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!  

[Red-Robbo]

42 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. 

 

Looks more like a tea clipper from the mid-19th century on that badge, the sort of ship that would be carrying slaves would be altogether squatter and with less mast space.

As for the ship on Bristol's badge, it's a stylised medieval ship passing Bristol Castle which had been torn down before the Atlantic slave trade really got going.

People who go on about Bristol being built from the profits of slavery tend to forget that it was the UK's second largest port from the 12th Century to the mid-18th Century.  Its maritime foundation has nothing to do with African slavery. 

[italian dave]

5 minutes ago, spudski said:

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

 

And, again, the article itself makes exactly that point about ships generally. But the question - and it’s a question, not a statement or assumption - is whether this represents a very specific type of ship. And there are people who don’t think it does, and well as people who think it’s irrelevant even if it does - all of which is acknowledged in the article. 

Slavery is wrong. Doesn’t matter when, who, how, the colour of the slave or of the trader. I’m not sure why you think that anyone would think otherwise. And why you seem to feel that somehow the fact that it’s still goes on today, and is practiced by black slave traders, somehow makes what happened in the past any less awful.

I can post links of - literally - dozens of Guardian articles about slavery in Libya if you really want me to. It just seems a bit of a waste of time just to prove the point - you can Google it as easily as me! 

[View from the Dolman]

3 minutes 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!  

Who said that we need to have new mascots to be inclusive? Or this is now just asserted as fact on the basis of nothing?

[italian dave]

29 minutes ago, AshtonGreat said:

Sounds a bit tenuous

Which bit?

[Selred]

13 minutes ago, lenred said:

Its a bloody bird!  

And ironically you're the one bringing it up.

[AshtonGreat]

7 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Which bit?

a specific type of ship that was associated with the trade on which Manchester was built. A trade which relied on slavery.

 

[The Coach]

Demolition Man got it spot on

[RedRaw]

14 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Slavery is wrong. Doesn’t matter when, who, how, the colour of the slave or of the trader. I’m not sure why you think that anyone would think otherwise. And why you seem to feel that somehow the fact that it’s still goes on today, and is practiced by black slave traders, somehow makes what happened in the past any less awful.

 

I link the word ‘Italian’ to ‘Romans’ whose power and economy were built from slavery.

Dave, I am slightly offended so would suggest you consider changing your username 

Edited April 21, 2023 by RedRaw

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, italian dave said:

And, again, the article itself makes exactly that point about ships generally. But the question - and it’s a question, not a statement or assumption - is whether this represents a very specific type of ship. And there are people who don’t think it does, and well as people who think it’s irrelevant even if it does - all of which is acknowledged in the article. 

Slavery is wrong. Doesn’t matter when, who, how, the colour of the slave or of the trader. I’m not sure why you think that anyone would think otherwise. And why you seem to feel that somehow the fact that it’s still goes on today, and is practiced by black slave traders, somehow makes what happened in the past any less awful.

I can post links of - literally - dozens of Guardian articles about slavery in Libya if you really want me to. It just seems a bit of a waste of time just to prove the point - you can Google it as easily as me! 

Firstly let me say I agree with your last two paragraphs. 

However...I think you are missing the point re...' what is the point of the article?'

Various ships were used in slavery and transport of all products from around the world. 

If the Guardian were that concerned about the type of ship used in the Slave trade, they would have done more research and found out for themselves.

They've purely contrived an article trying to shoe horn an idea, that maybe these types of ships were used in the slave trade. A quick Google and it shows like I said various types of masted ships were used. 

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/slave-ships-and-the-middle-passage/#:~:text=American traders preferred somewhat smaller,to crew and cargo alike.

It's a shoddy article, poorly researched,  purely written to stir up more division and the idea to get rid of our history. 

[slartibartfast]

47 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

Is anything in the Guardian worth a read?

As much as any of the right wing rags are !

