Our Badge

[Brewster's millions]

Interesting and well-balanced? My arse! Written by the new Colin Schindler out to get a name for himself by going against the club and its ever-increasing fanbase. Absolute bellend in my eyes. Why would any Blue want to write an article to besmirch the club? Let alone make up some shite that only RAWK activists or could latch onto as truth and run with it. This **** needs to get a serious grip and then, when he has, fuck right off from our club.

Having read the article again this morning, I must say it really is a terrible piece of work from a poor excuse of a journalist, who as you say seems intent on stealing Schindler’s gig as the self-loathing, navel-gazing ‘City fan’ and the meal ticket that comes with it.

The whole thing reads as a borderline-satirical expose of the importance of ships to global trade in the 19th century. Appallingly written, too. Try as he might, and no matter how many times he repeats his simplistic logic, Hattenstone fails to make a persuasive argument to link Manchester’s ship emblem to the slave trade, and so any controversy around the use of the ship in the football club badges is somewhat hysterical.

Little to no attempt is made to provide balance, and Manchester’s proud history of economic Liberalism is regrettably (but rather predictably) skipped over. For example, no mention is made of the influential Manchester School of Economics, which saw free trade as the route to a more equitable and peaceful society, and - ironically enough - essentially advocated Britain abandoning its colonies and the taxes which supported them. Needless to say, the Manchester School was strongly opposed to slavery, with the betterment of conditions for the poorest of society being the central element of its philosophy.

Given the pioneering nature of this school of thought, in particular how it promoted economic theory as a route to a fairer and freer society, some celebration of free trade within Manchester’s coat of arms seems wholly appropriate. But all of this is lost on Hattenstone, who appears incapable of producing anything beyond a bit of bland virtue-signalling and a few mis-directed pops at our football club.

Thank God our city had some genuine intellectual heft behind it back in the day and didn’t have to rely on the likes of the present-day Guardian for direction or indeed the mealy mouthed Andy Burnham, who I note refuses to defend the Manchester coat of arms.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Stop the world i want to get off.

 

[John Wayne]

More woke shite. Everything in everyday life nowadays that is normal is not acceptable to these white middle class baby face zealots. So therefore it has to be cancelled. F*ck them.......

No doubt the article was written on an iMac built in a Chinese factory where the workers get paid fuck all, sleep on toilet floors and jump out of windows to end their misery of forced labour. The Guardian really is full of tossers.

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

Notice they never go and try storm downing street or the offices of a major multinational corporation or the Davos convention.

All little middle class agent provocateurs

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

I hope the clown who started all this gets punted out the games moving forward.

 

[halfcenturyup]

FUCK OFF!

Having read all the posts in this thread, and carefully considered the pros and cons, I have finally come to the conclusion that this is the only appropriate response.

 

[mancityvstoke]

Can we still be called Mancs?

 

[DCS1]

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.

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

AS A life long Mixed race City fan , I find this article disgraceful. Youd be hard pushed to find a more integrated racially diverse club as City are today and I am almost embarrassed to think any other blue would think just because of my race I would agree with this nonsense. Just about every old institution will have some link , however tenuous to racism (as this link is) or other unacceptable behaviour but this so called link defies belief and I want our lovely badge to stay the same .The badge represents MANCHESTER not slavery and lets not forget that Manchester was VERY involved in the abolition movement .

 

[cheekybids]

Can we still be called Mancs?

I’m afraid not as Mancs comes from Manchester which comes from the Roman name Mancunium & they also had slaves. In fact I think we also have to avoid straight roads, aqueducts & medicines with latin names.

 

[mancityvstoke]

I’m afraid not as Mancs comes from Manchester which comes from the Roman name Mancunium & they also had slaves. In fact I think we also have to avoid straight roads, aqueducts & medicines with latin names.

bugger

 

[Manx Blue]

This was just discussed on TS.

Leroy Rosenior was on, saying a :sensible discussion and debate should commence" for Education purposes, in order to move forward.

I believe he should've educated himself before commenting on either badge.

 

[SamBlue]

As I've already said, I didn't mind the article, I didn't find it negative in any way and I learned a few things as a non-Mancunian. This is getting out of hands though, because we 'borrowed' city's Coat of Arms and the whole debate is getting much more complex. If the only problem is a slave ship just change the bloody silhouette of the ship. Something like this for example, much better description of us right now.

 

[bluejon]

I see it's given the Sun an excuse to wank themselves into an anti-woke frenzy this morning. One paper acting like a **** enabling another paper to act like a **** and so the cycle of bullshit continues.

 

[halfcenturyup]

We’ll have to simply disagree on your (or my) premise, as any real response would take this well outside the confines of this thread and football-related forum.

I will say, though, that my post (and my stance) is based on what was actually done and the real, continuing consequences of it, not an impossible analysis of whether what was done was “better or worse” than some unknowable alternative history. And, of course, to avoid glorifying atrocities and ongoing exploitation as part of some delusional notion of “civilising the world”, which seems to be the main fallback argument for those that wish not to confront our history.

