Our Badge

[domalino]

Why is that conclusive

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.

 

[MarsLlama]

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

It's so very American to see a ship and think of slavery.

 

[mancityvstoke]

It's a muffin

 

[Coatigan]

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

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.

 

[mexico1970]

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.

Every ship is evil mate, even pretend ones.

 

[mancityvstoke]

What is conclusive is anyone who thinks our badge refers to slavery is a complete and utter prick

 

[domalino]

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.

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]

Every ship is evil mate, even pretend ones.

What is conclusive is anyone who thinks our badge refers to slavery is a complete and utter prick

Have either of you actually read the article you’re getting angry about?

 

[Coatigan]

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.

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.

 

[mexico1970]

Have either of you actually read the article you’re getting angry about?

Yes I have and it's shit, you pontificate yourself into a creamy mess and leave everyone with eyes that see a chance to avoid the mess you make.

Good day sir.