Great piece Ed. Really enjoying the substack. What’s interesting about the rationale provided by the Trust is that there isn’t actually concrete information about what it is they object to. It’s all abstract concepts and therefore difficult for anyone who isn’t in that milieu to actually understand and object.
yes, if you can't explain something in layman's terms, then don't say it because it's obv bullshit.
I know they would say that 'whiteness' stands for a system not a race, but almost no one else reads it that way. It just sounds like 'white people are horrible and evil'
“Whiteness” critiques aimed at young children (e.g. the “Not My Idea” picture book) are beginning to show up, and it’s just breathtakingly irresponsible. The bulk of American school kids can’t remember the difference between “you’re” and “your”, what are the chances that those same kids will parse the supposed distinction between “whiteness is bad” and “white people are bad”?
Given that "whiteness" is defines as things like "discipline" and "punctuality", there is little need to make that distinction; both interpretations are wrong.
When I read first read about the Wellcome thing I thought "the director is going to be an insectile black woman" so I looked her up and yep she's a black woman who literally looks like an insect.
The Wellcome Trust are so big that any list of grants by Trusts has to exclude them because they skew the results.
The Science Museum seem to be a bit of a hold out when it comes to funding at least; their backers include oil companies and the CEO got a medal from Vladimir Putin in 2015 (he renounced it earlier this year, but still).
All of this stuff is completely contrary to our factory settings - including the factory settings of the people who express it.
The decades of "austerity" (aka reality) which we now face will address much of the excess.
Patience for this stuff is wafter thin. E.G. If England fail to progress at the WC the blow back will be on their taking the knee, especially when the USA did not.
De Santis stands a very good chance of becoming president and is an effective interventionist. The conservatives can learn out of power. God they need that and need to!
And financial circumstances mean Labour cannot do too much damage meantime. We've already pretty much blown up the house economically speaking.
"The number of these courses has expanded to the point where they no longer select for people bright enough to question their claims, and who struggle to find useful or profitable work afterwards."
Except they don't struggle, do they? More and more overpaying non-jobs are created every day. Perhaps a full-on Depression would clear some of them away (the ones in private companies); but many of them are in the public/charity sector and they'll sail through an economic downturn.
I think you missed the important bit: "useful or profitable work"!
Otherwise your sentiment is absolutely spot on. But I fail to see how they're creating the conditions for their own future employment. They've ridden the wave to the crest and now it's going to collapse beneath them as distaste about their boggle-eyed extremism starts to wane. Look at the trans debate for one where the wave is already starting to crash.
It's certainly not useful but it is profitable. Have you seen the average wage for a "Head of Diversity and Inclusion"?
And where is the evidence that it will collapse beneath them because of "distaste about their boggle-eyed extremism"? As I said, more of these jobs are created every day. There is no "distaste" - far from it. People seem to love the boot on the neck. The only hope I have is that an economic downturn will expose these so-called "jobs" for the decadent luxuries that they are.
Have you noticed too how so much of the sinister content that progressive commentators claim to find in historic material is really just a matter of playing with words? I went last week to the Winslow Homer show at the National Gallery. It was perfectly reasonable, of course, to find some discussion of racial issues in the accompanying blurb, since Homer painted scenes from the American Civil War and depicted aspects of life in the Caribbean. But consider this commentary on his 1899 painting 'The Bather' (this is from the website of the Metropolitan Museum in New York, which houses the painting, but I'm fairly certain that the wording in the London exhibition was unchanged):
"During his second visit to the Bahamas in 1898–99, Homer, then sixty-two years old, seems to have reveled in depicting the bodies of vigorous Black men glistening in warm water and sunlight. It is significant that Homer foregrounded these individuals’ strength and sensuality in his art, especially in the context of the Bahamas, which were promoted as a respite for sickly White tourists to regain their health. Inherent in the images is a tension related to racial politics and class disparities, as the older White artist recorded the robust young Black men."
