I bet I’m not the only one here with fond memories of visiting Kew Gardens for a penny. It left some of us with a permanent affection for the place. Later I acquired an enormous respect for the work they do and its value to the whole world.
I don’t imagine you expected the world of horticulture and gardens to escape the decolonising agenda. But if you have concerns about it you must read this paper, headed up by the widely respected and award winning garden writer, Ursula Buchan. Here is a (updated) link to the paper. Read and circulate?
Since commenting here earlier this week, I would refer anyone interested in my take on politicising plants to read ‘Ways of Seeing’ in today’s ‘Saturday’ magazine section of The Guardian newspaper. Here Errol Fernandes, Head Gardener at London’s Horniman Museum, a British-born Asian of British immigrants from Africa, recounts his difficulty in securing a traineeship after studying at Capel Manor, although he eventually got a traineeship at Chelsea Physic Garden. He goes on to say “I think the industry and society as a whole, often find it difficult to imagine people from diverse backgrounds working in horticulture, particularly in higher level positions.” The article is by Matt Collins Head Gardener at London’s Garden Museum and is illustrated by examples of Fernandes’ work at The Horniman Museum Garden.
I was delighted to see this post. I have been ‘out and about’ on gardening social media sites for many years. In Ontario, Canada, there was no debate on this subject. There was no discussion before anyone with an “exotic” plant in their garden was labelled a colonist enabler by many of the garden influencers. This position was adopted (conveniently) by the native gardener movement solely to further their Tallamy ideology. I was born and raised in a colony. It is still a colony. I’m no fan of occupancy by a foreign power. Non indigenous plants in my home garden is not a political expression. That is an absurd position to take. Especially at a time when the planet needs more plants, more gardens and a cooler Earth. Scaring, shaming or blaming existing and emerging gardeners is counter productive.
Thank you for the link.
I think this excerpt from the criticised report by Kew’s Professor Antonelli explains succinctly the importance refocusing science on the impact of colonization. Plants, like other resources, were studied not only out of scientific interest but for the economic benefit of the colonisers.
“In my own field of research, you can see an imperialist view prevail. Scientists
continue to report how new species are “discovered” every year, species that
are often already known and used by people in the region – and have been for
thousands of years.”
Plants, like other resources, were studied not only out of scientific curiosity but for the economic benefit of the colonisers.
Yes, it’s important to ensure that all British residents, many of whom are here because of our imperial past and are over represented in disadvantaged groups, have access to Kew Gardens. This is a funding issue for government and donors to widening access to the gardens and maintaining, and developing, Kew’s scientific work. Also for developing participation of all ethnic groups in botanic and horticultural related sciences within school, college and university education.
Racism, conscious or unconscious. stemming from a lack of knowledge about the impact Empire still affects access to employment within key British institutions, and I’m glad that our understanding has been further been awakened, however uncomfortable it is for the current generation.
Thanks, rowana10. Beautifully and non-combatively expressed.
I’ve only skimmed the Manifesto but I didn’t see anything there about “decolonizing the collections” in it. The political aspect might be found with initiatives related to climate change and improving global access to its collections. There seems to have been some conversations by Kew Garden personnel, sparked by BLM in the summer of 2020 which resulted in those responses and presentations, the most recent seems in the Director writing about “broadening the stories we tell” and “acknowledging our history,” which seems to be a good thing for any institution to do. Even zoos have tons of information about animals/habitat/extinction, etc, botanical gardens are the same kind of educational institution that should tell stories. Thinking about history evolves and we often need help and nudges to keep up.
Henry Shaw, who started what is now our Missouri Botanical Garden, actually had enslaved persons IN his house and IN his garden so there have been displays in the house museum about slavery for at least 20 years. I think MoBot’s response to events in 2020 was appropriate but still belated. Here’s a link, not dated but I think from summer 2020
https://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/media/news-releases/message-from-the-president.aspx
and another from when they did hire the D&I director
https://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/media/news-releases/article/881/missouri-botanical-garden-announces-first-di-director.aspx
On the other hand, I support a return to one cent admissions – if that were on offer here I’d visit for sure, I haven’t been to MoBot in ages.
I’m saddened to see this post on thinkingardens. Folks, this is not about “politics” invading a space that should somehow be magically free of it. I have learned a lot in the the last few years. Oppression with regards to race (and yes, other human qualities) is deeply rooted in everything we experience. Even beautiful things. Perhaps especially beautiful things. Let’s all try to understand the fundamental importance of sincere de-colonizing efforts, and not dismiss them as jargon or wokeness or canceling. Science is not going to be the victim. Nor is the first amendment. But white privilege? Maybe. Read the Kew’s source documents and see if you find anything objectionable therein: https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/time-to-re-examine-the-history-of-botanical-collections and https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/time-to-re-examine-the-history-of-botanical-collections I don’t. Then go to wikipedia and see the background on the issuer of the white paper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_Exchange
Thanks for this information.
I read the Manifesto more thoroughly and all I could find that could be interpreted as “decolonizing the collection” are these two bits:
Under Priority 4, Extend Our Reach
Ensure the diverse countries and cultures that partner with RBG Kew and contribute to our collections are accurately and equitably represented. We will move quickly to re-examine our collections to acknowledge and address any exploitative or racist legacies, and develop new narratives around them.
Under Why RBG Kew is well-placed to help:
Our Economic Botany Collection of 100,000 plant and fungal materials and artefacts informs our understanding of using natural products sustainably. Going forward, it can help us to open up important conversations about RBG Kew’s – and Britain’s – colonial legacy.
Ms. Buchan’s paper said “decolonize our collections,” rather than “re-examine our collections” – quoting that first bit. Wonder if/when this was changed?
Also, her objections were all about the charter which says “the science of plants and related subjects,” which sounds completely open to interpretation. Could this include people and their history of interactions with plants? even their exploitation of the environment which has got us into the current mess?
I think they should have gone there sooner, but at least Kew is trying to do this.
Thanks, Kathie. Part of what bothered me about the Buchan text was her absolute literal and unquestioned interpretation of the charter.
“I’m saddened to see this post on thinkingardens” – thinkingardens is here to support and encourage debate and thinking.
Sometimes public opinion has more right on its side than the bastions of privilege?
But in any case I don’t see why rigorous science and ‘decolonisation’ are mutually exclusive.
One of the reasons I garden is to get away from navel gazing of the sort Kew is partaking in now. They should focus on minority inclusion, funding for community engagement and recognising where and how the garden developed including the difficulties associated with plant collection in the past – these extend to nearly everybody who has been associated with Kew in the past. Most people, regardless of nationality or colour were minorities in the past if thats how you wish to define it.
No link available!
Strange – people have been reading it. But here you are https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Politicising-Plants.pdf
Wow. They should give reduced admission to low-income visitors, hire minorities, and create scholarships. But stay out of politics or the Gardens are at the mercy of public opinion.