The National Trust is under attack

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.

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
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

X post.

They had no rights.

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.

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?

Casdon

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.

I think I first heard about this on Who Do You Think You Are.

I think that the recent focus on slavery is because the trade and resultant wealth was what helped build so many houses now owned by the NT.

So without the slaves’ labour it could be argued that the houses would not exist. Recognising their contribution to the construction of these buildings is simply filling in the gaps of history.

Of course many wealthy people also owned mines, quarries and mills, and this wealth contributed to other large houses. In fact my ancestors were weavers - in Bradford, - after moving there from Howarth - dirt poor and living in a windowless basement with other families. However, they were free to improve their lives, which they did gradually moving up the scale until they were able to live in a reasonable sized house with servants. Slaves would never, ever have that opportunity.

Nevertheless I think the history of the working classes is a history worth telling (oh how silly of me - it has been told😄😄😄) but it does no harm to compare and contrast the life styles of people and inequalities that has in fact changed little over the last century.

Almost certainly most posters will have relatively recent ancestors in service or employed as farm labourers etc. as well as working in the new industries for a pittance with no rights to safety, holidays pensions etc.

Slaves would never, ever have that opportunity

The son of a slave became a High Sherriff and moved in high society.

Callistemon21

^Slaves would never, ever have that opportunity^

The son of a slave became a High Sherriff and moved in high society.

He must have gained his freedom. Of course there are exceptions, but that is not what is being discussed here.

I think it’s you M0nica who doesn’t get it. 😉

Whitewavemark2

Callistemon21

Slaves would never, ever have that opportunity

The son of a slave became a High Sherriff and moved in high society.

He must have gained his freedom. Of course there are exceptions, but that is not what is being discussed here.

He was the son of a plantation owner but born a slave. His father favoured him and sent him to England to be educated.

Poor people, whilst not enslaved, were also trapped in their misery and indebtedness to their masters here in Britain.

Almost all the great houses were built either directly or indirectly from the profits of slavery, many of the families are still prominent today, including my mothers family where the links are well documented.

Katie59 according to the National Trust themselves, it’s ‘up to a third’, not ‘most’.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-54018340
The trouble with threads like this is that people do get carried away by the rhetoric.

Casdon

Katie59 according to the National Trust themselves, it’s ‘up to a third’, not ‘most’.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-54018340
The trouble with threads like this is that people do get carried away by the rhetoric.

Maybe a third of “all” properties, most of the great houses have slavery links.

Katie59

Casdon

Katie59 according to the National Trust themselves, it’s ‘up to a third’, not ‘most’.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-54018340
The trouble with threads like this is that people do get carried away by the rhetoric.

Maybe a third of “all” properties, most of the great houses have slavery links.

It actually says in the article ‘The trust recently found that up to a third of its 300 UK houses have links to colonialism’.

Little thatched cottages in the South Wales Valleys ? how picturesque but so not true.

Anniebach

Little thatched cottages in the South Wales Valleys ? how picturesque but so not true.

I wonder if they have mixed up Merthyr Mawr with Merthyr Tydfil Anniebach?

Must have Casdon , there is a part of a South Wales Valley, I will not name it , where one learned why there were so many more redheads living there than the rest of the valley. As for
‘Their homes were protected by law ‘ so not true