Ships on Club badges...

[italian dave]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

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. 

Off subject slightly (maybe no bad thing) but we drive over that canal to and from so many away games (not to mention other journeys) and often comment on the fact that you never ever see anything on it nowadays. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single vessel. 

It’s hard to believe it was ever such a bustling waterway. - and also that it couldn’t serve a better purpose nowadays. 

[IAmNick]

4 minutes ago, spudski said:

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. 

But equally people will skim read / not read it at all and it'll become mental fuel to the "woke culture wars" that are going on in their heads.

That's just the nature of pretty much any article.

 

Amusingly, as an example, the article specifically mentions Manchester being the third busiest port. Why are you telling someone who has read it that, and then using wiki as a link rather than the actual article you're talking about (which you never even linked... and are also complaining about people skimming it)?

Have you read it...?  

[spudski]

8 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

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.

 

 

I agree a plaque should have been put in place educating people of his history...both good and bad. 

I don't agree with pulling down statues and changing names. As it's not ' celebrating' imo. It's just history...in the same way as the Roman Empire. 

Both had evil elements. Overpowering other nations, enslaving them, and using the money and labour force to build their own empires. 

The same goes in today. We are all part of it. It's not in your face as owning a slave...but we all buy clothing, products and food from companies that use 'slave labour forces'. 

The nearest ones to home in many cases are these ' pop up car washes'. 

[italian dave]

6 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. 

Exactly what the article is about, and a @Hxj has already mentioned, part of a series that focuses on precisely that.

So, no, they didn’t ‘chuck a few quid to make it go away’. Complete nonsense. 

[spudski]

Just now, IAmNick said:

But equally people will skim read / not read it at all and it'll become mental fuel to the "woke culture wars" that are going on in their heads.

That's just the nature of pretty much any article.

 

Amusingly, as an example, the article specifically mentions Manchester being the third busiest port. Why are you telling someone who has read it that, and then using wiki as a link rather than the actual article you're talking about (which you never even linked... and are also complaining about people skimming it)?

Have you read it...?  

I didn't link it as it was already linked previously. The Wiki gives greater depth to the article. 

[IAmNick]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

The same goes in today. We are all part of it. It's not in your face as owning a slave...but we all buy clothing, products and food from companies that use 'slave labour forces'. 

 

I get what you're saying here, but the problem with this line of thinking is that it implies you can ONLY complain about something if you also become a hermit man who just lies down in the forest and dies, to have zero impact on the world or anyone else.

It's a way to shut down criticism and discussion to result in the status quo being maintained - and that line of thinking is intentional. Lots of people don't want the current system to be analysed and critiqued, so there's an opinion now that if you have a mobile phone or drive a car you can't say "Hey maybe we should look after the environment and treat certain people in our society a bit better". It's nonsense.

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Off subject slightly (maybe no bad thing) but we drive over that canal to and from so many away games (not to mention other journeys) and often comment on the fact that you never ever see anything on it nowadays. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single vessel. 

It’s hard to believe it was ever such a bustling waterway. - and also that it couldn’t serve a better purpose nowadays. 

It's a shame...the canals should be used more for transportation of good, to get rid of traffic on the roads. 

[Midred]

As the Manchester ship canal wasn't completed until 1893 there probably weren't alot of slave ships directly connected with Manchester. However if the connection is the use of slaves in the production of cotton which was then sent to Manchester then perhaps we should be looking at alternative clothing materials?

Seriously though many civic buildings were built  and family wealth was created from  the slave trade and it's too easy as a diversion to concentrate on the likes of Bristol rather than admitting that cities and estates all over the country benefitted.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Midred

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

I get what you're saying here, but the problem with this line of thinking is that it implies you can ONLY complain about something if you also become a hermit man who just lies down in the forest and dies, to have zero impact on the world or anyone else.

It's a way to shut down criticism and discussion to result in the status quo being maintained - and that line of thinking is intentional. Lots of people don't want the current system to be analysed and critiqued, so there's an opinion now that if you have a mobile phone or drive a car you can't say "Hey maybe we should look after the environment and treat certain people in our society a bit better". It's nonsense.

