School changes name - slavery
Discussion
"A school named after the 16th Century slave trader Sir Frances Drake has had its name changed following a vote."
First line of BBC article describing Francis Drake as a slave trader...well to most people i don't think they would describe him as that first of all, maybe pirate, explorer, adventurer, sailor, bowler (apocryphal) etc., but not the first thing you think of as slave trader.
Yes he clearly dabbled, as per the norms of the time, but not really what he's most famous for...
Don't care about a school name change, just find the BBC articles depiction of him in the opening line as slave trader primarily as bit odd, and typical sensationalism of the media which doesn't help the 'culture wars'.
I have no boner for Drake either, just the IMO sensationalisation (new word there?!) of a historic figure annoying. Why lead with that and not the lower doen description of what hes actually known for?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64212...
theplayingmantis said:
"A school named after the 16th Century slave trader Sir Frances Drake has had its name changed following a vote."
First line of BBC article describing Francis Drake as a slave trader...well to most people i don't think they would describe him as that first of all, maybe pirate, explorer, adventurer, sailor, bowler (apocryphal) etc., but not the first thing you think of as slave trader.
Yes he clearly dabbled, as per the norms of the time, but not really what he's most famous for...
Don't care about a school name change, just find the BBC articles depiction of him in the opening line as slave trader primarily as bit odd, and typical sensationalism of the media which doesn't help the 'culture wars'.
I have no boner for Drake either, just the IMO sensationalisation (new word there?!) of a historic figure annoying. Why lead with that and not the lower doen description of what hes actually known for?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64212...
Because that's the aspect of his life that is relevant to the news story, surely?First line of BBC article describing Francis Drake as a slave trader...well to most people i don't think they would describe him as that first of all, maybe pirate, explorer, adventurer, sailor, bowler (apocryphal) etc., but not the first thing you think of as slave trader.
Yes he clearly dabbled, as per the norms of the time, but not really what he's most famous for...
Don't care about a school name change, just find the BBC articles depiction of him in the opening line as slave trader primarily as bit odd, and typical sensationalism of the media which doesn't help the 'culture wars'.
I have no boner for Drake either, just the IMO sensationalisation (new word there?!) of a historic figure annoying. Why lead with that and not the lower doen description of what hes actually known for?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64212...
In 200 words (one less than that, actually), that story gives all the pertinent facts, with the bolded standfirst summarising the entire story in a 20-word snippet. If the standfirst read "A school named after the 16th century explorer and naval admiral Sir Frances Drake has had its name changed following a vote." it would not be as relevant or as useful a summary. Drake was involved - heavily, and at the very very start - in the slave trade in the 16th century and that's why the school's name is being changed. There is nothing inaccurate or irrelevant in the story is it is written, and then there's a 75-word mini-biography of Drake summarising why he ever had a school named after him in the first place.
Speaking as someone whose day job is to write 200-500 word news stories for online distribution, I think it covers all the bases very well and in a generally accurate and relevant (and non-sensationalist) way. No editorialising, no opinion, just the basic facts.
No it doesn’t. Keeping names celebrates those people. Removing the name doesn’t stop that person existing or them being in the history books. No history has been erased. No one is learning about Drake from the name of a school and the school has nothing to do with him. To claim otherwise is sensationalism and just wrong.
Electro1980 said:
No it doesn’t. Keeping names celebrates those people. Removing the name doesn’t stop that person existing or them being in the history books.
Yes it does Far far better to educate than eradicate
The school would be far better putting up information for its pupils of both the good and bad Drake did and teach about the slave trade and how Britain became the leaders in abolishing it
At the time Drake did what was acceptable, times change, values change
Removing his name achieves nothing, changes nothing
Earthdweller said:
Yes it does
Far far better to educate than eradicate
The school would be far better putting up information for its pupils of both the good and bad Drake did and teach about the slave trade and how Britain became the leaders in abolishing it
At the time Drake did what was acceptable, times change, values change
Removing his name achieves nothing, changes nothing
They could still do that and include the name change as part of the history (which it now is).Far far better to educate than eradicate
The school would be far better putting up information for its pupils of both the good and bad Drake did and teach about the slave trade and how Britain became the leaders in abolishing it
At the time Drake did what was acceptable, times change, values change
Removing his name achieves nothing, changes nothing
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Earthdweller said:
Changing names doesn’t change history it just erases it
I don't think changing the name of a school erases history.It might mean that you don't have to walk past something every day that's named after someone who did a lot of stuff you disagree with.
