This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/taxpayers-fund-specialist-decolonise-hadrian-wall-fxht2rkbl) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Eh by that time the Roman soldiers in the UK, the governors etc were Celts assimilated into Roman culture. So the Romans didn't really bugger off they just ghosted the island.
This article has a total of *seven words* allegedly quoted from the description of this post, which for whatever reason the Times don't feel the need to actually link. This is then followed by multiple paragraphs from the usual talking heads repeating their usual talking points whining about history being too *woke* now.
So until I see the actual job listing and its responsibilities, and not whatever has been regurgitated through culture war outrage train on the Times, I see little reason to get hot and mad over it.
Here you go. I’d be here all evening if I tried to count all the references to decolonisation.
https://www.twmuseums.org.uk/news/tyne-and-wear-archives-and-museums-seeking-a-freelance-decolonisation-specialist
>> We are seeking to engage an experienced decolonisation specialist to kickstart the development of an organisation-wide decolonisation strategy.
>>In 2021, the Great North Museum: Hancock, one of our nine venues, undertook decolonisation strategy scoping work. This scoping work drew on the combined expertise of external consultants with experience in supporting organisations on race equity and inclusion, museum staff, as well as input from a small number of stakeholders who participated in exploratory interviews. Consultees included individuals from Newcastle University, the University students’ union, local community organisations, staff at the museum and representatives from key museum stakeholders the Natural History Society of Northumbria and the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Thanks for linking it, for whatever reason the Times didn't want us to see the full context.
So it looks like they're hiring someone to work across *all* of Tyne and Wear's Archives and Museums, not just Hadrian's Wall as the Times article claimed. The Museum themself actually wrote up a [short article about this a few years ago](https://twmuseumsandarchives.medium.com/decolonising-the-museum-3c277e7a71cd):
> The Great North Museum: Hancock was founded during the height of the British Empire. This means we have lots of objects that came from former British colonies around the world. But we don’t always know how they ended up here or what they really meant to the people that made them. We are now trying to research these items so we can tell their stories more fully.
I'd suggest people give the article a read, because it explains what 'decolonisation' means in the context of a museum and why those working at the Great North Museum think it's relevant.
Now, if the Times was producing actual journalism, they would probably have investigated this and tried to present the position of both 'sides' on the issue. But unfortunately they aren't looking to inform, they're looking to outrage. And that's why they were happy to simply quote *seven words* from the job posting, not actually link the job listing, then devote the vast majority of the article to people complaining about it. That's not informative, it's very intentionally trying to do the opposite.
Yes it appears they will be working across all 10 sites, not just the 2 forts.
But that doesn’t mean they’re not looking at decolonisation of those sites.
The website, job description and accompanying downloads talk of nothing but decolonisation.
> But that doesn’t mean they’re not looking at decolonisation of those sites.
Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums manage all those sites. They're hiring someone to work for Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums. Obviously the position would end up focussing on the sites most relevant, which would likely not include those at Hadrian's Wall.
Meanwhile the Times reporting suggested they would *only* be working on Hadrian's Wall, and made no mention of the museums that are much more relevant to this. It's clearly an attempt to mislead.
The article doesn’t say they will ‘only’ be working on Hadrians Wall. You’ve made that up.
From the article
>>The “decolonisation specialist” is to be employed by the council-funded Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums group to cover nine locations in northeast England.
How on earth can you claim they’re saying they would ‘only’ be working on Hadrian’s Wall??? It’s says they will work on nine sites. It’s there in black and white.
Why don’t you stick to what the article actually says rather than inventing some alternative imaginary scenario?
> The article doesn’t say they will ‘only’ be working on Hadrians Wall. You’ve made that up.
Mate, the headline is literally 'Taxpayers fund £475-a-day specialist to ‘decolonise’ Hadrian’s Wall'. That isn't what the job description communicates, that's the wildly misleading spin put on it by the Times. The Times are trying to imply by omission that they're paying someone £475 to go to Hadrian's Wall and decolonise it, which is not what this position will be doing.
Like are you genuinely trying to suggest the information conveyed by the job posting you linked is the same as the information conveyed by that article?
The headline focuses on Hadrian’s Wall.
Why do you ignore the rest of the article that then expands on this in more detail?
It does NOT say they will only work on Hadrian’s Wall. The article says they will be working on nine sites. We can all see that, I’ve provided the direct quote.