Knowledge is power. Learn from our mistakes, don't erase history, good or bad, and instead of trying to erase the past...educate...and focus on the present problems. Talk, don't erase, learn and don't make the same mistakes. That's how I see it. 

Sadly I don't think the world will ever change. 

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, Midred said:

As the Manchester ship canal wasn't completed until 1893 there probably weren't alot of ships directly connected with Manchester. However if the connection is the use of slaves in the production of cotton which was then sent to Manchester then perhaps we should be looking at alternative clothing materials?

Seriously though many civic buildings were built  and family wealth was created from  the slave trade and it's too easy as a diversion to concentrate on the likes of Bristol rather than admitting that cities and estates all over the country benefitted.

The 'slave trade' was well over before the opening of the port. The cotton for the mills came from Egypt. 

The Mills were pretty much run like the slave trade. Instead using the poor to work long hours in slave like conditions. 

[italian dave]

4 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

I get what you're saying here, but the problem with this line of thinking is that it implies you can ONLY complain about something if you also become a hermit man who just lies down in the forest and dies, to have zero impact on the world or anyone else.

It's a way to shut down criticism and discussion to result in the status quo being maintained - and that line of thinking is intentional. Lots of people don't want the current system to be analysed and critiqued, so there's an opinion now that if you have a mobile phone or drive a car you can't say "Hey maybe we should look after the environment and treat certain people in our society a bit better". It's nonsense.

It’s a tough one, isn’t it? I agree with @spudski  on this, in principle, and in relation to the specific examples he gives.

We do have a genuine choice about something things. And when it comes to things like car washes and nail bars, well known as the sort of places that abuse people in that way, then just using them without any regard is unforgivable. 

And if you’re looking at a pair of jeans that costs £5 then that has to beg some pretty significant questions about how it was produced. 

But it’s a lot tougher when it comes to mobile phones……

But yes, I do also agree that it can be used to shut down or deliberately detract from debate - it’s about like the inevitable ‘have you offered to share your house with an asylum seeker’ post that appears in any debate on that subject. 

[Red-Robbo]

1 minute ago, Midred said:

As the Manchester ship canal wasn't completed until 1893 there probably weren't alot of ships directly connected with Manchester. However if the connection is the use of slaves in the production of cotton which was then sent to Manchester then perhaps we should be looking at alternative clothing materials?

Seriously though many civic buildings were built  and family wealth was created from  the slave trade and it's too easy as a diversion to concentrate on the likes of Bristol rather than admitting that cities and estates all over the country benefitted.

 

The wealthy elite of Manchester - and the cotton-spinning areas of Lancashire in general, were among the few parts of Britain to have more sympathy with the Confederates than the Unionists in the American Civil War. 

However, that's f- all to do with football, and let's be honest, this whole thread is a bit weird. 

 

[IAmNick]

Just now, spudski said:

Knowledge is power. Learn from our mistakes, don't erase history, good or bad, and instead of trying to erase the past...educate...and focus on the present problems. Talk, don't erase, learn and don't make the same mistakes. That's how I see it. 

Sadly I don't think the world will ever change. 

I broadly agree, it shouldn't be erased, but if there are things that make it appear we're celebrating awful parts of history or they cause people great distress to see regularly I think we should do what we can to remove or replace them. We have spaces for things like that - museums etc.

It's usually easy for people like me (white, male, middle class) to go "Oh it's not that big of a deal if we have X around is it? Don't erase it" because most of this kind of stuff hasn't affected me and never will. If I put myself in someone else's shoes then it's easier to see.

I don't think removing a statue of someone we learn to be awful is erasing history for example. That's part of history. It evolves as our understanding of it grows.

 

Thanks for the thread though, I hadn't seen the article. I thought it was interesting personally - although I'm don't think I agree with their question for the record, same as you!

[Lewisdabaron]

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………….

Ohh its happening right under our noses…

 

[pillred]

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

There probably are hundreds of ways that things we think of as perfectly innocent have links to slavery. But what's wrong with knowing and understanding that history? 