The sailer that beat the Spanish Armada and changed the course of British history
He was also the first commander to circumnavigate the globe and a great explorer
The man has a legacy far greater than being involved in what was ( at the time ) an acceptable trade
Earthdweller said:
Yes it does
Far far better to educate than eradicate
The school would be far better putting up information for its pupils of both the good and bad Drake did and teach about the slave trade and how Britain became the leaders in abolishing it
[At the time Drake did what was acceptable, times change, values change
Removing his name achieves nothing, changes nothing
Indeed they do, and that's why we can - and should - revaluate who we commemorate in our public buildings, our public art, our institutions and our built environment. Far far better to educate than eradicate
The school would be far better putting up information for its pupils of both the good and bad Drake did and teach about the slave trade and how Britain became the leaders in abolishing it
[At the time Drake did what was acceptable, times change, values change
Removing his name achieves nothing, changes nothing
If this thread is anything to judge by, this name change has educated a lot of people as to how Sir Francis Drake gained his sea experience, how he came to prominence with the English court and how he earned the fame and wealth that back up his future activities (i.e. by being one of John Hawkins' officers on his voyages that started English involvement in the triangular/slave trade). That's the entire point, and changing the name of a school doesn't hide or 'eradicate' that fact from history. It's quite possible to shine more factual light on Sir Francis' life 'in the round' without naming public institutions after him. I'm not even entirely sure why a primary school in Lewisham is named after him - AFAIK there is no connection between the man and the place.
Earthdweller said:
He was also a man to be celebrated
The sailer that beat the Spanish Armada and changed the course of British history
He was also the first commander to circumnavigate the globe and a great explorer
The man has a legacy far greater than being involved in what was ( at the time ) an acceptable trade
How do you balance the good stuff he did against the bad?The sailer that beat the Spanish Armada and changed the course of British history
He was also the first commander to circumnavigate the globe and a great explorer
The man has a legacy far greater than being involved in what was ( at the time ) an acceptable trade
I honestly don't know the answer to that.
The people who have to use the school every day clearly take a slightly different view so why do you think they voted for the name of their school to be changed?
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Earthdweller said:
He was also a man to be celebrated
The sailer that beat the Spanish Armada and changed the course of British history
He was also the first commander to circumnavigate the globe and a great explorer
The man has a legacy far greater than being involved in what was ( at the time ) an acceptable trade
How do you balance the good stuff he did against the bad?The sailer that beat the Spanish Armada and changed the course of British history
He was also the first commander to circumnavigate the globe and a great explorer
The man has a legacy far greater than being involved in what was ( at the time ) an acceptable trade
I honestly don't know the answer to that.
The people who have to use the school every day clearly take a slightly different view so why do you think they voted for the name of their school to be changed?
The balance is in education and understanding not in removing and eradicating
Drake made three journeys across the Atlantic as a slave trader, the first as a privateer, the 2nd and 3rd were official and backed by the Government and the Crown
Queen Elizabeth 1 benefitted hugely from supporting Drake and indeed paid for his second ship as well as knighting him
Do we now erase the Elizabethan era and Crown as it was fully interwoven with the slave trade ?
Do we cancel Queen Elizabeth?
Do we cancel Sir Walter Raleigh of John Hawkins ?
Where does it stop ?
