|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Felbrigg Hall lanyards
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Having been away for the weekend, I now contribute my blinding revelation. This is pure Downton Abbey syndrome: the NT is now completely hostage ot a weak, poorly thought out, Daily Mail version of our history. This matters because history tells the story of the present.
God help us all to get a clue from somewhere.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with accepting the premise that Ketton-Cremer was "an intensely private man" is that isn't the evidence from all sources. And if you were a homosexual male in a society when homosexual acts were illegal, you'd be intensely private too.
Didn't seem to worry the Bloomsbury Group, Lord Mountbatten, Noel Coward and others.
They appeared to be immune from prosecution when others were set up and trapped.
Firstly from the Daily Telegraph article that started this debacle:
quote:
With the case of Robert, the people we interviewed were clear that we weren’t outing him because amongst those who knew him, this was widely accepted.”
And in the Daily Telegraph article of 29 July:
quote:
[Professor Richard Sandell] said he spoke to four local people who lived near the Felbrigg Hall who said the late squire’s homosexuality was an open secret. He also cited an extract from a biography about Sir John Betjeman that referred to Wynhdam as an openly homosexula close friend while they studied at Oxford University together.
For the other cases you mention, I suspect you are writing back into history what we know now. Noel Coward's sexuality has been openly discussed and reviewed in the last 45 years since his death. What was generally known in his lifetime (other than an open secret amongst his intimates) and before 1967 is going to be difficult to review back. Noel Coward did not allow it to be mentioned publicly that he was homosexual in his lifetime and asked Sheridan Morley not to write this in his 1969 biography.
There was no mention of Lord Mountbatten's homosexuality in the 1985 Philip Ziegler official biography. Anything that has been generally know now is from later publications, and since his death.
The Bloomsbury set are all long dead and have been mythologised since their deaths. Again it's questionable what was public in their lifetimes.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
the NT is now completely hostage ot a weak, poorly thought out, Daily Mail version of our history.
I agree, with the proviso that I think that this version is fuelling extreme positions on both sides.
I do however think there are underlying issues worth discussing beyond the unknowable facts of how things went down at Felbrigg Hall.
For instance: Compromise, even with our enemies (and acknowledging we do have enemies, sometimes through the mere fact of existing), is sometimes necessary.
And to my mind there is a valid discussion to be had about organisational coercion and how it sits with the balance between individual conscience and authority, especially when it comes to improving the enjoyment of minority rights and everyday acceptance of minorities.
I persist in thinking the NT's message in this respect is inconsistent and that there are lessons to be learned about volunteer management and diversity management.
However...
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
as I've told you several times now
(...)
No doubt you are now going to try to pretend that the reaction means something-something-something-something about you and gays because
(...)
This is really all about you.
(...)
nobody gives a shit what you think
(That's just a sample from your most recent post).
I have had enough of being the butt of offensive language like this here.
Earlier on I said that discussion quote:
involves at least assuming as a posture (...) (if one cannot believe it to the core of one's being...) that the other party is entitled to basic respect, has rights and expectations, and that whatever ther views, they as individuals are no "less than" those on your side.
I would further argue that outside Hell, these boards fuction on the principle that the parties are at least willing to "get round the negotiating table", as the picture at the top of Purgatory suggests)
I think I've made a best effort to engage with you on those terms and I'm tired of dealing with people who don't engage on those terms. The more anyone refuses to do so, and instead of walking away turns up the verbal abuse, the more I doubt the validity of their position.
So from now on on this thread I reserve the right to simply ignore posts with content I personally deem to fall outside the scope of Commandment 5 whilst doing my best to abide by it myself (and mr cheesy, that applies to your most recent post).
If you choose to see that as a victory, I think it's a pretty Pyrrhic one.
[ 13. August 2017, 19:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It suggests to me that they were surprised by the bigotry they encountered and nonplussed by the reaction.
If they'd managed diversity issues properly in the first place (and I don't think there's any doubt that LGBT issues fall squarely within that definition, first Google hit for "diversity issues") and really cared about them, then I think they and LGBT concerns would have had everything to gain by standing firm.
By "managed properly" I mean that they would have addressed this issue like any other on that list and come to a reasonable accommodation with their volunteers that they could defend unequivocally in public. In short, in agreement with several others here, I mean they should have made the lanyard-wearing an opt-in and not an opt-out measure.