Note how the commentary insists on a negative interpretation of the image by seeing in it "a tension related to racial politics and class disparities." And consider how that would vanish in a moment if it instead had told us that "a celebration of the strength and vitality of his subjects" was inherent in the image.
"Wellcome was one of those avid Victorian collectors we don’t seem to get these days, and among his artefacts was a wedge of Jeremy Bentham’s skin. Why anyone would want such a thing is beyond me"
Didn't the same sort of person pass around Cromwell's head for quite a while?
A taste for the gruesome is perfectly normal in enthusiasts for any discipline. One of my friends qualified as a doctor at Edinburgh in the 70s. A surgeon once explained to his class that one couldn't be a surgeon if one didn't enjoy cutting up living bodies.
I assume that the typical conservative feels that way but the Tory MPs don’t, can you imagine more than 2-3 cabinet ministers with the genuine will to clear these precarious elites out ?
You claim that the National Maritime Museum has closed its slavery gallery, Atlantic Worlds. I haven't been to that museum for years so can't vouch for the current situation, but the Telegraph article to which you link doesn't actually report that the gallery has been closed. It reports that "the museum has distanced itself from the gallery". The National Maritime Museum website does indeed declare that "this gallery no longer reflects the approaches or ambitions of the National Maritime Museum", but there's no indication that the gallery is not still open. Indeed, it was the site of a one-day "intervention" last year (which sounds very Woke, but would rather depend on the gallery's being open to house it), and we read that the displays are being modified in order "to widen the perspectives contained within Atlantic Worlds" (which again is typical Woke rhetoric, but certainly doesn't suggest that it's closed).
The general point stands - most of our cultural institutions are indeed presently engaged in a form of political activism which is at best irrelevant and at worst actively hostile to their assumed remits - but let us make sure we get the facts of each individual case right.
Dismantling exhibitions and posting notes about historical injustice is much more ultra-liberal than Leftist. And as you say, the British Right is hamstrung by free-market fundamentalism - which is basically neoliberalism. Does this mean that both Left and Right have vanished before triumphant (if ineffectual) liberalism?
How many Tories are eager to run museums for a living? Lefties have people who want to do these jobs, conservatives in the UK apparently don't. If they did, why didn't they take charge via their own non-profits already? It's unclear how the government will set more favorable terms if there aren't many righty political activists willing to take these kinds of jobs to begin with. I'm not going to bring up the merits of fiscal conservatism here, just looking for where the supply is itching to be directed. I don't see it.
Consider a different angle. The Tories are more statist than Republicans are here in my country and yet the Republicans seem more successful. They have been more effective at democratically contesting for a country where people can practice a devout faith, own the means to defend themselves, negotiate one's own associations, set legal immigration rates up or down, and so on. All in a enormous polity that's far less of a proper nation-state than the UK. I think that perspective is what makes my read of your museum idea so dismal. If being more statist worked, wouldn't those of us who lean right be looking over the pond at the UK with envy?
I'm afraid genuine collective selflessness (and 'freedom') is only available to one group of people: the dead. For the living it's strictly impossible.
So true. It's quite impressive how utterly useless the Tories are.
They reflect their members and votaries - useless and entirely clueless.
Great piece Ed. Really enjoying the substack. What’s interesting about the rationale provided by the Trust is that there isn’t actually concrete information about what it is they object to. It’s all abstract concepts and therefore difficult for anyone who isn’t in that milieu to actually understand and object.
yes, if you can't explain something in layman's terms, then don't say it because it's obv bullshit.
I know they would say that 'whiteness' stands for a system not a race, but almost no one else reads it that way. It just sounds like 'white people are horrible and evil'
“Whiteness” critiques aimed at young children (e.g. the “Not My Idea” picture book) are beginning to show up, and it’s just breathtakingly irresponsible. The bulk of American school kids can’t remember the difference between “you’re” and “your”, what are the chances that those same kids will parse the supposed distinction between “whiteness is bad” and “white people are bad”?
