Our Badge

[halfcenturyup]

You're welcome lol. I was actually a deckhand on the hovercraft in Dover for a short time in 1989. There were small craft and large craft. If you copped a small craft in rough weather it could be tough. One thing is they didn't fly in any seas over force 6-7. A totally different motion to ships too. Ships pitch and roll whereas hovercrafts bounce. If it's any consolation I went to work once with a hangover. We were supposed to be on a large craft but got swapped to a small one and it was choppy. My shift was spent lying on a bench on the car deck during the crossing in-between throwing up. Then in port I did my job. All with the delightful smell of diesel too lol. So I suffered too.

:) That's right. I had never seen anything like it. A big wall of water in front, slowly up, over and dooooown. I remember there was one boat and one hovercraft going back before they stopped the service and I thought 45 minutes in a hovercraft must be better than 90 on a boat.

Mistaaaaaaaaake!

Edit: It's all coming back to me now. I was holding the barrier so hard for an hour that when we landed ai couldn't move my fingers. They were locked in a grip position. Actual white knuckles.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I have absolutely no issue with the article itself. Other than being way too long and a bit pointless, but I don't see it as anti City at all in any way. What's counterproductive about it, is it presents one view, which is absolutely fine, and then tries to suggest it as the only right view. And the only way to acknowledge imortant discussion on historical events.

I don’t see it as anti-City either.

I actually welcome these types of debates, as it is one of the best ways to get people thinking about these issues, discussing them with people that may not agree with their stance, and driving us to be better now than we were before.

Progress is messy, as Manchester symbolises.

 

[halfcenturyup]

But it does make us complicit once we are aware of how our way of life is maintained via externalisation of costs via the exploitation and suffering of people elsewhere (there is no such thing as “cheap” goods and services; someone, somewhere is making up the full price).

And I think it is fine to openly acknowledge, discuss, and grapple with what that means.

Which is why I don’t mind the article. I just think the suggestion the ship should be removed is misguided and ultimately counterproductive.

Depends how prone one is to soul-searching I suppose. This one, not so much.

 

[paulchapo]

:) That's right. I had never seen anything like it. A big wall of water in front, slowly up, over and dooooown. I remember there was one boat and one hovercraft going back before they stopped the service and I thought 45 minutes in a hovercraft must be better than 90 on a boat.

Mistaaaaaaaaake!

I don't think they flew in winter due to the weather. It was the easiest job I've ever had in my life.

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

Seems the guardian has an actual/ much bigger link to slavery than a ship on a badge. Maybe they should get cancelled as well?

 

[SebastianBlue]

Especially since many went on strike in support of the slaves, even if it meant them not being able to feed their own household.

Very true. Though, it took some time for them to come to that stance, after quite a bit of public debate (and no small amount of conflict), which is why articules likes these are important.

People tend to forget that things didn’t just “happen” in the past because history is mostly taught as a series of events and dates, with little in the way of context in between in most cases (and that just out of necessity of group education, unless you specialise in history at uni or out of your own interest).

In reality, each “event” itself was most often actually a large collection of smaller happenings, conflicts, decisions, groups of people, and consequences over a longer period of time coming together to manifest outcomes (rinse and repeat). Even those events we would consider significant and acute were themselves dependent on less obvious factors coming immediately (or long) before they occured.

We’re in yet another period like that, which when it is taught, will leave out quite a lot of the smaller debates and conflicts that comprised it, including the discussion on here about the article.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Depends how prone one is to soul-searching I suppose. This one, not so much.

And that’s fine. But that also means one cannot reasonably claim to care about the less fortunate… when one doesn’t actually care about the plight of the less fortunate. That’s all I am saying. It’s a choice each of us has every right to make, but we have to own it when we do. Depending on that choice, some things we say and beliefs we hold may reasonably ring hallow as a result.

 

[Saddleworth2]

No sports desk hates City or the Sheikh or the UAE more than The Guardian. They’re a bloody disgrace when it comes to our football club. I don’t mind them as a paper in general, but I’d rather buy a subscription to the Daily fucking Mail than the Guardian, just because of their sports writers.

