The National Trust - is it losing ours?

MawBe

Alegrias1

We're not allowed to call the right wing racists names are we? They get upset.

But oh, the temptation.....

Oh dear, I knew it was too good to last

What has that got to do with the thread/subject/price of bread/ anything?
Or is it just an observation en passant?
What happens if you are Right wing and from an ethnic minority?

Relations have broken down .

If someone denies another person's experience of racism, and tells them to all intents and purposes that they are imagining it, what do we call that? Even if they do it in a roundabout manner.

And if you are right wing, and from an ethnic minority and you are a racist....then you are a right wing racist who happens to be from an ethnic minority

I have tried in houses to ask about the things that interest me, but are not a part of the NT story, only to find that room guides only know what they are told

That is a new NT initiative too, M0nica.
They pick on one particular period of history and that is what is told to visitors to the exclusion of other eras.

MawBe

Kali2

Lisagran ''I think one of the concepts attributed to Capability Brown was the introduction of Hahas.'' of course, thanks. It is a fabulous idea and works so well, keeping sheep away from the Hall without the visual impact of a fence. Brilliant.

Makes no difference to the history of the enclosures however.

But gave us a good laugh

Oh I am so glad I provided you with some well deserved entertainment. You are welcome.

Doodledog

*Nope you are wrong. The vast wealth that purchased those houses underpinned the industrial revolution that made those glorious artefacts, employed Capability Brown etc. was all accumulated on the backs of people torn from their homes, treated less than animals, bought and sold and killed in their millions.*
I agree, and would also agree with this being made known at the relevant properties.

I don't think that this is remotely the same as expecting volunteers to dress up or wear glittery body paint, though, which is the crux of the thread.

Showing visitors how much of the wealth of individuals in the UK was built on slavery is one thing, but compulsory fancy dress is quite another. I'm confused as to how the two things are being conflated on this thread.

Further, whereas Pride is clearly a fun, loud, glittery, camp event, not all gay people fit that stereotype, and some would (and do) argue that it is counter-productive, and long for the day when being gay doesn't carry those connotations.

I agree with all of your post, Doodledog

The history is well told at many of the properties and there is no need for volunteers to dress up as butlers, maids, property owners to tell it.

Gay Pride, a modern concept, has nothing to do with the history of the properties, this is mere virtue signalling.

The wealth of many Western countries was built on slavery and there is a huge amount of relevant information which can be used if it relates to a NT property.

Yes, it is stereotyping gay people; some say think dressing up etc has a relevance but none, as far as I know, to the NT.

Ah yes, Priti Patel

Alegrias1

We're not allowed to call the right wing racists names are we? They get upset.

But oh, the temptation.....

Oh dear, I knew it was too good to last

What has that got to do with the thread/subject/price of bread/ anything?
Or is it just an observation en passant?
What happens if you are Right wing and from an ethnic minority?

We're not allowed to call the right wing racists names are we? They get upset.

But oh, the temptation.....

theworriedwell You clearly have a gripe with NT and I’m really sorry you had a bad experience.

I had a shocking experience with a pub landlord in a delightful Dales pub yesterday.
We had a drink in the garden after a long hike then asked for more drinks and to see the menu his response was “ you've been sitting there ages why didn’t you ask sooner, you can have nothing hot and we’ve no brown bread, I need your order now”

It was 1.30 and the pub apparently served food until 2.30.

It may have been because we were white, middle class Christian and British.
This would make him a racist.

I think though it was because it was hot, his wife we later learned was off for the day as it was her birthday and he was working under pressure.

Why not make these places like NT a place that is welcoming and tolerant?

So how does volunteers dressing up for Gay Pride week achieve that?

Gay people with or without families who visit NT properties want to go to look round the property and gardens, learn its history, just as any heterosexual people want to do. No different; they are people who may or may not be interested in historical properties.

Sago

I visit NT properties for their architecture, beautiful gardens and to learn something from history.
I don’t give a tinkers toss wether their staff support LGBT, BLM or any other organisation.
It has to stop.

Well the staff in the property we visited certainly wouldn't be BLM supporters but I can't think why that would be a good thing. People who are representing the NT shouldn't show prejudice, black people are entitled to visit beautiful places and enjoy history as are LGBT people. Everyone should feel welcome.