Given that "whiteness" is defines as things like "discipline" and "punctuality", there is little need to make that distinction; both interpretations are wrong.
Great piece, Ed.
Everything is going to be like this for the rest of our lives.
haha oh dear you're probably right
When I read first read about the Wellcome thing I thought "the director is going to be an insectile black woman" so I looked her up and yep she's a black woman who literally looks like an insect.
Conquest's Third Rule of Politics: Assume every institution is lead by a cabal of its enemies.
I think I'm noticing a more strident tone. I like it.
The Wellcome Trust are so big that any list of grants by Trusts has to exclude them because they skew the results.
The Science Museum seem to be a bit of a hold out when it comes to funding at least; their backers include oil companies and the CEO got a medal from Vladimir Putin in 2015 (he renounced it earlier this year, but still).
I didn't know that
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/03/04/science-museum-group-director-hands-back-russian-medal-in-protest-at-ukraine-invasion
So he didn't think of hanging it back in 2018 when Russia launched a lethal attack on Salisbury?
The Russian State railway sponsored the exhibition they did on the Romanovs in 2018!
Chair of the Trustees there is the fragrant Mary Archer, who is obviously unimpeachable and has no connection to dodginess whatsoever.
"I prefer not to speak. If I speak, I am in big trouble."
Excellent and the approach makes sense.
Some possible positives:
All of this stuff is completely contrary to our factory settings - including the factory settings of the people who express it.
The decades of "austerity" (aka reality) which we now face will address much of the excess.
Patience for this stuff is wafter thin. E.G. If England fail to progress at the WC the blow back will be on their taking the knee, especially when the USA did not.
De Santis stands a very good chance of becoming president and is an effective interventionist. The conservatives can learn out of power. God they need that and need to!
And financial circumstances mean Labour cannot do too much damage meantime. We've already pretty much blown up the house economically speaking.
"The number of these courses has expanded to the point where they no longer select for people bright enough to question their claims, and who struggle to find useful or profitable work afterwards."
Nice work.
Except they don't struggle, do they? More and more overpaying non-jobs are created every day. Perhaps a full-on Depression would clear some of them away (the ones in private companies); but many of them are in the public/charity sector and they'll sail through an economic downturn.
I think you missed the important bit: "useful or profitable work"!
Otherwise your sentiment is absolutely spot on. But I fail to see how they're creating the conditions for their own future employment. They've ridden the wave to the crest and now it's going to collapse beneath them as distaste about their boggle-eyed extremism starts to wane. Look at the trans debate for one where the wave is already starting to crash.
It's certainly not useful but it is profitable. Have you seen the average wage for a "Head of Diversity and Inclusion"?
And where is the evidence that it will collapse beneath them because of "distaste about their boggle-eyed extremism"? As I said, more of these jobs are created every day. There is no "distaste" - far from it. People seem to love the boot on the neck. The only hope I have is that an economic downturn will expose these so-called "jobs" for the decadent luxuries that they are.
Have you noticed too how so much of the sinister content that progressive commentators claim to find in historic material is really just a matter of playing with words? I went last week to the Winslow Homer show at the National Gallery. It was perfectly reasonable, of course, to find some discussion of racial issues in the accompanying blurb, since Homer painted scenes from the American Civil War and depicted aspects of life in the Caribbean. But consider this commentary on his 1899 painting 'The Bather' (this is from the website of the Metropolitan Museum in New York, which houses the painting, but I'm fairly certain that the wording in the London exhibition was unchanged):
"During his second visit to the Bahamas in 1898–99, Homer, then sixty-two years old, seems to have reveled in depicting the bodies of vigorous Black men glistening in warm water and sunlight. It is significant that Homer foregrounded these individuals’ strength and sensuality in his art, especially in the context of the Bahamas, which were promoted as a respite for sickly White tourists to regain their health. Inherent in the images is a tension related to racial politics and class disparities, as the older White artist recorded the robust young Black men."
