Decolonising Amgueddfa Cymru’s Collection-A Critique

 

The National Museum of Wales has stated on its blog in December 2021 that,

‘Museums and their collections are often rooted in colonialism and racism-Amgueddfa is no different’. ‘We are currently carrying out an audit of our collection. Our findings to date show that links to slavery are woven into the warp and weft of Welsh society. Objects that need to be decolonised are in every store, on every shelf and in every gallery’.

The National Museum of Wales however seem to have difficulty in defining exactly what it is that constitutes ‘decolonisation’. We have managed to infer from the examples given that the National Museum of Wales mean that they wish to highlight any links, direct or otherwise, that the objects in their collections might have with the slave trade, colonialism, and imperialism. This is an interesting idea.

We are not against exploring Welsh links to the British slave trade-far from it. We are even considering writing a blog article exploring this very theme throughout our home, the Vale of Glamorgan. It is true that there were indeed numerous Welsh individuals with links to that lamentable business and history should be about exploring both the good and the bad. But we must ask, what exactly do the National Museum of Wales hope to achieve by instigating what many see as a cynical and divisive move? Make people feel culpability, shame and guilt? Denigrate Welsh history and the wider population for crimes in which they played no part?

What we aim to do in this article is to offer critical thinking and challenge the cynical ‘decolonisation’ narrative proffered up by the National Museum of Wales, give some constructive critique and suggest a few ideas of our own.

The recent ‘decolonising Amgueddfa Cymru’s Collection’, appears to be little more than an act of appeasement which panders to the more febrile proponents of the BLM (UK) movement, namely those who feel shame, guilt, culpability and anger because of the overly simplistic and disputable belief that Britain became a wealthy first world country directly because of slavery and colonialism (colonialism was more likely a symptom of wealth and success rather than a catalyst), and who seemingly feel that the only way to offset this historic injustice is via denigration, and that Britain’s population should be smeared with collective culpability and inherited sin for the actions of a minority committed centuries ago.

The catalysts for Britain’s economic success are nuanced, varied and complex, and it is dubious to state that slavery was a primary factor which gave impetus to Britain’s ascent as a modern developed country, although some of the profits were invested in the home economy at that time. Anyone who has read GCSE level history should be able to have some idea of how Britain led the way in innovation and invention, industry and engineering, science and medicine, personal rights, and freedoms (right to a fair trial for example), sophisticated banking and finance as well as mercantilism and trade. There was so much more to early modern Britain than slavery, which was little more than an ugly sideshow in regard to overall economic success. The British slave trade happened to have coexisted at the same time as the real catalysts for wealth creation and economic success, namely the Second Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution.

Examples from the Collection

The items chosen thus far for ‘decolonisation’ are of interest. It does seem however that the staff at the National Museum of Wales are struggling to come up with items to ‘decolonise’ because as far as we can see, most of the connections to slavery and colonialism are little more than incidental rather than direct. If one looks hard enough from an angry or negative perspective rather than a temperate one, it is likely that they will see exactly what their beliefs prompt them to see. The problem from their position is trying to convince the wider population of the merit of their claims.

Coral Lands

One such item given up for ‘decolonisation’ is the book Coral Lands (Cooper 1880). The narrative seems quite typical of its time in that its author chose to recount his travels from a ‘Eurocentric perspective’ (how else would have he been expected to have done it?) and was of course intended to be read by an English-speaking home audience. We cannot see anything immoral or bad about the author utilising a ‘Eurocentric perspective’ although we appreciate the subject of Victorian imperialism is a fractured one.

Steam Train Invention

The National Museum of Wales has recently stated that ‘steam train invention’, the example given being Richard Trevithick’s locomotive, first used at the Penydarren Ironworks Merthyr Tydfil in 1804, is ‘rooted in colonialism and racism’. Richard however had no personal links to slavery. The National Museum of Wales offer no explanation as to how this invention is rooted in colonialism and slavery, and state that ‘trade and colonial exploitation are embedded in Wales’ economy and society and were fundamental to Wales development as an industrialized nation’. So Welsh farming, both arable and pastoral, the wool industry, coal and lead mining, slate quarrying, iron production, manufacturing, cottage industry, fishing, forestry, and import and export were not fundamental to Wales’ economy and industrialisation then? Dr Zareer Masani, a historian of British colonialism, has criticised this decision by the National Museum of Wales, as have many others.

(Trevithick's locomotive. Source, Alamy)

BLM Exhibition

Another manifestation of the decolonisation agenda is the BLM placard exhibit. The BLM (UK) demonstrations are cited as having given direct impetus to the very idea of the National Museum of Wales ‘decolonising’ its collections.

The BLM protests in the UK were certainly an interesting event and their core belief of opposing racism a noble one, but to devote space at the museum at St Fagans, no matter how small, to these demonstrations seems inappropriate as firstly, BLM (CYMRU) cannot be considered a Welsh, or even a British phenomenon, as the movement originated in North America having recently been imported to the UK. And let’s be honest, the BLM protests in Wales were a fringe interest and not exactly representative of the wider milieu or demographic (much like the ‘decolonisation scheme at NMW) as we are only talking about a very small, but febrile, group of people who were directly involved in activism. For example, BLM Cymru Twitter page has 2233 followers (at this time). The population of Wales stands at around 3.17 million people. These figures can give us some idea about the numbers involved and their disparity.

(BLM Exhibit, source BBC)

In terms of history, we can hardly say that this event was profound or historical or that it has made any sort of impact upon the collective consciousness of Welsh society, although time will tell. If this movement still has resonance in one hundred years’ time, like the Suffrage Movement has (a British movement), then perhaps that might justify an exhibition but considering that they have only recently just happened the BLM exhibit in our opinion appears to be inappropriate for inclusion within a museum devoted to Welsh history.