[Wellspokenman]

The spelling in the Guardian is so bad, they are probably talking about Pish 

[slartibartfast]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

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

Hows about..........Caucasian non binary gender  Street ?

[LondonBristolian]

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

Firstly let me say I agree with your last two paragraphs. 

However...I think you are missing the point re...' what is the point of the article?'

Various ships were used in slavery and transport of all products from around the world. 

If the Guardian were that concerned about the type of ship used in the Slave trade, they would have done more research and found out for themselves.

They've purely contrived an article trying to shoe horn an idea, that maybe these types of ships were used in the slave trade. A quick Google and it shows like I said various types of masted ships were used. 

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/slave-ships-and-the-middle-passage/#:~:text=American traders preferred somewhat smaller,to crew and cargo alike.

It's a shoddy article, poorly researched,  purely written to stir up more division and the idea to get rid of our history. 

The idea that finding out more about our history erases our history feels like Orwellian Doublespeak to me. There's obviously question of what we actually do - if anything - about any further information around the UK's links to the slave trade but I completely disagree with the idea that finding out more about it erases rather than widens our understanding of our past. 

[2015]

1 hour 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? 

Yes it is. A total nonsense that is being used to divide those at the bottom.

[AshtonGreat]

4 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

The idea that finding out more about our history erases our history feels like Orwellian Doublespeak to me. There's obviously question of what we actually do - if anything - about any further information around the UK's links to the slave trade but I completely disagree with the idea that finding out more about it erases rather than widens our understanding of our past. 

It often goes much further than that though

[Silvio Dante]

15 minutes ago, The Coach said:

Demolition Man got it spot on

True. 
 

I often use three seashells to wipe my arse. Chafes a bit, but that’s progress for you.

[The Gasbuster]

1 hour ago, Clutton Caveman said:

Is anything in the Guardian worth a read?

Great toilet paper, though.

"Soft, strong and thoroughly absorbent !".

[Silvio Dante]

15 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

The idea that finding out more about our history erases our history feels like Orwellian Doublespeak to me. There's obviously question of what we actually do - if anything - about any further information around the UK's links to the slave trade but I completely disagree with the idea that finding out more about it erases rather than widens our understanding of our past. 

Colston is the measure here. I’m totally of the mind that the plinth should remain empty, and there be a plaque or notice next to it which explains both the good and bad he did. Should we celebrate a slave trader? Of course not (IMO) but pre the statue coming down a lot of people just saw “Colston” as a name of the concert hall, school, street etc. 

Bizarrely, as opposed to cancelling Colston, taking the statue down educated people about the good things he did - whilst also acknowledging that they were funded by something that we all agree was horrible but was acceptable back then.

In the words of Bob Marley “If you know your history, then you would know where you’re coming from”. That’s all this is.

[Red-Robbo]

26 minutes ago, spudski said:

Firstly let me say I agree with your last two paragraphs. 

However...I think you are missing the point re...' what is the point of the article?'

Various ships were used in slavery and transport of all products from around the world. 

If the Guardian were that concerned about the type of ship used in the Slave trade, they would have done more research and found out for themselves.

They've purely contrived an article trying to shoe horn an idea, that maybe these types of ships were used in the slave trade. A quick Google and it shows like I said various types of masted ships were used. 

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/slave-ships-and-the-middle-passage/#:~:text=American traders preferred somewhat smaller,to crew and cargo alike.

It's a shoddy article, poorly researched,  purely written to stir up more division and the idea to get rid of our history. 

 

What happens when you get a "feature writer" attempt to do news.... 

[Robbored]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

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.

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

For the bloody umpteenth time…

Try explaining that to woke people……..like those that tore down the Colton statue - you know the man of his time who was a great benefactor to the City of Bristol.?

[pillred]

1 hour 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. 

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.

Edited April 21, 2023 by pillred

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, Robbored said:

Try explaining that to woke people……..like those that tore down the Colton statue - you know the man of his time who was a great benefactor to the City of Bristol.?

