Cultural Restitution
SHARE ARTICLE
Is the National Trust set on teetering towards a precipice? A new report on the legacies of colonialism and slavery within its portfolio of historic houses promises a more sensitive approach to difficult histories.
A report published by the Trust earlier, Towards a 10-Year Vision for Places and Experiences, suggested they were about to do great harm to their reputation for stewardship of this country's great historic houses. Certainly it caused widespread alarm about the Trust’s future direction. “Truly alarming for built heritage,” exclaimed Bendor Grosvenor. “One of the most damaging assaults ever seen on the UK’s art historical expertise,” headlined The Art Newspaper.
All of which makes the contents of this latest report on the Trust’s work researching connections between legacies of colonialism and slavery within their portfolio of historic properties even harder to sell to the public*. But don't be too quick to dismiss the issues this report is addressing. It merits serious attention.
As well as reinforcing the Trust's great fortune to have talented curatorial staff (who authored the majority of this report), the report shows a new willingness to reach out beyond their traditional and, let’s face it, tired country house narratives.
Finally, the Trust has realised they need to do more to explain the complex histories of those who built, owned, lived and worked within their properties. Yes, even if this does disclose some uncomfortable truths.
Also, this report is no knee-jerk reaction to the current de-colonisation debate. In fact, the Trust started their research at least as far back as 2007, the year of the bicentenary of The Slave Act in 1807. Since then, the Trust claims to have been ‘re-connecting’ with colonial legacies and slavery through a series of long-running research projects, case-studies and exhibitions. This interim report reflects on the work they’ve undertaken to date – and it’s fascinating.
We’re all familiar with the story how the UK developed its global trade between the 17th and 19th centuries, amassing great wealth and an empire in the process. This wealth fuelled a massive building frenzy and an accumulation of fine and decorative arts, much of whose preservation falls within the remit of the National Trust. As the UK took steps towards the ‘formal’ abolition of slavery, even more spending on buildings and the arts followed Parliament's agreement to recompense the owners of ‘slave property’ with financial compensation.
The connections between this influx of wealth from colonialism and slavery and the Trust’s portfolio of historic properties is all too evident from the report:
* About a third of all National Trust properties can be directly connected to colonial histories
* 29 of their properties have links to successful compensation claims for slave-ownership
* At least 50 of their properties have a connection to the East India Company in a large or smaller way
Why should this uncomfortable truth be concerning the National Trust now? Should they have a role in re-interpreting our nation's history?
The story which is absent from the Trust's traditional narratives is, of course, the extent to which so much of this country's wealth was reliant on colonialism and slavery. Concealment of these difficult histories is no longer an option. Every day we hear demands for greater transparency, question marks over the relevance of historical statues, and concern that many institutions are clinging on to outdated interpretations.
However, it isn't the existing membership demanding greater transparency and change. Rather, it's those visitors who the Trust needs to attract in the future, but is failing to attract due to a lack of wider relevance.
To achieve this relevance, the Trust accepts they need to introduce narratives that explore the lives of those other stakeholders who occupied these grand historic houses and sustained their legacies, namely the staff and servants, as well as any history of black presence.
The potential to expand this research is enormous and the Trust plans to set up an independent external advisory group to help them explore these difficult histories. But does the report suggest any willingness to go further and consider reparation?
The Trust's future policy on either reparation or de-colonisation is not made clear within the report. Without a universally agreed definition on what ‘de-colonisation’ actually entails, it's not surprising the report is silent on this issue. But evidence of small steps being taken by the Trust to recognise cultural sensitivities and their responsibility for fresh dialogues does appear in the report.
At Clandon Park, Surrey, for example, the Trust has agreed in principle (subject to statutory consents) to return a series of Maori carvings, from a meeting house known as Hinemihi o te Ao Tawhito, purchased in 1892 by the 4th Earl of Onslow. These carvings have deep spiritual significance for Maori and wider New Zealand communities. In exchange, Clandon will receive a number of contemporary carvings.
Steps are also in hand to remove statues that are racially sensitive to visitors, especially those which were formerly described as ‘manufactured in support of colonial representations of the people and places of the British Empire’. For example, the report states that an 18th cent statue of a kneeling black male figure supporting a sundial, formerly sited at the main entrance at Dunham Massey, Cheshire, has been 're-sited' and will be the ‘subject of future collaborative interpretation’.
These are all very modest steps. But it gives ground for hope these significant re-interpretations the National Trust is promising may lead to a more sensitive approach to their displays and a more complete and honest approach to their narratives – assuming whatever 10-year vision the Trust concludes hasn’t removed their long-term viability altogether.
* Interim Report on the Connections between Colonialism and Properties now in the Care of the National Trust, Including Links with Historic Slavery (September, 2020)
Photos: Charlecote Park, Warwickshire
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Statue of a black man holding a sundial at Dunham Massey Hall, Cheshire
Copyright Peter Turner
After this was written.......
An instruction delivered at the end of September '20 by Oliver Dowden, Secretary of State at the DCMS, for national museums and other publicly funded bodies to align with the Government's stance on contested heritage is causing outrage. It advises against taking actions 'motivated by activism or politics', requires arm's lengths bodies to complete a questionnaire on actions they are presently undertaking or are considering undertaking in this area, and implies that government funding may be withheld if museums do not comply.
In November '20 the National Trust also came under attack from Tory MP Andrew Murrison at a Westminster Hall debate where he accused the Trust of a "dramatic change of direction", claiming it has put the organisation at odds with its members, volunteers and workforce. He described this report on slavery as "flimsy and tendentious", describing the report's conflation of slavery and colonialism as evidence of its political motivations. Murrison also claimed the Trust had come to the attention of the Charity Commission for straying too far from its core objectives.
As a charity reporting to its own independent board of trustees, Dowden's instruction to conform with the Government's own stance on contested heritage does not apply directly to the National Trust. Neither do we believe the Trust is presently under investigation by the Charity Commission.
Nevertheless, any Government intervention into matters of ethics and curatorial integrity is ominous, A government which is not prepared to accept the 'arm's length' principle enshrined within the widely-respected Code of Ethics for Museums cannot be trusted to prescribe what is right or wrong for the sector. The National Trust, like all other cultural institutions, mustn't be bullied into following a politician's agenda. It's the views of the public at large that counts - and those views are changing.
COMMENT
Judi Newman (03/10/2020)
A really interesting reminder that collectively - as a civil society - we need to acknowledge the full story of our country's heritage, and not just cherry pick the bits that are palatable for period dramas. It is not about demolishing or removing history - it is understanding the full narrative, context and hidden stories. The full story may not always be comfortable reading but it will result in a far deeper understanding of how this very small island ended up being GMT+0 at the centre of our maps, warts and all. I am not interested in the Laura Ashley version of British history so I would be much more likely to engage with NT properties if I could piece together a richer tapestry of how the wealth was created, with honesty and integrity. I learnt more about the UK's role in the slave industry (and contribution towards its abolition) in DC's Smithsonian National Museum of African History and Culture than any museum or stately home in the UK - these are important stories and we ought to be telling them with candour.
More News