Thomas Williams and the Anglesey Penny

Another charge put forth by the National Museum of Wales is that Thomas Williams, a partner in the Parys Mining Company, had vested interests in the British Slave Trade and resisted the Abolitionist Movement. This was true, although it is hardly a new revelation.

If one wishes to scald and denounce Thomas Williams for his anti-abolitionist views and his vast profits, then we have no issue with that. The fact that Parys copper was used to make manillas as well as cladding both slave ships and Royal Navy vessels highlights how Thomas William’s profited via an indirect association with the British slave trade. But stating that the Anglesey Penny illustrates how ‘ordinary people benefitted too’ is essentially a fallacy of irrelevant association and appeal to emotion, i.e., an association fallacy. This weak claim is a good example of using a-priori beliefs to make the facts fit the thinking. But at the end of the day, it is a matter of perspective and one’s perception of anything is invariably shaped by beliefs, experience, education (or lack of) and ultimately where our (often political) sympathies lay. We ourselves are not convinced by this claim.

Another example that we have heard from time to time is that Iron from Merthyr was used to manufacture cannons for Nelson’s navy, the British navy played its part in the slave trade, (and also in its abolition), ergo, Merthyr was a part of the slave trade (and also its abolition?). Once again, we see another association fallacy at play.

British Slave Trade in Context

Our Welsh ancestors however certainly had no direct connection with the slave trade as did the ancestors of 99% of the British population at large. We live in an age where simplistic, emotive and lazy slogans are thrown around with wanton abandon, especially on social media. To many impressionable people, these slogans somehow represent a history lesson. One such slogan we have heard many times is that ‘Britain’s wealth was built on the blood of black bodies’.  We understand that this issue is an emotive one which often elicits anger and is something that we of course also feel strongly about, as indeed we have done ever since we were taught about the British slave trade in gcse history class, however.

To think critically and place this lamentable epoch in context, the demographic that comprised the slave owners and ‘sugar barons’ was composed of less than one percent of the population and the contribution to the GDP, of both the sale of slaves and their by-products such as rum, sugar and tobacco etc, throughout the eighteenth century is reckoned by many historical economists to be low. Robin Blackburn for example puts this figure at around 4 percent as an upper bound estimate, although some estimates have been higher (Vries 2013). To give the reader some idea of the numbers involved. In 1834 when Britain passed the Slavery Abolition Act, whereby the British government was compelled to buy the enslaved people’s freedom, the total amount of beneficiaries amounted to 46,000 people (3000 according to the BBC website). The population of Britain was around 23 million people at this time. These figures further help to illustrate how very few people were actually directly involved.

(It is unsurprising that the British Slave Trade elicits feelings of horror and anger, as this Illustration of British slave ship and its human cargo exemplifies, source Wikipedia)

The slavers and sugar barons didn’t do what they did for the benefit of their country or countrymen, they did it only for themselves. Because however of the horror and disgust that this epoch (rightly) evokes, its economic effects seem to have been somewhat amplified, and also to the point in this instance that some feel that our museum collections need to be ‘decolonised’ because ‘links to slavery are woven into the warp and weft of Welsh society’, even if most of these links are indirect and incidental as they simply happened to have co-existed at the same time. 

According to Vries 'Modern economic growth did not occur simply by piling up resources whether land, labour or capital'. Robert Allen has stated 'technological innovation was the motor of the industrial revolution and the Great Divergence'. And finally, to once more quote Vries, ‘you cannot build an entirely new economy, on a relatively small sector (slavery), that only contributes a relatively small sum to the GDP’ (Vries 2013).

The Welsh Abolitionist Movement

We however have a great idea to counter the negativity of the ‘decolonisation’ project.  Why not create a Welsh abolitionist exhibition as well to provide a sense of balance, and let’s celebrate the Welsh contribution to the abolition of the slave trade.

Wales possesses a strong involvement in the abolitionist movement which is far less tenuous than the claims of complicity, from the many ordinary people who were horrified by this cruel business and who signed petitions for parliament, through to many of the educated classes who contributed intellectually.

Notable Welsh abolitionists include Glamorgan’s own Iolo Morganwg, who refused to sell the products of slavery in his shop in Cowbridge and who resisted receiving any inheritance from slave owning relations (although poverty eventually forced him to assent and receive a small sum later on in life), minister and preacher John Elias, William Williams Pantycelyn, who was a noted Methodist and poet who vigorously campaigned against the slave trade, including publishing slave narratives in Welsh, evangelist Morgan John Rhys, and Methodist Thomas Coke to name a few.

(Iolo Morganwg, source Wikipedia)

In summary, we feel that a project or an exhibit highlighting Welsh links to the British slave trade is an interesting idea, we however dislike the cynical way that it has been instigated and carried out.  But as the reader can see, there is also plenty of scope for creating something more positive. Perhaps the museum should consider scrapping the cynical and divisive BLM inspired ‘decolonising the collections’ and hire someone (we would be happy to contribute) with a more positive vision that celebrates the Welsh contribution to the abolitionist movement and brings people from different backgrounds, communities and ethnicities together rather than using negative and divisive a-priori thinking to denigrate Welsh history and the indigenous population for deeds of which they and their ancestors played no direct part in.

 

For those interested in reading an in-depth analysis of the economics of the British Industrial Revolution and Slave Trade, please see.

Vries, P. 2013. Escaping Poverty: The Origins of Modern Economic Growth. Vienna University Press. 

Blackburn, R. 1992. The Making of New World Slavery; From the Baroque to the Modern. 1492-1800. Verso Books.