The Guardian ships article is a perfect example of why (even though I am definitely a left of centre person) I never read it anymore. The i is much better and cheaper. The ship is just a ship, a symbol of travel, connectedness and trade. I read the link to the Schofield rebuttal, and I have to say I agreed with every word. The Guardian are to be congratulated on their project to investigate their slavery links, but to wring every drop of blood out of it is daft.
The ship is a symbol of free trade - not cotton trade and slavery! Manchester should not engage in a similar act of self flaggelation as the Guardian. There are, as your editorial says, more important things to be addressing.
Kathryn Fletcher spot on in the Guardian article for a greater emphasis on sportswashing which I think Manchester City and Manchester as a city largely gets a free pass (possibly because it was one of the first to be taken over by a nation state) compared to other clubs (and cities) that have received similar investment recently (no football club should be owned by a nation state fyi) but the effectiveness of sportswashing speaks values that not enough people are speaking out about it here and hence why we are preoccupied by talking about ships on badges instead.
I fully agree with Andy Burnham that dealing with rent rises, needs of asylum seekers and people who are homeless should be a priority over changing symbols. He will be aware, of course, that Manchester Life has put up rents resulting in no fault evictions and all the rental money goes to its owners in Abu Dhabi. If we cannot change the past (whether in the 18th century or in 2008) we at least do the right thing now. Having missed the boat with Manchester City, could Andy Burnham please support United fans that do not want their club bought by Qatar?
I was raised as a Mancunian to believe that the ships on the heraldic crest of Manchester was a one fingered gesture towarda Liverpool's rival commercial interests as a port. Shame if we
have to lose these ancient rivalries in the name of political correctness concocted by the (London) Guardian.
The Guardian piece was framed in a really clickbaity way - characterised by the prominent reference to Manchester's football club and its near neighbour - but the basic point is correct. The ship refers to trade, which was overwhelmingly in cotton and related products, which was a product produced by slaves - and in other parts of the world (e.g. India) by various forms of coerced or unfree labour. This isn't a novel argument (another thing Hattenstone slightly conceals) - Harvard historian Sven Beckert's book Empire of Cotton sets out very clearly the importance of various forms of violence to the cotton economy in the 18th and 19th century. I don't think the ship should be taken off the city badge - I don't think Hattenstone even firmly advocates this, and the vast majority of people he quotes oppose it - but we have to be grown up about recognising the reality of the city's history. Some of the responses to the piece - Schofield's pathetic rant most notably - have been extremely childish.
The Guardian ships article is a perfect example of why (even though I am definitely a left of centre person) I never read it anymore. The i is much better and cheaper. The ship is just a ship, a symbol of travel, connectedness and trade. I read the link to the Schofield rebuttal, and I have to say I agreed with every word. The Guardian are to be congratulated on their project to investigate their slavery links, but to wring every drop of blood out of it is daft.
The ship is a symbol of free trade - not cotton trade and slavery! Manchester should not engage in a similar act of self flaggelation as the Guardian. There are, as your editorial says, more important things to be addressing.
Kathryn Fletcher spot on in the Guardian article for a greater emphasis on sportswashing which I think Manchester City and Manchester as a city largely gets a free pass (possibly because it was one of the first to be taken over by a nation state) compared to other clubs (and cities) that have received similar investment recently (no football club should be owned by a nation state fyi) but the effectiveness of sportswashing speaks values that not enough people are speaking out about it here and hence why we are preoccupied by talking about ships on badges instead.
I fully agree with Andy Burnham that dealing with rent rises, needs of asylum seekers and people who are homeless should be a priority over changing symbols. He will be aware, of course, that Manchester Life has put up rents resulting in no fault evictions and all the rental money goes to its owners in Abu Dhabi. If we cannot change the past (whether in the 18th century or in 2008) we at least do the right thing now. Having missed the boat with Manchester City, could Andy Burnham please support United fans that do not want their club bought by Qatar?
I was raised as a Mancunian to believe that the ships on the heraldic crest of Manchester was a one fingered gesture towarda Liverpool's rival commercial interests as a port. Shame if we
have to lose these ancient rivalries in the name of political correctness concocted by the (London) Guardian.
The ship should stay. It is a symbol of trade generally, rather than slavery specifically.
I was proud to have it on my school uniform's badge.
The Guardian piece was framed in a really clickbaity way - characterised by the prominent reference to Manchester's football club and its near neighbour - but the basic point is correct. The ship refers to trade, which was overwhelmingly in cotton and related products, which was a product produced by slaves - and in other parts of the world (e.g. India) by various forms of coerced or unfree labour. This isn't a novel argument (another thing Hattenstone slightly conceals) - Harvard historian Sven Beckert's book Empire of Cotton sets out very clearly the importance of various forms of violence to the cotton economy in the 18th and 19th century. I don't think the ship should be taken off the city badge - I don't think Hattenstone even firmly advocates this, and the vast majority of people he quotes oppose it - but we have to be grown up about recognising the reality of the city's history. Some of the responses to the piece - Schofield's pathetic rant most notably - have been extremely childish.