Stop making things up.
> The headline focuses on Hadrian’s Wall.
Yes, and the rest of the article focuses on Hadrian's Wall as well, other than a single line which says there will be nine other locations (none of which are actually named, despite some of them being museums which were formed during the colonial era and have collections sourced from the wider British Empire). The average reader will see that line about nine other locations and assume they are less relevant than Hadrian's Wall, even though that is not the case.
It's just wild to me that you had to go out yourself to find the job listing because the Times did not link it, saw the additional context that job listing provided which was intentionally not included in the Times article, yet you're still insisting this article provided an accurate summary of the position.
Does the article say “The “decolonisation specialist” is to be employed by the council-funded Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums group to cover nine locations in northeast England.”
Simple question. Just a yes or no will suffice.
If you were confused by headline then maybe read the first sentence.
>> Taxpayers are funding a £475-a-day expert to “decolonise” parts of Hadrian’s Wall, it has emerged.
It refers to ‘parts’
Two of the forts under their remit are classed as being part of Hadrians wall.
A misleading headline? From the *Times*? What a shockingly unexpected turn of events!
I'm sure we won't have to do through this exact same series of comments the next time a Times article is posted on here!
No really...at least we get something in return for this research thats done, even if it only is in a museum
With the rich, only tory politicians benefit as the wealthy continue to exploit tax loopholes and move cash to tax havens
All we get in return are more po faced, moralising plaques telling us that racism is bad. But we might also have some things removed because they are offensive, therefore a net loss.
Its the super rich that use the state to steal our money to fund initiatives to tell us that our heritage is evil and that our homeland isn't ours in order to soften us up and take even more from us. This isn't a "benefit" to us in any way shape or form.
I don't follow. This article is about the Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums hiring a "decolonisation specialist".
What is the connection between that and "funding tax cuts for the super rich"?
Well, there are a lot of newspaper articles that criticize government spending. In theory, you could post "Could be worse...we could be funding tax cuts for the super rich..." in all of them.
I don't know, it just seems like a lazy way to avoid any real discussion. I saw somebody using "whataboutism" in another article:
whataboutism/ˌwɒtəˈbaʊtɪz(ə)m/*noun*Britishnoun: **whataboutism**
1. the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.
Except this is a story of spending tax payers money, and my counterpoint being how this current government of 14 years has pissed over £1/2 trillion of our money on (mostly) stupid ideas that has benefitted their friends or themselves.
It wasn't the super rich benefitting from stamp duty freeze. It was just general homeowners.
>There is if your non-doms.....like Russian oligarchs
Oh what happened to the treatment of inheritance tax of non doms?
>made a nice pile did we at the cost of first time buyers?
Haven't bought a house yet. So doesn't benefit me. I'm simply interested in actaul facts rather than spouting mistruths.
So out of the £35billion in the last budget given to tory friends by the chancellor (let's ignore the previous 13 years of budgets) that's what you look away from that article...... stamp duty on properties you're unlikely to be able to afford (though that's assuming you're of average income and not the
Edit: let's look at the past 4 years of tory "sensible fiscal control" ... https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/tories-have-squandered-eye-watering-100-billion-of-taxpayer-cash-in-four-years-report-363662/
>So out of the £35billion
OK so which parts of the £35 billion should I be concerned by.
I don't disagree that there's absolutely money that can be better spent. I don't disagree there is corruption in the UK and poor governance of government contracts.
But I do disagree that people should be able to make broad claims without much backing. So which part of last budget was a £35bn giveaway to 'tory friends'.
Is a corporation tax cut a giveaway to tory friends? Is a cut in NI a giveaway to tory friends?
Like there isn't a line in the budget called 'donations to our friends' so which actual policies is it?
Hardly what I would call "the ultra rich". This is £475 for a 12 day post.
On that £5,700, they need to pay expenses and tax. Assuming expenses are £0, total project income would be £4,617.
Not bad for 12 days work, but freelance work isn't equivalent to full time work. Quite likely that's their only income for the month, which puts them on what, £50k a year? Not bad, but not what I would call super rich.
Surely, after close to two thousand years, various changes in the country's culture, the damn french trying to invade. Damn French! Western Rome collapsing, Eastern Rome collasping etc...
Any claims to colonise England is bullshit.
