Our Badge

halfcenturyup said:
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.
Click to expand...
POTT
 
cheekybids said:
Viking ship so raping & pillaging is ok?
Click to expand...
No. But I’m not arsed that it happened.

Vikings came to Britain and Ireland over centuries and killed many British and Irish men, women and children and conquered and controlled many areas of Britain subjugating and enslaving many in the population.

Vikings took British women as slaves to copulate with to enable them to set up populations in Iceland and Greenland. I know about it, British women know about it, I’m sure Norwegians and Danes know about it. It’s the past, there’s nothing in it for anyone to need to do other than know it happened. Nobody needs to feel guilt about it, City don’t need to stop singing ‘TBTITLAATW’, Widnes RLFC don’t need to change their club name, Scandinavia and Iceland don’t need to tear down any statues of their conquerors or slavers if they have any or scrub out any insignia that represents their empire, nobody in Britain wants reparations from those countries… nor the Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Normans or Dutch.

It’s just history and doesn’t mean anything more than a story to anyone alive today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What has the world come to. Woke culture is all about emotions, at the expense of facts, personal freedoms and now apparently local histories. This is considered newsworthy? Future generations will look back on the culture of these times as a massive mistake I’m sure of it
 
SanPellegrini said:
What has the world come to. Woke culture is all about emotions, at the expense of facts, personal freedoms and now apparently local histories. This is considered newsworthy? Future generations will look back on the culture of these times as a massive mistake I’m sure of it
Click to expand...
It’s nothing to do with ‘woke’
It’s the Guardian trying to throw the city of Manchester and its institutions under the bus to deflect from its own self flaggelation
 
It's good that Lincoln has been mentioned and Manchesters efforts to support the North in the civil war, but that is only one aspect of Manchester's long and victorious fight againt slavery.

Yes the city was built on cotton, and cotton was built on slavery, but Manchester has always faced the truth of it's existence and has a proud tradition as an abolitionist City. In particular Manchester was a hot bed of the Quaker and Methodist movements - and their relentless campaigning against slavery was decisive in bringing about change.

The free black community in Manchester dates back to around 1750, maybe earlier, when slavery was still legal in England and before the US was even a country. When Thomas Clarkson, the Quaker abolitionist spoke at Manchester Catherdral in 1787 he noted in his diary that there were about 50 free black people at the front of the audience. An abolitionit petition from around the same time was signed by half the adult population of the city.

When slavery was abolished in England, the Mancheser aboloitionists continued their campaign to have it oulawed in the whole of the Empire. It was oulawed in the West Indies in 1833, then the major source of Manchesters cotton. The American Civil war was 30 years later, and again Manchester stood on the side of abolition and equality.

But even after the fight continued. When Gandhi organised in India to end indentured labour at the start of the 20th century, Manchester was again at the forefront, because, again, cotton was a common link. His boycott of foreign goods also hit the cotton industry hard, but when he visited the North West he was greeted as a hero by the mill workers.

Ships can carry slaves, and ships can carry cotton, but they can also carry free people, and with them ideas:
The idea that trade should be free to all, not resrticted by guilds.
The idea that no man can own another.
The idea of co-operatives working in unity for the common good.
The idea that all men should be able to vote, irrespective of status or wealth.
The idea that a woman can know her own mind and even she have the right to vote.
The idea that we are all of us made up of collections of invisible particles we call atoms and molecules.

The ships brought cotton, harvested from misery, to Machester - but what cargoes they have carried on their return journeys!
 
I didn’t even realise that Trafford United had a ship on their badge until all this came up!! It’s all squashed down and looked like a child’s drawing of hills!! IMHO


Our badge is much crisper and clearer. If they go for the rose though I will be up in arms!!
 
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...
One of the most historically illiterate and idiotic articles I have ever read from that fucking sad excuse for a newspaper.

There is a reason why we have a statue of Lincoln and not Bedford Forrest founder of the KKK. It is because the mill workers of Manchester refused to use the cotton brought into the country by Liverpudlian profiteers who broke the Unions blockade of the Confederate states in order to bring cotton back to the UK. At that time Liverpool was a conservative bedrock very different to our Mancunian radicalism and they were after money and didnt care that they broke blockades in order to profit. Mancunian mill workers went hungry rather than work with scouse imported cotton.

It is also worth mentioning that the British government of the time had military attaches attached to the Confederate army, one a Colonel of I think the household cavalry was killed at Gettysburg, so if the British government was so anti slavery what the fuck where they thinking at the time.