How would you feel if their staff said they don't want women visiting or they don't want people over a certain age? If it affected you would you be happy and if the answer is no then why do you think other people should put up with it.

Doodledog

Namsnanny

Doodledog

Sexuality is just another aspect of someone, not necessarily the defining one.

I disagree I think sexuality and race fundamentally change your lived experience. I have gay and black friends but do not pretend to know what their life is like. There are plenty of studies that testify to this. Proximity to minority groups is not the same as your lived experience.

You have no idea about my lived experience, though, nor that of anyone else on here.

We may not know but surely we have enough human connection to understand enough.
How do any laws get passed by one group on behalf of another?

You are assuming that I am not in a position to know whether sexuality and/or race has impacted on my lived experience.

There are so many assumptions on this thread that it is becoming difficult to discuss objectively, but unless you are a member of all the communities whom you say you are representing in your role, then are you not arguing against yourself here? As you rightly say, proximity to minority groups is not the same as your lived experience.

Sorry - I got confused in my reply. It should also have referenced Dillythegardener's earlier post, which contained the highlighted text above, as well as

Obviously someone who is black or gay is not solely their race or sexuality orientation, but being a member of a group where you are likely to experience racism or homophobia can not help but shape your personality and outlook. I know I don’t get it right all the time, but I have moved into a public facing role during the pandemic where I must make sure I’m welcoming and understanding of all communities. It’s been an eye opener.

I may now have complicated my reply further (?), but it was out of context earlier. My response was to both DTG and to Namsnanny. I am now going to lie down in a darkened room ?

Lisagran my bad! I totally misread your post! It’s been a long, hot day …

Lisagran I’m afraid Kali2 has the right of it. Ha has do exist as landscape garden features.

www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/heritage/england/teesside/article_1.shtml

Kali2

Lisagran ''I think one of the concepts attributed to Capability Brown was the introduction of Hahas.'' of course, thanks. It is a fabulous idea and works so well, keeping sheep away from the Hall without the visual impact of a fence. Brilliant.

Makes no difference to the history of the enclosures however.

But gave us a good laugh

Thought we might have a good debate, but your remarks are unfortunate to say the least.
Nope you are wrong

It's not easy to have a good debate if a poster tells another that they are wrong, Whitewave.

I think Alegrias has made some very good points.

If slavery, the sexual preferences of previous owners etc is relevant to the history of the property then the stories can be told by the usually well informed volunteers.
One property near here was built on the profits from dung.

The only dressing up I've seen was a volunteer (could have been someone from the local theatre group) dressed as Scrooge, which the little one enjoyed when we went for a Christmas visit.
But for the rest of it, Bah Humbug.

As for expecting people who are not gay to dress up and pretend to be gay, which in essence is what the NT is asking for - and a caricature of gayness at that. If I was gay I would find it deeply offensive.
I agree, M0nica
I think my gay neighbours would, in fact, find it cringeworthy.

The N/T lost it a good while back MawBe IMO.
We shan`t be joining the trust again.
I don`t like being told that i should agree with the woke/bame/rainbow warriers.
And the volunteers should put their foot down if they don`t agree.
The National Trust is about the history of the properties,nothing else.

Lisagran ''I think one of the concepts attributed to Capability Brown was the introduction of Hahas.'' of course, thanks. It is a fabulous idea and works so well, keeping sheep away from the Hall without the visual impact of a fence. Brilliant.

Makes no difference to the history of the enclosures however.

DillytheGardener

Doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Most businesses and institutions celebrate different events on the calendar, like Pride, why not the National Trust? People who are anti NT celebrating this are you anti pride and gay people? I find it a little strange.

I also find strange that people are averse to the National Trust including research regarding slavery in their interpretation. Slavery created a lot of wealth in England which in turn created a boom in building of large estates and Capability Brown style landscaping. Ignoring this doesn’t make it any less true. This information helps put the properties in the context of their time.

Ostriches and the sand come to mind.

Someone thinks that a a charity which preserves buildings and land for future generations is veering away from its aims, its ethos and jumping on current woke bandwagons and your post states:
are you anti pride and gay people?

That is turning what a poster has said on its head to make it seem as if the poster discriminates against gay people!

