Ships on Club badges...

[spudski]

....anyone else seen this story created by the Guardian? 

Calling for Man City and Man Utd to remove the ship on their badges, as in someone's opinion, it has links to the Slave trade.

Obviously like the Bristol coat of arms, it's a link to the past of the City's industrial past. 

It won't be long before someone starts asking Bristol Council to remove the ship on the coat of arms, as someone will say it's a link to the slave trade.

Who are these people starting these stories?  Who is financing it? Is the agenda purely to cause conflict amongst people to detract from major problems in the world? 

Guess it's a good thing City have a new badge...otherwise some **** would find a problem. 

 

 

[The Original OTIB]

5 minutes ago, spudski said:

....anyone else seen this story created by the Guardian? 

Calling for Man City and Man Utd to remove the ship on their badges, as in someone's opinion, it has links to the Slave trade.

Obviously like the Bristol coat of arms, it's a link to the past of the City's industrial past. 

It won't be long before someone starts asking Bristol Council to remove the ship on the coat of arms, as someone will say it's a link to the slave trade.

Who are these people starting these stories?  Who is financing it? Is the agenda purely to cause conflict amongst people to detract from major problems in the world? 

Guess it's a good thing City have a new badge...otherwise some **** would find a problem. 

 

 

RSPB?

[Trueredsupporter]

Bristol Citys Robin lost its bridge, Ships go under bridges and the Robins outline is non binary. Cant be too careful about this.

[City oz]

8 minutes ago, spudski said:

....anyone else seen this story created by the Guardian? 

Calling for Man City and Man Utd to remove the ship on their badges, as in someone's opinion, it has links to the Slave trade.

Obviously like the Bristol coat of arms, it's a link to the past of the City's industrial past. 

It won't be long before someone starts asking Bristol Council to remove the ship on the coat of arms, as someone will say it's a link to the slave trade.

Who are these people starting these stories?  Who is financing it? Is the agenda purely to cause conflict amongst people to detract from major problems in the world? 

Guess it's a good thing City have a new badge...otherwise some **** would find a problem. 

 

 

 

What next pubs as well.

 

[Red DNA]

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

 

Who are these people starting these stories?  Who is financing it? Is the agenda purely to cause conflict amongst people to detract from major problems in the world? 

 

 

Good spot of a crazy story in woke world. 
 

It might be a bit conspiracy theory on my part but wars don’t just happen on a battlefield with guns.
These sort of actions could be state ‘actors’ putting these ideas forward to cause division, confusion and disruption in our society to fragment it and break it down leading to more disrespect for any authority which ultimately will make it easier for other countries to move in and take over when the country is really divided and fighting each other???

[BCFCGav]

Gonna go ahead and swerve this thread I reckon.

[The Original OTIB]

2 minutes ago, BCFCGav said:

Gonna go ahead and swerve this thread I reckon.

Too late, you are within.

[W-S-M Seagull]

Whilst listening to Rosenior talking about this on Talksport yesterday, it got me thinking that we have a club just up the road from us who's branding is directly connected to the slave trade...

Edited April 21, 2023 by W-S-M Seagull

[And Its Smith]

It’s the media jumping on an opinion shared by a tiny amount of people to create division.  Don’t get sucked in 

[The Original OTIB]

6 minutes ago, City oz said:

 

What next pubs as well.

 

Wardour St, still a Fuller's?

[AshtonGreat]

What do you expect? It's the Guardian

Edited April 21, 2023 by AshtonGreat

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

It’s the media jumping on an opinion shared by a tiny amount of people to create division.  Don’t get sucked in 

I agree...stories to create division. People see through it...however media give the stories traction. Which in turn lead to public discussion, which I've started on here. 

The discussion really is pointed at ludicrous nature of it all. 

[Robbored]

So what’s next?  Change the name of Whiteladies Rd? surely that has racist implications…..not to mention BlackBoy Hill………….

[City oz]

6 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

Wardour St, still a Fuller's?

 

In Soho.

[The Original OTIB]

1 minute ago, City oz said:

 

In Soho.

Yes, I know it is, hence the St. Reference.

[City oz]

Just now, The Original OTIB said:

Yes, I know it is, hence the St. Reference.

Here is another one for you.

 

[1960maaan]

12 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

Wardour St, still a Fuller's?

Looks like it.

[City oz]

Looks like we are in danger here if this spreads to OZ. Our indigenous elders may take a negative reference to this one.

 

 

[italian dave]

Before piling in with the usual cries of outrage, it’s actually worth reading what I think is an interesting article. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/19/abandon-ship-does-this-symbol-of-slavery-shame-manchester-and-its-football-clubs
(and, @AshtonGreat, it’s also reported in the Mail - although promoting that outrage is more their thing I’d imagine!)

It’s not a “campaign”: it’s a question. Note the ? At the end of the article’s title.

It’s very explicit that this is not about ships generally - and it explicitly mentions other club badges in that regard.

