Penny Lane

[gurnemanz]

There is clearly no racist objection to the song and the name's link to a historical person seems tenuous. Also, I would have thought that if city fathers wanted to pay respect to a local dignitary they would not give them a mere "lane".

I remember wandering round Melbourne a few years ago. We came across Dame Edna Place which is a very unglamorous dead-end alleyway. Albeit, AC-DC only get a lane. link

[Frances_iom]

A further bit of private research using my 1836 Pigot's directory of Liverpool merchants etc - there is a only the single mention of Penny Bros under Merchants (no specific trade mentioned) nor can I find Penny lane in the list of addresses - eg no hotel, spirit dealer, grocer etc gave it as an address so my guess is that the 1841 census is probably the earliest possible sighting at which time I doubt if a known slaver would be so honoured - goes to show the true dangers of mob rule. This absence of the name makes it strange that Penny could be described as a significant family in the days when Liverpool was the main port for slave ships unless the James Penny warden of St Nicholas was the last of the family

[Ian Thumwood]

I have got to say that this whole business is a bit ridiculous. I cannot see why the tune ever came in to the conversation and surely the fact that the name of the street has been appropriated by a pop song synonymous with Liverpool rather supersedes the original reason for naming the it.

It is quire weird that people think they can made a difference by tearing down statues when if their efforts were directed at bringing down the current incumbents in Parliament everyone would benefit. The issue last weekend with the Colston statue was understandable and I think that the removal of Winston Churchill's statue outside Westminster is totally appropriate. Churchill's reputation was never clear cut in his lifetime and I think his significance outside of his leadership during World War Two had diminished with time. He was voted the greatest Briton in a BBC survey around the Millennium yet twenty years later times have changed and the bad can now be seen to outweighed the good. I am a little less satisfied with the removal of the stature dedicated to the founder of Guy's hospital and I think that such people should be credited with what they achieved as the good outweighs the bad.

I am not really convinced with the argument for rewriting history by metaphorically throwing away the pages. I think that the whole anti-colonial aspect does need to be considered within it's own time frame and also look at how aspects of the British Empire did facilitate the establishment of legal systems, the promotion of a common language with facilitates organisations such as the UN and also the dispersal across the globe of culture, whether it is Shakespeare, association football or cricket. Historians such Niall Ferguson have argued that there was always a Liberal element behind the Empire and I think that the BLM is a contemporary reflection of this. Whilst the British Empire did a lot of bad things, it was frequently held to account by an increasingly Liberal opposition which tends to set it apart from many other Empires. I think that the current protests are indictive of the people's will to almost self-check against extremism and injustice. The likes of Boris Johnson and their ilk have always been on the wrong side of history and I think this will be proved to be the same again. However, I think it does stand to our credit that these things are handled far better than in places like the States let alone in countries such as Russia. Most people support the removal of the Colston stature and I think a good proportion of the population is also savvy enough to appreciate that retaining a statue to Churchill may no longer be appropriate in 21st Century. For me, it is a shame that these people were not so vocal when Jeremy Corbyn was in power, when they would have a Labour Parry which would have been 100% behind the protestors. I am suspicious at whether some people are 100% genuine in their sentiments and are effectively taking whatever opportunity they can to escape the lockdown. I do feel that the British have habitually not liked sudden , radical change but prefer there to be a concerted and genuine movement for change which is piecemeal and perhaps more considered.

It is totally ridiculous for the Right to promulgate ideas about national identity which are totally flawed and do not reflect the fact that these issues are still prescient because the issues that initiated them were never clear cut. The Right Wing likes to hark back to earlier origins as a symbol of national identity yet these ideas are completely flawed. They also fail to overlook that , far from being an ideal, some of these origins were viewed at with suspicion in their own time. I have never quite appreciated the popularity of the Saxons. It is very hard to se what they contributed or how they were better in army respect from more cosmopolitan Romans. When the Normans conquered England in 1066, they were shocked that the English still maintained the custom of slavery and they felt the need to give the English church a root and branch reconstruction. I think that what is happening with BLM is not really that different today insofar that something not fit for purpose is being disassembled to reflect how society should behave in 21st century. It is a cultural sea-change yet I think it is just one of many which have shaped this country. History shows that society is fluid yet I think it does future generations a disservice is nothing is left for there to explain the progress that has been made. I think we have to be selective with what we choose to discard as we cannot say what future generations may value. The prime example of this is the Reformation after which 80% of medieval art in Britain was lost.