Telling the stories of past owners of these properties who may have made money from slavery or who may have been gay is very interesting and puts everything into perspective but wanting volunteers to dress up to acknowledge Gay Pride week is outside their remit and has nothing to do with the aims of the NT.

The stories can be so well told without the need for ridiculous dressing up.

theworriedwell that was disgraceful and discriminatory - the NT should be addressing any issues like that which arise.
They must be spending so much time trying to find the next politically correct campaign to embrace that they cannot see what is under their own noses.

Lisagran I think (if my memory from a long ago landscape design class is correct) that ‘ha ha’s were first seen in early 18th century french formal garden design. No idea who introduced it here, perhaps Brown? I’m now curious and going to have to look on ole google.

I do remember reading about ha ha’s in Mansfield park though (thought it was quite possibly another Austen, I can never remember. I enjoy her books for all the references to gardens and landscapes!)

The history we have today was written predominantly by straight middle and upper class white men. Which why woman’s and minorities stories are harder to find. No one is saying that the NT is going to exclude other histories attached to individual properties, and it’s not something I’ve seen. For example Hatchlands park NT interpretation is centred around music and historic instruments, flatford nt around constable’s paintings. Acknowledging black or gay histories isn’t going to replace the other stories just add too it to build a bigger picture of each site.

It would be interesting to have Rupert Everett, Quentin Crisp and Nicky Haslam’s thoughts on this (probably horrified) There would be some very witty rejoinders.
Glitter is the devil’s spawn, there’s no getting away from it.
If ones sexuality is so important, does that mean that visits to anything by Michelangelo and Da Vinci will have to be labelled as works by gay artists so we know?

Greeneyedgirl. No one has suggested that slavery or homosexuality should be written out of NT properties*,

I wish people wouldn't keep setting up Aunt Sallies, that no one has espoused so that they can virtuously knock them down. That happens on other threads as well.

What I want to do is enjoy going round an NT property finding in it what is meaningful to me, which could well be that the money came from the slave trade, or that a previous occupant was gay. That definitely applies to 2 stately homes near me, one of them an NT property.

But one of them, as well as a previous occupant who was gay, has a superb Burne-Jones mural and it is not far from Kelmscott, William Morrises house and when I am visiting with my Arts and Crafts hat on , I do not want the NT constantly shoving the story they want to tell, whether that is of queerness, slavery or the Civil War between me and my particular interest on that day.

Most properties have many stories to tell, or contain specialist collections, and visitors want to access the story that has most resonance for them, not the one the NT thinks they ought to want.

Mine too Amberspyglass. I think it’s about time that the National Trust reflected modern society and culture, not just a romantic version of the past which many seem comfortable with.

NT received Heritage Lottery funding of almost £100k towards their Queer Heritage Collections network, of which they are a member with four major heritage bodies.

I think it is important that visitors have access to the history of some of our great houses and estates, many of which were built on the proceeds of slavery. How many knew to the part that gay people played in the ownership and life and work of some of the places, at a time when homosexuality was a crime and considered something shameful. Why should they be written out of the history?

I believe the NT are attempting to create a climate of tolerance and I applaud them for it.

I’m not keen on the “dressing up” and prefer a knowledgeable guide.

Wow! I never knew about all this. I don’t understand why the NT wants to make a statement about their support for the Pride movement, but I am no longer a member anyway.
As a former member, if it’s “encouraged their staff” rather than obliged their staff, that’s OK. Some people would really enjoy that, though most of the L&G people I know wouldn’t dream of using face paint and glitter.
Almost as unlikely as people being expected to ‘black up’ to raise awareness of slavery.

Namsnanny

Doodledog

Sexuality is just another aspect of someone, not necessarily the defining one.

I disagree I think sexuality and race fundamentally change your lived experience. I have gay and black friends but do not pretend to know what their life is like. There are plenty of studies that testify to this. Proximity to minority groups is not the same as your lived experience.

You have no idea about my lived experience, though, nor that of anyone else on here.

We may not know but surely we have enough human connection to understand enough.
How do any laws get passed by one group on behalf of another?

You are assuming that I am not in a position to know whether sexuality and/or race has impacted on my lived experience.

There are so many assumptions on this thread that it is becoming difficult to discuss objectively, but unless you are a member of all the communities whom you say you are representing in your role, then are you not arguing against yourself here? As you rightly say, proximity to minority groups is not the same as your lived experience.