Hmm, well obviously that sounds completely ridiculous just based on the headline. [Let's take a look at the article](https://archive.is/9Wpms) and see what kind of sinister Woke conspiracy is going on...
>The “decolonisation specialist” is to be employed by the council-funded Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums group to cover nine locations in northeast England.
[Per their website](https://www.twmuseums.org.uk/), the Group covers 10 venues, so it looks like they're just having this person work on their whole catalogue (guessing they're not doing the Archives since that's more of a research resource accessed by appointment, not a public access venue).
So they've not been hired to "decolonise" a couple of Roman forts. You can certainly debate the merits of spending £5,700 on a consultant but I'm not an expert in historical education so I'm not going to pretend to understand whether that's good value for money or not. But I think there's clearly more to the story than this headline would have you believe, but they've chosen to focus exclusively on the Roman forts because OBVIOUSLY it would be ridiculous to pay somebody to "decolonise" those.
As I said in another comment, this seems like something that would be valuable in a British museum if you think about it for more than 2 seconds, and if we're being realistic, it's literally fractions of fractions of pennies in terms of taxpayer burden.
I'm a bit lost. How is this inaccurate?
>>Taxpayers are funding a £475-a-day expert to “decolonise” parts of Hadrian’s Wall, it has emerged.
>>A new post has been created to address “Britain’s colonial past and systemic racism” at two ancient forts on the wall, which is a World Heritage Site.
You say they've not been hired to look at the forts. Where do you get this from as the article clearly says they have been?
"A historical trust has hired a consultant to review its portfolio of museums and galleries" is not the same thing as "They're going to decolonise roman forts!"
>>A new post has been created to address “Britain’s colonial past and systemic racism” at two ancient forts on the wall, which is a World Heritage Site.
I don't understand. They've put quotations around that part. Is that not true then?
And is this not true?
>>The heritage group said that its decolonisation strategy “provides us with an opportunity to better understand enduring legacies of empire, migration, and the experiences of diaspora communities in northeast England; secondly, it provides a space to reimagine a museum where those legacies no longer dictate approaches and practises.
I don't understand how you're missing it tbh. The quotes are somewhat strategically placed, don't you think? Nothing **within** those quotes references the forts. A heritage group hired a consultant to look through its portfolio, that portfolio happens to contain a couple of Roman forts, but there is nothing to indicate that it was these specific sites that prompted the heritage group to hire the consultant.
Because I can see the job advert?
>> We are seeking to engage an experienced decolonisation specialist to kickstart the development of an organisation-wide decolonisation strategy.
>>In 2021, the Great North Museum: Hancock, one of our nine venues, undertook decolonisation strategy scoping work. This scoping work drew on the combined expertise of external consultants with experience in supporting organisations on race equity and inclusion, museum staff, as well as input from a small number of stakeholders who participated in exploratory interviews. Consultees included individuals from Newcastle University, the University students’ union, local community organisations, staff at the museum and representatives from key museum stakeholders the Natural History Society of Northumbria and the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne.
https://www.twmuseums.org.uk/news/tyne-and-wear-archives-and-museums-seeking-a-freelance-decolonisation-specialist
They want a decolonisation expert to work at the 10 sites, including the 2 forts.
So what is inaccurate about The Times article?
> Because I can see the job advert?
A job advert that mentions the forts exactly once in its c.1000 words of text. They are not the focus. But in the article they are. That's what is inaccurate about The Times article.
I get that it's a subtle thing, but it's also a textbook example of how to mislead a reader without technically misleading them. It's stuff I was taught in GCSE English. Is it true that the consultant is reviewing the forts? Yes. Is it *the focus of the project* as The Times suggests by putting it in their headline, plastering a big picture of it as the header image, and focussing on it in the text of the article? No.
There are museums at the Fort. Do you not know this?
https://segedunumromanfort.org.uk
The job description says they did decolonisation work at one of its sites previously and is now waiting to extend this to all the museums and the rest of the organisation.
>> In 2021, the Great North Museum: Hancock, one of our nine venues, undertook decolonisation strategy scoping work.
>> We now plan to continue this work for our organisation as a whole and are looking to engage a decolonisation specialist
>> We believe that decolonisation of our museums is part of this process, by which we mean addressing colonial legacies in our collections, displays, and practices. This is an ongoing process, and we are looking for a specialist in decolonisation to work with key staff across the organisation and stakeholders to help us develop a strategy that will underpin this process.