[ 13. August 2017, 19:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think I've made a best effort to engage with you on those terms and I'm tired of dealing with people who don't engage on those terms. The more anyone refuses to do so, and instead of walking away turns up the verbal abuse, the more I doubt the validity of their position.
And that's it all up and down. You've said several times that - apparently - the attitude of other posters makes you wonder about your commitment to marriage equality.
You've taken the wishes of other people to have a flag to recognise a welcome as a personal insult and you've bundled that up with other grievances to make it sound like this is enough to change your mind on equal marriage.
Because somehow the attitude of other people is more important to you than the issue. Can't you see the problem there?
quote:
So from now on on this thread I reserve the right to simply ignore posts with content I personally deem to fall outside the scope of Commandment 5 whilst doing my best to abide by it myself (and mr cheesy, that applies to your most recent post).
Nobody said you had to answer, that's all on you.
What is making me very cross is your refusal to actually engage in anything that I've said and instead to insist that your understanding of the rainbow flag is somehow like the milgram experiment.
You said that, not me. You lowered this discussion to that level, not me.
quote:
If you choose to see that as a victory, I think it's a pretty Pyrrhic one.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
By "managed properly" I mean that they would have addressed this issue like any other on that list and come to a reasonable accommodation with their volunteers that they could defend unequivocally in public. In short, in agreement with several others here, I mean they should have made the lanyard-wearing an opt-in and not an opt-out measure.
sigh: once again - the small minority of volunteers who decided this was an issue of conscience were given the opportunity to volunteer in different ways. They instead choose to talk to the Daily Mail.
There was no reason to make this an opt-in, it has worked well in other NT properties and was not seen as any kind of problem by 80% of volunteers at this property. If the other volunteers had either quietly got on with doing other things, given volunteering a rest for a few weeks or just gone off in a huff, this wouldn't have been an issue at this NT either.
Other than sitting down the volunteers and asking them in advance how they thought the campaign should have been run, what else could they have done?
What if somehow a majority of volunteers had been shamed into not wearing the lanyards? Is that acceptable?
[ 13. August 2017, 19:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
By "managed properly" I mean that they would have addressed this issue like any other on that list and come to a reasonable accommodation with their volunteers that they could defend unequivocally in public. In short, in agreement with several others here, I mean they should have made the lanyard-wearing an opt-in and not an opt-out measure.
We're in danger of going back to square one.
Lanyard wearing is not optional. We are literally arguing about the coloured pattern on the lanyard. And arguing about the rights of people who refused to wear the new lanyard rather than the old one.
I'm not going to suggest that symbols are not important. They are. I've already said that I would be uncomfortable about being made to wear a poppy, due to a principled stand against what I see as it being co-opted, with the connivance of the RBL, as a celebration of war, rather than as an act of remembering the fallen.
But be in no doubt, if that was to happen, my employers/managers would be in absolutely no doubt as to why I was taking a stand. Neither would anyone who asked me.
Now, what is the Felbrigg volunteers principled stand about? Denying gay people's place in history, denying them their human rights, not seeing them as equal citizens, not wanting to welcome them to 'their' property? Pretty much all that?
The only reason my defence of the NT is not absolute is because there is a marginal issue of how the change between one lanyard and another was managed. It doesn't stop the refuseniks from being utter asshats.
And as their manager, I'd be absolutely seeking written guarantees from them that they were going to behave with utmost courtesy and respect to all visitors, even if they turned up in full RuPaul drag and quoting Round the Horne.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
[x-post]
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You've said several times that - apparently - the attitude of other posters makes you wonder about your commitment to marriage equality.
I never said anything about marriage equality. I expressed frustration with being misrepresented, once, and this is another example of it. That issue was put to rest between lilbuddha and me and here you are bringing it up again. Since you've managed not to be offensive I'll go the extra mile and once again respond.
I.support.equal.marriage.
Specifically, I am in favour of France's Mariage pour Tous, I have a few unanswered questions about surrogacy. I am also in favour of churches having the option, in principle, to bless SSM. I'm not going to spend time detailing my positions on various other LGBTQI issues.
