There are alternative points of view, and here's one of them...

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/p ... rk-4213108

Ok read it
What I got from that is:
1. Because slavers did some good stuff (with the money they made from slavery), they should be honoured
2. Because people wouldn't know who Hawkins was it didn't matter
3. It'll cause more division
(code for: it'll pee people off who think we should just keep these things in place forever)
4. It's 'whitewashing history
(so hang on, it's NOT whitewashing history to have these statues and road names in place with no mention of these people's misdeeds?!)
5. Finally, and the funniest part of the whole thing, Britain doesn't have a massive problem with racism:
Well, windrush seems to suggest otherwise and the very fact we have a head of state who writes that black people are Picanninies with watermelon smiles

Why do you think we should keep John Hawkins name in parts of the city?

It's a shame that, in the present day, we are seeking to assume offence on behalf of those who may not, or should not, be offended. In some parts of the world, pickaninny is widely used by black people to describe their children. In New Guinea, Creole countries, Melanesia and Vanuatu it is still part of the language. It was not ever an offensive term used by white people intended to insult until some 'right on' journalist decided it was. I find it offensive that I am constantly supposed to apologise for being white, male, protestant and straight. I think I must be amongst the oinly genuine minority group left.

Just to help you out. We are not in New Guinea or Vanuata. Context is all. Get it now? And you are NOT in a minority group.

Time for FIFA to move the 2022 WC to a new host country?

I mean wouldn't it be highly hypocritical to celebrate a 'festival of international football' bringing together people from across the world to play and watch matches (also watched on TV by millions and millions of people) in stadiums practically built on a form of modern slavery?

Time for FIFA to move the 2022 WC to a new host country?

I mean wouldn't it be highly hypocritical to celebrate a 'festival of international football' bringing together people from across the world to play and watch matches (also watched on TV by millions and millions of people) in stadiums practically built on a form of modern slavery?

I'm pretty sure people have saying this for a long, long time - since it was awarded to them, in fact. Blatant, arrogant corruption that they barely even felt the need to conceal.

Sadly FIFA are a ethically bankrupt organisation and ultimately act only in ways which benefit their senior structure financially, so there's little to no chance of moving the World Cup.

Time for FIFA to move the 2022 WC to a new host country?

I mean wouldn't it be highly hypocritical to celebrate a 'festival of international football' bringing together people from across the world to play and watch matches (also watched on TV by millions and millions of people) in stadiums practically built on a form of modern slavery?

I'm pretty sure people have saying this for a long, long time - since it was awarded to them, in fact. Blatant, arrogant corruption that they barely even felt the need to conceal.

Sadly FIFA are a ethically bankrupt organisation and ultimately act only in ways which benefit their senior structure financially, so there's little to no chance of moving the World Cup.

Yeah absolutely. I just wondered though why this issue hasn't achieved more publicity. I mean removing a statue makes a statement, but surely addressing current obvious examples of modern slavery should be a priority too.

How about we ignore these left wing idiots who are trying to destroy British history and keep the name as it is.
In South Africa streets buildings and even airports are named after terrorists and slavetraders, why does it only affect white folk and this country?
Answers on the back of a postage stamp.......

There is no 'poll', Patrick has raised a petition based on an idea of Keith.

We're Plymothians, surely we have a say.

As you presumably are, don't you think it's a nice idea?

Or would you like Bob Jack Square?

To be honest, I don't think Sir John Hawkins Square should be renamed in the first place. But that's a different matter.

Jack Leslie is an important part of Argyle's history (as is Bob Jack). And I would support a monument to both or either of them somewhere within the city. Because re-naming things is controversial, it would probably be better to name a new street or building or park in their memory. Otherwise it could tarnish the tribute you want to make.

I think it’s a great idea.
Signed, posted and donated.
From my memory wasn’t the Hawkins pub renamed years ago?
I, for one, couldn’t care less about a slave trading sailor, whatever philanthropic acts he carried out.
Slavery, in all its guises, then and NOW, is morally bankrupt!!

What is morally and ethically acceptable is always changing. There are television shows we can't watch anymore because attitudes have changed so much in forty years. You are viewing the past through binoculars from the present. We aren't talking the eighties here, this is three, four, five hundred years ago.

Traders went from port to port all around the world, and slavery happened to be an extremely lucrative industry. To finance the building of ships, investors wanted maximum profits, as they did before and have done ever since. The slave trade brought in far more money than cotton, silk or spices did, so the most successful traders dealt in slaves. You can barely bring legality into it because Britain didn't have a parliament or democracy at the time - there was a monarch, there were wars, allies and enemies, gold and jewels, commodities to be traded or stolen, and that was that.

It is only morally repugnant to you now after watching a BLM protest on television in the year 2020. In the year 1580 you probably wouldn't have even gone to school. If you saw an African in the street who couldn't speak a word of your language, who knows what your moral compass would have been. I doubt it would have been to show the utmost concern as to whether he or she earned exactly the same amount of money as your demographic.

So you can judge the past as morally repugnant, or simply understand that the rich tapestry that is human existence is constantly evolving. 50-500 years from now, who knows what societal norms will be?