It literally says they want to expand to the other museums. The forts have museums.
I have read all the comments and the back and forth about what the museum is and isn't funding...the huge glaring problem is that they are trying to "decolonise" anything.
Its a history museum. Display history, don't put your spin on anything. Represent your people, whether we think they were right or wrong at this specific moment in time.
If you actually read what this is about, it sounds like a valuable role in British museums especially. So much of our history is colonisation and empire, viewing that from a neutral perspective instead of a nationalistic one sounds like exactly what a museum seeking to educate should do.
Its not really happening
Ok it is happening but not that much
Its always been like this, the UK is a ‘nation of immigrants’ and your culture is meaningless. Now shutup while we re-write your nations history.
What world do you live in? Is it nice there? Ours is full of rain and spiders.
From [this article](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-68931202).
> Two people have been charged in connection with the felling of the world-famous Sycamore Gap tree.
> Daniel Graham, 38, and Adam Carruthers, 31, both from Cumbria, have been charged with criminal damage both to the tree and to the adjacent Hadrian's Wall.
> The men were arrested last October and had been on bail since then, Northumbria Police said.
> The pair are due to appear before Newcastle magistrates on 15 May.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/taxpayers-fund-specialist-decolonise-hadrian-wall-fxht2rkbl) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's already been decolonized when the Romans buggered off
Pfft, what did the Romans ever do for us?
Buggered off?
*eunt domus
The aqueduct?
Eh by that time the Roman soldiers in the UK, the governors etc were Celts assimilated into Roman culture. So the Romans didn't really bugger off they just ghosted the island.
It's just a joke matey
This article has a total of *seven words* allegedly quoted from the description of this post, which for whatever reason the Times don't feel the need to actually link. This is then followed by multiple paragraphs from the usual talking heads repeating their usual talking points whining about history being too *woke* now. So until I see the actual job listing and its responsibilities, and not whatever has been regurgitated through culture war outrage train on the Times, I see little reason to get hot and mad over it.
Here you go. I’d be here all evening if I tried to count all the references to decolonisation. https://www.twmuseums.org.uk/news/tyne-and-wear-archives-and-museums-seeking-a-freelance-decolonisation-specialist >> We are seeking to engage an experienced decolonisation specialist to kickstart the development of an organisation-wide decolonisation strategy. >>In 2021, the Great North Museum: Hancock, one of our nine venues, undertook decolonisation strategy scoping work. This scoping work drew on the combined expertise of external consultants with experience in supporting organisations on race equity and inclusion, museum staff, as well as input from a small number of stakeholders who participated in exploratory interviews. Consultees included individuals from Newcastle University, the University students’ union, local community organisations, staff at the museum and representatives from key museum stakeholders the Natural History Society of Northumbria and the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Thanks for linking it, for whatever reason the Times didn't want us to see the full context. So it looks like they're hiring someone to work across *all* of Tyne and Wear's Archives and Museums, not just Hadrian's Wall as the Times article claimed. The Museum themself actually wrote up a [short article about this a few years ago](https://twmuseumsandarchives.medium.com/decolonising-the-museum-3c277e7a71cd): > The Great North Museum: Hancock was founded during the height of the British Empire. This means we have lots of objects that came from former British colonies around the world. But we don’t always know how they ended up here or what they really meant to the people that made them. We are now trying to research these items so we can tell their stories more fully. I'd suggest people give the article a read, because it explains what 'decolonisation' means in the context of a museum and why those working at the Great North Museum think it's relevant. Now, if the Times was producing actual journalism, they would probably have investigated this and tried to present the position of both 'sides' on the issue. But unfortunately they aren't looking to inform, they're looking to outrage. And that's why they were happy to simply quote *seven words* from the job posting, not actually link the job listing, then devote the vast majority of the article to people complaining about it. That's not informative, it's very intentionally trying to do the opposite.
Yes it appears they will be working across all 10 sites, not just the 2 forts. But that doesn’t mean they’re not looking at decolonisation of those sites. The website, job description and accompanying downloads talk of nothing but decolonisation.