That does not however mean I have to grant unconditional support to any and every policy depicted as LGBT+-friendly¹, or the tactics employed². I dissassociate myself entirely from any form of absolutism, and that includes absolutism on behalf of causes I generally favour. When reasoned discussion gives way to invective, my tendency is to conclude the presence of absolutism.
quote:
You've taken the wishes of other people to have a flag to recognise a welcome as a personal insult
That is an entirely unsubstantiated allegation on your part.
quote:
Because somehow the attitude of other people is more important to you than the issue. Can't you see the problem there?
My position is that it is important to consider any issue in the context of the human dimension of all those involved, including that of "other people".
Because I believe that if one loses sight of the fact that one's enemy is also another person, one has lost sight of one's own humanity.
That does not imply kow-towing to their every whim, but it means engaging with them on an adult basis unless they absolutely refuse to comply, and even then they should be dealt with in as humane and non-degrading a way as possible. That includes the language used about them.
quote:
What is making me very cross is your refusal to actually engage in anything that I've said
I'll engage with you to the extent that time affords and I personally deem your posts to be within the spirit of the 10Cs.
¹ Does the rainbow flag mean support for three-way relationships? (Smallhythe Place); serious question. Third time of asking; nobody's attempted an answer yet.
² e.g. less-than-optimum volunteer or diversity management. By the NT or anyone else.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
If you are a volunteer or a employee of an organisation in a role charged with making visitors welcome and you do something that doesn't make a group welcome, then one might think it is you that has a bit of a problem not the organisation which has asked you to wear a minor bit of clothing.
I probably wouldn't wear a poppy if directed either, but then I wouldn't put myself in a situation where it looked like there would be a scenario where this would happen (I wouldn't work or the British Legion, Commonwealth Wargraves Commission etc) and if I was in a situation where this came up and I was in a massive minority then I'd walk away.
If I worked for a museum holding a poppy exhibition, then I'd have to think long and hard about whether a poppy lanyard was appropriate for the exhibition (which it may well be) and if it was whether I was an appropriate person to work and/or volunteer there during that exhibition.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That is an entirely unsubstantiated allegation on your part.
Is it? How else is one supposed to take your unsubstantiated allegations about the support of the NT for gay rights causes, your repeated insistence that the flag stands for the cause even when everyone involved says it doesn't etc?
Why are you so bothered about the flag if you are not personally insulted by it?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
the small minority of volunteers who decided this was an issue of conscience were given the opportunity to volunteer in different ways.
There are more ways than one of that opportunity being presented, and that is where the evaluation of the management comes in. The fact is that I don't know how the meeting actually went, and unless you were there, neither do you. quote:
They instead choose to talk to the Daily Mail.
Some of them did. Again we simply don't know why the others followed. Maybe they thought it through. Maybe they were bigots-in-waiting. Maybe they had other qualms. Maybe there was a whole mixture of things. Maybe if the discomfort of some had been better handled then they would not have been tempted to join the boycott. I don't see why we should take the outrage reported in the Mail & co. as the whole story [ETA I think this answers Doc Tor's post above too].
quote:
Other than sitting down the volunteers and asking them in advance how they thought the campaign should have been run, what else could they have done?
That is exactly what I would have done for an issue like this. quote:
What if somehow a majority of volunteers had been shamed into not wearing the lanyards? Is that acceptable?
No. No more than if a majority of volunteers had been shamed into wearing them.
[ 13. August 2017, 20:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Does the rainbow flag mean support for three-way relationships?
No less than your support for heterosexual marriage means support for three-way relationships.
(In other words, the amount of adultery and fornication that took place upstairs at most stately homes is also a matter of historical record. Why hide a threeway lesbian relationship as if it's somehow more shameful?)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[x-post]
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You've said several times that - apparently - the attitude of other posters makes you wonder about your commitment to marriage equality.
I never said anything about marriage equality. I expressed frustration with being misrepresented, once, and this is another example of it. That issue was put to rest between lilbuddha and me and here you are bringing it up again. Since you've managed not to be offensive I'll go the extra mile and once again respond.
I.support.equal.marriage.
I don't doubt that you do support equal marriage and I'm not really very interested in discussing your intricate position on associated matters. That's not really relevant.
