Our Badge

[Deleted member 77198]

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.

We have a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Manchester. He was the US president behind the emancipation of black slaves over there. However, he was also the man behind the appalling treatment and killing of Native Americans that never stopped even after Proclamation 95.

Lincoln ordered the biggest mass execution in American history against the Sioux at the Dakota War. He forced the Navajo to walk 450 miles from their land to a reservation where 2,000 died on the trip or were killed because they wouldn’t leave. And there was the Sand Creek Massacre where 600 mostly women and children were slaughtered.

But Lincoln’s statue and the square named after him on Brazennose Street are there because of the positive relationship between Manchester, mainly the mill workers of Manchester, and Lincoln with his fight to emancipate the black slaves in the US.

Similarly, the ship on our city’s CoA and City’s badge is there for positive reasons. Manchester is a city that was the beneficiary of trade with the rest of the world, much of which was after the British Empire Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807.

Manchester’s CoA was created in 1842, 35 years after the Slave Trade Act.

 

[Coatigan]

would you give it a fucking rest.

not defending it and never said i agreed with it. I called out that the headline was clickbait and didn't reflect the article.

you're kind of proving that you're angry with this response.

Let me say it clearly for you, you're all getting bothered over nothing, the article didn't campaign against the badge, it was just his opinion on it's history. That's it. Wasn't anti-City. No woke consipiracy to remove or ban it.

That isn't really entirely true.

Sure, it isn't a woke conspiracy, it isn't even remotely woke in fact, I agree.

But while it doesn't exactly campaign for the ship to be removed, it suggests it fairly openly in a number of ways. The first two words in the headline, reference to an individual's campaign to remove it from both badges, his own personal changed 'tainted' view of what the ship now is. Reference to what an unnamed someone (other than the person who wrote in that triggered this) thinks of it, and the suggestion that the bee would be a better symbol. So yes, it is a half mooted call to remove the ship from the badge.

The article is for me mostly pointless bullshit. It makes an insignificant point, which starts with some severely flawed logic, then finds examples that don't actually work to make that point, and then tries to lose them through column length (a bit like this post incidentally).

It is all predicated on a personal 'realisation' that the ship doesn't represent what we thought it represented, because it is similar to a ship used 50 years earlier (but incidentally over 30 years After slavery was abolished), and therefore must be able to be associated with slavery. Because as we all know motifs can only ever represent one thing. Which is bollocks, all of it. The swastika, star of david, a cross, crescent, skull, eagle, continent outlines on a gridded circle, and a whole never ending list of symbols that have been used to mean completely different things makes his arguement pretty useless. That's before you take into account that his timeline is way off, because the original crest doesn't coincide with slavery and the club badge does coincide with the canal being open. And also before he accidentally shits on basic artistic perception rights to see design elements in individual ways.

Yet his article has managed to make a handful of people here (who in fairness seem to have that habbit anyway) almost replace everything they may have ever read with the most recent think they have read and shout it at others. It also has made many instantly jump to the culture war stance they see as needing defending. Stimulating debate my arse, pointless divisive waste of time.

Agree though that it isn't an anti-City piece. However, given the amount of time he talks about the club, through recounting his own personal memories and associations that supposedly now take on a whole new meaning following his eureka moment, it is slightly weighted towards City and I can see why people could be drawn to see it as partly a City piece. Unlike the subsequent articles elsewhere that paraphrase it, which leave that part out because it is so obviously his own.

 

[failsworthblueboy]

We have a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Manchester. He was the man behind the emancipation of black slaves in the USA. However, he was also the man behind the appalling treatment and killing of Native Americans that never stopped even after Proclamation 95.

Lincoln ordered the biggest mass execution in American history against the Sioux at the Dakota War. He forced the Navajo to walk 450 miles from their land to a reservation where 2,000 died on the trip or were killed because they wouldn’t leave. And there was the Sand Creek Massacre where 600 mostly women and children were slaughtered.

But Lincoln’s statue and the square named after him on Brazennose Street are there because of the positive relationship between Manchester, mainly the mill workers of Manchester, and Lincoln with his fight to emancipate the black slaves in the US.

Similarly, the ship on our city’s CoA and City’s badge is there for positive reasons. Manchester is a city that was the beneficiary of trade with the rest of the world, much of which was after the British Empire Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807.

Manchester’s CoA was created in 1842, 35 years after the Slave Trade Act.

Great post mate and truly highlights the folly of dismantilng staues and the like. We need to look at what is happening now and make sure the future is brighter with everyone regardless of colour race religion or sexual orinentation being treated equally.
I'm not saying the past isn't important it is but for my two peneth the future is more important.

For everyone.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

The Roma club crest (founded in 1927) features a female wolf suckling her young. This is a clear reference to Roman conquests and them taking animals and slaves back to Rome to be exploited in the Coliseum. I’m offended. Change it.


I’ll never understand the burning desire to be a victim. These people are mentally ill and should be helped.

 

[SWP's back]

it's not the writer. that's the sub-editor who certainly knew what they doing. They got the clicks and got the story to be shared widely and talked about.

And derided by everybody.

 

[argyle]

Great post mate and truly highlights the folly of dismantilng staues and the like. We need to look at what is happening now and make sure the future is brighter with everyone regardless of colour race religion or sexual orinentation being treated equally.
I'm not saying the past isn't important it is but for my two peneth the future is more important.

For everyone.

The thing is though, only one statue was torn down. It was either cheered on, criticised or ignored depending on your view.

It did big numbers for media sites and ever since then they've done false story after false story saying certain statues or whatever are going to be torn down, replaced etc leading to many to think 'our history ' is being replaced and cancelled.

However no statue has been torn down and no history cancelled.

The anger and perception by those articles still remains though.

That's why I reacted this week to the headline. It acted like the badge was to be replaced but the article didn't campaign for that. But i was criticised for trying to point this out.

 

[jrb]

You have to credit the no-mark journalist who wrote the article. He’s everywhere. He even made the Sky political show yesterday afternoon. They panel were discussing it. He’ll be getting high fives and back slaps in the Guardian office. Called into his bosses office, handshake, thanked, and given a pay rise or bonus. ****!

 

[mancityvstoke]

You have to credit the no-mark journalist who wrote the article. He’s everywhere. He even made the Sky political show yesterday afternoon. They panel were discussing it. He’ll be getting high fives and back slaps in the Guardian office. Called into his bosses office, handshake, thanked and given a pay rise or bonus. ****!

Not if he ventures into the south stand the poor ****.

Lots of daft eagles and ships around ....he'd hate it.

No back slaps......just shit bag slaps. (on the train back to wherever)

 

[Champions again in 2012]

Not read all of the thread but fucking hell I always thought the ship was associated with the Manchester Ship Canal. which members of the woke brigade came up with this diversionary classic. Is it by chance the same people who think a certain tune is about Hillsborough

 

[sir baconface]

This is getting serious. It hit today’s Jeremy Vine show, no less.

So we remove the ship, change street names, edit works of literature, etc. Do we now have a happier, more harmonious society?

Or is the net effect - unintended or maybe otherwise - to increase ethnic, social and political divisions?