They’ll have been rocking in their chairs when the writer came forward with that article; ‘ooh yay, another thing to have a dig about City over’.

Other than their coverage of City I like the paper. I don’t pay as penny as I access it on line. All the media are disgraceful in their coverage of us. BBC worst of all because they are supposed to be neutral.

 

[MadchesterCity]

The author is a blue.

FFS.

They never used to be part of the City matters committee did they?

 

[When The Levee Breaks]

Interesting article. I always thought the ship was linked to the ship canal too. Never associated it with the slave trade.

Bit weird to set his sights on the Manchester clubs though, and seemingly excused other clubs from having ships on their badges.

Tranmere’s warship signifies the town’s shipbuilding heritage; fishing town Grimsby has a trawler; and Plymouth’s Mayflower commemorates the Pilgrims’ ship that set sail for the new world.

Tranmere; made warships. 3 of which were used by the Confederate States Navy, in the American Civil War. As in the war to abolish slavery

Grimsby; a trawler, to celebrate its fishing industry. Ssshhh nobody tell the Vegans or Animal Rights groups. I dont think they've noticed yet.

The Mayflower; The ship that carried the Pilgrims to the New World...so they could take all the land off the Indigenous people and then spend many years massacring them. And enslaving them.

The journalist in question is seemingly ok with that though!?

 

[Coatigan]

I actually welcome these types of debates, as it is one of the best ways to get people thinking about these issues, discussing them with people that may not agree with their stance, and driving us to be better now than we were before.

Depends really, on whether they have a point worth debating, or whether they are just pointless whataboutery, like this one mostly is.

Just like similar motifs can symbolise many different things (even at the same time let alone centuries apart), articles asking questions can be both a positive contribution to debate, or a counterproductive distraction that ultimately becomes just another 'culture war' battle.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Depends really, on whether they have a point worth debating, or whether they are just pointless whataboutery, like this one mostly is.

Just like similar motifs can symbolise many different things, even at the same time, let alone centuries apart, articles asking questions can be both a positive contribution to debate, or a counterproductive distraction that ultimately becomes just another 'culture war' battle.

That’s fair. I personally don’t see this one as pointless like quite a lot of the clickbait written about us (or related to us), but I can see why someone might feel that way.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

It’s interesting how society deals with these types of issues. The slave trade, the Empire etc are all a stain on our past. Removing tge ship from the Manchester Coat of Arms won’t change anything! Instead history needs to be placed into context and our relationship with it needs to evolve. Theres no point in executing a cover up - the UK needs to come to terms with its past and accept responsibility for our ancestor’s actions. The statues of various despots who profited from the slave trade should not be in prominent places like they were in Bristol but they should be preserved in museums for people to learn from. The Germans could have bulldozed Dacau and pretended it was never there - but far better to preserve it and let us understand the horrors that took place there.

I agree with some of your points, but context is needed. I recall the England v Italy Euro’s Final and some muppets saying they were supporting Italy because of England’s colonial past! There have been 49-51 empires down the ages. I’m sure they all did shameful things. The Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese didn’t cover themselves in glory either. Also, looking at my heavily Irish and Norman influenced family tree, not sure I’m buying into the guilt trip. Or should I feel guilty about the Norman Conquest? Trying to apportion blame and guilt from history is utterly pointless. One of the bosses at my company moved to head office in France because his wife who is Russian was getting too much grief about The Ukraine invasion here. It’s not her fault. She didn’t have a hotline into Putin. What lessons are we learning here? If some bloke in Bristol traded slaves in the 1800’s you’ll do well to convince me it’s my fault. I definitely haven’t profited. I’m just a bloke from the North West, dragged up on an Oldham council estate without a pot to piss in. The Asian blokes in the mills I worked in didn’t have a pot to piss in either. I can say the Samosas they gave me were fantastic though. Simple days.
Apologies for the rant and I accept I failed to make a coherent point. I blame pre game drinks.

 

[Coatigan]

That’s fair. I personally don’t see this one as pointless like quite a lot of the clickbait written about us (or related to us), but I can see why someone might feel that way.

I do. Again, nothing to do with City, as a point it makes itself. From the start, it's own premise is 'now that we have found a link between the Guardian and slavery, what else can we link to it'.

