The National Trust is under attack

M0nica

But they had rights, which slaves did not. Read the quote it focuses on the one key difference between slavery and the abject povertyand all the other things people mention, implicit in that statement and what these people have that slaves do not.

Nobody is disputing that slaves had less rights though Monica, and I’m not sure why anybody would argue against the suggestion that other oppressed groups stories should also be told?

Callistemon21

Even later on people were tied to their employers, for example the mine owners also owned shops where their workers had to purchase the necessities of life with tokens they had earned.

Yes, you’re right. I saw an excellent exhibition about life in mining communities years ago at Cyfartha Castle, and that’s the sort of insight I think the National Trust should be providing more information about, it’s so much wider than only slavery, although that is hugely important, it’s not relevant to all properties and sites - they are all unique.

X post.

They had no rights.

M0nica

Primrose You really do not get it. That is all I can say.

I think whatPrimrose says has validity.

The only reason these employees were not considered to be enslaved is that they were free to move but that would have been with difficulty.
They had no rights whatsoever.

But they had rights, which slaves did not. Read the quote it focuses on the one key difference between slavery and the abject povertyand all the other things people mention, implicit in that statement and what these people have that slaves do not.

Even later on people were tied to their employers, for example the mine owners also owned shops where their workers had to purchase the necessities of life with tokens they had earned.

I know Monica. The National Trust owns properties from all eras though, doesn’t it, including those which date back over 1000 years. People were not ‘owned’ in the Middle Ages, but many were tied by the fact that the jobs they had, and the houses they lived in were owned by rich families, and the alternative to oppression for them was destitution.

Before the Industrial revolution people were not tied to the land. The system of people being tied to the land ended effectively with the Black Death in 1348.

Primrose You really do not get it. That is all I can say.

M0nica
I disagree with your comment: " With due respect to you Frankie room stewards are far less knowledgeable than they used to be. For that I blame the NT. not the stewards themselves. "

An example from 40 years ago: The steward at Monks House authoritatively told us that a painting was by Roger Fry, known as a playwright. The author and playwright was Christopher Fry.

M0nica Harriet Jacob should have dug a bit deeper!
what about the young servant girls in this country who were raped by their employers or the employers sons then thrown on the streets or the workhouse when they got pregnant?

What about those servants who were on call from daybreak to maybe midnight just in case they were needed to fetch a drink or turn down a bed?

What about those who were promised a half day off a month to visit their family and when that day came their employers suddenly “needed” them?

Those little thatched cottages she describes were no better than hovels really and went with the job and if your employer and you had a disagreement the whole family were evicted with no notice.

Servants in this country in those days were treated just as badly as slaves.

M0nica

This question about indentured slaves and labour slaves is an interesting one.

Our village history society has recently discovered that a woman, born into slavery, and later freed paid a visit to our village and later published a book about her life where she commented on the very hard life farm workers in England.

Her name was Harriet jacobs, born a slave in North Carolina in 1813. She wrote a book 'Incidents in the life of a slave girl'published in 1861. I make no apologies for the length of the quote.
The people I saw around me were, many of them, among the poorest poor; but when I visited them in their little thatched cottages, I felt that the condition of even the meanest and most ignorant among them was vastly superior to the condition of the most favoured slaves in America. They laboured hard; but they were not ordered out to toil while the stars were in the sky, and driven and slashed by an overseer, through heat and cold, till the stars shone out again. Their homes were very humble; but they were protected by law. No insolent patrols could come in the dead of night and flog them at their pleasure. The father, when he closed his cottage door, felt safe with his family around him. No master or overseer could come and take from him his wife or his daughter. They must separate to earn their living; but the parents knew where their children were going and could communicate with them by letters. The relations of husband and wife, parent and child, were too sacred for the richest noble in the land to violate with impunity.

Life in the mills and on the land was hard, but slavery was something else far beyond that.

I think the point was though, that all these people were oppressed to enable rich house and landowners to live as they did, and that all those histories should be shared with the public. Effectively before the Industrial Revolution people were tied to the land and a master. I’m not minimising slavery, but different forms of oppression don’t out-trump each other, all were wretched for the oppressed of their time.

This question about indentured slaves and labour slaves is an interesting one.

Our village history society has recently discovered that a woman, born into slavery, and later freed paid a visit to our village and later published a book about her life where she commented on the very hard life farm workers in England.

Her name was Harriet jacobs, born a slave in North Carolina in 1813. She wrote a book 'Incidents in the life of a slave girl'published in 1861. I make no apologies for the length of the quote.
The people I saw around me were, many of them, among the poorest poor; but when I visited them in their little thatched cottages, I felt that the condition of even the meanest and most ignorant among them was vastly superior to the condition of the most favoured slaves in America. They laboured hard; but they were not ordered out to toil while the stars were in the sky, and driven and slashed by an overseer, through heat and cold, till the stars shone out again. Their homes were very humble; but they were protected by law. No insolent patrols could come in the dead of night and flog them at their pleasure. The father, when he closed his cottage door, felt safe with his family around him. No master or overseer could come and take from him his wife or his daughter. They must separate to earn their living; but the parents knew where their children were going and could communicate with them by letters. The relations of husband and wife, parent and child, were too sacred for the richest noble in the land to violate with impunity.

Life in the mills and on the land was hard, but slavery was something else far beyond that.

