by
Christopher Draper
THE downfall of Edward Colston sent shock waves through the massed
ranks of NATIONAL TRUST top brass. Founded in 1895 primarily to
protect threatened landscapes, over succeeding decades NT has
increasingly focussed on acquiring, conserving and celebrating the
legacy of the genocidal colonial adventurers, aristocratic land
grabbers and grubby financiers that created Britain’s despicable
slave trade. These blood money palaces, stately homes and grand
gardens were designed to flaunt their patron’s social standing and
aesthetic good taste and camouflage the barbaric reality. It was
myth-making on a grand scale and it’s a tradition the NATIONAL
TRUST has assiduously maintained and enhanced.
Rattling the Tea Cups
Suddenly the hierarchy feel exposed and vulnerable – Colston’s
statue was pulled down on the 7th June 2020 and within
four days NT bosses had spirited away and hidden the “Kneeling
Slave” statue that formerly greeted visitors to Dunham Massey Hall,
Altrincham. Visitors had long questioned the Trust’s failure to
explain and justify the prominent exhibition of this racially
demeaning icon and in response NT bosses defended the racist imagery
with an outrageous lie…
Whitewash
NT management refuse to admit any failure of moral or historical
judgement and instead claim they belatedly acted solely out of
concern for visitors’ emotions;
“The statue has caused upset and distress because of the way it
depicts a black person and because of its prominence at the front of
the house”
Typical NT weasel words, in truth it acted to pre-empt the
embarrassment of a public toppling in a Black-Lives-Matter related
incident. This is evident from NT’s application to the planning
authorities for retroactive “listed structure” consent for the
statue’s removal. A spokesman for Trafford Council confirms that,
“The NATIONAL TRUST have written to the council’s planning
service to advise that the statue was removed in order to
preserve the structure”!
NT continue to claim,
“We don’t want to censor or deny the way colonial histories
are woven into the fabric of our buildings…”
But this is precisely the reverse of the truth…
The BIG LIE!
In response to visitors’ critical enquiries, a decade ago NT
erected an “interpretive” plaque alongside the Dunham Massey
statue,
“This sundial is in the style of one commissioned by King
William III. It represents Africa, one of four continents known at
the time. The figure depicts a Moor, not a slave…”!
No-one, apart from the NATIONAL TRUST, has ever made such an absurdly
dishonest claim. Academics routinely refer to this and similar
statues as “Kneeling Slaves”, sometimes as “Blackamoors”,
never a Moor and always acknowledging the servile pose and colonial
context. A 1725 inventory details the figure as, “A negro Slave
kneeling on one knee and bearing a Sun Dyall on his head” (sic).
The slave’s bent, kneeling posture bearing the full weight of a
stone sundial for the benefit of aristocratic observers (and
latterly modern visitors) offends everyone but the NATIONAL TRUST for
as Madge Dresser emphasises, “The Blackamoor’s humanity is
subsumed by his utilitarian function”.
The NT is structurally and philosophically wedded to a White
Supremacist version of history. It polishes, maintains and reproduces
the reactionary views of a politico-cultural elite and denies the
life histories of the exploited. Despite being a mass membership
organisation the NT is essentially a rich, powerful corporation that
makes only occasional, spasmodic efforts to portray the lives of the
lower orders. The organisation eschews vital historical analysis
preferring to retail romanticism, infotainment, refreshments and
pseudo-historical nick-knackery – enter through the car-park and
exit through the gift shop.
I’ll tackle more aspects of NT racism, greenwash and assorted
flummery in future posts but focus here on the iconography of the
“Kneeling Slave” and there’s another one on the other side of
the Pennines…
A Telling Alternative
Wentworth Castle near Barnsley was built by a notorious slave trading
family whose “Blackamoor” statue is now housed in the
conservatory, which, along with extensive parklands is administered
by the NATIONAL TRUST. It’s a similar “Kneeling Slave” bearing
a stone sundial, although it’s slightly earlier c.1720 rather than
Dunham’s c.1735, it’s in much better condition. This is not
simply because it’s now kept indoors but because it was sensitively
restored in 2011 by conservators who took great care to create
a realistic black skin tone. When installed in the conservatory
further scrupulous work was undertaken to research the context and
historical significance of the figure most notably by Patrick Eyres.
Eyres subsequently led public walks around the grounds explaining the
politico-historical context of the house and gardens and the
particular significance of the “Blackamoor”. These researches
culminated in publication of his (highly recommended) book
“Blackamoors in the Georgian Garden” (New Arcadian
Press) and the erection of accurate and insightful interpretive
signage at Wentworth, eg;
“Sir Thomas Wentworth helped to negotiate the Treaty of Utrecht
in 1713. This international treaty confirmed Britain as the most
important commercial power in Europe. It included a lucrative
monopoly over the Atlantic slave trade. Wentworth represented this in
his house and gardens, including a statue of a kneeling African man
supporting a sundial that now stands in the conservatory. Like many
of his contemporaries, Wentworth made a great deal of money from the
sale and labour of enslaved Africans. This human misery helped pay
for the house and gardens he built.”
Exception Proves the Rule
Wentworth’s enlightened admissions contrast sharply with Dunham
Massey’s denial and the explanation isn’t hard to find for NT
only gained control of Wentworth Castle Gardens a year ago.
Wentworth’s admirable research and restoration had already been
completed by volunteers who formed a community “Heritage Trust”
that administered the gardens for two decades until shortage of funds
forced them to hand over to NT in 2019. The community trust
recognised the Blackamoor as an icon of colonial exploitation that if
exhibited unexplained would embody and perpetuate a racist world-view
but when sensitively restored and contextualised offered enormous
potential for critical re-evaluation of imperial history. It’s
imperative that the local trust’s interpretation endures and that
visitors monitor the possible “re-interpretation” of the
“Kneeling Slave” under NT stewardship.
“Not Another One!”
“Kneeling Slaves” were the eighteenth century’s best selling
lead garden statues after William III, who owned both house and
plantation slaves, commissioned a couple from Van Nost in 1701 for
his Hampton Court Garden. Supply and demand collapsed with the demise
of the last London manufacturer, John Cheere in 1787, the year the
Committee for the Abolition of the African Slave Trade was
formed. Rather than boast of personal involvement in the slave trade,
stately home owners grew embarrassed by the origins of their wealth
and “Blackamoors” disappeared from grand gardens to be sold on,
hidden away or melted down. Now only eight “Kneeling Slaves”
continue to occupy their original garden, including our two NT
examples but if the celebrated “Brenda of Bristol” were to visit
her local NT property, she might well utter her famous catchphrase,
“Oh no, not another one!”
Unbelievably a bedroom on show at the NATIONAL TRUST’s Dyrham Park
“boasts” not just one but two “Kneeling Slaves”! As house
rather than garden slave, they’re borne down by the weight of huge
exotic seashells rather than stone sundials but the pose is identical
and leaving absolutely no scope for denial their servility is
emphasised by their shackling with slave collar and chains.
Wilful Ignorance or Worse?
Wentworth’s sensitive restoration, display and interpretation
exemplifies how these figures can be properly exhibited but
distortion, denial and obfuscation more typically characterises NT’s
approach. Although NT received a copy of Eyres’ research it
continued to exhibit the Dunham and Dyrham “Blackamoors” in the
de-contextualised aesthetic fashion favoured by their original
aristocratic owners. In February 2018 a visitor was so shocked by
Dyrham’s “Blackamoors” display that they complained on
TRIPADVISOR;
“I was deeply disturbed during my visit to Dyrham Hall when I
witnessed chained depictions of enslaved human beings in subservient
positions casually being displayed as ornamental features…there was
no explanation of these artefacts in the room or in the
interpretation leaflets (there was only information about paintings
and pottery)…”
Another post registered “revulsion” at the racist display. Six
months later Dyrham Park’s “Public Relations Manager” responded
by insisting there are,“information leaflets on display next to
the stands which put them into context”. However, no leaflets
or info boards are apparent in extant photographs and although NT did
recently supply me with an undated copy of a leaflet contextualising
the “Blackamoor Stands” its value is academic as NT have now
removed both Dyrham’s “Chained Slaves” from public view.