And it’s about a question as to whether the ships on the club badges - and probably more significantly on the City’s coat of arms - is a specific type of ship that was associated with the trade on which Manchester was built. A trade which relied on slavery. And a trade which the Guardian itself acknowledges helped to make the wealth of its own founder.

Worth a read I’d suggest. 

[Silvio Dante]

21 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

It’s the media jumping on an opinion shared by a tiny amount of people to create division.  Don’t get sucked in 

100% this. It’s a total non story and nobody is seriously suggesting it. Nobody’s coming to take away ships on badges. Golly dolls - yes, boats -no.

21 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

Wardour St, still a Fuller's?

To be fair they had to redo it after the “A” bomb there 

13 minutes ago, Robbored said:

So what’s next?  Change the name of Whiteladies Rd? surely that has racist implications…..not to mention BlackBoy Hill………….

For the bloody umpteenth time…

[bpexile]

22 minutes ago, City oz said:

Here is another one for you.

 

Just replace the "p" in ship with a "t"

[Clutton Caveman]

45 minutes ago, spudski said:

....anyone else seen this story created by the Guardian? 

Calling for Man City and Man Utd to remove the ship on their badges, as in someone's opinion, it has links to the Slave trade.

Obviously like the Bristol coat of arms, it's a link to the past of the City's industrial past. 

It won't be long before someone starts asking Bristol Council to remove the ship on the coat of arms, as someone will say it's a link to the slave trade.

Who are these people starting these stories?  Who is financing it? Is the agenda purely to cause conflict amongst people to detract from major problems in the world? 

Guess it's a good thing City have a new badge...otherwise some **** would find a problem. 

 

 

I was listening to Talksport when Leroy Rosenier was on discussing this. Simon Jordon  initially explained the history saying that the ship was first integrated into the crest of Manchester to represent their international trading status due to the industrial revolution way after slavery was abolished and was then adopted to the badges of Utd and City later again. It was clear that Leroy had not done his homework and was a bit taken aback by these facts but still pushed on saying that this should be looked at. Jordon asked Leroy what his idea for a good outcome was here and could not get an answer. It was great to hear yet another woke agent trying to make changes that the vast majority don't want, challenged and taken apart. Well done Simon Jordon for standing up for the silent minority and common sense.

[Clutton Caveman]

17 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Before piling in with the usual cries of outrage, it’s actually worth reading what I think is an interesting article. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/19/abandon-ship-does-this-symbol-of-slavery-shame-manchester-and-its-football-clubs
(and, @AshtonGreat, it’s also reported in the Mail - although promoting that outrage is more their thing I’d imagine!)

It’s not a “campaign”: it’s a question. Note the ? At the end of the article’s title.

It’s very explicit that this is not about ships generally - and it explicitly mentions other club badges in that regard.

And it’s about a question as to whether the ships on the club badges - and probably more significantly on the City’s coat of arms - is a specific type of ship that was associated with the trade on which Manchester was built. A trade which relied on slavery. And a trade which the Guardian itself acknowledges helped to make the wealth of its own founder.

Worth a read I’d suggest. 

Is anything in the Guardian worth a read?

[Clutton Caveman]

40 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Whilst listening to Rosenior talking about this on Talksport yesterday, it got me thinking that we have a club just up the road from us who's branding is directly connected to the slave trade...

OMG, how can we take events in history and judge them by todays standards. At that time half of the Royal Navy crews woke on on board with the kings shilling in their hand having been knocked over the head and brought on board after a heavy night out. In Africa, Egypt and ancient Greece slavery was rife, way before what we see as the slave trade. The past is the past, we cannot change it and we don't have to be ashamed for what our ancestors did. We sent kids up chimneys but are we now saying that Chimney sweep companies should be punished.

[AshtonGreat]

25 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Before piling in with the usual cries of outrage, it’s actually worth reading what I think is an interesting article. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/19/abandon-ship-does-this-symbol-of-slavery-shame-manchester-and-its-football-clubs
(and, @AshtonGreat, it’s also reported in the Mail - although promoting that outrage is more their thing I’d imagine!)

It’s not a “campaign”: it’s a question. Note the ? At the end of the article’s title.

It’s very explicit that this is not about ships generally - and it explicitly mentions other club badges in that regard.

And it’s about a question as to whether the ships on the club badges - and probably more significantly on the City’s coat of arms - is a specific type of ship that was associated with the trade on which Manchester was built. A trade which relied on slavery. And a trade which the Guardian itself acknowledges helped to make the wealth of its own founder.

Worth a read I’d suggest. 

Sounds a bit tenuous

Edited April 21, 2023 by AshtonGreat

[italian dave]

13 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

Is anything in the Guardian worth a read?

Well, interestingly, I was about to suggest that you read it because it makes and discusses just the points that you made in your longer post above.

It’s slightly more nuanced than your post suggests. Much of Manchester’s wealth may have come after slavery was abolished in the UK, but it came from the wealth of merchants who’d made much of that wealth through the trade, and it came from cotton produced by those people who’d been traded by those merchants and who were still enslaved on the cotton plantations - slavery in the US wasn’t abolished until many years later than it was in the UK. 