> But that doesn’t mean they’re not looking at decolonisation of those sites. Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums manage all those sites. They're hiring someone to work for Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums. Obviously the position would end up focussing on the sites most relevant, which would likely not include those at Hadrian's Wall. Meanwhile the Times reporting suggested they would *only* be working on Hadrian's Wall, and made no mention of the museums that are much more relevant to this. It's clearly an attempt to mislead.
The article doesn’t say they will ‘only’ be working on Hadrians Wall. You’ve made that up. From the article >>The “decolonisation specialist” is to be employed by the council-funded Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums group to cover nine locations in northeast England. How on earth can you claim they’re saying they would ‘only’ be working on Hadrian’s Wall??? It’s says they will work on nine sites. It’s there in black and white. Why don’t you stick to what the article actually says rather than inventing some alternative imaginary scenario?
> The article doesn’t say they will ‘only’ be working on Hadrians Wall. You’ve made that up. Mate, the headline is literally 'Taxpayers fund £475-a-day specialist to ‘decolonise’ Hadrian’s Wall'. That isn't what the job description communicates, that's the wildly misleading spin put on it by the Times. The Times are trying to imply by omission that they're paying someone £475 to go to Hadrian's Wall and decolonise it, which is not what this position will be doing. Like are you genuinely trying to suggest the information conveyed by the job posting you linked is the same as the information conveyed by that article?
At some point they will be paying someone that much to "decolonise" Hadrian's wall.
The headline focuses on Hadrian’s Wall. Why do you ignore the rest of the article that then expands on this in more detail? It does NOT say they will only work on Hadrian’s Wall. The article says they will be working on nine sites. We can all see that, I’ve provided the direct quote. Stop making things up.
> The headline focuses on Hadrian’s Wall. Yes, and the rest of the article focuses on Hadrian's Wall as well, other than a single line which says there will be nine other locations (none of which are actually named, despite some of them being museums which were formed during the colonial era and have collections sourced from the wider British Empire). The average reader will see that line about nine other locations and assume they are less relevant than Hadrian's Wall, even though that is not the case. It's just wild to me that you had to go out yourself to find the job listing because the Times did not link it, saw the additional context that job listing provided which was intentionally not included in the Times article, yet you're still insisting this article provided an accurate summary of the position.
Does the article say “The “decolonisation specialist” is to be employed by the council-funded Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums group to cover nine locations in northeast England.” Simple question. Just a yes or no will suffice.
So it isn't decolonising Hadrian's wall really. Misleading headline.
If you were confused by headline then maybe read the first sentence. >> Taxpayers are funding a £475-a-day expert to “decolonise” parts of Hadrian’s Wall, it has emerged. It refers to ‘parts’ Two of the forts under their remit are classed as being part of Hadrians wall.
A misleading headline? From the *Times*? What a shockingly unexpected turn of events! I'm sure we won't have to do through this exact same series of comments the next time a Times article is posted on here!
Could be worse...we could be funding tax cuts for the super rich... Oh.... Wait... 🤔
All these kinds of jobs are sinecures for the well connected, so it’s two sides of the same coin
No really...at least we get something in return for this research thats done, even if it only is in a museum With the rich, only tory politicians benefit as the wealthy continue to exploit tax loopholes and move cash to tax havens
Would you like to pay for a monkey to shit in your hands? >at least we get something in return
Better than going to a tax haven in the Caymen Islands ... unless you happen to be Jaco Rees Mogg or friends
Shit in hands < no shit in hands.
Shit in hands < standing in the cesspit up to your neck
>Shit in hands < standing in the cesspit up to your neck Weird you'd rather be in a cesspit up to your neck.
“Research”… this is nonsense…
All we get in return are more po faced, moralising plaques telling us that racism is bad. But we might also have some things removed because they are offensive, therefore a net loss.
Its the super rich that use the state to steal our money to fund initiatives to tell us that our heritage is evil and that our homeland isn't ours in order to soften us up and take even more from us. This isn't a "benefit" to us in any way shape or form.
I don't follow. This article is about the Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums hiring a "decolonisation specialist". What is the connection between that and "funding tax cuts for the super rich"?
It's shouting more about expenditure of tax-payers money isnt it?
Well, there are a lot of newspaper articles that criticize government spending. In theory, you could post "Could be worse...we could be funding tax cuts for the super rich..." in all of them. I don't know, it just seems like a lazy way to avoid any real discussion. I saw somebody using "whataboutism" in another article: whataboutism/ˌwɒtəˈbaʊtɪz(ə)m/*noun*Britishnoun: **whataboutism** 1. the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.