It is also worth considering that for many the civil war was not about slavery, that was an afterthought of Lincoln's who was in electoral trouble at the time and introduced the emancipation declaration. For many Confederate states it was about states rights and they considered Lincoln to be what we would consider a fascist. The case that it was about state rights is backed up by the battle of Shiloh where Irish brigades from the Union and the Confederacy actually fought against each other.

The Guardian which was once the Manchester Guardian is in my opinion trying to distance itself from its roots and is doing so by using this liberal bullshit, they should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
 
blueish swede said:
It's good that Lincoln has been mentioned and Manchesters efforts to support the North in the civil war, but that is only one aspect of Manchester's long and victorious fight againt slavery.

Yes the city was built on cotton, and cotton was built on slavery, but Manchester has always faced the truth of it's existence and has a proud tradition as an abolitionist City. In particular Manchester was a hot bed of the Quaker and Methodist movements - and their relentless campaigning against slavery was decisive in bringing about change.

The free black community in Manchester dates back to around 1750, maybe earlier, when slavery was still legal in England and before the US was even a country. When Thomas Clarkson, the Quaker abolitionist spoke at Manchester Catherdral in 1787 he noted in his diary that there were about 50 free black people at the front of the audience. An abolitionit petition from around the same time was signed by half the adult population of the city.

When slavery was abolished in England, the Mancheser aboloitionists continued their campaign to have it oulawed in the whole of the Empire. It was oulawed in the West Indies in 1833, then the major source of Manchesters cotton. The American Civil war was 30 years later, and again Manchester stood on the side of abolition and equality.

But even after the fight continued. When Gandhi organised in India to end indentured labour at the start of the 20th century, Manchester was again at the forefront, because, again, cotton was a common link. His boycott of foreign goods also hit the cotton industry hard, but when he visited the North West he was greeted as a hero by the mill workers.

Ships can carry slaves, and ships can carry cotton, but they can also carry free people, and with them ideas:
The idea that trade should be free to all, not resrticted by guilds.
The idea that no man can own another.
The idea of co-operatives working in unity for the common good.
The idea that all men should be able to vote, irrespective of status or wealth.
The idea that a woman can know her own mind and even she have the right to vote.
The idea that we are all of us made up of collections of invisible particles we call atoms and molecules.

The ships brought cotton, harvested from misery, to Machester - but what cargoes they have carried on their return journeys!
Click to expand...
Yep the Friends Meeting House just off Albert Square has a proud history and some very interesting resources on this subject
Considering people here seem to consider them the Amish of England, the Quakers of England are an interesting bunch and were very progressive long before the rest of polite society caught up
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
No. But I’m not arsed that it happened.

Vikings came to Britain and Ireland over centuries and killed many British and Irish men, women and children and conquered and controlled many areas of Britain subjugating and enslaving many in the population.

Vikings took British women as slaves to copulate with to enable them to set up populations in Iceland and Greenland. I know about it, British women know about it, I’m sure Norwegians and Danes know about it. It’s the past, there’s nothing in it for anyone to need to do other than know it happened. Nobody needs to feel guilt about it, City don’t need to stop singing ‘TBTITLAATW’, Widnes RLFC don’t need to change their club name, Scandinavia and Iceland don’t need to tear down any statues of their conquerors or slavers if they have any or scrub out any insignia that represents their empire, nobody in Britain wants reparations from those countries… nor the Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Normans or Dutch.

It’s just history and doesn’t mean anything more than a story to anyone alive today.
Click to expand...

I wasn’t being serious, you could literally find a link from wearing a cotton shirt, smoking a fag or drinking a cup of tea.
 
Rascal said:
One of the most historically illiterate and idiotic articles I have ever read from that fucking sad excuse for a newspaper.

There is a reason why we have a statue of Lincoln and not Bedford Forrest founder of the KKK. It is because the mill workers of Manchester refused to use the cotton brought into the country by Liverpudlian profiteers who broke the Unions blockade of the Confederate states in order to bring cotton back to the UK. At that time Liverpool was a conservative bedrock very different to our Mancunian radicalism and they were after money and didnt care that they broke blockades in order to profit. Mancunian mill workers went hungry rather than work with scouse imported cotton.

It is also worth mentioning that the British government of the time had military attaches attached to the Confederate army, one a Colonel of I think the household cavalry was killed at Gettysburg, so if the British government was so anti slavery what the fuck where they thinking at the time.

