Should City and United change their club crests because of the link to slavery?
Manchester club crests
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
No, it's all pretty tenuous really.
No
So the Guardian have found they have a history with slaves, and now drag us into it, even nobody thought this was an issue?
Not sure anyone before this article thought slavery was 1:1 connected to a ship with three masts, so it seems like The Guardian pushes too much to make this connection. Also with the nazi-eagle and City mentioned in the article. A ship with three masts doesn't have to mean slavery, unless you deliberately want it to. Things meaning change over time too, even if it was the original intention. It's not like Hugo Boss of now means nazi-uniforms neither.
Normally I like the Guardian and their journalism, but this seems a bit too much like they look for something very few people associate with the crest.
Not sure anyone before this article thought slavery was 1:1 connected to a ship with three masts, so it seems like The Guardian pushes too much to make this connection. Also with the nazi-eagle and City mentioned in the article. A ship with three masts doesn't have to mean slavery, unless you deliberately want it to. Things meaning change over time too, even if it was the original intention. It's not like Hugo Boss of now means nazi-uniforms neither.
Normally I like the Guardian and their journalism, but this seems a bit too much like they look for something very few people associate with the crest.
Pretty silly really. Ships were used for transporting literally everything between continents for hundreds of years, so they’re not an explicit symbol of the slave trade, but trade in general.
I’m generally in favour of re-evaluating whether we should still honour slavers with statues, street names, etc but this is ridiculous. Both clubs were formed well after Britain had abolished both slavery and the slave trade.
I’m generally in favour of re-evaluating whether we should still honour slavers with statues, street names, etc but this is ridiculous. Both clubs were formed well after Britain had abolished both slavery and the slave trade.
Yep.
Also Sheffield United and their Somalian pirates/Angola combo should be abolished.
Also, England's flag. Get rid. Waving that crusader shit like it's in the jihad. Feck that.
Unicorns i say. But not the gay ones, that's so 2015.
Gender neutral unicorns. That's what we should have.
Also Sheffield United and their Somalian pirates/Angola combo should be abolished.
Also, England's flag. Get rid. Waving that crusader shit like it's in the jihad. Feck that.
Unicorns i say. But not the gay ones, that's so 2015.
Gender neutral unicorns. That's what we should have.
Last edited:
Feels like a bit of a reach to associate the ship, United and the slave trade directly. There are a lot of indirect associations involved.
That being said, when people think of the United badge, how many think of the ship? I'd wager barely anyone. Would be quite simple to do a modern rebrand without it.
That being said, when people think of the United badge, how many think of the ship? I'd wager barely anyone. Would be quite simple to do a modern rebrand without it.
No. What a ridiculous idea. No doubt a very small minority of shouty voices on twitter will make a big deal of it though.
Too monarchist.
As a tribal football fan I think: yes, City’s badge is very likely to be linked to the worst of the slave trade however our badge is probably an ode to the ship which carried Abe Lincoln on his voyage to sign the 13th Amendment. The only link the United badge has to the slave trade is Cristiano Ronaldo 2008-2009.
If we are hell-bent on identifying associations, using all sorts of historical, trivial, and anecdotal pieces, then we'd always find an association of something modern with just about anything ancient.
And with that reasoning, we will need to change everything existing in modern times.
Nonsensical Guardian piece.
And with that reasoning, we will need to change everything existing in modern times.
Nonsensical Guardian piece.
No, we should change ours because the current version is ugly.
Well, that's enough about that.
In hindsight, Ronaldo was right after all?
No…. Don’t let the snowflakes rule…
Some truly horrendous views in this thread. In a time where slave culture is pretty much eradicated from the rest of the world it’s quite sickening to see it being well and alive on the caf.
The minority called fooking snowflakes as usual. There was no malicious intent at the time when it was designed . Just the usual fooking nob heads wanting their say.
Shocking i say.
As though the colour RED was chosen by accident when we all know what it stands for and has stood for in history.
And let's not go into the cafe, as in coffee, as in slave coffee trade.
Put it together. Red cafe. Makes my stomach hurt.
Ouh. And i forgot . net
As in fecking nets that were used to catch slaves.
This appears to be an opinion piece by Simon Hattenstone which riffs off of the great work done by historians on the Cotton Capital connections. I don't remember Brooke Newman or David Olusoga or Olivette Otele calling for this
In fact, they explicitly talk about the newspaper making reparations instead of simply printing an apology or making a change to a symbol.