And the article actually makes many of the points you’re making: it’s not clear cut, it’s not something on which everyone agrees - and even then when you talk about the opinions of the ‘silent majority’ - it’s b not clear what opinions you’re referring to -  there are a huge number of issues in there. I doubt that the silent majority support the concept of slavery, or of anyone benefitting from it. And equally - as the article makes clear - there are other badges and ships that very evidently have no potential connections whatsoever, and there’s not even a minority suggesting those be removed. But there then a whole great area in between those extremes. 

So, yes, I’d say this one is well worth a read. 

Edited April 21, 2023 by italian dave

[spudski]

7 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Before piling in with the usual cries of outrage, it’s actually worth reading what I think is an interesting article. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/19/abandon-ship-does-this-symbol-of-slavery-shame-manchester-and-its-football-clubs
(and, @AshtonGreat, it’s also reported in the Mail - although promoting that outrage is more their thing I’d imagine!)

It’s not a “campaign”: it’s a question. Note the ? At the end of the article’s title.

It’s very explicit that this is not about ships generally - and it explicitly mentions other club badges in that regard.

And it’s about a question as to whether the ships on the club badges - and probably more significantly on the City’s coat of arms - is a specific type of ship that was associated with the trade on which Manchester was built. A trade which relied on slavery. And a trade which the Guardian itself acknowledges helped to make the wealth of its own founder.

Worth a read I’d suggest. 

Surely a ship on a crest or badge is showing the City used ships to trade. We know the slave trade happened and ships and City ports were used. However...ships were used to pretty much transport everything. Every consumable from around the world and country. It was purely a mode of transport for goods. 

You have to question the mentality or agenda of the author, editor, owners who think ' I know let's write an article about ships on badges, because that mode of transport was used in the slave trade'. 

It's either complete madness...or imo, a pre meditated idea to stir up division. 

People say...' don't be dragged in'...but people are, especially the youngsters who read things like this for the first time. It's creating a generation who want to erase history, rather than learn from it. 

If the Guardian were really concerned about the slave trade, perhaps they should focus on the slave trade still happening in Libya. Millions of people enslaved every year, and it's been like it for centuries. What's even more shocking, is that Black Slaves released, went back to Africa and took on the culture of their former masters and enslaved black people to work for them. And millions of Europeans have been enslaved by the Barbary Raids.... But of  course...the agenda just wants to ignore that. 

So why are we having to apologise for our past, when it's being continued by the people who are offended by it? 

Slavery of people is wrong...of all colours. 

Ships on badges is the least of our worries. 

A balanced view on slavery has to be taught. It still goes in, and all races are involved in it. They are all as bad as one another. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Libya

 

[italian dave]

9 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

OMG, how can we take events in history and judge them by todays standards. At that time half of the Royal Navy crews woke on on board with the kings shilling in their hand having been knocked over the head and brought on board after a heavy night out. In Africa, Egypt and ancient Greece slavery was rife, way before what we see as the slave trade. The past is the past, we cannot change it and we don't have to be ashamed for what our ancestors did. We sent kids up chimneys but are we now saying that Chimney sweep companies should be punished.

Where is anyone suggesting that anyone should be “punished”?

[LondonBristolian]

I think the original post is a little disingenuous. It's not that someone has an opinion on whether the type of three-masted shop on the Manchester had links with the slave trade. It's an established fact that those types of ships both carried slaves and carried cargo made by slaves. And the article makes a clear distinction between that and the boat on the badge of other clubs - such as Plymouth, which reflects the Mayflower or clubs that have emblems of the types of the town or city built. I think it's really important not pretend is something it isn't. We know cities profited from the slave trade and we know lots of buildings in Manchester - like Bristol and Liverpool - were made with money directly procured through the trading of slaves.

Obviously the question then is what, if anything to do about it. In this case, I'm personally not sure it is necessary to do anything at all for the simple reason that I don't think most people look at the badge and think of the slave trade. However I also think, given the clubs and the city have the information, it's up to them what they do. I don't think Manchester City or Manchester United need to change the badge but I'm also not going to be in up in arms if they choose to do so. That's their decision. 

[lenred]

1 hour ago, Trueredsupporter said:

Bristol Citys Robin lost its bridge, Ships go under bridges and the Robins outline is non binary. Cant be too careful about this.

Dont forget mascots!

We have an old Scrumpy cuddly toy I bought for my daughter, years back.  I found it in the dogs mouth yesterday - my daughter had given it to him as a toy. When I jokingly said to daughter and missus ‘no no he can’t have that - Scrumpy is a collectors item now’ they asked why.   I explained that we have had to have new mascots to be inclusive and then both of them cracked up at the ridiculousness of it.  Both are staunch feminists (rightly so) but even they can see how stupid things are becoming in certain areas. Its a bloody bird!