I am see the argument for the removal of some statues although reiterate that the protesters would be better disposed by protesting against the government itself as opposed to inanimate objects. As some who is passionate about history, I think one element which is difficult to agree with is censorship. If you change the name of a street because the dedicatee's mores are no longer acceptable, then this does assist in erasing history which should record both the bad and the good. However, it is fascinating to draw parallels with the past which some of the better historians have been at pains to state this week. The Romans had the concept of Damnatio Memoriae which saw unfavourable Emperors purged from the records which their monuments pulled down, their altars , plinths and stele desecrated and coinage defaced. This is what we were seeing last week. It is no different from Claudius's statue being thrown in the river after Boudicca's revolt in 60AD.

Banning music is just as complicated. Banning "Penny Lane" is clearly stupid , especially in the light of misogynistic rap music or even the reluctance to ban Michael Jackson's music. Bringing the Beatles in to this debate is clearly a gross misunderstanding , especially as any links are so tenuous. The problem I have with banning a lot of pop music is that it is social history and censoring it now will make it harder for the historians of the future to understand things. A good example of this would be with country blues musicians from the 1920s whose work is a treasure trove for social historians. I do not see why this should be banned because of the attitudes of the protagonists who frequently lived the lives described within their work. They were 100% honest.

Censoring anything is problematic but I feel that is we are to be honest with ourselves regarding history , a proper discussion needs to be had and I think BLM should be applauded as this brings this long overdue issue to the table. Censoring history is not the answer and to extend the argument to tunes by the likes of The Beatles must be dismissed as the rantings of an idiot.

[MrGongGong]

This is where I saw it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...yside-52992669

I'm confused
Where does it say or even suggest that

"I've just read that the Beatles song Penny Lane is now considered to be 'racist'. "

Not in what you linked to ..... so where is

"I've just read that the Beatles song Penny Lane is now considered to be 'racist'. "

NOPE, not where you "read" it

[MrGongGong]

No agenda. Just puzzled and concerned.

I'm more worried about your eyesight

[richardfinegold]

I have got to say that this whole business is a bit ridiculous. I cannot see why the tune ever came in to the conversation and surely the fact that the name of the street has been appropriated by a pop song synonymous with Liverpool rather supersedes the original reason for naming the it.

It is quire weird that people think they can made a difference by tearing down statues when if their efforts were directed at bringing down the current incumbents in Parliament everyone would benefit. The issue last weekend with the Colston statue was understandable and I think that the removal of Winston Churchill's statue outside Westminster is totally appropriate. Churchill's reputation was never clear cut in his lifetime and I think his significance outside of his leadership during World War Two had diminished with time. He was voted the greatest Briton in a BBC survey around the Millennium yet twenty years later times have changed and the bad can now be seen to outweighed the good. I am a little less satisfied with the removal of the stature dedicated to the founder of Guy's hospital and I think that such people should be credited with what they achieved as the good outweighs the bad.

I am not really convinced with the argument for rewriting history by metaphorically throwing away the pages. I think that the whole anti-colonial aspect does need to be considered within it's own time frame and also look at how aspects of the British Empire did facilitate the establishment of legal systems, the promotion of a common language with facilitates organisations such as the UN and also the dispersal across the globe of culture, whether it is Shakespeare, association football or cricket. Historians such Niall Ferguson have argued that there was always a Liberal element behind the Empire and I think that the BLM is a contemporary reflection of this. Whilst the British Empire did a lot of bad things, it was frequently held to account by an increasingly Liberal opposition which tends to set it apart from many other Empires. I think that the current protests are indictive of the people's will to almost self-check against extremism and injustice. The likes of Boris Johnson and their ilk have always been on the wrong side of history and I think this will be proved to be the same again. However, I think it does stand to our credit that these things are handled far better than in places like the States let alone in countries such as Russia. Most people support the removal of the Colston stature and I think a good proportion of the population is also savvy enough to appreciate that retaining a statue to Churchill may no longer be appropriate in 21st Century. For me, it is a shame that these people were not so vocal when Jeremy Corbyn was in power, when they would have a Labour Parry which would have been 100% behind the protestors. I am suspicious at whether some people are 100% genuine in their sentiments and are effectively taking whatever opportunity they can to escape the lockdown. I do feel that the British have habitually not liked sudden , radical change but prefer there to be a concerted and genuine movement for change which is piecemeal and perhaps more considered.

