Ships on Club badges...

[Rebounder]

11 minutes ago, spudski said:

What more is there to talk about our history with the slave trade? It's all out there. It's been well documented. I was taught about it at school. What more do we need to understand that we don't already know? 

. 

We really don't though? I love history - I've just finished Dan Jones Power and Thrones book which was written in 2021 and covers the Middle Ages. Are we suggesting he shouldn't have written it as it's all probably been written before? 

Every week I get emails with the latest history books advertised. It's a massive industry and research is constant. 

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Rebounder

[spudski]

1 minute ago, italian dave said:

Well, I’d kind of hope that no-one would disagree with the sentiment of my second paragraph! Although I still don’t get the relevance of modern day slavery in Libya. 

Maybe we just have to disagree on the article then - which is fair enough. I just didn’t see it as the “attack piece” that some have taken it for. It makes a point of giving both sides of the argument, equally well and with equal prominence. I thought it was interesting about the history and symbolism of the ship.

I don’t know that it was badly researched: it suggests that there is disagreement about the precise nature of the ship and I’ve yet to see any convincing evidence that makes the case for it being a specific type either way. I don’t claim to know - to me even the ships on the two club badges don’t look the same!! So I found it interesting to read the arguments for and against. 

Does it worry me if the clubs keep the badge? No. Would it worry me if they removed them? Probably not a lot either. But that didn’t stop me finding the article an interesting read. 

What did you find interesting about the article that you didn't already know? 

Ask yourself what I did...what is the point of the article? 

It's obviously a leading article. It has no proof the ships were used in the slave trade, but has now put the idea in people's heads that they may have been. The ship isn't even a symbol of slavery. But the headline of the article states it now is. It's complete bollox.

No offence if you think otherwise, but surely you can see that? 

Please let's not make this a left or right thing...this isn't about politics, hopefully...this about an issue many people from all walks of life have concerns about. I'd have made the OP regardless of who wrote it. 

Abandon ship: does this symbol of slavery shame Manchester and its football clubs?

[Robbored]

30 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Robbo, Robbo, Robbo.

I am a woke person. So I am happy to explain it to myself 
 

(Woke - alert to racial prejudice and discrimination)

But tell me more about this great man Colton?

You could try spell his name correctly SD………..

Colston was a man of his time. In the 16/17 centuries slave trading was perfectly normal and acceptable. It was worldwide trade carried out by many European and Middle Eastern countries and although far less visible and on a far a smaller scale its still happening today.

From the fortune that he made he ploughed millions (in todays money) into the city of his birth. He was a generous man.

These days attitudes towards slaving are very different - quite rightly so but that doesn’t mean that destroying the legacy of a man who died 300 years changes the historical facts.

Let sleeping dogs lie is my view

Edited April 21, 2023 by Robbored

[elhombrecito]

I find it rather strange that 'Woke' is thrown around as an insult.

I'm Woke. We should all be Woke. How could anybody possibly object to somebody being aware of important societal issues such as racial and social justice? Odd.

As for the article, it's asking a question, we're all discussing it, so it's done its job. 

[italian dave]

27 minutes ago, pillred said:

Oh come on where will this end, there must be hundreds of ways perfectly innocent things could be linked to slavery in the same way if you go back far enough I'm probably related in some way to Henry VIII this is getting bl**dy ridiculous.

And if you were related to Henry VIII the wouldn’t you be interested in reading something about that link?

I’m not quite sure why you’re getting so cross about me saying that an article in a newspaper is something I found interesting. You didn’t. Fair enough. 

As I’ve said above, I just didn’t read it as the ‘attack piece’ it’s being portrayed as, but as a fairly well balanced article on the subject. 

[spudski]

5 minutes ago, Rebounder said:

We really don't though? I love history - I've just finished Dan Jones Power and Thrones book which was written in 2021 and covers the Middle Ages. Are we suggesting he shouldn't have written it as it's all probably been written before? 

Every week I get emails with the latest history books advertised. It's a massive industry and research is constant. 

 

And history keeps getting re written and diluted every year we are further from it. So much mis information and theories from people wanting to make a buck from it. 

Yet when they find new evidence, that disproves previous theories, they very rarely get changed in the mainstream. As an example...who ' founded' the Americas. 

What we also have to remember with written history, is that it was the same back then as it is now...in as much as Politics and Religion were just as powerful and wrote down what they wanted people to believe, whether it was the truth or not. Agenda throughout history. 

[spudski]

15 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Crikey….statues!! Now there’s a word from the past and a memory of debates on here that got wildly out of hand!! 

Don’t  you just love OTIB - mascots and statues all in one thread!

Nice way of avoiding the question

[italian dave]

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

Nice way of avoiding the question

Just trying to lighten the tone! 

I think I’ve done anything but try to avoid answering your questions!

[jj77]

2 hours ago, Clutton Caveman said:

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.