My point is simply that you seem to have said several times, including recently, that your position on these topics is related to the behaviour of the activists pushing the agenda and/or those who are talking to you about it.
Is that correct or not? Are you or are you not tempted to "jack it all in" with regard to LGBT+ issues because you feel other people are not respectful enough?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
¹ Does the rainbow flag mean support for three-way relationships? (Smallhythe Place); serious question. Third time of asking; nobody's attempted an answer yet.
Because it isn't relevant to Felbrigg Hall and it is this discussion already has too many distraction to hide behind. Doc Tor has provided a concise and accurate summation.
quote:
² e.g. less-than-optimum volunteer or diversity management. By the NT or anyone else.
That you cannot see that this resembles an excuse to avoid engaging in acceptance is part of the reason why this discussion has been less than amicable.
ETA: Holy X=post, Batman!
[ 13. August 2017, 20:17: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Other than sitting down the volunteers and asking them in advance how they thought the campaign should have been run, what else could they have done?
That is exactly what I would have done for an issue like this.
Right. And once again with 300 volunteers that's not only impractical, that's impossible.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[ETA I think this answers Doc Tor's post above too].
I don't. I think it is an easy way out of addressing his post.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Orginally posted by mr cheesy:
Other than sitting down the volunteers and asking them in advance how they thought the campaign should have been run, what else could they have done?
That is exactly what I would have done for an issue like this.
You'd run a site with a 350 person committee? This is insane. They wouldn't be able to decide what biscuits to have in the kitchen, much less anything of importance.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If you are a volunteer or a employee of an organisation in a role charged with making visitors welcome and you do something that doesn't make a group welcome, then one might think it is you that has a bit of a problem not the organisation which has asked you to wear a minor bit of clothing.
I probably wouldn't wear a poppy if directed either, but then I wouldn't put myself in a situation where it looked like there would be a scenario where this would happen (I wouldn't work or the British Legion, Commonwealth Wargraves Commission etc) and if I was in a situation where this came up and I was in a massive minority then I'd walk away.
If I worked for a museum holding a poppy exhibition, then I'd have to think long and hard about whether a poppy lanyard was appropriate for the exhibition (which it may well be) and if it was whether I was an appropriate person to work and/or volunteer there during that exhibition.
I can find much to agree with in your last two paragraphs.
As to your first paragraph, while the NT may have a general mission to make their sites welcome "for ever, to everyone" I think it's fair to say that making a positive stand for LGBTQ issues is a departure from their normal activity in a way that "celebrating" war dead at war graves is not. The rainbow lanyard is no more a "minor bit of clothing" than a poppy, and it is new, more specifically at Felbrigg Hall.
The question of considering whether one is (still) an appropriate person to work and/or volunteer there is legitimate, but if one has all one's volunteers' interests at heart people should not feel ostracised or forced out and wherever possible, leavers' investment in many ways over the years to a site should be recognised whatever differences there may have been.
I think it's quite possible the developments at Felbrigg meant some of these people felt disenfranchised, this was not handled sensitively, and that the gay issue may have been more of a hook to hang that on than the real underlying problem.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Does the rainbow flag mean support for three-way relationships?
No less than your support for heterosexual marriage means support for three-way relationships.
(In other words, the amount of adultery and fornication that took place upstairs at most stately homes is also a matter of historical record. Why hide a threeway lesbian relationship as if it's somehow more shameful?)
I'm genuinely confused, because of this example in particular, about whether the Prejudice and Pride exhibition is about rehabilitating the lifestyles it highlights and affirming them as legitimate or not.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is that correct or not? Are you or are you not tempted to "jack it all in" with regard to LGBT+ issues because you feel other people are not respectful enough?
This is not the inquisition; I've said all I've got to say on this here.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think it's fair to say that making a positive stand for LGBTQ issues is a departure from their normal activity in a way that "celebrating" war dead at war graves is not.
Please explain to me how wearing a rainbow lanyard is "making a positive stand or LGBTQ+ issues".
It clearly isn't. It is simply about making people from a particular community feel welcome.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I don't think the exhibition aims to either legitimise or rehabilitate anyone. It is aiming to explain the influences on the houses and properties as part of their histories. The National Trust seems to be trying to move from the sanitised country house histories to telling some of the hidden stories, without making any moral judgements that would be required to legitimise or rehabilitate.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is not the inquisition; I've said all I've got to say on this here.