Nothing, but trying to rewrite it won't work either as what's done is done, we just have to learn from our mistakes.

[pillred]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

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. 

Not getting cross at all just a bit despairing at the way the world seems to be going, perhaps that's just my age but I'm sure there must be people a lot younger than me that wonder where this will all end.

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

I broadly agree, it shouldn't be erased, but if there are things that make it appear we're celebrating awful parts of history or they cause people great distress to see regularly I think we should do what we can to remove or replace them. We have spaces for things like that - museums etc.

It's usually easy for people like me (white, male, middle class) to go "Oh it's not that big of a deal if we have X around is it? Don't erase it" because most of this kind of stuff hasn't affected me and never will. If I put myself in someone else's shoes then it's easier to see.

I don't think removing a statue of someone we learn to be awful is erasing history for example. That's part of history. It evolves as our understanding of it grows.

 

Thanks for the thread though, I hadn't seen the article. I thought it was interesting personally - although I'm don't think I agree with their question for the record, same as you!

Fair points. 

Perhaps it's the people who are easily offended by a statue or name who need to be re educated on how they should react to such things. 

Around the world, pretty much every statue, historic building, throughout cultures that built empires on overpowering other nations and enslaving them, still stand and remind everyone of how they were built. 

We don't wish to pull them down. 

No one is alive who endured the slave trade now. So why is anyone so offended that they feel the need to remove anything related to it?  The whole world can be seen as pretty much offensive from its past....and present. 

Funnily this whole episode of erasing will become part of history. People will look back and think WTF were they thinking. 

 

[Red-Robbo]

6 minutes ago, pillred said:

Not getting cross at all just a bit despairing at the way the world seems to be going, perhaps that's just my age but I'm sure there must be people a lot younger than me that wonder where this will all end.

In the case of clubs' badges, it isn't. Just some suggestion from some bloke in an opinion piece. Not some campaign to diss ships!

There is one minor West Country third-tier (just) club though, who I do think should change their badge.

I have a suggestion for a new one:

[Andre_The_Giant]

2 hours ago, lenred said:

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!  

Most concerning. Do you have any theories as to why City Cat, City Kitty or the Coldseal Pigs were similarly hounded out of the club?

[luke_bristol]

38 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

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.

That’s not what I meant, though I did phrase it ambiguously - the calls were to dissolve the Guardian, which is exactly what would be called for if the Daily Heil or Torygraph were in the same position. Instead the Guardian engage in some performative self flagellation and chuck a few quid around.

 

“Hah”, or whatever.

[luke_bristol]

42 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Exactly what the article is about, and a @Hxj has already mentioned, part of a series that focuses on precisely that.

So, no, they didn’t ‘chuck a few quid to make it go away’. Complete nonsense. 

Why don’t they dissolve the paper? Forever tainted by blood money.

 

E2A: the research isn’t a confession, it’s them digging trenches and  donning armour. Look how sorry we are (because we want to keep our jobs).

Edited April 21, 2023 by luke_bristol

[Robbored]

10 minutes ago, spudski said:

Perhaps it's the people who are easily offended by a statue or name who need to be re educated on how they should react to such things. 

Around the world, pretty much every statue, historic building, throughout cultures that built empires on overpowering other nations and enslaving them, still stand and remind everyone of how they were built. 

We don't wish to pull them down. 

No one is alive who endured the slave trade now. So why is anyone so offended that they feel the need to remove anything related to it?  The whole world can be seen as pretty much offensive from its past....and present. 

Funnily this whole episode of erasing will become part of history. People will look back and think WTF were they thinking. 

 

Excellent post Spudski but unfortunately our resident woke SD won’t agree…….……….

[BigTone]

17 minutes ago, spudski said:

Fair points. 

Perhaps it's the people who are easily offended by a statue or name who need to be re educated on how they should react to such things. 

Around the world, pretty much every statue, historic building, throughout cultures that built empires on overpowering other nations and enslaving them, still stand and remind everyone of how they were built. 

