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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.Especially since many went on strike in support of the slaves, even if it meant them not being able to feed their own household.
dom will argue with anything to get an argument, then edit his post to say something different then argue that point.its what he doesI 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.
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.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.
Nail on headNo 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’.
That’s why they’re doing it. It’s classic deflectionSeems the guardian has an actual/ much bigger link to slavery than a ship on a badge. Maybe they should get cancelled as well?