As I write, visitors can still gain sight of Wentworth’s
“Blackamoor” through the windows of a locked conservatory but the
Dunham and Dyrham “slaves” have been hidden away and their images
removed from the NT website. In future posts I’ll explain further
how black lives don’t matter much to NT, and neither do white
working class lives, nor internal democracy but in the meantime
Northern Voices would appreciate readers’ feedback on your
opinions and experiences of the NATIONAL TRUST.
***************************
Posts
3 comments:
Forgive the pun but I suppose there's an element of whitewashing to much of Western European history and I'm not sure what is worse - whitewashing history or trying burying it, like some of the BLM movement. As Chris Draper points out, there are always alternative interpretations that can be given to the dominant English bourgeois one, of the philanthropic slave owner and 'The Whiteman's Burden'. Of course, we all know that the British colonized India to stop the practice of Suttee and that poverty, and the laws of commerce, as Edmund Burke declared, are the "laws of nature and therefore the laws of God" - 'The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate".
Many of us who were at English state schools during the 1950s were educated as little English imperialists and shown pictures of a world map and told that all that all the countries that were coloured red, belonged to us. These were the days when Rupert bear went to 'Coon Island' and when landlords could display signs saying "No blacks, No dogs, No Irish", and where a racist white teacher, could campaign under the slogan - "If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour" (Peter Griffiths - Smethwick, 1964 general election).
In his book 'The Open Society and it Enemies' (1945), Karl Popper, wrote: "History has no meaning. The realm of facts is infinitely rich and there must be selection. To speak of the 'history of mankind' is really about the history of political power. The history of power politics is nothing but the history of international crime and mass murder. This history is taught in schools and some of the greatest criminals are extolled as it heroes. Why has the history of power been selected? Because men are inclined to worship power and those in power, want to be worshipped and can enforce their wishes."
There's no doubt that societal attitudes change over time, as these examples demonstrate, but I suspect that history in most English schools today, is still being taught along the lines that Popper described in 1947.
"Yes the NT is a somewhat stuffy and middle-class group, which recently found that
there was much public interest in the kitchens and servant quarters of the grand houses
that it owns. I think so much is due to that arch-snob Lees-Milne who negotiated with the
financially straightened owners - in Pulborough's Petworth House NT enabling the family to
stay in the front portion of the grand house whilst the NT kept up the deer park and permitted
visitors to the rear. They finally allow access to the kitchens. But they did purchase that Chartist
cottage near Bromsgrove and the workhouse at Southwell so slowly the NT became slightly
socially aware. Apart from the tracts of land, these grand houses suggest to me the creation of
a history that would, say in the case of France, be as valid as one based on the Loire chateaux."
I recently visited Wentworth Castle in Yorkshire where there is a 'Blackamoor' figure in the Conservatory.
At the properties entrance the guide acted as if they were ashamed about the figure.
I could not understand why they shoukd feel that way, I as a white person did not feel ashamed by it when I viewed it as I am sure a black person would not feel ashamed. The statue is what was created at a certain period in history of which I and everyone else is now removed and can do nothing to change what happened at that time.
The Romans had society that fully depended on slavery for it to function. There is no need for us personally to feel guilty for this. In the 16th and 17th century people of North Africa regularly raided the coast of Southern Britain to capture people and take them away as slaves, they even occupied Lundy Island for a time making it a centre for thier trade. Black people today have no need to feel guilt for this. Its all part of history, it did go on but not in Britain today. What slavery does exist today is generally confined to the countries of the African Continent.
Post a Comment