There will be things you and me are doing now that in 100 years (never mind 500) will be found to be morally repugnant. Eating eggs from battery farmed chickens, 30,000 in sheds with no physical room to fit any more, feed nothing but feed packed with growth hormones so they can be killed bigger and quicker. The dairy industry, the pork industry, the beef industry, the fact your television, your watch and your clothes were made by a sweatshop worker in Taiwan working 6 14 hour shifts a week.

In 200 years, the politicians that celebrated negotiating the economic deals that guide the way we live our lives today might be the ones having their statues pulled down for moral repugnance.

How about we ignore these left wing idiots who are trying to destroy British history and keep the name as it is.
In South Africa streets buildings and even airports are named after terrorists and slavetraders, why does it only affect white folk and this countryy?
Answers on the back of a postage stamp.......

To answer the question (from a right wing 'idiot') first of all we need to understand it. What does it mean?
Dont be a plonker all your life.

Saddened by this as now many are going to look on Jack Leslie as not a great footballer, but frankly a pawn in the political game, a compromise. Not for me a way to remember him.

EVERY LIFE MATTERS

How about we ignore these left wing idiots who are trying to destroy British history and keep the name as it is.
In South Africa streets buildings and even airports are named after terrorists and slavetraders, why does it only affect white folk and this country?
Answers on the back of a postage stamp.......

I'm all for compromise so if you really believe your history is being airbrushed by changing this street name I think I have the perfect solution:

Call the square Jack Leslie Square, but have an information plaque saying something like:

'This square was named after John Hawkins for a period of approximately 30 years up to 2020 (yeah literally like sooo long) . John Hawkins was a navigator and a slave trader. His trade in humans led to the deaths of many thousands of people'

Perfect, you get your history that you're so keen on everyone knowing and Plymouth gets a place named after someone with a positive story but one that teaches us that prejudice wasn't just a concept that existed in Hawkins day.
So come on, lets not airbrush history at all, a street name doesn't tell us the actual history of the man, so lets tell it like it really was and what Hawkins really did eh, history buff?

'no, not THAT history!'

I actually agree with you, British history has been destroyed, mainly by the likes of right wing idiots who fill text books with only the very tiniest tip of the iceberg. In history lessons in school I can remember being fully dosed up on what a fantastic shining beacon of a country we have always been with no mention of our misdeeds in the colonies, our ransacking of Western Africa, the unessecary and biblical razing of Dresden just as examples. So yes, British history has been destroyed, in the sense that we are only ever supposed to see it one-sidedly and now the thought police who brought us this glossy version of British history are worried by street names and statues because instead of people just walking past them unquestioningly they might actually start to discuss the history of these people, which (for all you cry 'history is being destroyed') is actually the last thing you want

No need to be sad, briangreen. Jack Leslie being recognised in this way does not diminish him as an immense footballer, rather the reverse, I'd say. Yes, part of the reason for the recognition is that he suffered racial discrimination, but a huge part of it is because he was an immense footballer who served his only pro club, our club, with such distinction that he was deemed good enough for an England call-up - one of a very few. Many of the Green Army and beyond might not have known that without this recognition. I knew it because my grandad saw him play and always used him as his yardstick of what a great player was - "That Mariner is a decent enough player, but he's no Jack Leslie." So please rejoice that one of our own is being recognised by our city council, which has not been a common occurrence, to my mind.

COYG

Wow.


Who's making you apologise for being white, male, protestant and straight? I'm three of those things and have never had to - do you need all four? Or does "being made to apologise" consist of "I've seen people point out the awful treatment of people of colour"?


This is totally off topic and will no doubt get the thread moved/deleted - but such rubbish needs to be challenged when it's seen.


To bring this back to football and Argyle - I'd really love a statue of Leslie and also one of Sammy Black at Home Park. I have it in mind from talk of other statues in the past that you'd be looking at a cost of min £30k for a statue, which is probably what makes it difficult.



Maybe a mural/big canvas print/etc would be more achievable? This kind of thing:

Perhaps we could get the FA to pay for it to part redeem the actions of their colleagues all those years ago?

I think the story is being spun somewhat.. There is only speculation that Jack Leslie was ignored due to the colour of his skin. He was chosen to be a stand-by for a squad and was never selected again. Some people are suggesting he was called up and was then discarded once they discovered that he was black but that wasn't the case. Why did he never get another call? We can only surmise what those reasons were.

Is this your opinion or fact?

I don't mean "cabbie" fact either.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwes ... slie.shtml

In the words of the man himself, "I was told by my manager." There doesn't appear to have been any official confirmation.

Jack Leslie said that his place was taken by Billy Walker. Billy Walker was England's most capped player in that game against Ireland, he had missed just one England game in the previous 18 months and for the previous game against France had been the England captain. To suggest that a Second Division player would debut to oust such a player from the England team doesn't ring true, even 95 years ago.

I would say that it is perfectly feasible that Jack Leslie was put on stand-by cover for an injured Walker but wasn't required..... because Walker recovered rather than Leslie being ostracised for the colour of his skin.

Leslie was not in the squad for the next England international but that wasn't for another five months. Could that have been because selectors then knew more about him? Five months later though isn't as dramatic as the story that is being told.

That all being said, Jack Leslie is due recognition for being a pioneering black footballer in English football.