a year, there was little respite from the frequent articles and the angry messages that came in their wake. These were variations on a theme: “one really needs a no-platforming rule for pushy academics”; “I’m not sure you should be allowed anywhere near a university building” and, “presumably you obtained the professor bit out of a Christmas cracker”. There are many more like that.
There was also far worse: I received threats which were obscene and violent…
…
One day, when a stranger wrote, “your willingness to make yourself a laughing stock is appreciated and hilarious”, I hit the reply button. “Dear __,” I began, and pointed out all the inaccuracies in the article that he’d read. Perhaps surprised at my conciliatory response, he replied, “Oh. In that case, I must have added to your woes.”
To another emailer, who wrote that I had “slandered a race on the grounds of the alleged misdeeds of their ancestors” and was therefore “guilty of racism by deliberately stirring racial hatred,” I detailed my own ancestors’ involvement with slavery in Haiti and set out my case that, since formerly colonised people and their descendants had been greatly impacted by colonial history, I thought it better to bring this information into the public domain than to conceal it for fear of giving offence. To my surprise, I got a short reply: “You’re obviously not a bad person, you have my respect for answering.”
…
Reflecting back on the whole experience, focusing on critical, often hostile, voices was like turning the radio dial after years of having had it tuned to my favourite station. It revealed a world of parallel perspectives. My work has always been borne out of a desire to understand our shared history. But the fierce response to that work, while unsettling, prompted me to go much further in listening to people from across political and generational divides. We’re limited by what we know: the more diverse our thinking the more insightful the conversations we can potentially have.
Being under so much fire turned out to be a blessing in disguise. When I became a hate figure, I suffered at first. But I came to realise that, since they’d never met me, people didn’t actually hate me as a person. And when I reached out to the writers of those letters, their response was amazing. It’s been stimulating to interact with people who think radically differently from me: everyone deserves to be taken seriously. Now I’m a happier and more confident person. After everything that happened during that long year, there’s not much left to be afraid of.

https://archive.is/jJQ9M

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/22/corrine-fowler-national-trust-report-on-colonialism-trolls/

I do't really understand why you would get involved in an organization like the NT if you weren't interested in the houses?

If no one was going to see them that would be one thing, but that's clearly not the case. Many people love them.

The thing is , it's not just a 'mansion experience'.

I've been to Rudyard Kiplings home, Winston Churchill's, Agatha Christie's, Dame Ellen Terry's, the D'Oyly Carte's houses. These people led amazing lives, their homes are fascinating, their gardens are stunning, the history of the places where they are is fascinating and when my boys were small it was a safe place for them to really run around outside (most of them have lots of stuff laid on for children).

I've certainly noticed this kind of trend in my children's education, (not in the UK.) My daughter, who is 16, this year is studying history in a more serious way for the first time. It's very very focused on slavery. Which was never a huge part of the economy here, because of the type of industrial activity that dominated.

What I've found very odd though is they seem to have learned very little about even the black groups that migrated here, and nothing about anyone else. When I was in school, in the bad old days when supposedly we didn't spend enough time on these things, we learned quite explicitly about the migration of several distinct groups of blacks, where they came from, where they settled and why, and in some instances why they left and where they went. We also learned about English, Scottish, Irish, French,and German settlers, and something about people like Eastern Europeans who went to other parts of the country but not so much our own region. We covered this between about ages 12 and 15.

My daughter now knows a fair bit about slavery in the American south, though not much about how that slave trade started, or slavery historically in general, and nothing about the actual peoples who settled where we live. I was shocked to learn that hadn't even covered where settlers here had come from at all, apart from "Europe."

I think a lot of the talk about adding balance for "the first time" to history education is pretty much bs.

Exactly this.

@Grammarnut : "I get the feeling from Fowler's study that I am being 'educated' and I do not appreciate that. "
Having dived into the first lessons of Fowler's Futurelearn course, my impression is different.
We are preaented with various items from a country house, that are not "from here": Tea, birds of paradise (real or as drawings, drapings,etc.), a nutmeg grater, and a discussion between an NT historian and an NT guide with various specialists concerning the item at hand.
Starting from that, the group then discusses the item. Regarding tea, we noticed that tea trade started before there even was an empire or colonies. You could basically say that tea was one of the roots of colonialism, as the demand in the 1500s and 1600s rose sharply, so that the trading companies were compelled to find more sources, and in the end compelled local producers to change crops to tea.
Also, the British habit of Afternoon Tea, stemming from the time when tea still was a luxury good, and presented accordingly, with expensive porcelain and lots of special finger food.