 

[Jimmieblue]

Especially since many went on strike in support of the slaves, even if it meant them not being able to feed their own household.

That fact alone needs to be celebrated. I’m not sure this part of history is widely known. Keep the ship, it symbolises our recognition of the historical facts, and the sacrifice made by some during those times.

 

[Sir peace frog]

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.

dom will argue with anything to get an argument, then edit his post to say something different then argue that point.its what he does

 

[There is a Light]

Just change it to an oil can and have done with it.

 

[Jazzyblue]

Absolutely agree.

I would likely be classed as “woke” by many on here, as I fervently believe we still haven’t fully come to terms with the vast darkness of our history and the very real consequences of it still playing out around the world today (see what is happening in Sudan and Israel/Palestine right now for but two examples). Nor have we done much in the way of atoning for the sins of our fathers. That doesn’t mean condemning those alive today for what their ancestors did, but it does mean earnestly studying the harm our country has done over the centuries, especially in the name of empire, acknowledging that our relative wealth and political dominance today is largely due to heinous actions and insidious exploitation, and coming to terms with the exploitation and subjugation still existing today (evolved from the historical policies and actions of those that came before us), which underpin our socioeconomic and political structures, and our very way of life.

But even I think removing the ship from our, United’s, or any else crest/logo is wholly misguided. It serves to achieve none of the goals I outline above. If anything, as you allude to above, it only serves to further obfuscate our past. And beyond that, a sailing ship was used by a great many people in our culture and elsewhere for things completely unrelated to slavery, colonialism, and war. If we scrubbed all symbols that had some connection with those detestable actions we would scarcely have much left to use for any purpose.

Whilst I appreciate this blue’s work to highlight the role slavery and colonialism played in Manchester’s history (something we still need to explore more), removing the ship on the badge is not going to change anything. In fact, I think leaving it does more good.

Superbly put SebBlue. Great contribution to a solid debate on here. Slavery is in my ancestry but I'll be wearing my badge with pride.

Yes there is a side of Manchester's past that should be reported and those who don't know it should know it, but there's nothing wrong with Manchester being proud of the positive role Mancunians played in taking a stand against the slave trade.

Yes, the city made money from cotton, but goods from the colonies and made with slave labour were at the heart of the development of modern British capitalism - not just Manchester, and people directly involved in the slave trade were dispersed all over the country - and more particularly concentrated in places like Bristol and Liverpool.

It also mustn't be forgotten that while they might not have been slaves, the lives of thousands in Manchester were extremely hard. Many millworkers here didn't have the money and power of the slave owning/landowning/slave trading classes - which is why people stood in solidarity with other exploited peoples. That doesn't change or absolve the horrors of the past but it's a reality.

Our club has had heroes with roots everywhere from County Durham to Congo. Our present-day team is a great example of people from all over the world working together for glory in a game where the only colour that should matter is blue. I'm all for people understanding why the world is the way it is today but I'm also conscious that division sells in this day and age - and the Guardian likes to put people in neat boxes marked 'victim' or 'victimiser' and insult people's dignity for its own interests.

Linking every ship to slavery is like linking every car to a hit and run. I hope the club doesn't feel under pressure to do anything kneejerk because messing with the badge will do a lot more harm than good, and just isn't necessary. Huge difference between a picture of a ship representing an a outward looking trading city of canals in a seafaring nation and a statue of an actual people trafficker like Colston in Bristol.

 

[LongsightM13]

No sports desk hates City or the Sheikh or the UAE more than The Guardian. They’re a bloody disgrace when it comes to our football club. I don’t mind them as a paper in general, but I’d rather buy a subscription to the Daily fucking Mail than the Guardian, just because of their sports writers.

They’ll have been rocking in their chairs when the writer came forward with that article; ‘ooh yay, another thing to have a dig about City over’.

Nail on head
And worst of all are their resident Uncle Toms, Conn and Hattenstone

 

[LongsightM13]

Seems the guardian has an actual/ much bigger link to slavery than a ship on a badge. Maybe they should get cancelled as well?

That’s why they’re doing it. It’s classic deflection