In fact, they explicitly talk about the newspaper making reparations instead of simply printing an apology or making a change to a symbol.
Like really? the whole club needs rebranding "Non-binarychester United "
Does the City of Mancester need to change its coat of arms too then?
Despite a fair bit of digging around it looks like he can only find one person who actually thinks the ships should be taken off the crest. An anonymous Guardian reader.
Pretty much all of the UK (and Western Europe as an extension) benefited from exploiting human & natural resources of other countries for several hundred years. Any other country, with the same access to technology, would have probably done the same as well since that's what humans used to do. It's better to learn lessons from the past & not repeat them rather than trying to erase memories of the past that made cities what they are (Manchester will not be Manchester without the textile link).
I don't get this line of thought, surely this article is doing the very opposite of trying to erase the past, I had no idea there was even a ship on United's badge until I read this thread. It's provoking discussion of the past not erasing it.
The ships are symbols of trade of goods produced in Manchester. Much of that trade was of course in cotton goods produced from an imported raw material harvested by slaves in the US but it is a bit of a stretch to call them “slave ships”.
Removal of the ship from the crests would however send out a very clear signal that Gulf-owned and funded football clubs in Manchester have a zero tolerance approach to exploitative labour practices demeaning to human dignity.
Removal of the ship from the crests would however send out a very clear signal that Gulf-owned and funded football clubs in Manchester have a zero tolerance approach to exploitative labour practices demeaning to human dignity.
And what voyage was this, good sir?
@Carolina Red any navigable waterways between Gettysburg and DC?
Oh damn you’ve caught me out, well doneAnd what voyage was this, good sir?
@Carolina Red any navigable waterways between Gettysburg and DC?
Well, If they dig deep enough they'll find out that almost the entire colonial empire was built on slavery.
So maybe they should just cancel the whole country.
So maybe they should just cancel the whole country.
The UK making sincere and actual amends would be fantastic, yes. A symbolic gesture from football clubs acknowledging they have benefited and are benefiting from colonialism due to their lineage wouldn't be a bad thing either.
We can be nuanced - obviously the crest situation isn't even close to being so bad as needing to be addressed with any sort of urgency. On the other hand, the guardian article has merit in reminding everyone of the long-lasting effects and consequences of imperialism. It doesn't seem that deep and more importantly doesn't need to devolve into a culture war-type conversation.
Last edited:
I was thinking exactly this - removing the ships from the crests of both clubs as they represent human trafficking and exploitation in the XIX century while selling both clubs to owners well documented to be linked with exploitative labour practices and who earned the money to buy the clubs through still ongoing slavery. Virtue signalling at its very finest
The wealth of the whole country and empire was built on slavery.
So by that logic, should everybody there now issue a public statement acknowledging that they have by virtue of living and working benefitted there from colonialism and historical slavery in some way or another?
Those ships are clearly the ones used by Captain Hook in his crusade against Peter Pan
He actually answered this question with the very first sentence you quoted.
No. I said that it's a good thing when people are aware of those things because they have consequences to this day, and that talking about them help raise awareness.
The government could do with some actual apology though obviously.
Well just take the ship off the badge. What's the big deal.
Jalinwalabagh massacre, for eg, where about 750 people were killed and another 1000 injured when the British opened firearms on a peaceful gathering. The general was sent back to UK, not found guilty of any personal wrong doing (he was simply removed from his position), and lived off a fat pension paid for by his supporters. The UK still refuses to apologize to date. Do you also support banning all crests that have firearms starting with Arsenal?
Replace it with a unicorn. With a black dildo attached to its head.
It's a bit of a silly and extreme question. But my initial thought knowing very little about it, is the UK should without doubt acknowledge it and apologise.
They did, they compensated the slave owners for their loss of free labour when it was abolished.
I mean, what more do you want. Wasn't that enough?
Just issue one blanket apology on behalf of everyone who's dead and gone and everyone living and in the future who has or will benefit from colonialism.
Get Charlie to post it in twitter. Job done, move on.
You're replying in mesmerizing bad faith. You should maybe try to read posts with good intentions rather than coming in with a ready-to-shoot answer. I won't engage further.