These are the things you find all over Europe in the houses of nobility and upper class. They could afford it, so they bought it. Even the trade didn't require a colony or direct use of slaves. In Germany, sugar and rum were traded from the 1500s on. But they required colonies to exist somewhere to be an affordable luxury. Tea only became a drink for everyone, once the production in the source countries had been changed to primarily feed the European market.

I know this (I studied economic and social history), which is why I object to being 'educated'. This is trade and it is what made for prosperity, not just in Europe (where there were consumers) but also in the places those products came from - the growers made a profit as well. 'Compelled' is an emotive word. A farmer will look at the market and make a decision as to what he will grow. Sainsburys buys organic strawberries, so I will grow organic strawberries rather than some other crop Sainsburys does not buy. This is responding to a trading market. Yes, the flag of empire follows the ship of trade - sometimes. But that is not the be-all and end-all of the product or its use. That can be explored in social custom, and how tea ceased to be a luxury good whereas oysters - which were food for the poor - did become a luxury good, and oyster farmers or fishermen responded accordingly. I noted in the Guardian article about Corrinne Fowler's report emotive connotations given to trade, e.g. 'colonial' trade and making money out of trade, e.g. 'lucrative' trade. I would like to know who bothers to buy or sell who does not want to make some profit on the deal, but 'lucrative' has the suggestion of 'profiteering' a word more applicable currently to energy companies who are making exhorbitant profits, clearly not putting up prices to match the extra they are paying for oil or gas, but massively increasing the price because of demand - people cannot do without what they are selling (which is why I support the re-nationalisation of utilities). One of the ways anti-slavers put pressure on the British government was to stop using sugar - something they could do, since sugar is not a necessity. I agree that producers are seduced into growing 'cash crops' such as sugar or tobacco so that a country can cease to be self-sufficient in foodcrops, but although being self-sufficient is very important so is development, which can come about by some producers exporting a crop no-one is much interested in at home. That's how markets work - I don't like it but I understand it. The NT obv. are a bit unclear.

I come back to add my favourite question: what is the NT actually doing about these historic wrongs? Options might include:

Setting up a housing project on NT property
Giving free memberships to Black and Minority Ethnic people
Sponsoring university scholarships for Black and Minority Ethnic people
Offering paid internships in fields like conservatorship or biodiversity for Black and Minority Ethnic young people.

I am not saying it is the best charity out there - it is just the one that came to mind - but the NT could partner with someone like Mission 44, Sir Lewis Hamilton's charity. Annual report below:

M44ARDesignConceptlandscape1920x1080Web-compressed.pdf (mission44.org)

Why just for black and minority people? The working classes of Britain suffered just as much hardship, and sometimes more, from exploitation. Do they not get a look in? And if it's about slavery some of those ethnic minorities will come from societies that still slave, that have slaved recently and which have only abjured slavery because forced to by 'gasp' the ethnic minority that we call 'white Europeans' through international bodies such as the UN. Sure you want to sponsor the descendants of slavers? The problem being that slavery is endemic, everyone has done it and whole societies including 'white Europeans' have been the victims of it. The Atlantic slave trade is a pimple on a pig's bum compared to Ancient Roman slaving, Ottoman slaving, Viking slaving which went on for several hundred years: the slave market in Dublin, the largest in Europe, was shut down by the Normans (Vikings, too) who were fed-up with slave raids on the coast of Wales and Cornwall. Sometimes what looks like colonialism is anti-slaving e.g. the taking of Zanzibar and Dublin centuries apart. If the NT does wish to do something about slavery then sponsoring anti-slavery movements in Africa would be a start (there are something like 9M slaves in various countries on that continent).

Great post grammarnut.

Slight detour, but Adam Hochschild's book, Bury the Chains, is a fascinating account of how, and why, the British abolished their part in the slave trade

@Grammarnut well said. Let's include the sweatshops that everyone knows exist in the UK today.

Afaik the evangelists and Quakers who wanted to abolish the slave trade were moved by their Christian belief, seeing the slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ and made in God's image. Christ's second commandment, 'love your neighbour as yourself' is incompatible with slavery. Hochschild's book sounds very interesting and certainly Thomas Clarkson has been missed by history. I shall look it out.

Exactly. Let's do just that.

And perhaps check out how we get our lithium and cobalt while we're at it

The wealth of many of the British aristocracy dates back further than the African slave trade and was built on serfdom - an indigenous form of slavery of the English population that existed until the 16th century. Serfs were attached to the land and bought and sold with it. Then in the Industrial Revolution others made fortunes off the backs off exploited British workers many of whom were bonded slaves - tied to work by debts to factory shops/owners.