Earthdweller said:
Maybe because they weren’t educated enough about what he did for the good v what he did that we (now) think was bad
The balance is in education and understanding not in removing and eradicating
Drake made three journeys across the Atlantic as a slave trader, the first as a privateer, the 2nd and 3rd were official and backed by the Government and the Crown
Queen Elizabeth 1 benefitted hugely from supporting Drake and indeed paid for his second ship as well as knighting him
Do we now erase the Elizabethan era and Crown as it was fully interwoven with the slave trade ?
Do we cancel Queen Elizabeth?
Do we cancel Sir Walter Raleigh of John Hawkins ?
Where does it stop ?
Now you're being hysterical and using hyperbole to the point of being ridiculous.The balance is in education and understanding not in removing and eradicating
Drake made three journeys across the Atlantic as a slave trader, the first as a privateer, the 2nd and 3rd were official and backed by the Government and the Crown
Queen Elizabeth 1 benefitted hugely from supporting Drake and indeed paid for his second ship as well as knighting him
Do we now erase the Elizabethan era and Crown as it was fully interwoven with the slave trade ?
Do we cancel Queen Elizabeth?
Do we cancel Sir Walter Raleigh of John Hawkins ?
Where does it stop ?
Context and perspective is everything, though. I took the family to Vigo in northern Spain a few years back and the history there is all about the "British pirate Francis Drake". Which is somewhat different to what is pushed in the history books here.
Earthdweller said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Earthdweller said:
He was also a man to be celebrated
The sailer that beat the Spanish Armada and changed the course of British history
He was also the first commander to circumnavigate the globe and a great explorer
The man has a legacy far greater than being involved in what was ( at the time ) an acceptable trade
How do you balance the good stuff he did against the bad?The sailer that beat the Spanish Armada and changed the course of British history
He was also the first commander to circumnavigate the globe and a great explorer
The man has a legacy far greater than being involved in what was ( at the time ) an acceptable trade
I honestly don't know the answer to that.
The people who have to use the school every day clearly take a slightly different view so why do you think they voted for the name of their school to be changed?
The balance is in education and understanding not in removing and eradicating
Drake made three journeys across the Atlantic as a slave trader, the first as a privateer, the 2nd and 3rd were official and backed by the Government and the Crown
Queen Elizabeth 1 benefitted hugely from supporting Drake and indeed paid for his second ship as well as knighting him
Do we now erase the Elizabethan era and Crown as it was fully interwoven with the slave trade ?
Do we cancel Queen Elizabeth?
Do we cancel Sir Walter Raleigh of John Hawkins ?
Where does it stop ?
2xChevrons said:
Because that's the aspect of his life that is relevant to the news story, surely?
In 200 words (one less than that, actually), that story gives all the pertinent facts, with the bolded standfirst summarising the entire story in a 20-word snippet. If the standfirst read "A school named after the 16th century explorer and naval admiral Sir Frances Drake has had its name changed following a vote." it would not be as relevant or as useful a summary. Drake was involved - heavily, and at the very very start - in the slave trade in the 16th century and that's why the school's name is being changed. There is nothing inaccurate or irrelevant in the story is it is written, and then there's a 75-word mini-biography of Drake summarising why he ever had a school named after him in the first place.
Speaking as someone whose day job is to write 200-500 word news stories for online distribution, I think it covers all the bases very well and in a generally accurate and relevant (and non-sensationalist) way. No editorialising, no opinion, just the basic facts.
It is indeed the topic, but not what's he's most famous for, the explorer (delete as appropriate) who also had slaver links, would be fine, or the expanded description of him further down with the reference to slavery (in line with the social norms of the time) added there, could easily have been used in the opening line if word constraints are an issue.In 200 words (one less than that, actually), that story gives all the pertinent facts, with the bolded standfirst summarising the entire story in a 20-word snippet. If the standfirst read "A school named after the 16th century explorer and naval admiral Sir Frances Drake has had its name changed following a vote." it would not be as relevant or as useful a summary. Drake was involved - heavily, and at the very very start - in the slave trade in the 16th century and that's why the school's name is being changed. There is nothing inaccurate or irrelevant in the story is it is written, and then there's a 75-word mini-biography of Drake summarising why he ever had a school named after him in the first place.