Note how the commentary insists on a negative interpretation of the image by seeing in it "a tension related to racial politics and class disparities." And consider how that would vanish in a moment if it instead had told us that "a celebration of the strength and vitality of his subjects" was inherent in the image.
"The Tories have a little over two years left in government, with very little to show for it."
This sentence seems to be adrift in the space-time continuum. I, too, have very little to show regarding the next two years of my life.
you're doing yourself down too much!
(I have edited. thanks)
"Wellcome was one of those avid Victorian collectors we don’t seem to get these days, and among his artefacts was a wedge of Jeremy Bentham’s skin. Why anyone would want such a thing is beyond me"
Didn't the same sort of person pass around Cromwell's head for quite a while?
A taste for the gruesome is perfectly normal in enthusiasts for any discipline. One of my friends qualified as a doctor at Edinburgh in the 70s. A surgeon once explained to his class that one couldn't be a surgeon if one didn't enjoy cutting up living bodies.
I assume that the typical conservative feels that way but the Tory MPs don’t, can you imagine more than 2-3 cabinet ministers with the genuine will to clear these precarious elites out ?
The formula is this.
Be conceptually abstract so that there is nothing to grasp when questioning precepts.
Deny obvious facets of a problem by invoking complexity.
Provoke opponents into intemperate language, thus proving your intellectual and moral superiority.
I think this describes the way you move beyond postmodern to metamodern.
The aim is to dissolve meaning so that it gives way to power.
We shouldn't be surprised that everything comes apart in culture when entropy is what will ultimately do for entire galaxies.
You claim that the National Maritime Museum has closed its slavery gallery, Atlantic Worlds. I haven't been to that museum for years so can't vouch for the current situation, but the Telegraph article to which you link doesn't actually report that the gallery has been closed. It reports that "the museum has distanced itself from the gallery". The National Maritime Museum website does indeed declare that "this gallery no longer reflects the approaches or ambitions of the National Maritime Museum", but there's no indication that the gallery is not still open. Indeed, it was the site of a one-day "intervention" last year (which sounds very Woke, but would rather depend on the gallery's being open to house it), and we read that the displays are being modified in order "to widen the perspectives contained within Atlantic Worlds" (which again is typical Woke rhetoric, but certainly doesn't suggest that it's closed).
The general point stands - most of our cultural institutions are indeed presently engaged in a form of political activism which is at best irrelevant and at worst actively hostile to their assumed remits - but let us make sure we get the facts of each individual case right.
ah bugger, well spotted. have changed
Dismantling exhibitions and posting notes about historical injustice is much more ultra-liberal than Leftist. And as you say, the British Right is hamstrung by free-market fundamentalism - which is basically neoliberalism. Does this mean that both Left and Right have vanished before triumphant (if ineffectual) liberalism?
How many Tories are eager to run museums for a living? Lefties have people who want to do these jobs, conservatives in the UK apparently don't. If they did, why didn't they take charge via their own non-profits already? It's unclear how the government will set more favorable terms if there aren't many righty political activists willing to take these kinds of jobs to begin with. I'm not going to bring up the merits of fiscal conservatism here, just looking for where the supply is itching to be directed. I don't see it.
Consider a different angle. The Tories are more statist than Republicans are here in my country and yet the Republicans seem more successful. They have been more effective at democratically contesting for a country where people can practice a devout faith, own the means to defend themselves, negotiate one's own associations, set legal immigration rates up or down, and so on. All in a enormous polity that's far less of a proper nation-state than the UK. I think that perspective is what makes my read of your museum idea so dismal. If being more statist worked, wouldn't those of us who lean right be looking over the pond at the UK with envy?
We need to remember that genuine collective selflessness (in the form of the widespread embrace of individual rights) is a historical anomaly, and an unlikely one (https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/05/14/redeeming-the-miracle/).
Selfish, solipsistic sophistry (such as wokeness) is the norm. That is why O'Sullivan's law exists.
I'm afraid genuine collective selflessness (and 'freedom') is only available to one group of people: the dead. For the living it's strictly impossible.