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?

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

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.

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

For the bloody umpteenth time…

 

Whiteladies is a name used for the Augustinian order of nuns - they wore white robes.

Although there is no record of a convent on Whiteladies Road, we know there was one elsewhere in Clifton.  Hence the name.

[lenred]

43 minutes ago, Selred said:

And ironically you're the one bringing it up.

Why is that ironic? 

[Rebounder]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

.

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. 

 

 

This is the only site that I've seen this story posted on so far. Not seen it anywhere on the more woke places I frequent and the websites that have much younger demographics than here. 

Can't even see it on the other football forums and Reddit though haven't dug that deeply and it's still early. 

Nothing been posted on any of the Instant Messaging groups I am in. 

My workplace is quite young and pretty liberal. I reckon they'll be interested in the history behind the story, but not have a massive view on the football badges. No one's come in raging, guardian app under the arm, suggesting we burn down Old Trafford. (Unfortunately)

So whose being sucked in? 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Rebounder

[LondonBristolian]

8 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.

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? 

[spudski]

22 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

The idea that finding out more about our history erases our history feels like Orwellian Doublespeak to me. There's obviously question of what we actually do - if anything - about any further information around the UK's links to the slave trade but I completely disagree with the idea that finding out more about it erases rather than widens our understanding of our past. 

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 all know it was/ is wrong. We all know vast industries and people made vast amounts of money from the trade, and City's benefitted from it. 

We benefited from dirty money. 

Nothing wrong with learning about our history. But you learn not to make the same mistakes...not erase the memory. 

Pretty much every civilisation in the world has benefitted from slave labour. 

The Romans, Egyptians, Mayans, British Empire, etc etc etc

So many City's, businesses, Crests all have an historical link to the slave trade. 

Visit Rome...what do you see...statues of leaders that were as bad as Hitler, enslaved people and used them build empires. We visit the Gladiator arena's, take pictures, are in awe of its grandeur. A whole tourist trade, making vast amounts of money, glorifying the empire built on enslaving people and destroying them. 

The same with Egypt and places in South America. 

Yet we pull down statues, re name streets and want to get rid of ships off badges. 

These people complaining,  will all enjoy the wrongful benefits of our past across the world. And like I said...places have a vast tourist trade based around enslavement and killing. 

No one alive remembers the British slave trade. 

So how can someone be offended for all our past in the slave trade, but still enjoy all the grandeur of other empires built on enslaving people. 

It's hypocrisy of the highest order. 

[spudski]

22 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Colston is the measure here. I’m totally of the mind that the plinth should remain empty, and there be a plaque or notice next to it which explains both the good and bad he did. Should we celebrate a slave trader? Of course not (IMO) but pre the statue coming down a lot of people just saw “Colston” as a name of the concert hall, school, street etc. 

Bizarrely, as opposed to cancelling Colston, taking the statue down educated people about the good things he did - whilst also acknowledging that they were funded by something that we all agree was horrible but was acceptable back then.

In the words of Bob Marley “If you know your history, then you would know where you’re coming from”. That’s all this is.

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

[italian dave]

38 minutes ago, spudski said:

Firstly let me say I agree with your last two paragraphs. 

However...I think you are missing the point re...' what is the point of the article?'

Various ships were used in slavery and transport of all products from around the world. 

If the Guardian were that concerned about the type of ship used in the Slave trade, they would have done more research and found out for themselves.

They've purely contrived an article trying to shoe horn an idea, that maybe these types of ships were used in the slave trade. A quick Google and it shows like I said various types of masted ships were used. 

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/slave-ships-and-the-middle-passage/#:~:text=American traders preferred somewhat smaller,to crew and cargo alike.

It's a shoddy article, poorly researched,  purely written to stir up more division and the idea to get rid of our history. 

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. 

[italian dave]

5 minutes ago, spudski said:

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

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!

Edited April 21, 2023 by italian dave

[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