历史学家、活动家与英国废除奴隶贸易的争论:亨利·邓达斯广场之争

IF 0.5 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE Scottish Affairs Pub Date : 2022-08-01 DOI:10.3366/scot.2022.0420
A. McCarthy
{"title":"历史学家、活动家与英国废除奴隶贸易的争论:亨利·邓达斯广场之争","authors":"A. McCarthy","doi":"10.3366/scot.2022.0420","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the summer of 2020 debate concerning the commemoration of one of Scotland’s leading eighteenth century politicians has galvanised opinions. The heart of the controversy surrounds the wording on a new heritage marker erected in 2021 at the statue of Henry Dundas (later Viscount Melville) in St Andrew Square, Edinburgh. This article does not address the complex question of whether or not Dundas was an abolitionist, but only if he can be held accountable for a delay to abolition of the British slave trade as claimed on the plaque. My overarching argument is that Sir Geoff Palmer, the key figure behind the new plaque’s wording, has wrongly conflated arguments about whether or not Dundas was an abolitionist with assertions that he delayed abolition of Britain’s slave trade. Through identifying the flaws in his approach to the past, I highlight the problems that arise when individuals and institutions discount, marginalise and demean professional and longstanding historical expertise. Indeed, the heritage sector is grossly undermined by the lack of rigorous scrutiny for plaques and memorials erected to serve pressure group politics. Although this controversy is about one monument in one city, it has wider ramifications for how we remember and engage with the past.","PeriodicalId":43295,"journal":{"name":"Scottish Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Historians, Activists and Britain's Slave Trade Abolition Debate: The Henry Dundas Plaque Debacle\",\"authors\":\"A. McCarthy\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/scot.2022.0420\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since the summer of 2020 debate concerning the commemoration of one of Scotland’s leading eighteenth century politicians has galvanised opinions. The heart of the controversy surrounds the wording on a new heritage marker erected in 2021 at the statue of Henry Dundas (later Viscount Melville) in St Andrew Square, Edinburgh. This article does not address the complex question of whether or not Dundas was an abolitionist, but only if he can be held accountable for a delay to abolition of the British slave trade as claimed on the plaque. My overarching argument is that Sir Geoff Palmer, the key figure behind the new plaque’s wording, has wrongly conflated arguments about whether or not Dundas was an abolitionist with assertions that he delayed abolition of Britain’s slave trade. Through identifying the flaws in his approach to the past, I highlight the problems that arise when individuals and institutions discount, marginalise and demean professional and longstanding historical expertise. Indeed, the heritage sector is grossly undermined by the lack of rigorous scrutiny for plaques and memorials erected to serve pressure group politics. Although this controversy is about one monument in one city, it has wider ramifications for how we remember and engage with the past.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43295,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scottish Affairs\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scottish Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/scot.2022.0420\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scottish Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/scot.2022.0420","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自2020年夏天以来,关于纪念苏格兰18世纪主要政治家之一的辩论激发了人们的意见。争议的核心围绕着2021年在爱丁堡圣安德鲁广场亨利·邓达斯(后来的梅尔维尔子爵)雕像上的新遗产标记上的措辞。本文不涉及邓达斯是否是废奴主义者这一复杂的问题,而只涉及他是否应该对牌匾上所宣称的英国奴隶贸易的延迟废除负责。我的主要观点是,新牌匾措辞背后的关键人物杰夫·帕尔默爵士(Sir Geoff Palmer)错误地将邓达斯是否是废奴主义者的争论与他推迟废除英国奴隶贸易的说法混为一谈。通过找出他研究历史的方法中的缺陷,我强调了当个人和机构低估、边缘化和贬低专业和长期的历史专业知识时,会出现的问题。事实上,由于对为压力集团政治服务而竖立的牌匾和纪念碑缺乏严格审查,遗产部门受到了严重损害。尽管这场争议是关于一个城市的一座纪念碑,但它对我们如何记住和参与过去有着更广泛的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Historians, Activists and Britain's Slave Trade Abolition Debate: The Henry Dundas Plaque Debacle
Since the summer of 2020 debate concerning the commemoration of one of Scotland’s leading eighteenth century politicians has galvanised opinions. The heart of the controversy surrounds the wording on a new heritage marker erected in 2021 at the statue of Henry Dundas (later Viscount Melville) in St Andrew Square, Edinburgh. This article does not address the complex question of whether or not Dundas was an abolitionist, but only if he can be held accountable for a delay to abolition of the British slave trade as claimed on the plaque. My overarching argument is that Sir Geoff Palmer, the key figure behind the new plaque’s wording, has wrongly conflated arguments about whether or not Dundas was an abolitionist with assertions that he delayed abolition of Britain’s slave trade. Through identifying the flaws in his approach to the past, I highlight the problems that arise when individuals and institutions discount, marginalise and demean professional and longstanding historical expertise. Indeed, the heritage sector is grossly undermined by the lack of rigorous scrutiny for plaques and memorials erected to serve pressure group politics. Although this controversy is about one monument in one city, it has wider ramifications for how we remember and engage with the past.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scottish Affairs
Scottish Affairs POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
25.00%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Scottish Affairs, founded in 1992, is the leading forum for debate on Scottish current affairs. Its predecessor was Scottish Government Yearbooks, published by the University of Edinburgh''s ''Unit for the Study of Government in Scotland'' between 1976 and 1992. The movement towards the setting up the Scottish Parliament in the 1990s, and then the debate in and around the Parliament since 1999, brought the need for a new analysis of Scottish politics, policy and society. Scottish Affairs provides that opportunity. Fully peer-reviewed, it publishes articles on matters of concern to people who are interested in the development of Scotland, often setting current affairs in an international or historical context, and in a context of debates about culture and identity. This includes articles about similarly placed small nations and regions throughout Europe and beyond. The articles are authoritative and rigorous without being technical and pedantic. No subject area is excluded, but all articles pay attention to the social and political context of their topics. Thus Scottish Affairs takes up a position between informed journalism and academic analysis, and provides a forum for dialogue between the two. The readers and contributors include journalists, politicians, civil servants, business people, academics, and people in general who take an informed interest in current affairs.
期刊最新文献
Research Note: Protest, Liaison and Legitimacy Climax of Clearance: Famine, Race and Compulsory Emigration Crisis or Opportunity? International Income Growth in Scottish Universities during Covid-19 The Meddling Professor: Bernard Crick's Active Defence of Politics The Glasgow Sugar Aristocracy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1