We don't wish to pull them down. 

No one is alive who endured the slave trade now. So why is anyone so offended that they feel the need to remove anything related to it?  The whole world can be seen as pretty much offensive from its past....and present. 

Funnily this whole episode of erasing will become part of history. People will look back and think WTF were they thinking. 

 

As you said 100% correctly before that people should learn from history instead of deleting it. 

[lenred]

8 minutes ago, Andre_The_Giant said:

Most concerning. Do you have any theories as to why City Cat, City Kitty or the Coldseal Pigs were similarly hounded out of the club?

Fair point.  Therefore I hereby retract all previous statements made regards the possible reasoning for scrapping Scrumpy the Robin and will give said cuddly toy relic back to the dog ! 

[IAmNick]

16 minutes ago, spudski said:

Fair points. 

Perhaps it's the people who are easily offended by a statue or name who need to be re educated on how they should react to such things. 

Around the world, pretty much every statue, historic building, throughout cultures that built empires on overpowering other nations and enslaving them, still stand and remind everyone of how they were built. 

We don't wish to pull them down. 

No one is alive who endured the slave trade now. So why is anyone so offended that they feel the need to remove anything related to it?  The whole world can be seen as pretty much offensive from its past....and present. 

Funnily this whole episode of erasing will become part of history. People will look back and think WTF were they thinking. 

 

True, but one person's "easily offended" is another's legitimate concern. I expect a lot of the stuff we get up in arms about with football most people would say are us being easily offended when we're complaining about the club treating us as customers and not fans, fuming over some offhand comment Lansdown made in an interview, or the colour of a new shirt in the shop due to it's relation to other teams. It's important to us though, because of our personal association with it, just as these things are important to others.

I'm also not going to mention any by name, but surely you can think of events in history that nobody alive endured but you wouldn't want statues, badges, etc. publicly displayed for them?

 

[spudski]

9 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Excellent post Spudski but unfortunately our resident woke SD won’t agree…….……….

RR...let's not make this diversive and about a them and us scenario. 

Being offended by something doesn't need the word ' woke' attached to it. As soon as you quote that word, it gets people riled. Inclusivity and education are better. 

Many people are offended for different reasons. 

https://upjourney.com/why-are-people-so-easily-offended

This author in here video makes good points. 

https://time.com/5543441/stop-getting-offended/

 

 

 

[italian dave]

15 minutes ago, luke_bristol said:

Why don’t they dissolve the paper? Forever tainted by blood money.

 

 

And that would achieve what? 

(surprised to hear you suggesting it though!)

[Red-Robbo]

8 minutes ago, luke_bristol said:

Why don’t they dissolve the paper? Forever tainted by blood money.

 

Hmmm. Although the paper was founded in Manchester by cotton merchants who would have received some of their raw products from slave-owning nations, it was also a campaigner against slavery and welcomed its repeal in British colonies in 1837.

Really, it only became a national paper when CP Scott (a local lad from Bath) took over editorship and then ownership in late Victorian times.  Uniquely, for a British mainstream newspaper, it isn't owned by a multi-millionaire, but is supported by the Scott Trust, a fund set up by Scott's descendants and other supporters in 1936.

Interestingly, Scott wasn't the only Somerset newspaper founder. Cyril Pearson who founded the Daily Express was from Wookey.

 

[supercidered]

3 hours ago, lenred said:

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!  

Oi !!!

You can't say bird !!!

[Robbored]

4 minutes ago, spudski said:

RR...let's not make this diversive and about a them and us scenario. 

I think that those who are woke fanatics are nothing more than political activists who go out of their way to irritate the rest of us - us that are too thick to understand whatever it is they’re protesting about.The recent incident was when some bloke spilt orange powder on a snooker table live on tv wearing a T shirt with whatever he was protesting about written on it.

On the other table a woman tried to glue herself to the table but was stopped by security. 

Other social warriors sitting and blocking the M25, others holding up the traffic in Bristol for some other protest.

All they’re doing is pissing off everyone else and achieving nothing.

If they want to change things then become a MP and get into government.