Our Badge

Cheadle_hulmeBlue said:
So an image of a ship now automatically means slavery?

This article sounds like the guardian clutching at straws and trying to create a reaction.
Click to expand...
They have gone through a period of self flagellation themselves in terms of benefiting from slavery and have pulled the rest of Manchester including the reds and us into their analysis. Whilst I didn’t agree with much of their conclusions, I didn’t see the article as a hatchet job.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
They have gone through a period of self flagellation themselves in terms of benefiting from slavery and have pulled the rest of Manchester including the reds and us into their analysis. Whilst I didn’t agree with much of their conclusions, I didn’t see the article as a hatchet job.
Click to expand...

You wake up one morning and decide that a cartoon ship was once a slave ship and that we should in some way be ashamed of that?

It's bollocks from top to bottom mate ;)
 
domalino said:
I thought this as well, but it turned out the ship on the Manchester coat of arms (1842) predates the canal by 50 years (opened 1894) which is pretty conclusive.
Click to expand...

Why? Why is that conclusive. If I draw a ship now, it can relate to anything I want it to. The ship when it appeared on the club badge was after the canal was built, and after the period of slavery. And when it was used in 2016, it could literally have referred to anything the designers thought of.

People can have a view, and can link it or any other motif to many things. But one thing that is certain, no link can ever really be 'conclusive'.
 
Coatigan said:
Why is that conclusive
Click to expand...

It’s conclusive because you can’t invent a symbol for something that isn’t going to exist for 50 years.

The ship is from the City coat of arms, I can’t believe anyone is disputing that.

So the ship has the meaning from when it went on the coat of arms. You can’t copy a logo and then retroactively decide one element has an entirely different meaning.

I think it’s entirely fair to question if the ship is linked to cotton specifically or just represents all naval trade, but the link to the canal has obviously been invented after the fact.
 
Last edited:
RiversideBlue said:
An interesting, well-balanced piece in the Guardian today, written by a blue, discussing the origins of the ship on our badge, and it's links to slavary in the cotton fields of America.

www.theguardian.com

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

A three-masted vessel adorns the city’s buildings and both teams’ crests. But is it an emblem of a crime against humanity?
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

It's so very American to see a ship and think of slavery.
 
domalino said:
It’s conclusive because you can’t invent a symbol for something that isn’t going to exist for 50 years.
Click to expand...
A, Of course you can. But that is not what I am claiming though. When the symbol appeared on the club badge, the canal had opened.

The symbol on the broader coat of arms, sure, argue away. But that doesnt mean the club badge ship does. It certailny doesn't, nor can it, make that claim conclusive.
 
Coatigan said:
A, Of course you can. But that is not what I am claiming though. When the symbol appeared on the club badge, the canal had opened.

The symbol on the broader coat of arms, sure, argue away. But that doesnt mean the club badge ship does. It certailny doesn't, nor can it, make that claim conclusive.
Click to expand...


Every ship is evil mate, even pretend ones.
 
Coatigan said:
A, Of course you can. But that is not what I am claiming though. When the symbol appeared on the club badge, the canal had opened.

The symbol on the broader coat of arms, sure, argue away. But that doesnt mean the club badge ship does. It certailny doesn't, nor can it, make that claim conclusive.
Click to expand...

Again, your claim is that the club adopted the coat of arms of Manchester as a crest, but secretly changed the meaning of one element to mean something else.

Quite a lot of mental gymnastics going on there.
 
domalino said:
It’s conclusive because you can’t invent a symbol for something that isn’t going to exist for 50 years.

The ship is from the City coat of arms, I can’t believe anyone is disputing that.

So the ship has the meaning from when it went on the coat of arms. You can’t copy a logo and then retroactively decide one element has an entirely different meaning.

I think it’s entirely fair to question if the ship is linked to cotton specifically or just represents all naval trade, but the link to the canal has obviously been invented after the fact.
Click to expand...

I see you did your usual big edit.

My point still stands. Of course you can. They are different badges, at different times, and can symbolise com completely different things. A journalist has one view. You agree with him. Doesn't make either of you right, and it certainly isn't conclusive. Doesn't make me right either of course, but that is really my whole point. You can't claim something as conclusive based on your interpretation of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top