Wait until he see's the ship on the Portishead badge 

[spudski]

11 minutes ago, Robbored said:

You could try spell his name correctly SD………..

Colston was a man of his time. In the 16/17 centuries slave trading was perfectly normal and acceptable. It was worldwide trade carried out by many European and Middle Eastern countries and although far less visible and on a far a smaller scale its still happening today.

From the fortune that he made he ploughed millions (in todays money) into the city of his birth. He was a generous man.

These days attitudes towards slaving are very different - quite rightly so but that doesn’t mean that destroying the legacy of a man who died 300 years changes the historical facts.

Let sleeping dogs lie is my view

Just to correct you RR. 

There are more slaves in the world right now, than ever traded during Colston's time. 

Still traded in markets. Still transported and taken from their homes. 

An estimated 50 million slaves. 1 in 200 people. 

And we bang on about the past and doing wrong. Yet it's happening worldwide now at bigger proportions ..but it's hardly headline news. 

https://www.euronews.com/2018/01/24/are-there-more-people-in-slavery-now-than-during-the-transatlantic-slave-trade-

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-trafficking-persons-one-in-200

[Red-Robbo]

Just now, jj77 said:

Wait until he see's the ship on the Portishead badge 

 

There's one on the Plymouth badge.

I think it's that Mayflower. Bringing smallpox and measles to all those poor Native Americans. Bloody Janners .... 

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Just trying to lighten the tone! 

I think I’ve done anything but try to avoid answering your questions!

Fair enough

[italian dave]

28 minutes ago, spudski said:

What did you find interesting about the article that you didn't already know? 

Ask yourself what I did...what is the point of the article? 

It's obviously a leading article. It has no proof the ships were used in the slave trade, but has now put the idea in people's heads that they may have been. The ship isn't even a symbol of slavery. But the headline of the article states it now is. It's complete bollox.

No offence if you think otherwise, but surely you can see that? 

Please let's not make this a left or right thing...this isn't about politics, hopefully...this about an issue many people from all walks of life have concerns about. I'd have made the OP regardless of who wrote it. 

Abandon ship: does this symbol of slavery shame Manchester and its football clubs?

I found quite a lot interesting. It’s a long article, I don’t want to go through every bit, but the whole issue of an inland City with a ship on its coat of arms, the links between the cotton mills and slavery, why the bee is also such a symbol of Manchester, and a whole lot more. 

And this really isn’t intended as a go at your original post. I’m glad you posted it. I probably wouldn’t have found and read the article otherwise. All I’d question in that OP is whether the article really is “calling for….” - as I’ve said that’s not how I read it. It says that there are calls for…but also gives equal prominence to those who don’t share that view. 

Edit: PS The headline starts “does…..” and ends “?”. I agree though that the ‘this symbol of slavery’ is poorly worded. 

Edited April 21, 2023 by italian dave

[miser]

I'm a left leaning subscriber to the Guardian, but found the article very tenuous. Feels at times that the paper has a quota of politically correct articles to fulfill and this was written to that end. Next week there will be an expose of the lack of diversity within Bowls clubs. Not sure that these "stretch" article's really advance the debate.

[italian dave]

4 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

There's one on the Plymouth badge.

I think it's that Mayflower. Bringing smallpox and measles to all those poor Native Americans. Bloody Janners .... 

And Grimsby. Celebrating our destruction of the oceans by over fishing…..

[Robbored]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

Just to correct you RR. 

There are more slaves in the world right now, than ever traded during Colston's time. 

Still traded in markets. Still transported and taken from their homes. 

An estimated 50 million slaves. 1 in 200 people. 

And we bang on about the past and doing wrong. Yet it's happening worldwide now at bigger proportions ..but it's hardly headline news. 

https://www.euronews.com/2018/01/24/are-there-more-people-in-slavery-now-than-during-the-transatlantic-slave-trade-

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-trafficking-persons-one-in-200

I obviously wasn’t aware of the current scale of slavery - hence my ‘on a much smaller scale’. 
 

I wonder if our woke poster Silvio Dante is as unaware of the current scale of modern slavery as I am?

 

[Hxj]

2 hours 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

The article also needs to be read in the context of The Guardian's ongoing 'Cotton Capital' series into the slave owning history of the founders of what was The Manchester Guardian.  The fascinating articles are available online Cotton Capital | The Guardian

[italian dave]

7 minutes ago, spudski said:

Just to correct you RR. 

There are more slaves in the world right now, than ever traded during Colston's time. 

Still traded in markets. Still transported and taken from their homes. 

An estimated 50 million slaves. 1 in 200 people. 

And we bang on about the past and doing wrong. Yet it's happening worldwide now at bigger proportions ..but it's hardly headline news. 

https://www.euronews.com/2018/01/24/are-there-more-people-in-slavery-now-than-during-the-transatlantic-slave-trade-

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-trafficking-persons-one-in-200

Indeed. And, just to spread the net of controversy even further, and closer to home, the UK government is about to remove legal protection from modern slavery for people trafficked to the UK. 