It is totally ridiculous for the Right to promulgate ideas about national identity which are totally flawed and do not reflect the fact that these issues are still prescient because the issues that initiated them were never clear cut. The Right Wing likes to hark back to earlier origins as a symbol of national identity yet these ideas are completely flawed. They also fail to overlook that , far from being an ideal, some of these origins were viewed at with suspicion in their own time. I have never quite appreciated the popularity of the Saxons. It is very hard to se what they contributed or how they were better in army respect from more cosmopolitan Romans. When the Normans conquered England in 1066, they were shocked that the English still maintained the custom of slavery and they felt the need to give the English church a root and branch reconstruction. I think that what is happening with BLM is not really that different today insofar that something not fit for purpose is being disassembled to reflect how society should behave in 21st century. It is a cultural sea-change yet I think it is just one of many which have shaped this country. History shows that society is fluid yet I think it does future generations a disservice is nothing is left for there to explain the progress that has been made. I think we have to be selective with what we choose to discard as we cannot say what future generations may value. The prime example of this is the Reformation after which 80% of medieval art in Britain was lost.

I am see the argument for the removal of some statues although reiterate that the protesters would be better disposed by protesting against the government itself as opposed to inanimate objects. As some who is passionate about history, I think one element which is difficult to agree with is censorship. If you change the name of a street because the dedicatee's mores are no longer acceptable, then this does assist in erasing history which should record both the bad and the good. However, it is fascinating to draw parallels with the past which some of the better historians have been at pains to state this week. The Romans had the concept of Damnatio Memoriae which saw unfavourable Emperors purged from the records which their monuments pulled down, their altars , plinths and stele desecrated and coinage defaced. This is what we were seeing last week. It is no different from Claudius's statue being thrown in the river after Boudicca's revolt in 60AD.

Banning music is just as complicated. Banning "Penny Lane" is clearly stupid , especially in the light of misogynistic rap music or even the reluctance to ban Michael Jackson's music. Bringing the Beatles in to this debate is clearly a gross misunderstanding , especially as any links are so tenuous. The problem I have with banning a lot of pop music is that it is social history and censoring it now will make it harder for the historians of the future to understand things. A good example of this would be with country blues musicians from the 1920s whose work is a treasure trove for social historians. I do not see why this should be banned because of the attitudes of the protagonists who frequently lived the lives described within their work. They were 100% honest.

Censoring anything is problematic but I feel that is we are to be honest with ourselves regarding history , a proper discussion needs to be had and I think BLM should be applauded as this brings this long overdue issue to the table. Censoring history is not the answer and to extend the argument to tunes by the likes of The Beatles must be dismissed as the rantings of an idiot.

Excellent post

[Serial_Apologist]

Excellent post

After reading which, I needed to spend a penny!

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

After reading which, I needed to spend a penny!

Perhaps if "we" were really serious about what is now happening worldwide, and at last here, "we" would not foreground ourselves, and prioritise OUR "feelings" at every opportunity? Just "perhaps"?

Reni Eddo-Lodge (2017)...."I’m no longer engaging with white people on the topic of race. Not all white people, just the vast majority who refuse to accept the existence of structural racism and its symptoms. I can no longer engage with the gulf of an emotional disconnect that white people display when a person of colour articulates their experience. You can see their eyes shut down and harden. It’s like treacle is poured into their ears, blocking up their ear canals. It’s like they can no longer hear us."

[Serial_Apologist]

Perhaps if "we" were really serious about what is now happening worldwide, and at last here, "we" would not foreground ourselves, and prioritise OUR "feelings" at every opportunity? Just "perhaps"?

Reni Eddo-Lodge (2017)...."I’m no longer engaging with white people on the topic of race. Not all white people, just the vast majority who refuse to accept the existence of structural racism and its symptoms. I can no longer engage with the gulf of an emotional disconnect that white people display when a person of colour articulates their experience. You can see their eyes shut down and harden. It’s like treacle is poured into their ears, blocking up their ear canals. It’s like they can no longer hear us."