It is also worth considering that for many the civil war was not about slavery, that was an afterthought of Lincoln's who was in electoral trouble at the time and introduced the emancipation declaration. For many Confederate states it was about states rights and they considered Lincoln to be what we would consider a fascist. The case that it was about state rights is backed up by the battle of Shiloh where Irish brigades from the Union and the Confederacy actually fought against each other.

The Guardian which was once the Manchester Guardian is in my opinion trying to distance itself from its roots and is doing so by using this liberal bullshit, they should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
Click to expand...
I'm no big fan of the Guardian (I get the digital version free and enjoy the daily word puzzle) but, in their defence against your last paragraph, they've been running articles examining their own links to slavary over several weeks. They've talked about the links of Manchester as a whole, and of the Mancheater Guardian newspaper itself.

www.theguardian.com

Cotton Capital: the bee and the ship – examining the Guardian’s links to slavery - podcast

Episode one of the new Guardian podcast series Cotton Capital explores the revelations that the Guardian’s founding editor, John Edward Taylor, and at least nine of his 11 backers had links to slavery, principally through the textile industry
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Edghill OG said:
So they did, didn't know that. Wouldn't be safe reinstating that mate. It'd be construed as being ageist.

The red rose will be going next as somebody pricked their finger gardening.
Click to expand...
Ageist. Hadn't thought of that. A pensioner standing tall and proud would surely be acceptable, rather than a bent figure leaning on a stick, unless the very fact of recognising that some people are old is demeaning to the old. All this is very silly and wouldn't be worth anything beyond a few facetious remarks if it were not also so tediously serious. I am old and find so much now so very tiring. I must try to avoid giving time and attention to things that irritate me. With that resolution firmly in mind I shall embrace the good things and go and gloat over City-Bayern highlights.
 
Old Amos said:
Ageist. Hadn't thought of that. A pensioner standing tall and proud would surely be acceptable, rather than a bent figure leaning on a stick, unless the very fact of recognising that some people are old is demeaning to the old. All this is very silly and wouldn't be worth anything beyond a few facetious remarks if it were not also so tediously serious. I am old and find so much now so very tiring. I must try to avoid giving time and attention to things that irritate me. With that resolution firmly in mind I shall embrace the good things and go and gloat over City-Bayern highlights.
Click to expand...

You do that mate. Can you inform me who 'player of the match' was last night though whilst you're at it? It's all got very confusing ever since our first team became unisex and didn't catch who they gave it to at the time.
 
SanPellegrini said:
What has the world come to. Woke culture is all about emotions, at the expense of facts, personal freedoms and now apparently local histories. This is considered newsworthy? Future generations will look back on the culture of these times as a massive mistake I’m sure of it
Click to expand...

There is no campaign to remove the badge.

It was just a run of the mill Guardian article about the history of the badge/Manchester coat of arms, unfortunately with a provocative headline and now it's gone viral with the Mail and pierce fucking morgan sayings its woke gone mad, etc, etc.

Do people not realise just how much they're being manipulated by such false headlines?
 
Edghill OG said:
You do that mate. Can you inform me who 'player of the match' was last night though whilst you're at it? It's all got very confusing ever since our first team became unisex and didn't catch who they gave it to at the time.
Click to expand...
I am ashamed to admit that Player of the Match passed me by - absolutely no memory of that at all, from watching the game that is. When I've done highlights I may be better able to inform you ...... Ruben Dias I think, for sterling work in blocking and denying Bayern right and left (the penalty wasn't his fault). Seems fair though there was heroic defending across the board.
 
Bad things happened in the past. Shock horror! If the ship is a symbol where do you draw the line? Do we change the name from Manchester to Peoplechester? Do we get rid of the roses as it’s a symbol that is linked to violence etc.. imo it’s a load of bollocks
 
argyle said:
There is no campaign to remove the badge.

It was just a run of the mill Guardian article about the history of the badge/Manchester coat of arms, unfortunately with a provocative headline and now it's gone viral with the Mail and pierce fucking morgan sayings its woke gone mad, etc, etc.

Do people not realise just how much they're being manipulated by such false headlines?
Click to expand...

It was a pathetic article & a pathetic headline & defending it & calling out fellow fans as being angry when all they saying is it’s pathetic & taking the piss shows your sanctimonious attitude. No one is being manipulated by this article & certainly not be the guardian, that paper is nothing like what it was 20 years ago.
 
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