Henry Dundas was not a nice man, especially by today's standards, but it's the naive simplicity of that plaque which so annoys me. It ignores the wider political context of Parliament, then-contemporary international relations (if hostilities can be included in "relations"), and even some aspects of Dundas's own career: he was instrumental, for example, in ensuring that "runaway slave" Joseph Knight walked away from the Court of Session in 1777 a free man in a country which did not recognise the legal validity of slavery. That plaque is, in short, bad history, a disgrace to Edinburgh's already tarnished academic reputation. And Palmer appears to assume that any disagreement with his conclusions is motivated by racism.
(Note: it's perfectly possible – in some respects, desirable – for any advocate to be capable of successfully arguing a case they don't personally agree with or believe in, but one wonders why Dundas's involvement in that landmark legal decision is so seldom mentioned... Perhaps it's because it doesn't fit the simplistic narrative of the bad rich white guy keeping slavery going?)
I like how you have opened up awareness in this discussion in a thoughtful positive way… it encourages leaning into the discussion and you certainly have given credible food for thought.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece. I'm not in Edinburgh, but the debate over public monuments to historical figures now perceived to be tainted by their involvement with slavery or other forms of injustice and oppression is intense where I live, too.
Dundas/Knight case: Knight was not a slave…he was freed from servitude. I unveiled the plaque. Evidence matters, not cynicism.
Thanks for that. Did you read my piece?
Henry Dundas was not a nice man, especially by today's standards, but it's the naive simplicity of that plaque which so annoys me. It ignores the wider political context of Parliament, then-contemporary international relations (if hostilities can be included in "relations"), and even some aspects of Dundas's own career: he was instrumental, for example, in ensuring that "runaway slave" Joseph Knight walked away from the Court of Session in 1777 a free man in a country which did not recognise the legal validity of slavery. That plaque is, in short, bad history, a disgrace to Edinburgh's already tarnished academic reputation. And Palmer appears to assume that any disagreement with his conclusions is motivated by racism.
(Note: it's perfectly possible – in some respects, desirable – for any advocate to be capable of successfully arguing a case they don't personally agree with or believe in, but one wonders why Dundas's involvement in that landmark legal decision is so seldom mentioned... Perhaps it's because it doesn't fit the simplistic narrative of the bad rich white guy keeping slavery going?)
I like how you have opened up awareness in this discussion in a thoughtful positive way… it encourages leaning into the discussion and you certainly have given credible food for thought.
I glanced at this and thought I was too tired to read it.
I read it.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece. I'm not in Edinburgh, but the debate over public monuments to historical figures now perceived to be tainted by their involvement with slavery or other forms of injustice and oppression is intense where I live, too.