At the risk of opening all this up again, what is this "our history" of which you speak. There is the history of my personal ancestors which, generally speaking, I have been able to trace back to the 17th century. I can tell you I have no ancestors who got rich on the back of the industrial revolution and the growth of empire. I have people who dragged themselves up to working class, and in some instances lower middle class, on the back of the benefits of both, but none who were involved in decision-making that would make me feel remotely anxious about my personal history. I suspect you, as a proud Brit/Spaniard can also trace your ancestry back to the same period. Does your personal history have any ancestors who were actually responsible for events that we would now call atrocities? I doubt it.

So then there is History, with a capital h, as an amalgam of all the histories of our own personal ancestors. That includes all the empires that have come and gone, all the atrocities performed by the Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Romans (I could go on), and yes, the British, Spanish, French and Germans to name but a few. But that is as impersonal to me as it gets. I contributed in no way to it and, as far as I can make out with almost certainty, nor did any of my ancestors. It is interesting to study, sure. Lessons can be learned about how to behave, sure. But even leaving aside the contemporary contexts, in which, presumably, all these events, which we now consider atrocities, were considered to be normal behaviour until they weren't, I still have no personal feelings about any of it. Things happened, we now consider some of them bad. Done and dusted.

And this isn't revionist denialism. No-one, as far as I can see, is denying any of it happened. Revisionist denialism would be removing the boat from the city's heraldic achievement because of some tenuous link to an atrocity which the city's population made efforts, at some cost, to end.

 

[Maly]

We’ll have to simply disagree on your (or my) premise, as any real response would take this well outside the confines of this thread and football-related forum.

I will say, though, that my post (and my stance) is based on what was actually done and the real, continuing consequences of it, not an impossible analysis of whether what was done was “better or worse” than some unknowable alternative history. And, of course, to avoid glorifying atrocities and ongoing exploitation as part of some delusional notion of “civilising the world”, which seems to be the main fallback argument for those that wish not to confront our history.

Are there any consequences continuing which are positive, or can you only see negative consequences due to British history?

What did the Roman’s ever do for us eh?

 

[iwasthere1968]

As I've already said, I didn't mind the article, I didn't find it negative in any way and I learned a few things as a non-Mancunian. This is getting out of hands though, because we 'borrowed' city's Coat of Arms and the whole debate is getting much more complex. If the only problem is a slave ship just change the bloody silhouette of the ship. Something like this for example, much better description of us right now.

View attachment 75759

Only problem with that badge is the Vikings were amongst the biggestever slavers in their time.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

As I've already said, I didn't mind the article, I didn't find it negative in any way and I learned a few things as a non-Mancunian. This is getting out of hands though, because we 'borrowed' city's Coat of Arms and the whole debate is getting much more complex. If the only problem is a slave ship just change the bloody silhouette of the ship. Something like this for example, much better description of us right now.

View attachment 75759

No fucking way. My ancestors were ruined by the Viking invasions.

 

[SebastianBlue]

At the risk of opening all this up again, what is this "our history" of which you speak. There is the history of my personal ancestors which, generally speaking, I have been able to trace back to the 17th century. I can tell you I have no ancestors who got rich on the back of the industrial revolution and the growth of empire. I have people who dragged themselves up to working class, and in some instances lower middle class, on the back of the benefits of both, but none who were involved in decision-making that would make me feel remotely anxious about my personal history. I suspect you, as a proud Brit/Spaniard can also trace your ancestry back to the same period. Does your personal history have any ancestors who were actually responsible for events that we would now call atrocities? I doubt it.

So then there is History, with a capital h, as an amalgam of all the histories of our own personal ancestors. That includes all the empires that have come and gone, all the atrocities performed by the Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Romans (I could go on), and yes, the British, Spanish, French and Germans to name but a few. But that is as impersonal to me as it gets. I contributed in no way to it and, as far as I can make out with almost certainty, nor did any of my ancestors. It is interesting to study, sure. Lessons can be learned about how to behave, sure. But even leaving aside the contemporary contexts, in which, presumably, all these events, which we now consider atrocities, were considered to be normal behaviour until they weren't, I still have no personal feelings about any of it. Things happened, we now consider some of them bad. Done and dusted.

And this isn't revionist denialism. No-one, as far as I can see, is denying any of it happened. Revisionist denialism would be removing the boat from the city's heraldic achievement because of some tenuous link to an atrocity which the city's population made efforts, at some cost, to end.

I think, for the sake of not further derailing the thread with the can of worms I have unintentionally opened trying to provide some context to my stance about not agreeing with the assertion that the ship should be removed from the badge (not sure you are aware we agree there), I will just acknowledge your stance and say I both agree and disagree with elements of it.

 

[cheekybids]

As I've already said, I didn't mind the article, I didn't find it negative in any way and I learned a few things as a non-Mancunian. This is getting out of hands though, because we 'borrowed' city's Coat of Arms and the whole debate is getting much more complex. If the only problem is a slave ship just change the bloody silhouette of the ship. Something like this for example, much better description of us right now.

View attachment 75759

Viking ship so raping & pillaging is ok?

 

[SebastianBlue]

Are there any consequences continuing which are positive, or can you only see negative consequences due to British history?

What did the Roman’s ever do for us eh?

See my various other posts on the subject in the the thread for my thoughts on that.

I am trying not to contribute to off topic debate any more, lest all of my posts disappear in the night.