OK, well I think most people understand that the rightness of a position about human or legal rights (or even common decency about welcoming people who are very different to oneself) is independent of the offense one feels at the way protagonists put their case.
Indeed, making decisions as to the rightness of a cause based at all on respectfulness and niceness seems a doomed project.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
² e.g. less-than-optimum volunteer or diversity management. By the NT or anyone else.
That you cannot see that this resembles an excuse to avoid engaging in acceptance is part of the reason why this discussion has been less than amicable.
You're right, I can't see this. Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?
To me, engaging in acceptance on the sole terms of one of the parties is not acceptance at all.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I don't think the exhibition aims to either legitimise or rehabilitate anyone. It is aiming to explain the influences on the houses and properties as part of their histories. The National Trust seems to be trying to move from the sanitised country house histories to telling some of the hidden stories, without making any moral judgements that would be required to legitimise or rehabilitate.
It's moving from one selective account to another. Well, that's probably inevitable. History is always as much about the teller as it is about the subject of the telling.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You'd run a site with a 350 person committee? This is insane. They wouldn't be able to decide what biscuits to have in the kitchen, much less anything of importance.
No, but I think that for a volunteer organisation to engage in a broad consultation of its committed volunteer base before engaging in a significant change of direction in its implementation of diversity issues would avoid a whole lot of problems.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
It's moving from one selective account to another. Well, that's probably inevitable. History is always as much about the teller as it is about the subject of the telling.
Yes. I'm having trouble understanding why this is a problem; the general air of many NT properties is about genteel but slightly balmy aristocratic families, clearly this is a slice of a different viewpoint but isn't the whole story either.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It clearly isn't. It is simply about making people from a particular community feel welcome.
Where are you getting this from? As I understand it this lanyard is tied in with the Prejudice and Pride initiative. It is not NT-wide. The scope of this initiative is here. The page mentions the NT's mission statement but nowhere on there that I can see does it suggest that this is about "making people from a particular community feel welcome".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There was acceptance amongst some at least of the volunteers at Felbrigg Hall before this exhibition was launched on 25 July. The film that was reviewed on 21 July and is part of the exhibition features volunteers from Felbrigg Hall for the live action.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No, but I think that for a volunteer organisation to engage in a broad consultation of its committed volunteer base before engaging in a significant change of direction in its implementation of diversity issues would avoid a whole lot of problems.
I don't think the National Trust is a volunteer organisation. It is an organisation with a lot of staff supported by a lot of volunteers.
There is no sense that the National Trust exists to give things to do to volunteers. Some charities exist for this purpose, the NT isn't one of them.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please explain to me how wearing a rainbow lanyard is "making a positive stand or LGBTQ+ issues"
Sorry, I missed the first part. What I mean by that is that it is identifying with a particular advocacy issue over and above the norm. This to me is made clear by the fact that the NT has associated it with the Prejudice and Pride initiative.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The National Trust give the reason for the LGBT+ campaign as:
quote:
"Some have asked why Prejudice & Pride is necessary – why the lives of people who challenged conventional ideas of gender and sexuality should be made public and celebrated in this way. The answer is quite simple – to do anything less is to suggest that same-sex love and gender diversity is somehow wrong, and keeping these stories hidden only lets prejudice – past and present - go unchallenged."
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where are you getting this from?
<grinds teeth>
From the organisation set up to encourage businesses, museums and other organisations to use the rainbow flag to show that LGBTQ+ people were welcome and the press release from the NT explaining why they were wearing the rainbow flag. Both of which I linked to pages ago.
quote:
As I understand it this lanyard is tied in with the Prejudice and Pride initiative. It is not NT-wide. The scope of this initiative is here. The page mentions the NT's mission statement but nowhere on there that I can see does it suggest that this is about "making people from a particular community feel welcome".
NT press release
quote:
“All of our staff and volunteers sign up to our founding principles when they join us – we are an organisation that is for ever, for everyone. We are committed to developing and promoting equality of opportunity and inclusion in all that we do regardless of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
“Relating specifically to the Prejudice and Pride programme, we do recognise that some volunteers may have conflicting, personal opinions.
“However whilst volunteering for the National Trust we do request and expect individuals to uphold the values of the organisation. We encourage people with any concerns to chat to our teams. As part of Prejudice and Pride we have worked closely with Stonewall and the University of Leicester who have been providing training and support to help as many volunteers as possible feel confident to take part.”
As part of our ‘Prejudice and Pride’ programme our staff and volunteers are wearing rainbow badges and lanyards, as an international symbol of welcome.
Some volunteers at Felbrigg have said they feel uncomfortable wearing these and we have offered them the opportunity to take a break from front facing duties if that’s what they would prefer.
They were wearing the lanyards to make LGBTQ+ people feel welcome at the exhibition.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm genuinely confused, because of this example in particular, about whether the Prejudice and Pride exhibition is about rehabilitating the lifestyles it highlights and affirming them as legitimate or not.
I'm confused that you're confused. That's like saying an exhibition on Richard III affirms regicide.
I thought the exhibition was simply about stating that these things happened, had been erased from history, and that reinstating them gave us a more full view of the past. (The squick factor for some arrives because they think gays are modern invention.)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I don't think the exhibition aims to either legitimise or rehabilitate anyone. It is aiming to explain the influences on the houses and properties as part of their histories. The National Trust seems to be trying to move from the sanitised country house histories to telling some of the hidden stories, without making any moral judgements that would be required to legitimise or rehabilitate.
It's moving from one selective account to another. Well, that's probably inevitable. History is always as much about the teller as it is about the subject of the telling.
No. It is broadening the account. quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
but I think that for a volunteer organisation to engage in a broad consultation of its committed volunteer base before engaging in a significant change of direction in its implementation of diversity issues would avoid a whole lot of problems.
Like Doc Tor said, we cannot know things would have been different, but odds are they would not have been.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?
No one said it was
quote:
To me, engaging in acceptance on the sole terms of one of the parties is not acceptance at all.
This is basically "tolerate my intolerance".
You keep pushing the least likely scenario for the problem, and ignoring that it still leads to the dissenting volunteers being less than accepting.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
mr cheesy:
As far as I'm concerned that's their ex-post attempt at justification, not a before the fact explanation.
It makes no sense to me to argue that the rainbow is being used in the rollout of an organisation-wide acceptance of LGBTQI and at the same time explain it is being used to highlight specific historic exhibitions at a limited number of sites or welcome LGBTQI people specifically to those exhibitions. I can make either of those make sense, but not both.
[ 13. August 2017, 20:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Sorry, I missed the first part. What I mean by that is that it is identifying with a particular advocacy issue over and above the norm. This to me is made clear by the fact that the NT has associated it with the Prejudice and Pride initiative.
I don't think it is really fair to say that the NT itself is advocating anything as part of the Prejudice and Pride exhibition.
If they are, it is simply that there should be space for an unheard community to talk about the hidden history of LGBTQ+ people in their properties.
I don't think one normally suggests that an organisation putting on an exhibition is campaigning or advocating for that position, are they? The NT isn't lobbying parliament or sending boat-loads of volunteers to wave banners outside court.
At most they're allowing others who do want to advocate for that position space to do so.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I'm concerned that's their ex-post attempt at justification, not a before the fact explanation.
Oh right. How do you know that then?
quote:
It makes no sense to me to argue that the rainbow is being used in the rollout of an organisation-wide acceptance of LGBTQI and at the same time explain it is being used to highlight specific historic exhibitions at a limited number of sites or welcome LGBTQI people specifically to those exhibitions. I can make either of those make sense, but not both.
Both seem consistent to me, what's the problem?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm confused that you're confused. That's like saying an exhibition on Richard III affirms regicide.
Well if the words "accepting", "celebrating", or "welcoming" were attached...? I'm not best-placed to comment, but it to me it could look from this inclusion as if LGBTI+ values encompassed three-way relationships. Do they? Amidst all this discussion of acceptance, I'm wondering whether the message is that these should be accepted too. At least one gay Shipmate spent some time on one occasion explaining why three-way relationships were a whole different kettle of fish to SSM.