She puts it well.

[Count Boso]

She puts it well.

Yes, though I suppose if "You can see their eyes shut down and harden. It’s like treacle is poured into their ears, blocking up their ear canals. It’s like they can no longer hear us", they are those who are already on the other side. They are the problem. In a divided society - like ours, there are very many people who aren't listened to by those who don't need/want to listen.

[Dave2002]

Penny Lane is well outside the centre of Liverpool, and it seems unlikely that it would have been used by a sea captain or someone connected with the slave trade. I never knew why it was called Penny Lane. I suppose if it really is shown to be in "honour" of someone involved in slavery it could be renamed. I think there are probably other more likely places and namings in and around the centre of Liverpool which might be of more concern. Liverpool certainly was involved, perhaps indirectly, in slavery as the ships used to travel around and some of them brought sugar and other goods from the islands off America where slaves were working in the sugar plantations. I don't actually know if slaves were taken on ships from Liverpool, or whether slaves were bought and sold in Liverpool. Tate and Lyle might have been based to some extent on slave labour in its early days as it was started in 1859 about 7 years before the adoption of the 13th Amendment of the US in 1865. There may have been some activities relating to goods before 1859 by others, though it's not very clear. Slavery was made illegal in Britain in 1807.

This page from the BBC does make it clear that ships from Liverpool were heavily involved in the slave trade - http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/local...ry/intro.shtml

This snippet is also of interest -

Bryan Blundell, tobacco merchant, privateer and slave trader, built Bluecoat Chambers in School Lane for the poor children of Liverpool.

Should Blundellsands now be renamed?

[Tenor Freak]

Perhaps if "we" were really serious about what is now happening worldwide, and at last here, "we" would not foreground ourselves, and prioritise OUR "feelings" at every opportunity? Just "perhaps"?

Reni Eddo-Lodge (2017)...."I’m no longer engaging with white people on the topic of race. Not all white people, just the vast majority who refuse to accept the existence of structural racism and its symptoms. I can no longer engage with the gulf of an emotional disconnect that white people display when a person of colour articulates their experience. You can see their eyes shut down and harden. It’s like treacle is poured into their ears, blocking up their ear canals. It’s like they can no longer hear us."

She's absolutely right.

It was great to see the Colston statue put in the sea, where it belongs. Talking of structural racism, here in Devizes there's a Colston Road, and the Merchant Venturers have made a packet by selling land for housing, including one plot which was allotments until 2005. There are other links to the slave trade here too. Devizes also has not one, but two streets named after former PM Henry Addington (aka Viscount Sidmouth), probably the most reactionary Home Secretary in history, which is some kind of achievement given some of his successors in the job.

[Dave2002]

Mathew Street, in Liverpool is the site of the new Cavern Club. The original Cavern Club, which brought the Beatles to fame, was also in Mathew Street.

However

"In 1780 Mathew Street slave trader William Davenport sent his ship HAWKE out to Africa at a cost of £5,000.
It returned with a profit of £10,000"

I'm not sure if there's a statue to Davenport or if there's a street named after him. Should Liverpool be putting up plaques in that street - there may well be some to commemorate the Beatles already - though I've not been there for mnay years so don't know.

Machester must have benefitted at some stage from slavery, as cotton for the mills may have been brought in - via Liverpool. However, Manchester - or at least some of the people there - gave support to the abolitionist movement - though some in Liverpool sadly did not.

Robert Peel (there were two of them, neither slavers, but the younger one became Prime Minister) the elder put forward a petition in favour of slavery and in opposition to abolition, because of the commercial value to Manchester of the cotton industry - https://cust2.confidentials.com/manc...=5ee102d3dcf99

[vinteuil]

... Devizes also has not one, but two streets named after former PM Henry Addington (aka Viscount Sidmouth), probably the most reactionary Home Secretary in history, which is some kind of achievement given some of his successors in the job.

Macaulay said of Lord Sidmouth : " ... his sudden elevation to the highest place in the state not only exposed his incapacity, but turned his head. He began to think highly of himself at the very moment when everybody else began to think meanly of him."

Why am I reminded of the present day?

.