I think that is why many resent the woke image - it imposes guilt of the upper classes on people whose ancestors were born in workhouses, lived in slums, whose children died in mines, were sold to their new Lord, had to work in the mills aged five to help pay their families debt, were sent to penal colonies for stealing bread, were cleared off their land to make room for sheep, had their common land stolen by the enclosures act…

The wealth of many of the British aristocracy dates back further than the African slave trade and was built on serfdom - an indigenous form of slavery of the English population that existed until the 16th century. Serfs were attached to the land and bought and sold with it. Then in the Industrial Revolution others made fortunes off the backs off exploited British workers many of whom were bonded slaves - tied to work by debts to factory shops/owners.

I think you're missing out that serfdom effectively died out in the early 14th Century. Re the Industrial Revolution, I think you mean the system where workers had to buy from certain shops. That wouldn't have been universal and, I believe, was outlawed. I'm interested in the period, as so many people left rural areas to work in towns. Obviously for a number of reasons, but I don't necessarily think they were exploited.

Bonded labourers, including the millions that still exist today, don’t have to buy from certain shops. But when you are in debt to the business so have no money as your wage is offset against your debt, then ‘factory shops’ are the only places that will allow you to buy on tick. And if you try to leave the business owner will pursue you for your debt.

I think you're missing out that serfdom effectively died out in the early 14th Century.

Serfdom was still very much the state of play when the Black Death hit in the middle of that century resulting in the death of a third of the population (more in some areas). Parliament had to pass laws to allow serfs to be leant to other estates because there was a shortage of labour to collect the harvests. The Peasants Revolt in the 1380s led to significant changes but Serfdom was not finally outlawed until 200 years later.

Serfdom was still very much the state of play when the Black Death hit in the middle of that century resulting in the death of a third of the population (more in some areas). Parliament had to pass laws to allow serfs to be leant to other estates because there was a shortage of labour to collect the harvests. The Peasants Revolt in the 1380s led to significant changes but Serfdom was not finally outlawed until 200 years later.
yes, I agree, I should have been more specific.

Bonded labourers, including the millions that still exist today, don’t have to buy from certain shops. But when you are in debt to the business so have no money as your wage is offset against your debt, then ‘factory shops’ are the only places that will allow you to buy on tick. And if you try to leave the business owner will pursue you for your debt.
This is one of the times that MN has really interesting contributions.
I was querying about how prevalent it was in the IR. I know it existed, but I'm questioning to what extent. Also, was it made illegal, I believe it was.

I had heard of bonded labour for Brazil nuts so googled it. https://www.antislavery.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/contemporary_forms_of_slavery_in_bolivia.pdf

What an interesting thread! I like this concept of trying to impose collective guilt - whilst abhorring slavery I know it was almost uniform across the world in many societies who had the power to enforce it not just Empires but I am northern working class going back generations of servants, weavers, basket makers, carpenters etc and there is no inherited money - nobody even owned a house until my father, all local surnames and DNA etc. And I feel no guilt for colonialism - my ancestors had no power during that time.

I view the upper classes and their houses as something entirely alien although I appreciate the beauty of them and the craftsmanship of the workers who built them.

I was recently in Ireland listening to a talk about the history of Kilkenny and how it was the Normans who invaded Ireland just as they invaded England and the languages spoken in Ireland then were French and Latin and I was nodding along until he suddenly switched from Norman to English and I thought woah! How did that happen? They weren't English!

It is odd that I have never thought about Normans as English or in any way connected to me - but I guess they became the upper class of England and Ireland. But they were just invading thieving swine just like their Viking slaving ancestors 😂

Newspaper report of an open access paper in PLOS One on 'pauper apprentices' sent north to work in the mills in Yorkshire - not much different to slaves really:

https://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/23528089.durham-scientists-unearth-story-forgotten-mill-children-fewston/

I can't remember the name now - but I remember listening to a talk at a conference about an estate in the south of England that owned the land, villages AND the people in them and prevented them leaving. This was after the 14th century - biologists have used the records there for lots of research as there was inevitably a lot consanguinity.

The name will come to me...

Yes, interesting. Last year I visited the Bobbin museum at Keswick (a lot more interesting than it sounds). The common practice was to take on children from the workhouses as apprentices (unpaid). Then turn them out when they got old enough to pay, and bring in a new batch.

But I believe that industrialisation happened very quickly, and that the victorians (to their credit) spent a lot of energy on regulating it

I view the upper classes and their houses as something entirely alien although I appreciate the beauty of them and the craftsmanship of the workers who built them

Mytholmroyd

Do you still regard the upper classes as ‘alien’? Even the ones who’ve run out of money?