Friday canonical number
This comes top because, wow, triumph of commonsense, how is it that this can be? National Trust report on slavery links did not break charity law, regulator says. The National Trust did not breach charity law by publishing a report that found itself at the centre of a “culture war” after it made links between its country house properties and the UK’s history of colonialism and slavery, the charity regulator has ruled. In effect exonerating the trust of claims that it had acted outside of its charitable purposes, the Charity Commission confirmed that the trust had acted legally and responsibly at all times and would face no regulatory action.
....
A commission’s statement published on Thursday said that while the concerns raised about the trust had the potential to damage the charity’s reputation, it found the charity had acted appropriately in its commissioning of the report, and had “provided a well-reasoned justification” for why the report furthered the charity’s purposes. “The National Trust has been able to demonstrate that its work to examine links between its properties and histories of colonialism and slavery was carefully considered, and that it fitted within its charitable objects,” said the commission chief executive, Helen Stephenson.
***
Lovely review by Norma Clarke of a book on women artists and self-portraits: Higgie’s book is a riposte to Renoir and centuries of unknowing and misjudging. Reading it is like travelling with an ever-excited companion who has lots to say, not all of it profound as it tumbles out in profusion and partisanship, and not always quite trustworthy, but always compelling. She is rightly enraged at the historical neglect of women artists. The marvellous illustrations here confirm her assessment of the quality of their work. Few nowadays would argue with her proposition that the history of art is ‘the history of many women not receiving their dues’. Beginning research for this book, she was ‘staggered’ by the depth and variety of paintings made by women, despite the formidable restrictions placed in their way, and despite believing herself already well informed on the subject. Ending her book, I felt much the same way, and excited at the prospect of finding out more.
(Renoir, I understand, was the Chap Who Painted With His Manly Organ? Surely that must have been a bit painful?)
***
And more in Dept of Overlooked Women: We know about the wives and other women whose contribution was reduced to a line in the acknowledgements: The Women Who Contributed to Science but Were Buried in Footnotes: 'In a new study, researchers uncovered female programmers who made important but unrecognized contributions to genetics'. Over the past few years, a team of students led by Emilia Huerta-Sánchez from Brown University and Rori Rohlfs from San Francisco State University has been searching through two decades’ worth of acknowledgments in genetics papers and discovering women who were never given the credit that would be expected for today’s researchers. They identified dozens of female programmers who made important but unrecognized contributions. Some were repeatedly thanked in the acknowledgments of several papers, but were never recognized as authors. They became literal footnotes in scientific history, despite helping make that history.
***
Women in music supporting women in music: a proper professional concert for Imogen Holst of her compositions, this is lovely.
***
A wonderful article about the amazing Boole family (I am not sure I had previously been aware that they were intertwined with James Hinton, who had a significant influence on the development of Havelock Ellis' thought, among other things.) We note that Mary Boole performed the under-estimated task of wives of Victorian men of science of making their findings actually intelligible... also involved with that college for ladies in Harley St...
This entry was originally posted at https://oursin.dreamwidth.org/3208840.html. Please comment there using OpenID. View
comments.