Speaking as someone whose day job is to write 200-500 word news stories for online distribution, I think it covers all the bases very well and in a generally accurate and relevant (and non-sensationalist) way. No editorialising, no opinion, just the basic facts.
Example: An article on school changing the name of itself after a public figure who has misdemeanors come to light, but who is public figure famous for something else. you would not start the article Joe bloggs the famous 'bank robber'. You would say joe bloggs the famous 'sportsman/inventor' etc' who was also a bank robber.
It strikes me as aiming to set a certain tone.
but as ever those on one side will see nothing odd in it, those on the other will go ranting OT about some nonsense about the wider concept, as we see already in this thread!!! sigh, whereas those of no particular bent lose the point of the OP.
theplayingmantis said:
Example: An article on school changing the name of itself after a public figure who has misdemeanors come to light, but who is public figure famous for something else. you would not start the article Joe bloggs the famous 'bank robber'. You would say joe bloggs the famous 'sportsman/inventor' etc' who was also a bank robber.
I think that's fair.From Wikipedia "English explorer, sea captain, privateer, slave trader,[4][5][6] naval officer and politician" so I can see why people would think it's wrong to just make reference to the slave trading in the article.
deckster said:
Now you're being hysterical and using hyperbole to the point of being ridiculous.
Context and perspective is everything, though. I took the family to Vigo in northern Spain a few years back and the history there is all about the "British pirate Francis Drake". Which is somewhat different to what is pushed in the history books here.
A good point (and yes, Earthdweller is putting absurd suggestions in his hypothetical opponents' mouths). Context and perspective is everything, though. I took the family to Vigo in northern Spain a few years back and the history there is all about the "British pirate Francis Drake". Which is somewhat different to what is pushed in the history books here.
For instance, we commemorate and laud Drake for his sang froid, tactical skill and leadership in defeating the Spanish Armada. How many British history books or history lessons talk about what happened when he led a retributive English Armada against Spain the following year? Which was a defeat for the English on the same scale as the Spanish one had been before. But we generally hear zip about that.
In my last post I did write "it's the Colston statue debate all over again", but then deleted it because it isn't quite as comparable. Colston did nothing of significance that wasn't either directly linked to the slave trade or funded by his earning from the slave trade. Drake has achievements to his name, and as a part of English/British history that deserve to be remembered and even celebrated, so long as those deeds are placed in their true context (contemporary and historical). He's closer to Churchill in that regard, who (unlike Colston) has certainly deserved to be commemorated but shouldn't be sanitised or beatified because of that. I don't think Drake's statues should be taken down from Tavistock or Plymouth, I don't think the naval base at Devonport needs to be renamed and so on...but I really don't see the issue with a school in Lewisham collectively making a decision to drop his name from their institution.
theplayingmantis said:
Example: An article on school changing the name of itself after a public figure who has misdemeanors come to light, but who is public figure famous for something else. you would not start the article Joe bloggs the famous 'bank robber'. You would say joe bloggs the famous 'sportsman/inventor' etc' who was also a bank robber.
It strikes me as aiming to set a certain tone.
The standfirst isn't meant to be an introduction to the article, it's supposed to summarise the article in a sentence or two. You should be able to read the standfirst and come away with the correct gist of the article. If Joe Bloggs was an esteemed sportsman who had recently been convicted of bank robbery, it would be absolutely correct to write a standfirst saying "School named after bank robber Joe Bloggs has decided to change its name". It strikes me as aiming to set a certain tone.
Francis Drake was involved in the slave trade, and that is why the school chose to change its name. If you asked me in abstract to sum up Francis Drake's place in history in one word I absolutely wouldn't go with "slave trader", but it's apposite and accurate to the story in hand. And the article proper (and the box-out underneath) provides the broader context that isn't appropriate or relevant to a news standfirst
Edited by 2xChevrons on Monday 9th January 18:11
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff