As a museum we have to archive items good or bad. One person's good, is another person's bad.
If we go down the road of censorship then we are not impartial and we will also be failing our duties of not preserving our history accurately.
It's worth pointing out, that we have recent protest material within our archives that some people were against at the time.
Personally, and I am sure I speak for the rest of the trustee's and state that we are not a fan of the Nigel sticker but we feel it's our duty to archive it as it reflects "some" fans attitude at this moment in time.
It also serves as a reminder that their is still plenty of work to do.
Is it not censorship to block people on social media for saying they don’t like it? Surely the museum should note down those tweets to display around the sticker if it ever made it to be displayed at the museum
As a museum we have to archive items good or bad. One person's good, is another person's bad.
If we go down the road of censorship then we are not impartial and we will also be failing our duties of not preserving our history accurately.
It's worth pointing out, that we have recent protest material within our archives that some people were against at the time.
Personally, and I am sure I speak for the rest of the trustee's and state that we are not a fan of the Nigel sticker but we feel it's our duty to archive it as it reflects "some" fans attitude at this moment in time.
It also serves as a reminder that there is still plenty of work to do.
As a museum we have to archive items good or bad. One person's good, is another person's bad.
If we go down the road of censorship then we are not impartial and we will also be failing our duties of not preserving our history accurately.
It's worth pointing out, that we have recent protest material within our archives that some people were against at the time.
Personally, and I am sure I speak for the rest of the trustee's and state that we are not a fan of the Nigel sticker but we feel it's our duty to archive it as it reflects "some" fans attitude at this moment in time.
It also serves as a reminder that their is still plenty of work to do.
Except, people here have already confirmed it's not Charlton fans creating that particular sticker, it's someone creating the same template for multiple clubs.
As a museum we have to archive items good or bad. One person's good, is another person's bad.
If we go down the road of censorship then we are not impartial and we will also be failing our duties of not preserving our history accurately.
It's worth pointing out, that we have recent protest material within our archives that some people were against at the time.
Personally, and I am sure I speak for the rest of the trustee's and state that we are not a fan of the Nigel sticker but we feel it's our duty to archive it as it reflects "some" fans attitude at this moment in time.
It also serves as a reminder that their is still plenty of work to do.
Except, people here have already confirmed it's not Charlton fans creating that particular sticker, it's someone creating the same template for multiple clubs.
And if Charlton Fans have adopted them and used them, they deserve inclusion. If they haven't, then they shouldn't be in the collection.
As a museum we have to archive items good or bad. One person's good, is another person's bad.
If we go down the road of censorship then we are not impartial and we will also be failing our duties of not preserving our history accurately.
It's worth pointing out, that we have recent protest material within our archives that some people were against at the time.
Personally, and I am sure I speak for the rest of the trustee's and state that we are not a fan of the Nigel sticker but we feel it's our duty to archive it as it reflects "some" fans attitude at this moment in time.
It also serves as a reminder that there is still plenty of work to do.
couldn’t make it up
delivers speech about avoiding censorship
censors people who oppose the decision
I'm not in charge of the socials, so you may want to revisit your claim albeit I understand your point.
As a museum we have to archive items good or bad. One person's good, is another person's bad.
If we go down the road of censorship then we are not impartial and we will also be failing our duties of not preserving our history accurately.
It's worth pointing out, that we have recent protest material within our archives that some people were against at the time.
Personally, and I am sure I speak for the rest of the trustee's and state that we are not a fan of the Nigel sticker but we feel it's our duty to archive it as it reflects "some" fans attitude at this moment in time.
It also serves as a reminder that their is still plenty of work to do.
Is it not censorship to block people on social media for saying they don’t like it? Surely the museum should note down those tweets to display around the sticker if it ever made it to be displayed at the museum
I absolutely detest the sticker and shame on whatever fans are using them but a museum should be impartial. Despite all the great work the club does, stickers like these, booing the knee etc has been part of our fan culture, even if it's only a minority of idiots. As much as I'd love to forget about that side of our fanbase, it does exist and the museum shouldn't censor it, if anything it further highlights and provides context to the importance of the great work the club and community trust do in tackling these issues.
I hear what you are saying and in principle I agree...BUT...this isn't anything to do with CAFC/our culture/our history...you can find the same sticker with a number of clubs attached...it is a campaign to hijack our (football) culture, as opposed to being part of it..
Otherwise I could make any sticker with absolutely anything on it, stick a CAFC badge on it and claim it's part of CAFC's heritage and should be preserved, which would be - quite rightly - absolute rubbish.
This is the point. There's a difference between exhibiting something of genuine club culture and a product created for and by another with our badge stuck on it.
There's lots of stuff available to the museum for the CARD, B20 protests for example - wide variety, not all aligned other than by the one objective. But it was a Charlton objective and definitely reflects the prevailing culture that it's our club. Evidencing the pig throwing alongside the invasion of Farnell's office (something personally I objected to) would be genuinely documenting the differences between fan culture in the context of a shared objective.
Let's be honest here - the only (tenuous) connection the Farage sticker has to our culture is that a Charlton fan produced it and stuck our badge on it. The problem with simplistically attributing 'fan culture' status to it is that its content quite palpably doesn't reflect the vast majority of the fan base. Notwithstanding the absence of any context or explanation.
It begs the question, is there a line that 'bad with the good' cannot cross? If not, that's problematic. If there is, then is it drawn in the right place with appropriate context? I can't see the argument in this case, I just can't.
Blocking people from the museum's Twitter for expressing their view of it - and hardly in a way breaching community standards - is at best disproportionate. It's not a great look is it.
If this sticker hasn't been produced by Charlton fans, and hasn't been stuck on the cisterns of away ground toilets (which seem to be the most common location), then I agree.
If it has been produced by Charlton fan(s) and has been used (other locations are available) then like it or not, it's a part of that element and is worth preserving.
If stickers had been a thing when the NF were standing outside The Valley in the late 70s and early 80s, then that would also have been part of our history worth preserving, particularly in the context of our subsequent anti-racism campaigns.
For me, it hinges on whether they were produced by Farage and not used, or were produced by Charlton fans and were used.
Where's the line?
There isn't one - history is history - the context provided is what makes it worthy of museum inclusion.
I just went around the Karlshorst Museum in Berlin. There is no line drawn there in what is shown, and rightly so.
It's a fabulous museum that. It's curated very well. It not only verifies the relevance of its exhibits and ensures coherence, but it adds context and explanation to them. There's a ww2 museum in Prague that has all kinds of stuff, but all explained for their relevance to the museum's object.
I suspect that "someone stuck this sticker up in the toilets 6 weeks ago and it has a swastika on it" might not make the grade.
I don't believe we're talking censorship here at all. That's a lazy conclusion to draw. As I say, I haven't agreed with everything that's ever happened re Charlton but can see arguments for inclusion in the museum. This is tenuous at best, isn't it?
But let's face it, someone who can block people just for disagreeing is hardly going to suddenly change their mind because I have a different view too. I expressed it privately and was met with, well let's say a robust response. Just slightly surprised I wasn't blocked too as I expressed the same sentiment on Twitter.
I guess we'll be looking forward to the Stephen Lawrence murderers and the hooligan convicts in pride of place too, right?
As a museum we have to archive items good or bad. One person's good, is another person's bad.
If we go down the road of censorship then we are not impartial and we will also be failing our duties of not preserving our history accurately.
It's worth pointing out, that we have recent protest material within our archives that some people were against at the time.
Personally, and I am sure I speak for the rest of the trustee's and state that we are not a fan of the Nigel sticker but we feel it's our duty to archive it as it reflects "some" fans attitude at this moment in time.
It also serves as a reminder that their is still plenty of work to do.
Is it not censorship to block people on social media for saying they don’t like it? Surely the museum should note down those tweets to display around the sticker if it ever made it to be displayed at the museum
How do you know we haven't?
I don’t but the blocking sends out very mixed signals if you’re then going to display those tweets!
As a museum we have to archive items good or bad. One person's good, is another person's bad.
If we go down the road of censorship then we are not impartial and we will also be failing our duties of not preserving our history accurately.
It's worth pointing out, that we have recent protest material within our archives that some people were against at the time.
Personally, and I am sure I speak for the rest of the trustee's and state that we are not a fan of the Nigel sticker but we feel it's our duty to archive it as it reflects "some" fans attitude at this moment in time.
It also serves as a reminder that their is still plenty of work to do.
Is it not censorship to block people on social media for saying they don’t like it? Surely the museum should note down those tweets to display around the sticker if it ever made it to be displayed at the museum
How do you know we haven't?
Bit childish blocking supporters in the first place don't you think?
As a museum we have to archive items good or bad. One person's good, is another person's bad.
If we go down the road of censorship then we are not impartial and we will also be failing our duties of not preserving our history accurately.
It's worth pointing out, that we have recent protest material within our archives that some people were against at the time.
Personally, and I am sure I speak for the rest of the trustee's and state that we are not a fan of the Nigel sticker but we feel it's our duty to archive it as it reflects "some" fans attitude at this moment in time.
It also serves as a reminder that their is still plenty of work to do.
Is it not censorship to block people on social media for saying they don’t like it? Surely the museum should note down those tweets to display around the sticker if it ever made it to be displayed at the museum
How do you know we haven't?
I don’t but the blocking sends out very mixed signals if you’re then going to display those tweets!
We may, or may not display those tweets. They will however, be archived for historical reasons.
I absolutely detest the sticker and shame on whatever fans are using them but a museum should be impartial. Despite all the great work the club does, stickers like these, booing the knee etc has been part of our fan culture, even if it's only a minority of idiots. As much as I'd love to forget about that side of our fanbase, it does exist and the museum shouldn't censor it, if anything it further highlights and provides context to the importance of the great work the club and community trust do in tackling these issues.
I hear what you are saying and in principle I agree...BUT...this isn't anything to do with CAFC/our culture/our history...you can find the same sticker with a number of clubs attached...it is a campaign to hijack our (football) culture, as opposed to being part of it..
Otherwise I could make any sticker with absolutely anything on it, stick a CAFC badge on it and claim it's part of CAFC's heritage and should be preserved, which would be - quite rightly - absolute rubbish.
This is the point. There's a difference between exhibiting something of genuine club culture and a product created for and by another with our badge stuck on it.
There's lots of stuff available to the museum for the CARD, B20 protests for example - wide variety, not all aligned other than by the one objective. But it was a Charlton objective and definitely reflects the prevailing culture that it's our club. Evidencing the pig throwing alongside the invasion of Farnell's office (something personally I objected to) would be genuinely documenting the differences between fan culture in the context of a shared objective.
Let's be honest here - the only (tenuous) connection the Farage sticker has to our culture is that a Charlton fan produced it and stuck our badge on it. The problem with simplistically attributing 'fan culture' status to it is that its content quite palpably doesn't reflect the vast majority of the fan base. Notwithstanding the absence of any context or explanation.
It begs the question, is there a line that 'bad with the good' cannot cross? If not, that's problematic. If there is, then is it drawn in the right place with appropriate context? I can't see the argument in this case, I just can't.
Blocking people from the museum's Twitter for expressing their view of it - and hardly in a way breaching community standards - is at best disproportionate. It's not a great look is it.
If this sticker hasn't been produced by Charlton fans, and hasn't been stuck on the cisterns of away ground toilets (which seem to be the most common location), then I agree.
If it has been produced by Charlton fan(s) and has been used (other locations are available) then like it or not, it's a part of that element and is worth preserving.
If stickers had been a thing when the NF were standing outside The Valley in the late 70s and early 80s, then that would also have been part of our history worth preserving, particularly in the context of our subsequent anti-racism campaigns.
For me, it hinges on whether they were produced by Farage and not used, or were produced by Charlton fans and were used.
Where's the line?
There isn't one - history is history - the context provided is what makes it worthy of museum inclusion.
I just went around the Karlshorst Museum in Berlin. There is no line drawn there in what is shown, and rightly so.
It's a fabulous museum that. It's curated very well. It not only verifies the relevance of its exhibits and ensures coherence, but it adds context and explanation to them. There's a ww2 museum in Prague that has all kinds of stuff, but all explained for their relevance to the museum's object.
I suspect that "someone stuck this sticker up in the toilets 6 weeks ago and it has a swastika on it" might not make the grade.
I don't believe we're talking censorship here at all. That's a lazy conclusion to draw. As I say, I haven't agreed with everything that's ever happened re Charlton but can see arguments for inclusion in the museum. This is tenuous at best, isn't it?
But let's face it, someone who can block people just for disagreeing is hardly going to suddenly change their mind because I have a different view too. I expressed it privately and was met with, well let's say a robust response. Just slightly surprised I wasn't blocked too as I expressed the same sentiment on Twitter.
I guess we'll be looking forward to the Stephen Lawrence murderers and the hooligan convicts in pride of place too, right?
As I've said, if the stickers were never adopted and used by Charlton fans they have no place.
If they were, then include them.
If the Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton fans and produced items related to the club which are available to the museum, yes display them alongside an exhibit about what is a ground-breaking area for the club, and which was, if I recall correctly, supported by the Lawrence family.
If we have fans that are producing stickers with Swastikas on them and putting them up to represent Charlton Athletic, then yes include them, as evidence that they exist, and in the context of the backlash such an action would receive.
I absolutely detest the sticker and shame on whatever fans are using them but a museum should be impartial. Despite all the great work the club does, stickers like these, booing the knee etc has been part of our fan culture, even if it's only a minority of idiots. As much as I'd love to forget about that side of our fanbase, it does exist and the museum shouldn't censor it, if anything it further highlights and provides context to the importance of the great work the club and community trust do in tackling these issues.
I hear what you are saying and in principle I agree...BUT...this isn't anything to do with CAFC/our culture/our history...you can find the same sticker with a number of clubs attached...it is a campaign to hijack our (football) culture, as opposed to being part of it..
Otherwise I could make any sticker with absolutely anything on it, stick a CAFC badge on it and claim it's part of CAFC's heritage and should be preserved, which would be - quite rightly - absolute rubbish.
This is the point. There's a difference between exhibiting something of genuine club culture and a product created for and by another with our badge stuck on it.
There's lots of stuff available to the museum for the CARD, B20 protests for example - wide variety, not all aligned other than by the one objective. But it was a Charlton objective and definitely reflects the prevailing culture that it's our club. Evidencing the pig throwing alongside the invasion of Farnell's office (something personally I objected to) would be genuinely documenting the differences between fan culture in the context of a shared objective.
Let's be honest here - the only (tenuous) connection the Farage sticker has to our culture is that a Charlton fan produced it and stuck our badge on it. The problem with simplistically attributing 'fan culture' status to it is that its content quite palpably doesn't reflect the vast majority of the fan base. Notwithstanding the absence of any context or explanation.
It begs the question, is there a line that 'bad with the good' cannot cross? If not, that's problematic. If there is, then is it drawn in the right place with appropriate context? I can't see the argument in this case, I just can't.
Blocking people from the museum's Twitter for expressing their view of it - and hardly in a way breaching community standards - is at best disproportionate. It's not a great look is it.
If this sticker hasn't been produced by Charlton fans, and hasn't been stuck on the cisterns of away ground toilets (which seem to be the most common location), then I agree.
If it has been produced by Charlton fan(s) and has been used (other locations are available) then like it or not, it's a part of that element and is worth preserving.
If stickers had been a thing when the NF were standing outside The Valley in the late 70s and early 80s, then that would also have been part of our history worth preserving, particularly in the context of our subsequent anti-racism campaigns.
For me, it hinges on whether they were produced by Farage and not used, or were produced by Charlton fans and were used.
Where's the line?
There isn't one - history is history - the context provided is what makes it worthy of museum inclusion.
I just went around the Karlshorst Museum in Berlin. There is no line drawn there in what is shown, and rightly so.
It's a fabulous museum that. It's curated very well. It not only verifies the relevance of its exhibits and ensures coherence, but it adds context and explanation to them. There's a ww2 museum in Prague that has all kinds of stuff, but all explained for their relevance to the museum's object.
I suspect that "someone stuck this sticker up in the toilets 6 weeks ago and it has a swastika on it" might not make the grade.
I don't believe we're talking censorship here at all. That's a lazy conclusion to draw. As I say, I haven't agreed with everything that's ever happened re Charlton but can see arguments for inclusion in the museum. This is tenuous at best, isn't it?
But let's face it, someone who can block people just for disagreeing is hardly going to suddenly change their mind because I have a different view too. I expressed it privately and was met with, well let's say a robust response. Just slightly surprised I wasn't blocked too as I expressed the same sentiment on Twitter.
I guess we'll be looking forward to the Stephen Lawrence murderers and the hooligan convicts in pride of place too, right?
As I've said, if the stickers were never adopted and used by Charlton fans they have no place.
If they were, then include them.
If the Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton fans and produced items related to the club which are available to the museum, yes display them alongside an exhibit about what is a ground-breaking area for the club, and which was, if I recall correctly, supported by the Lawrence family.
If we have fans that are producing stickers with Swastikas on them and putting them up to represent Charlton Athletic, then yes include them, as evidence that they exist, and in the context of the backlash such an action would receive.
Seems your approach to curation is, everything with the roundel is in.
Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton supporters. I'm surprised you didn't know that, not least because they were banned by the club, which is of historic note. The fact they were fans and murdered someone is not. I'm hoping you see the difference.
Attaching the club's name to something an individual fan believes in is not fan culture. Of course include stickers in the record, but curation is as much the art of knowing what to leave out as it is to include.
If they're banning people for expressing a different view, which is all they did, then nothing I say will even make them think, let alone reconsider.
I absolutely detest the sticker and shame on whatever fans are using them but a museum should be impartial. Despite all the great work the club does, stickers like these, booing the knee etc has been part of our fan culture, even if it's only a minority of idiots. As much as I'd love to forget about that side of our fanbase, it does exist and the museum shouldn't censor it, if anything it further highlights and provides context to the importance of the great work the club and community trust do in tackling these issues.
I hear what you are saying and in principle I agree...BUT...this isn't anything to do with CAFC/our culture/our history...you can find the same sticker with a number of clubs attached...it is a campaign to hijack our (football) culture, as opposed to being part of it..
Otherwise I could make any sticker with absolutely anything on it, stick a CAFC badge on it and claim it's part of CAFC's heritage and should be preserved, which would be - quite rightly - absolute rubbish.
This is the point. There's a difference between exhibiting something of genuine club culture and a product created for and by another with our badge stuck on it.
There's lots of stuff available to the museum for the CARD, B20 protests for example - wide variety, not all aligned other than by the one objective. But it was a Charlton objective and definitely reflects the prevailing culture that it's our club. Evidencing the pig throwing alongside the invasion of Farnell's office (something personally I objected to) would be genuinely documenting the differences between fan culture in the context of a shared objective.
Let's be honest here - the only (tenuous) connection the Farage sticker has to our culture is that a Charlton fan produced it and stuck our badge on it. The problem with simplistically attributing 'fan culture' status to it is that its content quite palpably doesn't reflect the vast majority of the fan base. Notwithstanding the absence of any context or explanation.
It begs the question, is there a line that 'bad with the good' cannot cross? If not, that's problematic. If there is, then is it drawn in the right place with appropriate context? I can't see the argument in this case, I just can't.
Blocking people from the museum's Twitter for expressing their view of it - and hardly in a way breaching community standards - is at best disproportionate. It's not a great look is it.
If this sticker hasn't been produced by Charlton fans, and hasn't been stuck on the cisterns of away ground toilets (which seem to be the most common location), then I agree.
If it has been produced by Charlton fan(s) and has been used (other locations are available) then like it or not, it's a part of that element and is worth preserving.
If stickers had been a thing when the NF were standing outside The Valley in the late 70s and early 80s, then that would also have been part of our history worth preserving, particularly in the context of our subsequent anti-racism campaigns.
For me, it hinges on whether they were produced by Farage and not used, or were produced by Charlton fans and were used.
Where's the line?
There isn't one - history is history - the context provided is what makes it worthy of museum inclusion.
I just went around the Karlshorst Museum in Berlin. There is no line drawn there in what is shown, and rightly so.
It's a fabulous museum that. It's curated very well. It not only verifies the relevance of its exhibits and ensures coherence, but it adds context and explanation to them. There's a ww2 museum in Prague that has all kinds of stuff, but all explained for their relevance to the museum's object.
I suspect that "someone stuck this sticker up in the toilets 6 weeks ago and it has a swastika on it" might not make the grade.
I don't believe we're talking censorship here at all. That's a lazy conclusion to draw. As I say, I haven't agreed with everything that's ever happened re Charlton but can see arguments for inclusion in the museum. This is tenuous at best, isn't it?
But let's face it, someone who can block people just for disagreeing is hardly going to suddenly change their mind because I have a different view too. I expressed it privately and was met with, well let's say a robust response. Just slightly surprised I wasn't blocked too as I expressed the same sentiment on Twitter.
I guess we'll be looking forward to the Stephen Lawrence murderers and the hooligan convicts in pride of place too, right?
As I've said, if the stickers were never adopted and used by Charlton fans they have no place.
If they were, then include them.
If the Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton fans and produced items related to the club which are available to the museum, yes display them alongside an exhibit about what is a ground-breaking area for the club, and which was, if I recall correctly, supported by the Lawrence family.
If we have fans that are producing stickers with Swastikas on them and putting them up to represent Charlton Athletic, then yes include them, as evidence that they exist, and in the context of the backlash such an action would receive.
The offending stickers were given to me by a young fan on the way to the Stockport match - hence the inclusion
I absolutely detest the sticker and shame on whatever fans are using them but a museum should be impartial. Despite all the great work the club does, stickers like these, booing the knee etc has been part of our fan culture, even if it's only a minority of idiots. As much as I'd love to forget about that side of our fanbase, it does exist and the museum shouldn't censor it, if anything it further highlights and provides context to the importance of the great work the club and community trust do in tackling these issues.
I hear what you are saying and in principle I agree...BUT...this isn't anything to do with CAFC/our culture/our history...you can find the same sticker with a number of clubs attached...it is a campaign to hijack our (football) culture, as opposed to being part of it..
Otherwise I could make any sticker with absolutely anything on it, stick a CAFC badge on it and claim it's part of CAFC's heritage and should be preserved, which would be - quite rightly - absolute rubbish.
This is the point. There's a difference between exhibiting something of genuine club culture and a product created for and by another with our badge stuck on it.
There's lots of stuff available to the museum for the CARD, B20 protests for example - wide variety, not all aligned other than by the one objective. But it was a Charlton objective and definitely reflects the prevailing culture that it's our club. Evidencing the pig throwing alongside the invasion of Farnell's office (something personally I objected to) would be genuinely documenting the differences between fan culture in the context of a shared objective.
Let's be honest here - the only (tenuous) connection the Farage sticker has to our culture is that a Charlton fan produced it and stuck our badge on it. The problem with simplistically attributing 'fan culture' status to it is that its content quite palpably doesn't reflect the vast majority of the fan base. Notwithstanding the absence of any context or explanation.
It begs the question, is there a line that 'bad with the good' cannot cross? If not, that's problematic. If there is, then is it drawn in the right place with appropriate context? I can't see the argument in this case, I just can't.
Blocking people from the museum's Twitter for expressing their view of it - and hardly in a way breaching community standards - is at best disproportionate. It's not a great look is it.
If this sticker hasn't been produced by Charlton fans, and hasn't been stuck on the cisterns of away ground toilets (which seem to be the most common location), then I agree.
If it has been produced by Charlton fan(s) and has been used (other locations are available) then like it or not, it's a part of that element and is worth preserving.
If stickers had been a thing when the NF were standing outside The Valley in the late 70s and early 80s, then that would also have been part of our history worth preserving, particularly in the context of our subsequent anti-racism campaigns.
For me, it hinges on whether they were produced by Farage and not used, or were produced by Charlton fans and were used.
Where's the line?
There isn't one - history is history - the context provided is what makes it worthy of museum inclusion.
I just went around the Karlshorst Museum in Berlin. There is no line drawn there in what is shown, and rightly so.
It's a fabulous museum that. It's curated very well. It not only verifies the relevance of its exhibits and ensures coherence, but it adds context and explanation to them. There's a ww2 museum in Prague that has all kinds of stuff, but all explained for their relevance to the museum's object.
I suspect that "someone stuck this sticker up in the toilets 6 weeks ago and it has a swastika on it" might not make the grade.
I don't believe we're talking censorship here at all. That's a lazy conclusion to draw. As I say, I haven't agreed with everything that's ever happened re Charlton but can see arguments for inclusion in the museum. This is tenuous at best, isn't it?
But let's face it, someone who can block people just for disagreeing is hardly going to suddenly change their mind because I have a different view too. I expressed it privately and was met with, well let's say a robust response. Just slightly surprised I wasn't blocked too as I expressed the same sentiment on Twitter.
I guess we'll be looking forward to the Stephen Lawrence murderers and the hooligan convicts in pride of place too, right?
As I've said, if the stickers were never adopted and used by Charlton fans they have no place.
If they were, then include them.
If the Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton fans and produced items related to the club which are available to the museum, yes display them alongside an exhibit about what is a ground-breaking area for the club, and which was, if I recall correctly, supported by the Lawrence family.
If we have fans that are producing stickers with Swastikas on them and putting them up to represent Charlton Athletic, then yes include them, as evidence that they exist, and in the context of the backlash such an action would receive.
Seems your approach to curation is, everything with the roundel is in.
Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton supporters. I'm surprised you didn't know that, not least because they were banned by the club, which is of historic note. The fact they were fans and murdered someone is not. I'm hoping you see the difference.
Attaching the club's name to something an individual fan believes in is not fan culture. Of course include stickers in the record, but curation is as much the art of knowing what to leave out as it is to include.
If they're banning people for expressing a different view, which is all they did, then nothing I say will even make them think, let alone reconsider.
On your first point, yes, if its adopted by fans and used to represent the club.
On the Stephen Lawrence point, I didn't know that (you may be surprised to know that I don't know every fact pertaining to every circumstance involving Charlton Athletic).
I knew people that knew them, all of whom were very much Millwall ("Eltham heads", from historic parlance). But if its documented that they were Charlton fans, then they were.
Having now looked it up, and if you want my view, there are two elements that are absolutely worthy of inclusion / archiving by the museum.
1. Charlton banned them - "Suresh Grover, spokesman for the Stephen Lawrence Family Campaign, said: 'This is the first time these five have received any sort of punishment. [It] is a magnificent gesture [by Charlton Athletic] to exclude these racist thugs and it represents a measure of practical support for Doreen and Neville Lawrence.' The Guardian, August 1998.
2. In 2013, 7 Charlton fans were arrested for singing abusive Stephen Lawrence chants - "British Transport Police, in collaboration with Charlton Athletic Football Club worked to identify the men leading to their arrest two weeks after the incident. Mick Everett, Charlton FC's Head of Operations, said: "The club was shocked to hear of the rowdy, intimidating behaviour, and the chanting of racist songs on a train by a handful of our supporters. "Their actions are totally condemned by everyone at the club and indeed, I am sure, by Charlton supporters everywhere." Although this isolated incident does not reflect on the overwhelming majority of our fans, these arrests are a kick in the teeth to everyone associated with the club, who have put so much effort into our campaign over the years. "The club will now look to impose additional appropriate sanctions on those involved." Detective Sergeant Jane Hill, from British Transport Police, said: "The actions of these men were both offensive and extremely intimidating to other passengers on board the train at the time. "An investigation was swiftly launched to gather evidence and by working closely with Charlton Athletic FC, coupled with excellent CCTV footage, intelligence reports and statements from witnesses, we were able to move quickly to trace the men."
I absolutely detest the sticker and shame on whatever fans are using them but a museum should be impartial. Despite all the great work the club does, stickers like these, booing the knee etc has been part of our fan culture, even if it's only a minority of idiots. As much as I'd love to forget about that side of our fanbase, it does exist and the museum shouldn't censor it, if anything it further highlights and provides context to the importance of the great work the club and community trust do in tackling these issues.
I hear what you are saying and in principle I agree...BUT...this isn't anything to do with CAFC/our culture/our history...you can find the same sticker with a number of clubs attached...it is a campaign to hijack our (football) culture, as opposed to being part of it..
Otherwise I could make any sticker with absolutely anything on it, stick a CAFC badge on it and claim it's part of CAFC's heritage and should be preserved, which would be - quite rightly - absolute rubbish.
This is the point. There's a difference between exhibiting something of genuine club culture and a product created for and by another with our badge stuck on it.
There's lots of stuff available to the museum for the CARD, B20 protests for example - wide variety, not all aligned other than by the one objective. But it was a Charlton objective and definitely reflects the prevailing culture that it's our club. Evidencing the pig throwing alongside the invasion of Farnell's office (something personally I objected to) would be genuinely documenting the differences between fan culture in the context of a shared objective.
Let's be honest here - the only (tenuous) connection the Farage sticker has to our culture is that a Charlton fan produced it and stuck our badge on it. The problem with simplistically attributing 'fan culture' status to it is that its content quite palpably doesn't reflect the vast majority of the fan base. Notwithstanding the absence of any context or explanation.
It begs the question, is there a line that 'bad with the good' cannot cross? If not, that's problematic. If there is, then is it drawn in the right place with appropriate context? I can't see the argument in this case, I just can't.
Blocking people from the museum's Twitter for expressing their view of it - and hardly in a way breaching community standards - is at best disproportionate. It's not a great look is it.
If this sticker hasn't been produced by Charlton fans, and hasn't been stuck on the cisterns of away ground toilets (which seem to be the most common location), then I agree.
If it has been produced by Charlton fan(s) and has been used (other locations are available) then like it or not, it's a part of that element and is worth preserving.
If stickers had been a thing when the NF were standing outside The Valley in the late 70s and early 80s, then that would also have been part of our history worth preserving, particularly in the context of our subsequent anti-racism campaigns.
For me, it hinges on whether they were produced by Farage and not used, or were produced by Charlton fans and were used.
Where's the line?
There isn't one - history is history - the context provided is what makes it worthy of museum inclusion.
I just went around the Karlshorst Museum in Berlin. There is no line drawn there in what is shown, and rightly so.
It's a fabulous museum that. It's curated very well. It not only verifies the relevance of its exhibits and ensures coherence, but it adds context and explanation to them. There's a ww2 museum in Prague that has all kinds of stuff, but all explained for their relevance to the museum's object.
I suspect that "someone stuck this sticker up in the toilets 6 weeks ago and it has a swastika on it" might not make the grade.
I don't believe we're talking censorship here at all. That's a lazy conclusion to draw. As I say, I haven't agreed with everything that's ever happened re Charlton but can see arguments for inclusion in the museum. This is tenuous at best, isn't it?
But let's face it, someone who can block people just for disagreeing is hardly going to suddenly change their mind because I have a different view too. I expressed it privately and was met with, well let's say a robust response. Just slightly surprised I wasn't blocked too as I expressed the same sentiment on Twitter.
I guess we'll be looking forward to the Stephen Lawrence murderers and the hooligan convicts in pride of place too, right?
As I've said, if the stickers were never adopted and used by Charlton fans they have no place.
If they were, then include them.
If the Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton fans and produced items related to the club which are available to the museum, yes display them alongside an exhibit about what is a ground-breaking area for the club, and which was, if I recall correctly, supported by the Lawrence family.
If we have fans that are producing stickers with Swastikas on them and putting them up to represent Charlton Athletic, then yes include them, as evidence that they exist, and in the context of the backlash such an action would receive.
Seems your approach to curation is, everything with the roundel is in.
Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton supporters. I'm surprised you didn't know that, not least because they were banned by the club, which is of historic note. The fact they were fans and murdered someone is not. I'm hoping you see the difference.
Attaching the club's name to something an individual fan believes in is not fan culture. Of course include stickers in the record, but curation is as much the art of knowing what to leave out as it is to include.
If they're banning people for expressing a different view, which is all they did, then nothing I say will even make them think, let alone reconsider.
On your first point, yes, if its adopted by fans and used to represent the club.
On the Stephen Lawrence point, I didn't know that (you may be surprised to know that I don't know every fact pertaining to every circumstance involving Charlton Athletic).
I knew people that knew them, all of whom were very much Millwall ("Eltham heads", from historic parlance). But if its documented that they were Charlton fans, then they were.
Having now looked it up, and if you want my view, there are two elements that are absolutely worthy of inclusion / archiving by the museum.
1. Charlton banned them - "Suresh Grover, spokesman for the Stephen Lawrence Family Campaign, said: 'This is the first time these five have received any sort of punishment. [It] is a magnificent gesture [by Charlton Athletic] to exclude these racist thugs and it represents a measure of practical support for Doreen and Neville Lawrence.' The Guardian, August 1998.
2. In 2013, 7 Charlton fans were arrested for singing abusive Stephen Lawrence chants - "British Transport Police, in collaboration with Charlton Athletic Football Club worked to identify the men leading to their arrest two weeks after the incident. Mick Everett, Charlton FC's Head of Operations, said: "The club was shocked to hear of the rowdy, intimidating behaviour, and the chanting of racist songs on a train by a handful of our supporters. "Their actions are totally condemned by everyone at the club and indeed, I am sure, by Charlton supporters everywhere." Although this isolated incident does not reflect on the overwhelming majority of our fans, these arrests are a kick in the teeth to everyone associated with the club, who have put so much effort into our campaign over the years. "The club will now look to impose additional appropriate sanctions on those involved." Detective Sergeant Jane Hill, from British Transport Police, said: "The actions of these men were both offensive and extremely intimidating to other passengers on board the train at the time. "An investigation was swiftly launched to gather evidence and by working closely with Charlton Athletic FC, coupled with excellent CCTV footage, intelligence reports and statements from witnesses, we were able to move quickly to trace the men."
Great research but you're making my point there.
Must be the simplest curation job ever at the museum.
" Does it have a badge on?"
"Yes"
"It's in" "Great. I was worried you might see the bit about brown people getting kicked and reject it"
"But it does have a badge on it?"
As a museum we have to archive items good or bad. One person's good, is another person's bad.
If we go down the road of censorship then we are not impartial and we will also be failing our duties of not preserving our history accurately.
It's worth pointing out, that we have recent protest material within our archives that some people were against at the time.
Personally, and I am sure I speak for the rest of the trustee's and state that we are not a fan of the Nigel sticker but we feel it's our duty to archive it as it reflects "some" fans attitude at this moment in time.
It also serves as a reminder that their is still plenty of work to do.
Is it not censorship to block people on social media for saying they don’t like it? Surely the museum should note down those tweets to display around the sticker if it ever made it to be displayed at the museum
How do you know we haven't?
I don’t but the blocking sends out very mixed signals if you’re then going to display those tweets!
We may, or may not display those tweets. They will however, be archived for historical reasons.
Thanks for the contribution
That's as may be - I accept you are not in charge of the socials, but do you agree or disagree that blocking people who raised objections on the socials is not a good look?
I absolutely detest the sticker and shame on whatever fans are using them but a museum should be impartial. Despite all the great work the club does, stickers like these, booing the knee etc has been part of our fan culture, even if it's only a minority of idiots. As much as I'd love to forget about that side of our fanbase, it does exist and the museum shouldn't censor it, if anything it further highlights and provides context to the importance of the great work the club and community trust do in tackling these issues.
I hear what you are saying and in principle I agree...BUT...this isn't anything to do with CAFC/our culture/our history...you can find the same sticker with a number of clubs attached...it is a campaign to hijack our (football) culture, as opposed to being part of it..
Otherwise I could make any sticker with absolutely anything on it, stick a CAFC badge on it and claim it's part of CAFC's heritage and should be preserved, which would be - quite rightly - absolute rubbish.
This is the point. There's a difference between exhibiting something of genuine club culture and a product created for and by another with our badge stuck on it.
There's lots of stuff available to the museum for the CARD, B20 protests for example - wide variety, not all aligned other than by the one objective. But it was a Charlton objective and definitely reflects the prevailing culture that it's our club. Evidencing the pig throwing alongside the invasion of Farnell's office (something personally I objected to) would be genuinely documenting the differences between fan culture in the context of a shared objective.
Let's be honest here - the only (tenuous) connection the Farage sticker has to our culture is that a Charlton fan produced it and stuck our badge on it. The problem with simplistically attributing 'fan culture' status to it is that its content quite palpably doesn't reflect the vast majority of the fan base. Notwithstanding the absence of any context or explanation.
It begs the question, is there a line that 'bad with the good' cannot cross? If not, that's problematic. If there is, then is it drawn in the right place with appropriate context? I can't see the argument in this case, I just can't.
Blocking people from the museum's Twitter for expressing their view of it - and hardly in a way breaching community standards - is at best disproportionate. It's not a great look is it.
If this sticker hasn't been produced by Charlton fans, and hasn't been stuck on the cisterns of away ground toilets (which seem to be the most common location), then I agree.
If it has been produced by Charlton fan(s) and has been used (other locations are available) then like it or not, it's a part of that element and is worth preserving.
If stickers had been a thing when the NF were standing outside The Valley in the late 70s and early 80s, then that would also have been part of our history worth preserving, particularly in the context of our subsequent anti-racism campaigns.
For me, it hinges on whether they were produced by Farage and not used, or were produced by Charlton fans and were used.
Where's the line?
There isn't one - history is history - the context provided is what makes it worthy of museum inclusion.
I just went around the Karlshorst Museum in Berlin. There is no line drawn there in what is shown, and rightly so.
It's a fabulous museum that. It's curated very well. It not only verifies the relevance of its exhibits and ensures coherence, but it adds context and explanation to them. There's a ww2 museum in Prague that has all kinds of stuff, but all explained for their relevance to the museum's object.
I suspect that "someone stuck this sticker up in the toilets 6 weeks ago and it has a swastika on it" might not make the grade.
I don't believe we're talking censorship here at all. That's a lazy conclusion to draw. As I say, I haven't agreed with everything that's ever happened re Charlton but can see arguments for inclusion in the museum. This is tenuous at best, isn't it?
But let's face it, someone who can block people just for disagreeing is hardly going to suddenly change their mind because I have a different view too. I expressed it privately and was met with, well let's say a robust response. Just slightly surprised I wasn't blocked too as I expressed the same sentiment on Twitter.
I guess we'll be looking forward to the Stephen Lawrence murderers and the hooligan convicts in pride of place too, right?
As I've said, if the stickers were never adopted and used by Charlton fans they have no place.
If they were, then include them.
If the Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton fans and produced items related to the club which are available to the museum, yes display them alongside an exhibit about what is a ground-breaking area for the club, and which was, if I recall correctly, supported by the Lawrence family.
If we have fans that are producing stickers with Swastikas on them and putting them up to represent Charlton Athletic, then yes include them, as evidence that they exist, and in the context of the backlash such an action would receive.
Seems your approach to curation is, everything with the roundel is in.
Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton supporters. I'm surprised you didn't know that, not least because they were banned by the club, which is of historic note. The fact they were fans and murdered someone is not. I'm hoping you see the difference.
Attaching the club's name to something an individual fan believes in is not fan culture. Of course include stickers in the record, but curation is as much the art of knowing what to leave out as it is to include.
If they're banning people for expressing a different view, which is all they did, then nothing I say will even make them think, let alone reconsider.
On your first point, yes, if its adopted by fans and used to represent the club.
On the Stephen Lawrence point, I didn't know that (you may be surprised to know that I don't know every fact pertaining to every circumstance involving Charlton Athletic).
I knew people that knew them, all of whom were very much Millwall ("Eltham heads", from historic parlance). But if its documented that they were Charlton fans, then they were.
Having now looked it up, and if you want my view, there are two elements that are absolutely worthy of inclusion / archiving by the museum.
1. Charlton banned them - "Suresh Grover, spokesman for the Stephen Lawrence Family Campaign, said: 'This is the first time these five have received any sort of punishment. [It] is a magnificent gesture [by Charlton Athletic] to exclude these racist thugs and it represents a measure of practical support for Doreen and Neville Lawrence.' The Guardian, August 1998.
2. In 2013, 7 Charlton fans were arrested for singing abusive Stephen Lawrence chants - "British Transport Police, in collaboration with Charlton Athletic Football Club worked to identify the men leading to their arrest two weeks after the incident. Mick Everett, Charlton FC's Head of Operations, said: "The club was shocked to hear of the rowdy, intimidating behaviour, and the chanting of racist songs on a train by a handful of our supporters. "Their actions are totally condemned by everyone at the club and indeed, I am sure, by Charlton supporters everywhere." Although this isolated incident does not reflect on the overwhelming majority of our fans, these arrests are a kick in the teeth to everyone associated with the club, who have put so much effort into our campaign over the years. "The club will now look to impose additional appropriate sanctions on those involved." Detective Sergeant Jane Hill, from British Transport Police, said: "The actions of these men were both offensive and extremely intimidating to other passengers on board the train at the time. "An investigation was swiftly launched to gather evidence and by working closely with Charlton Athletic FC, coupled with excellent CCTV footage, intelligence reports and statements from witnesses, we were able to move quickly to trace the men."
Great research but you're making my point there.
Must be the simplest curation job ever at the museum.
" Does it have a badge on?"
"Yes"
"It's in" "Great. I was worried you might see the bit about brown people getting kicked and reject it"
"But it does have a badge on it?"
Agree to disagree.
If it's adopted and used, then it's liable for inclusion (at the discretion of trustees / curators). If it's available, but never adopted or used, then its not.
As a museum we have to archive items good or bad. One person's good, is another person's bad.
If we go down the road of censorship then we are not impartial and we will also be failing our duties of not preserving our history accurately.
It's worth pointing out, that we have recent protest material within our archives that some people were against at the time.
Personally, and I am sure I speak for the rest of the trustee's and state that we are not a fan of the Nigel sticker but we feel it's our duty to archive it as it reflects "some" fans attitude at this moment in time.
It also serves as a reminder that their is still plenty of work to do.
Is it not censorship to block people on social media for saying they don’t like it? Surely the museum should note down those tweets to display around the sticker if it ever made it to be displayed at the museum
How do you know we haven't?
I don’t but the blocking sends out very mixed signals if you’re then going to display those tweets!
We may, or may not display those tweets. They will however, be archived for historical reasons.
Thanks for the contribution
That's as may be - I accept you are not in charge of the socials, but do you agree or disagree that blocking people who raised objections on the socials is not a good look?
Personally, I do not agree with blocking people as I prefer open dialogue.
I absolutely detest the sticker and shame on whatever fans are using them but a museum should be impartial. Despite all the great work the club does, stickers like these, booing the knee etc has been part of our fan culture, even if it's only a minority of idiots. As much as I'd love to forget about that side of our fanbase, it does exist and the museum shouldn't censor it, if anything it further highlights and provides context to the importance of the great work the club and community trust do in tackling these issues.
I hear what you are saying and in principle I agree...BUT...this isn't anything to do with CAFC/our culture/our history...you can find the same sticker with a number of clubs attached...it is a campaign to hijack our (football) culture, as opposed to being part of it..
Otherwise I could make any sticker with absolutely anything on it, stick a CAFC badge on it and claim it's part of CAFC's heritage and should be preserved, which would be - quite rightly - absolute rubbish.
This is the point. There's a difference between exhibiting something of genuine club culture and a product created for and by another with our badge stuck on it.
There's lots of stuff available to the museum for the CARD, B20 protests for example - wide variety, not all aligned other than by the one objective. But it was a Charlton objective and definitely reflects the prevailing culture that it's our club. Evidencing the pig throwing alongside the invasion of Farnell's office (something personally I objected to) would be genuinely documenting the differences between fan culture in the context of a shared objective.
Let's be honest here - the only (tenuous) connection the Farage sticker has to our culture is that a Charlton fan produced it and stuck our badge on it. The problem with simplistically attributing 'fan culture' status to it is that its content quite palpably doesn't reflect the vast majority of the fan base. Notwithstanding the absence of any context or explanation.
It begs the question, is there a line that 'bad with the good' cannot cross? If not, that's problematic. If there is, then is it drawn in the right place with appropriate context? I can't see the argument in this case, I just can't.
Blocking people from the museum's Twitter for expressing their view of it - and hardly in a way breaching community standards - is at best disproportionate. It's not a great look is it.
If this sticker hasn't been produced by Charlton fans, and hasn't been stuck on the cisterns of away ground toilets (which seem to be the most common location), then I agree.
If it has been produced by Charlton fan(s) and has been used (other locations are available) then like it or not, it's a part of that element and is worth preserving.
If stickers had been a thing when the NF were standing outside The Valley in the late 70s and early 80s, then that would also have been part of our history worth preserving, particularly in the context of our subsequent anti-racism campaigns.
For me, it hinges on whether they were produced by Farage and not used, or were produced by Charlton fans and were used.
Where's the line?
There isn't one - history is history - the context provided is what makes it worthy of museum inclusion.
I just went around the Karlshorst Museum in Berlin. There is no line drawn there in what is shown, and rightly so.
It's a fabulous museum that. It's curated very well. It not only verifies the relevance of its exhibits and ensures coherence, but it adds context and explanation to them. There's a ww2 museum in Prague that has all kinds of stuff, but all explained for their relevance to the museum's object.
I suspect that "someone stuck this sticker up in the toilets 6 weeks ago and it has a swastika on it" might not make the grade.
I don't believe we're talking censorship here at all. That's a lazy conclusion to draw. As I say, I haven't agreed with everything that's ever happened re Charlton but can see arguments for inclusion in the museum. This is tenuous at best, isn't it?
But let's face it, someone who can block people just for disagreeing is hardly going to suddenly change their mind because I have a different view too. I expressed it privately and was met with, well let's say a robust response. Just slightly surprised I wasn't blocked too as I expressed the same sentiment on Twitter.
I guess we'll be looking forward to the Stephen Lawrence murderers and the hooligan convicts in pride of place too, right?
As I've said, if the stickers were never adopted and used by Charlton fans they have no place.
If they were, then include them.
If the Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton fans and produced items related to the club which are available to the museum, yes display them alongside an exhibit about what is a ground-breaking area for the club, and which was, if I recall correctly, supported by the Lawrence family.
If we have fans that are producing stickers with Swastikas on them and putting them up to represent Charlton Athletic, then yes include them, as evidence that they exist, and in the context of the backlash such an action would receive.
Seems your approach to curation is, everything with the roundel is in.
Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton supporters. I'm surprised you didn't know that, not least because they were banned by the club, which is of historic note. The fact they were fans and murdered someone is not. I'm hoping you see the difference.
Attaching the club's name to something an individual fan believes in is not fan culture. Of course include stickers in the record, but curation is as much the art of knowing what to leave out as it is to include.
If they're banning people for expressing a different view, which is all they did, then nothing I say will even make them think, let alone reconsider.
On your first point, yes, if its adopted by fans and used to represent the club.
On the Stephen Lawrence point, I didn't know that (you may be surprised to know that I don't know every fact pertaining to every circumstance involving Charlton Athletic).
I knew people that knew them, all of whom were very much Millwall ("Eltham heads", from historic parlance). But if its documented that they were Charlton fans, then they were.
Having now looked it up, and if you want my view, there are two elements that are absolutely worthy of inclusion / archiving by the museum.
1. Charlton banned them - "Suresh Grover, spokesman for the Stephen Lawrence Family Campaign, said: 'This is the first time these five have received any sort of punishment. [It] is a magnificent gesture [by Charlton Athletic] to exclude these racist thugs and it represents a measure of practical support for Doreen and Neville Lawrence.' The Guardian, August 1998.
2. In 2013, 7 Charlton fans were arrested for singing abusive Stephen Lawrence chants - "British Transport Police, in collaboration with Charlton Athletic Football Club worked to identify the men leading to their arrest two weeks after the incident. Mick Everett, Charlton FC's Head of Operations, said: "The club was shocked to hear of the rowdy, intimidating behaviour, and the chanting of racist songs on a train by a handful of our supporters. "Their actions are totally condemned by everyone at the club and indeed, I am sure, by Charlton supporters everywhere." Although this isolated incident does not reflect on the overwhelming majority of our fans, these arrests are a kick in the teeth to everyone associated with the club, who have put so much effort into our campaign over the years. "The club will now look to impose additional appropriate sanctions on those involved." Detective Sergeant Jane Hill, from British Transport Police, said: "The actions of these men were both offensive and extremely intimidating to other passengers on board the train at the time. "An investigation was swiftly launched to gather evidence and by working closely with Charlton Athletic FC, coupled with excellent CCTV footage, intelligence reports and statements from witnesses, we were able to move quickly to trace the men."
Great research but you're making my point there.
Must be the simplest curation job ever at the museum.
" Does it have a badge on?"
"Yes"
"It's in" "Great. I was worried you might see the bit about brown people getting kicked and reject it"
"But it does have a badge on it?"
Agree to disagree.
Have a look at the amount of stickers and you will see it's not just one sticker, so it's not just a case of including anything with the badge on. You are welcome to come and join the team and see the amount of work that goes on in the background.
@SporadicAddick I get what you're saying....but what's the benchmark here? Used by 'one young fan on the train to Stockport' (as cited by @cafc999 ) ...that's not culture/history or anything other than that fan's thoughts (if they've thought at all) ...it has as much place in the museum as anything I decide to print/get made up/get sent the template for by a political party that I can put our badge on... All the Stephen Lawrence history, the protests, CARD etc etc etc, you didn't have to agree with/like etc, but they were/are inextricably linked to CAFC and therefore part of 'our' collective history and deserving of being in the museum, whether they're 'good' or 'bad'... This sticker isn't linked to us in any meaningful way and is not exclusive to CAFC at all....hence why I think it should get in the bin, rather than being preserved as part of 'our' identity.
I absolutely detest the sticker and shame on whatever fans are using them but a museum should be impartial. Despite all the great work the club does, stickers like these, booing the knee etc has been part of our fan culture, even if it's only a minority of idiots. As much as I'd love to forget about that side of our fanbase, it does exist and the museum shouldn't censor it, if anything it further highlights and provides context to the importance of the great work the club and community trust do in tackling these issues.
I hear what you are saying and in principle I agree...BUT...this isn't anything to do with CAFC/our culture/our history...you can find the same sticker with a number of clubs attached...it is a campaign to hijack our (football) culture, as opposed to being part of it..
Otherwise I could make any sticker with absolutely anything on it, stick a CAFC badge on it and claim it's part of CAFC's heritage and should be preserved, which would be - quite rightly - absolute rubbish.
This is the point. There's a difference between exhibiting something of genuine club culture and a product created for and by another with our badge stuck on it.
There's lots of stuff available to the museum for the CARD, B20 protests for example - wide variety, not all aligned other than by the one objective. But it was a Charlton objective and definitely reflects the prevailing culture that it's our club. Evidencing the pig throwing alongside the invasion of Farnell's office (something personally I objected to) would be genuinely documenting the differences between fan culture in the context of a shared objective.
Let's be honest here - the only (tenuous) connection the Farage sticker has to our culture is that a Charlton fan produced it and stuck our badge on it. The problem with simplistically attributing 'fan culture' status to it is that its content quite palpably doesn't reflect the vast majority of the fan base. Notwithstanding the absence of any context or explanation.
It begs the question, is there a line that 'bad with the good' cannot cross? If not, that's problematic. If there is, then is it drawn in the right place with appropriate context? I can't see the argument in this case, I just can't.
Blocking people from the museum's Twitter for expressing their view of it - and hardly in a way breaching community standards - is at best disproportionate. It's not a great look is it.
If this sticker hasn't been produced by Charlton fans, and hasn't been stuck on the cisterns of away ground toilets (which seem to be the most common location), then I agree.
If it has been produced by Charlton fan(s) and has been used (other locations are available) then like it or not, it's a part of that element and is worth preserving.
If stickers had been a thing when the NF were standing outside The Valley in the late 70s and early 80s, then that would also have been part of our history worth preserving, particularly in the context of our subsequent anti-racism campaigns.
For me, it hinges on whether they were produced by Farage and not used, or were produced by Charlton fans and were used.
Where's the line?
There isn't one - history is history - the context provided is what makes it worthy of museum inclusion.
I just went around the Karlshorst Museum in Berlin. There is no line drawn there in what is shown, and rightly so.
It's a fabulous museum that. It's curated very well. It not only verifies the relevance of its exhibits and ensures coherence, but it adds context and explanation to them. There's a ww2 museum in Prague that has all kinds of stuff, but all explained for their relevance to the museum's object.
I suspect that "someone stuck this sticker up in the toilets 6 weeks ago and it has a swastika on it" might not make the grade.
I don't believe we're talking censorship here at all. That's a lazy conclusion to draw. As I say, I haven't agreed with everything that's ever happened re Charlton but can see arguments for inclusion in the museum. This is tenuous at best, isn't it?
But let's face it, someone who can block people just for disagreeing is hardly going to suddenly change their mind because I have a different view too. I expressed it privately and was met with, well let's say a robust response. Just slightly surprised I wasn't blocked too as I expressed the same sentiment on Twitter.
I guess we'll be looking forward to the Stephen Lawrence murderers and the hooligan convicts in pride of place too, right?
As I've said, if the stickers were never adopted and used by Charlton fans they have no place.
If they were, then include them.
If the Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton fans and produced items related to the club which are available to the museum, yes display them alongside an exhibit about what is a ground-breaking area for the club, and which was, if I recall correctly, supported by the Lawrence family.
If we have fans that are producing stickers with Swastikas on them and putting them up to represent Charlton Athletic, then yes include them, as evidence that they exist, and in the context of the backlash such an action would receive.
Seems your approach to curation is, everything with the roundel is in.
Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton supporters. I'm surprised you didn't know that, not least because they were banned by the club, which is of historic note. The fact they were fans and murdered someone is not. I'm hoping you see the difference.
Attaching the club's name to something an individual fan believes in is not fan culture. Of course include stickers in the record, but curation is as much the art of knowing what to leave out as it is to include.
If they're banning people for expressing a different view, which is all they did, then nothing I say will even make them think, let alone reconsider.
On your first point, yes, if its adopted by fans and used to represent the club.
On the Stephen Lawrence point, I didn't know that (you may be surprised to know that I don't know every fact pertaining to every circumstance involving Charlton Athletic).
I knew people that knew them, all of whom were very much Millwall ("Eltham heads", from historic parlance). But if its documented that they were Charlton fans, then they were.
Having now looked it up, and if you want my view, there are two elements that are absolutely worthy of inclusion / archiving by the museum.
1. Charlton banned them - "Suresh Grover, spokesman for the Stephen Lawrence Family Campaign, said: 'This is the first time these five have received any sort of punishment. [It] is a magnificent gesture [by Charlton Athletic] to exclude these racist thugs and it represents a measure of practical support for Doreen and Neville Lawrence.' The Guardian, August 1998.
2. In 2013, 7 Charlton fans were arrested for singing abusive Stephen Lawrence chants - "British Transport Police, in collaboration with Charlton Athletic Football Club worked to identify the men leading to their arrest two weeks after the incident. Mick Everett, Charlton FC's Head of Operations, said: "The club was shocked to hear of the rowdy, intimidating behaviour, and the chanting of racist songs on a train by a handful of our supporters. "Their actions are totally condemned by everyone at the club and indeed, I am sure, by Charlton supporters everywhere." Although this isolated incident does not reflect on the overwhelming majority of our fans, these arrests are a kick in the teeth to everyone associated with the club, who have put so much effort into our campaign over the years. "The club will now look to impose additional appropriate sanctions on those involved." Detective Sergeant Jane Hill, from British Transport Police, said: "The actions of these men were both offensive and extremely intimidating to other passengers on board the train at the time. "An investigation was swiftly launched to gather evidence and by working closely with Charlton Athletic FC, coupled with excellent CCTV footage, intelligence reports and statements from witnesses, we were able to move quickly to trace the men."
Great research but you're making my point there.
Must be the simplest curation job ever at the museum.
" Does it have a badge on?"
"Yes"
"It's in" "Great. I was worried you might see the bit about brown people getting kicked and reject it"
"But it does have a badge on it?"
Agree to disagree.
Have a look at the amount of stickers and you will see it's not just one sticker, so it's not just a case of including anything with the badge on. You are welcome to come and join the team and see the amount of work that goes on in the background.
@SporadicAddick I get what you're saying....but what's the benchmark here? Used by 'one young fan on the train to Stockport' (as cited by @cafc999 ) ...that's not culture/history or anything other than that fan's thoughts (if they've thought at all) ...it has as much place in the museum as anything I decide to print/get made up/get sent the template for by a political party that I can put our badge on... All the Stephen Lawrence history, the protests, CARD etc etc etc, you didn't have to agree with/like etc, but they were/are inextricably linked to CAFC and therefore part of 'our' collective history and deserving of being in the museum, whether they're 'good' or 'bad'... This sticker isn't linked to us in any meaningful way and is not exclusive to CAFC at all....hence why I think it should get in the bin, rather than being preserved as part of 'our' identity.
Most of those stickers look to come from one or two outlets and look generic to each team.
It is however, a little sub culture amongst the younger football fans at this moment in time.
Comments
delivers speech about avoiding censorship
censors people who oppose the decision
I suspect that "someone stuck this sticker up in the toilets 6 weeks ago and it has a swastika on it" might not make the grade.
I don't believe we're talking censorship here at all. That's a lazy conclusion to draw. As I say, I haven't agreed with everything that's ever happened re Charlton but can see arguments for inclusion in the museum. This is tenuous at best, isn't it?
But let's face it, someone who can block people just for disagreeing is hardly going to suddenly change their mind because I have a different view too. I expressed it privately and was met with, well let's say a robust response. Just slightly surprised I wasn't blocked too as I expressed the same sentiment on Twitter.
I guess we'll be looking forward to the Stephen Lawrence murderers and the hooligan convicts in pride of place too, right?
Thanks for the contribution
If they were, then include them.
If the Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton fans and produced items related to the club which are available to the museum, yes display them alongside an exhibit about what is a ground-breaking area for the club, and which was, if I recall correctly, supported by the Lawrence family.
If we have fans that are producing stickers with Swastikas on them and putting them up to represent Charlton Athletic, then yes include them, as evidence that they exist, and in the context of the backlash such an action would receive.
Stephen Lawrence murderers were Charlton supporters. I'm surprised you didn't know that, not least because they were banned by the club, which is of historic note. The fact they were fans and murdered someone is not. I'm hoping you see the difference.
Attaching the club's name to something an individual fan believes in is not fan culture. Of course include stickers in the record, but curation is as much the art of knowing what to leave out as it is to include.
If they're banning people for expressing a different view, which is all they did, then nothing I say will even make them think, let alone reconsider.
On the Stephen Lawrence point, I didn't know that (you may be surprised to know that I don't know every fact pertaining to every circumstance involving Charlton Athletic).
I knew people that knew them, all of whom were very much Millwall ("Eltham heads", from historic parlance). But if its documented that they were Charlton fans, then they were.
Having now looked it up, and if you want my view, there are two elements that are absolutely worthy of inclusion / archiving by the museum.
1. Charlton banned them - "Suresh Grover, spokesman for the Stephen Lawrence Family Campaign, said: 'This is the first time these five have received any sort of punishment. [It] is a magnificent gesture [by Charlton Athletic] to exclude these racist thugs and it represents a measure of practical support for Doreen and Neville Lawrence.' The Guardian, August 1998.
2. In 2013, 7 Charlton fans were arrested for singing abusive Stephen Lawrence chants - "British Transport Police, in collaboration with Charlton Athletic Football Club worked to identify the men leading to their arrest two weeks after the incident. Mick Everett, Charlton FC's Head of Operations, said: "The club was shocked to hear of the rowdy, intimidating behaviour, and the chanting of racist songs on a train by a handful of our supporters. "Their actions are totally condemned by everyone at the club and indeed, I am sure, by Charlton supporters everywhere." Although this isolated incident does not reflect on the overwhelming majority of our fans, these arrests are a kick in the teeth to everyone associated with the club, who have put so much effort into our campaign over the years. "The club will now look to impose additional appropriate sanctions on those involved." Detective Sergeant Jane Hill, from British Transport Police, said: "The actions of these men were both offensive and extremely intimidating to other passengers on board the train at the time. "An investigation was swiftly launched to gather evidence and by working closely with Charlton Athletic FC, coupled with excellent CCTV footage, intelligence reports and statements from witnesses, we were able to move quickly to trace the men."
Must be the simplest curation job ever at the museum.
" Does it have a badge on?"
"Yes"
"It's in"
"Great. I was worried you might see the bit about brown people getting kicked and reject it"
"But it does have a badge on it?"
Agree to disagree.
That's as may be - I accept you are not in charge of the socials, but do you agree or disagree that blocking people who raised objections on the socials is not a good look?
Pretty simple.
Yes, lets agree to disagree
It is however, a little sub culture amongst the younger football fans at this moment in time.
well, apart from the talking being banned by the museum on social media of course...