Amalegra

A number if these fine houses were no doubt financed in whole or in part by the near slavery on our own isles. The dark Satanic mills really did exist and the men, women and children (yes, small children) led wretched lives at the peak of the British Empire. So too the coal and tin miners, the ‘bargees’, those folk who lived and worked on the canals, those essential arteries of the economy. These people were all dreadfully exploited and belonging to a rich and powerful Empire did not improve their short, hard lives. I’d like to see the NT and other such organisations acknowledge the past of our own working class as well as that of the victims of slavery. Or is that not fashionable today?

I think that’s a good point. There are also many houses which predate both the slave trade and the Industrial Revolution, and where the feudal system still operated.

A number if these fine houses were no doubt financed in whole or in part by the near slavery on our own isles. The dark Satanic mills really did exist and the men, women and children (yes, small children) led wretched lives at the peak of the British Empire. So too the coal and tin miners, the ‘bargees’, those folk who lived and worked on the canals, those essential arteries of the economy. These people were all dreadfully exploited and belonging to a rich and powerful Empire did not improve their short, hard lives. I’d like to see the NT and other such organisations acknowledge the past of our own working class as well as that of the victims of slavery. Or is that not fashionable today?

Frankie As far as I am concerned. and I do not think I am alone, the slavery row is incidental to my deep disillusionment with the National Trust.

Go further up this page and read winterwhite's and buttonjug's post. The National Trust has reached a stage where it thinks itself more important than its properties. As winterwhite says, it is now all about tea rooms, shopping and parking. In addition houses have been reduced to one story only, and God help any visitor whose is interested in any other aspect of the property, because the National Trust certainly won't.

With due respect to you Frankie room stewards are far less knowledgeable than they used to be. For that I blame the NT. not the stewards themselves. As for good detailed house guidebooks. They have gone with the wind.

The NT has a rival. The Historic Houses Association, who represent stately homes and sites in private ownership - and what a joy their properties are. Each is individual and the house and its hstory come first.

The houses and their management are local, and many of their room stewards and guides are retired estate workers and are a fund of knowledge, real and imagined!

Our HHA Guide book is far more used than our NT Guide book.

In that case Frankie maybe they should adjust their attitude to disabled visitors as detailed in my earlier post. The arrogance of telling me there were no discounts for my disabled grandson or his carer, but inviting me to gift aid our entrance fees (4 adults and 2 children) and include a voluntary contribution........ no, never going to happen.

Paperbackwriter

TiggyW
Paperbackwriter - I don’t view myself as a bigot, but I wouldn’t wear a pride badge because it means nothing to me. I certainly wouldn’t work anywhere where I was forced to wear any badge which didn’t relate to the job.
How many times? No-one was forced to wear the badge!

You obviously think, from your choice of language, that anyone who doesn’t want to wear said badge is a bigot! I’m not sure I know how to flounce…

I'm a volunteer tour guide for the National Trust in one of their city properties , and many visitors always ask about any connections to slavery , and how the family made their wealth . The majority of our visitors are National Trust members and generally middle aged and older . "Wokeness" has nothing to do with it . It's about a period of history where vast fortunes were made through slavery which enabled these grand houses to be built in the first place. I feel strongly we should acknowledge this , where it is appropriate. The house I work for was saved for prosperity by a wealthy 19c industrialist, a self-made man, with no slavery links. Another property nearby was built from profits from the sugar industry . What we would want to cover this up I can't imagine . It's a beautiful house and people love it despite its murky origins.
The National Trust is doing a great job and has recently had to cut back on staff , and close smaller properties due to financial cutbacks( energy bills etc). Our property was nearly closed permanently after the pandemic , but got a reprieve as it has a unique history . The NT receives no government funding It has to make it's own income in order to keep the properties and land maintained. The National Trust is struggling financially .

Winterwhite, You succinctly sum up everything I dislike about the National Trust as it is now.

Siope

^I see no difference between “coloured” and “person of colour” anyway^

There is a massive difference, whether you see it or not.

Coloured: coined by white ppl to segregate and oppress.
People of colour: coined by people of colour to resist this oppression

And I wouldn’t call using an expression that dates back to the mid-1970s, as people of colour does, evidence of terminology changing quickly.

This is not, vintage1950 a dig at you or your posts.

My friend is from Tanzania and she says she is not bothered which term people use. The word colour is still in both.

MayBee I’ve tried about three times to write a concise answer, demonstrating how it’s both complex and simple, but I’m failing miserably!

I will try to dig out some sensible words from others on the issue, but it won’t be until after the weekend, I’m afraid.

In the interim, I think the fact that you worry about offending is likely to mean you don’t casually (or ever) use oppressive or offensive terms.

Stope. I genuinely don’t know how to refer to people without causing offence and I like to think I’m someone totally devoid of racism of any kind.

I cancelled my membership 2 or 3 years ago partly because of the complacency of the executive and the self-perpetuating voting system but also because of the dumbing down of the properties - the cancelling of important curator posts, and as seen in the list of properties - where properties are describd by their tea areas, their children's playgrounds and their parking with little about the house itself.

I see no difference between “coloured” and “person of colour” anyway

There is a massive difference, whether you see it or not.

Coloured: coined by white ppl to segregate and oppress.
People of colour: coined by people of colour to resist this oppression

And I wouldn’t call using an expression that dates back to the mid-1970s, as people of colour does, evidence of terminology changing quickly.

This is not, vintage1950 a dig at you or your posts.