[The Original OTIB]

Isn't it great to be alive ... such joy ...

[Silvio Dante]

39 minutes ago, Robbored said:

You could try spell his name correctly SD………..

Colston was a man of his time. In the 16/17 centuries slave trading was perfectly normal and acceptable. It was worldwide trade carried out by many European and Middle Eastern countries and although far less visible and on a far a smaller scale its still happening today.

From the fortune that he made he ploughed millions (in todays money) into the city of his birth. He was a generous man.

These days attitudes towards slaving are very different - quite rightly so but that doesn’t mean that destroying the legacy of a man who died 300 years changes the historical facts.

Let sleeping dogs lie is my view

You’re really not very bright are you?

 

[fanjita]

3 hours ago, Robbored said:

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

That’s already been discussed 

[spudski]

24 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

Considering the OP thinks we shouldn't talk about the past he doesn't half bang on about the past...

 

(Just some gentle ribbing, @spudski, please don't bite too hard!)

Talking about in correct context I'm all for Bob...the point of the OP was the leading context of the article that was poorly headlined, researched and written in a way that was just putting an idea in people's heads that is far from the truth. All good fella

[Silvio Dante]

54 minutes ago, spudski said:

So would you pull down all the statues of Caesars in Rome mate? Or the Amphitheatre?

You’ll notice I didn’t say they should have pulled the statue down, just that now it was down it would make more impact in the round if left vacant, and that I don’t agree with celebrating slave traders.

Personally, I would have preferred it had it been kept up but there be information next to it informing both sides. It’s what national trust properties are doing now (which is being bemoaned by some) and it allows education.

The sad fact is that people wouldn’t have known about Colston as much without the action of the pulling down of the statue. I’m not sure the same applies to the Roman Empire.

 

 

[Malago]

What about clubs whose mascot is symbolic of aggressive sea going types who raped and pillaged who were also intrinsically involved in the slave trade.
 

 Should this type of club be banned or would an apology and reparations suffice?

[italian dave]

2 minutes ago, Malago said:

What about clubs whose mascot is symbolic of aggressive sea going types who raped and pillaged who were also intrinsically involved in the slave trade.
 

 Should this type of club be banned or would an apology and reparations suffice?

In that instance, I think we could all agree that a complete ban, the appropriation and sale of all assets, and the erasure of all records and results connected with the club would be the appropriate action. 

 

[Robbored]

8 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

You’re really not very bright are you?

 

Explain Silvio why you think that I’m not very bright………..is it because I don’t agree with all the historical woke nonsense so therefore I must be an ignorant dimwit?………….

[luke_bristol]

The Guardian was founded with the profits of slavery, and the Guardian chucked a few quid around to make that little unwelcome fact go away, so the clubs could probably do the same. 

[spudski]

32 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I found quite a lot interesting. It’s a long article, I don’t want to go through every bit, but the whole issue of an inland City with a ship on its coat of arms, the links between the cotton mills and slavery, why the bee is also such a symbol of Manchester, and a whole lot more. 

And this really isn’t intended as a go at your original post. I’m glad you posted it. I probably wouldn’t have found and read the article otherwise. All I’d question in that OP is whether the article really is “calling for….” - as I’ve said that’s not how I read it. It says that there are calls for…but also gives equal prominence to those who don’t share that view. 

Edit: PS The headline starts “does…..” and ends “?”. I agree though that the ‘this symbol of slavery’ is poorly worded. 

Fair enough Dave. 

I agree poorly worded...but now it's out there, some will see the ship as a symbol of slavery. You now how some skim read. It's intended imo...an editor with no agenda would have corrected it. 

Manchester was once the third busiest shipping port in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Manchester#:~:text=The ship canal transformed Manchester,port in the United Kingdom. 

[IAmNick]

3 minutes ago, luke_bristol said:

The Guardian was founded with the profits of slavery, and the Guardian chucked a few quid around to make that little unwelcome fact go away, so the clubs could probably do the same. 

The article mentions that and has a link to an article they published in the last few months about their history with the slave trade so I'm not quite sure that's true. The title of is literally says "How we uncovered the Guardian founders' links to slavery"

Chalk another person up for not reading the article though! Hah.

Edited April 21, 2023 by IAmNick

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, Robbored said:

Explain Silvio why you think that I’m not very bright………..is it because I don’t agree with all the historical woke nonsense so therefore I must be an ignorant dimwit?………….

I could go on for hours, and it’s nothing to do with “woke” (and Tbf being aware of racism strikes me as a good thing but each to his own). In this case, the reason for the comment is pretty self evident if you read the thread, particularly the spelling of Colton/Colston, but I have no desire to make another thread all about you. 
 

It’s a bit needy and weird.