(I've almost started a thread on 3-way relationships in DH as I've seen the subject come up a couple of times in the news lately).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I think this is an entirely red herring, and one that is unfortunately right on the script for conservative Christians opposing gay relationships: if we let them do this, then it'll be bestiality and pederasty next.
So I'm not even going to go there, and I'm going to suggest that you don't either.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't understand what this has to do with anything.
A person can be gay and be in a monogamous lifelong relationship or have regular casual sex with many people.
Accepting a person as gay means accepting that this is as much part of their nature as a person's skin colour is part of them. It isn't necessarily accepting or promoting the messy relationships that they're into - any more than the NT has been supporting various forms of adultery down the years by talking about the messiness of aristocratic families.
[ 13. August 2017, 21:05: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?
No one said it was
Then what did you mean by this? quote:
quote:
To me, engaging in acceptance on the sole terms of one of the parties is not acceptance at all.
This is basically "tolerate my intolerance".
You keep pushing the least likely scenario for the problem, and ignoring that it still leads to the dissenting volunteers being less than accepting.
It's not "tolerate my intolerance". It's a balancing act. I pushed back against the (to my mind, intolerant) scenario that "all non-lanyard wearers are homophobes". You may well be right about what actually happened at Felbrigg Hall but I think there's a more general discussion to be had.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
One might say that the NT is supporting two person monogamous relationships by allowing weddings in some of their properties and isn't supporting other things by not allowing people to marry their dog, campervan or favourite rock - but I'd suggest this is more do to with the law of the land and economics than because they as an organisation feel particularly strongly about it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
At most they're allowing others who do want to advocate for that position space to do so.
I would be fine with that. Exactly the same policy should have been applied for their volunteers (opt-in).
Note that your scenario above is utterly different from trying to send a corporate message about the values of the entire organisation.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh right. How do you know that then?
Can you find anything from before the fuss supporting your position? I think the statement is confused.
quote:
Both seem consistent to me, what's the problem?
See my above post. How can the same organisation use the same symbol both to be creating space for some special advocacy and simultaneously argue it's deploying an organisation-wide value? It's certainly confusing for me.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Note that your scenario above is utterly different from trying to send a corporate message about the values of the entire organisation.
I'm sorry I must be getting old because I simply cannot understand what you are talking about.
The facts are that there is a hidden history of LGBTQ+ people in NT properties. It is also a fact that the NT has a longstanding interest in encouraging more people from more minority groups to visit and engage in the history of their properties.
In a general way they want the NT to be a more welcoming place for LGBTQ+ people.
In a specific way, they've put on this exhibition and they're trying to ensure that any LGBTQ+ people who want to visit are made to feel welcome as per their general policy of inclusion.
Where is the contradiction? I'm not seeing it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?
No one said it was
Then what did you mean by this?
Just so you know, working backwards through that is a bit confusing. Basically, I was saying your using of "proper volunteer management" looks like a red herring.
quote:
You may well be right about what actually happened at Felbrigg Hall but I think there's a more general discussion to be had.
The discussion is being had. On one side; the logical, reasonable and most likely interpretation and on the other; yours.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Where is the contradiction? I'm not seeing it.
I don't think I've said it's a contradiction. But it's not the same thing in terms of what it says about the organisation's commitment (or otherwise) to specific advocacy. The latter is firmly within the realm of diversity management and organisational change.
If the NT is trying to rebrand itself as an overtly LGBT+-friendly organisation then I don't think these lanyards are going to be the last we hear about it.
[ 13. August 2017, 21:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Please explain how welcoming LGBTQ+ people is advocacy.
It isn't.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was saying your using of "proper volunteer management" looks like a red herring.
I quite understand that's not your primary concern. But it is one of mine.
quote:
The discussion is being had. On one side; the logical, reasonable and most likely interpretation and on the other; yours.
Personally I think that if the prevailing mood is that this is just to highlight another example of minorities being oppressed, it should have been a rant thread and it should have been in Hell.
Which seems like a good place for me to stop for now.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please explain how welcoming LGBTQ+ people is advocacy.
It isn't.
No, it isn't. It doesn't require a rainbow either. But making a visible, explicit commitment to it in the form of a symbol synonymous with an advocacy movement is, to my mind, a form of advocacy.
And with that I'm really stopping (at least for now).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
