Thread 1. The below is one of 7 common objections to talking about slavery in heritage sites and museums. Here are the others: #ColonialCountryside

2. The 2nd common objection is that this history is old hat. Incorrect. In relation to country houses a lot of this information about slavery links recently came to light due to databases eg. @ucl Legacies of British Slave Ownership database

3. There is a perception that those who bring this history to light want the response to be guilt and shame. "Hairshirting". Wrong. As custodians of country houses we have a responsibility to provide full accounts of history that is *relevant*. It's a public duty.

4. Another notion is that history is being rewritten. Wrong. Rigorously researched historical claims always attract deniers who are uninterested in evidence but the slavery connections of historic houses are irrefutable

5. "DON'T knock our history". BUT A mature nation reflects on its history warts and all, and does not confuse history with PR or patriotism.

6. "What about the Romans and previous slave traders?" This is "whataboutery". If someone can explain what a British country house's transatlantic slavery connections have to do with the Romans I'm happy to be corrected...

7. "Why not talk about working class oppression?" Answer: a. Shouldn't be either/or. b. Working class histories are linked to empire c. Oppression in factories was real but chattel slavery is another level & scale: mass forced transportation, legal ownership & sheer brutality