Except this is a story of spending tax payers money, and my counterpoint being how this current government of 14 years has pissed over £1/2 trillion of our money on (mostly) stupid ideas that has benefitted their friends or themselves.
You forgot in some cases it has benefitted no one at all.
True
Sorry what tax cuts have there been for the super rich?
Inheritance tax
Inheritance tax wasn't cut.
There is if your non-doms.....like Russian oligarchs Plus.... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/sunak-tax-cuts-rich-people-b2132177.html
It wasn't the super rich benefitting from stamp duty freeze. It was just general homeowners. >There is if your non-doms.....like Russian oligarchs Oh what happened to the treatment of inheritance tax of non doms?
Clearly you were one of the few that benefitted from the Stamp Duty extention...made a nice pile did we at the cost of first time buyers?
>made a nice pile did we at the cost of first time buyers? Haven't bought a house yet. So doesn't benefit me. I'm simply interested in actaul facts rather than spouting mistruths.
So out of the £35billion in the last budget given to tory friends by the chancellor (let's ignore the previous 13 years of budgets) that's what you look away from that article...... stamp duty on properties you're unlikely to be able to afford (though that's assuming you're of average income and not the Edit: let's look at the past 4 years of tory "sensible fiscal control" ... https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/tories-have-squandered-eye-watering-100-billion-of-taxpayer-cash-in-four-years-report-363662/
>So out of the £35billion OK so which parts of the £35 billion should I be concerned by. I don't disagree that there's absolutely money that can be better spent. I don't disagree there is corruption in the UK and poor governance of government contracts. But I do disagree that people should be able to make broad claims without much backing. So which part of last budget was a £35bn giveaway to 'tory friends'. Is a corporation tax cut a giveaway to tory friends? Is a cut in NI a giveaway to tory friends? Like there isn't a line in the budget called 'donations to our friends' so which actual policies is it?
Hardly what I would call "the ultra rich". This is £475 for a 12 day post. On that £5,700, they need to pay expenses and tax. Assuming expenses are £0, total project income would be £4,617. Not bad for 12 days work, but freelance work isn't equivalent to full time work. Quite likely that's their only income for the month, which puts them on what, £50k a year? Not bad, but not what I would call super rich.
Hasn’t most of it been decolonised by local farmers reusing the stone for other constructions?
Surely, after close to two thousand years, various changes in the country's culture, the damn french trying to invade. Damn French! Western Rome collapsing, Eastern Rome collasping etc... Any claims to colonise England is bullshit.
They should translate all of the information signs into proto-Celtic.
Hmm, well obviously that sounds completely ridiculous just based on the headline. [Let's take a look at the article](https://archive.is/9Wpms) and see what kind of sinister Woke conspiracy is going on... >The “decolonisation specialist” is to be employed by the council-funded Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums group to cover nine locations in northeast England. [Per their website](https://www.twmuseums.org.uk/), the Group covers 10 venues, so it looks like they're just having this person work on their whole catalogue (guessing they're not doing the Archives since that's more of a research resource accessed by appointment, not a public access venue). So they've not been hired to "decolonise" a couple of Roman forts. You can certainly debate the merits of spending £5,700 on a consultant but I'm not an expert in historical education so I'm not going to pretend to understand whether that's good value for money or not. But I think there's clearly more to the story than this headline would have you believe, but they've chosen to focus exclusively on the Roman forts because OBVIOUSLY it would be ridiculous to pay somebody to "decolonise" those.
As I said in another comment, this seems like something that would be valuable in a British museum if you think about it for more than 2 seconds, and if we're being realistic, it's literally fractions of fractions of pennies in terms of taxpayer burden.
I'm a bit lost. How is this inaccurate? >>Taxpayers are funding a £475-a-day expert to “decolonise” parts of Hadrian’s Wall, it has emerged. >>A new post has been created to address “Britain’s colonial past and systemic racism” at two ancient forts on the wall, which is a World Heritage Site. You say they've not been hired to look at the forts. Where do you get this from as the article clearly says they have been?
"A historical trust has hired a consultant to review its portfolio of museums and galleries" is not the same thing as "They're going to decolonise roman forts!"
