History & the Country House

Thanks Chris (our Salford friend!) for posting the provocative piece on history and the Country House...(or at least the CH as presented by the National Trust). It seems legitimate, of course, to point out the rather 'Whiggish' history that institutions such as the NT present to us (or at least those that go to NT properties...there's a clue there maybe?)...but it's not always the case that the Country House sanitizes history...and coincidentally, me and BAs were on a visit to Harewood House this week....

...and which in 2007 made some attempt to address what could be considered to be a provocative and problematic part of it's own history by including, albeit quite small, displays that directed attention to the links between the establishment of the House and the Slave Trade...(this was part of a wider project on the bicentenary of the Abolition of Slavery in 1807...in Britain anyway)......The Slavery Exhibit display cases are still part of the Display at Harewood...although they seem to be delicately underplayed...but perhaps that's inevitable?..part of the veracity of 'History' is that it is required to be 'coherent' (at least that's one strand of thought in philosophy of history anyway!)....

But that said, I do think that it's useful to disrupt the still waters of historical understanding sometimes.....but maybe the Country House (and National Trust) is too much of an ocean to be touched by 'other' narratives....(there is, in fact, a drip-drip effect of change in the interpretation of Country Houses, with the opening of 'below-stairs' displays...notice there's no mention of 'white slavery' there though!...I'm quite obviously being deliberately provocative here!).........................................
....Anyway, we enjoyed our visit to Harewood....but it did seem to be FULL of ex-Leeds University graduates!...(Thanks Anna....shown here introducing the BAs to the House in the Steward's Room....and thanks to Ruby for an excellent tour (apart from her rather disparaging remarks about the great Alfred Stevens, who apparently 'ruined' a perfectly good R.Adam ceiling in the house......'History' - ultimately it's all about 'fashion and taste')....
.....

Mark

Who owns our history?

George Monbiot, in Comment and Debate (The Guardian 24.2.09) questions the role of the National Trust in 'editing' the history they present to the public. The Trust aims to act as guardian and trustee for the nation, as proprietor (owner) of many examples of architecture and social history in the country. As a fund raiser, the Trust aims to attract visitors, to increase membership, and to act as conservator of our heritage.

Monbiot questions the sanitisation of history by the Trust, giving examples where the life of the actual users of the buildings are not mentioned; where perhaps not to scare visitors away with too much realism, history is selective. Admitting that "we can never hope to fully understand the past, but we can recognise that history is open to widely different interpretations... The Trust is ready to explore unfamiliar and uncomfortable history in new ways."

As a member of the National Trust, I have visited many sites and buildings. Never have I been exposed to "uncomfortable history" or seen displays or material which truly explores the true nature of life for the inhabitants over the years.

Has the time come, perhaps, to admit the past to the present, and freely discuss how lives were lived, how we view and evaluate them, or are we not ready for such a bold step?

Is part of the 'contract' between the Trust and its members/visitors that they shall not be upset or provoked on their way to the cafe or shop?