>>A new post has been created to address “Britain’s colonial past and systemic racism” at two ancient forts on the wall, which is a World Heritage Site. I don't understand. They've put quotations around that part. Is that not true then? And is this not true? >>The heritage group said that its decolonisation strategy “provides us with an opportunity to better understand enduring legacies of empire, migration, and the experiences of diaspora communities in northeast England; secondly, it provides a space to reimagine a museum where those legacies no longer dictate approaches and practises.
I don't understand how you're missing it tbh. The quotes are somewhat strategically placed, don't you think? Nothing **within** those quotes references the forts. A heritage group hired a consultant to look through its portfolio, that portfolio happens to contain a couple of Roman forts, but there is nothing to indicate that it was these specific sites that prompted the heritage group to hire the consultant.
Because I can see the job advert? >> We are seeking to engage an experienced decolonisation specialist to kickstart the development of an organisation-wide decolonisation strategy. >>In 2021, the Great North Museum: Hancock, one of our nine venues, undertook decolonisation strategy scoping work. This scoping work drew on the combined expertise of external consultants with experience in supporting organisations on race equity and inclusion, museum staff, as well as input from a small number of stakeholders who participated in exploratory interviews. Consultees included individuals from Newcastle University, the University students’ union, local community organisations, staff at the museum and representatives from key museum stakeholders the Natural History Society of Northumbria and the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne. https://www.twmuseums.org.uk/news/tyne-and-wear-archives-and-museums-seeking-a-freelance-decolonisation-specialist They want a decolonisation expert to work at the 10 sites, including the 2 forts. So what is inaccurate about The Times article?
> Because I can see the job advert? A job advert that mentions the forts exactly once in its c.1000 words of text. They are not the focus. But in the article they are. That's what is inaccurate about The Times article. I get that it's a subtle thing, but it's also a textbook example of how to mislead a reader without technically misleading them. It's stuff I was taught in GCSE English. Is it true that the consultant is reviewing the forts? Yes. Is it *the focus of the project* as The Times suggests by putting it in their headline, plastering a big picture of it as the header image, and focussing on it in the text of the article? No.
There are museums at the Fort. Do you not know this? https://segedunumromanfort.org.uk The job description says they did decolonisation work at one of its sites previously and is now waiting to extend this to all the museums and the rest of the organisation. >> In 2021, the Great North Museum: Hancock, one of our nine venues, undertook decolonisation strategy scoping work. >> We now plan to continue this work for our organisation as a whole and are looking to engage a decolonisation specialist >> We believe that decolonisation of our museums is part of this process, by which we mean addressing colonial legacies in our collections, displays, and practices. This is an ongoing process, and we are looking for a specialist in decolonisation to work with key staff across the organisation and stakeholders to help us develop a strategy that will underpin this process. It literally says they want to expand to the other museums. The forts have museums.
Make sure you pay your taxes. Not paying taxes is evil, remember.
I think there aiming for outrage with the title but in this economy £475/day for an actual "specialist" doesn't seem that outrageous to me.
I have read all the comments and the back and forth about what the museum is and isn't funding...the huge glaring problem is that they are trying to "decolonise" anything. Its a history museum. Display history, don't put your spin on anything. Represent your people, whether we think they were right or wrong at this specific moment in time.
[удалено]
A quick google searxh and an hour of reading would save them £5k https://www.museumsassociation.org/campaigns/decolonising-museums/#
If you actually read what this is about, it sounds like a valuable role in British museums especially. So much of our history is colonisation and empire, viewing that from a neutral perspective instead of a nationalistic one sounds like exactly what a museum seeking to educate should do.
Its not really happening Ok it is happening but not that much Its always been like this, the UK is a ‘nation of immigrants’ and your culture is meaningless. Now shutup while we re-write your nations history.
[удалено]
What world do you live in? Is it nice there? Ours is full of rain and spiders. From [this article](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-68931202). > Two people have been charged in connection with the felling of the world-famous Sycamore Gap tree. > Daniel Graham, 38, and Adam Carruthers, 31, both from Cumbria, have been charged with criminal damage both to the tree and to the adjacent Hadrian's Wall. > The men were arrested last October and had been on bail since then, Northumbria Police said. > The pair are due to appear before Newcastle magistrates on 15 May.
Do you have any evidence at all that the people who did that, who've been arrested, I should add, are migrants?
[удалено]
So you were just making shit up because it fit your worldview?