Apple Store in Scotland renamed amid worldwide protests for racial equality

Posted:
in General Discussion edited June 2020
As citizens in countries around the world call for a reckoning on racial justice and equality, Apple on Friday quietly renamed its Apple Buchanan Street store in Scotland to a title not associated with the prominent local slave owner.

Apple Glasgow
Apple Glasgow, formerly Apple Buchanan Street.


The name change was made official on Apple's retail website, which now lists the store as Apple Glasgow.

As noted by 9to5Mac, which spotted the modification earlier today, Apple will sometimes rebadge brick-and-mortar outlets after a move or when a host shopping mall changes its name. In this case, however, the Glasgow location is an independent storefront on Buchanan Street.

Though Apple has not commented on the matter, it is thought that ongoing protests prompted the change from Apple Buchanan Street to the less descriptive Apple Glasgow.

Emboldened by George Floyd's killing in the U.S., demonstrators in the UK have taken their calls for racial equality to the streets. Like many regions of Europe, Glasgow is not unaffected by former wrongs committed by slave owners, traders and others whose actions were morally questionable.

Buchanan Street is named after prominent businessman Andrew Buchanan, who owned and operated tobacco plantations in the U.S. The avenue, which is now a popular shopping destination, was built after his death on land owned by the family.

By changing the name of its store, Apple appears to be siding with protestors in the region who seek to change various street names associated with slave owners or figures who supported racial inequality.

The move comes one day after Apple CEO Tim Cook announced a $100 million Racial Equity and Justice Initiative to be led by Lisa Jackson, the company's vice president of Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives. Cook in a video posted to Twitter addressed the unrest seen across the nation, and now the world, following Floyd's death at the hands of police last month, saying Apple will be a force for good in the fight for racial equity and justice.

Apple Glasgow remains closed due to the coronavirus pandemic. The store could reopen soon, as Apple plans to open the doors to 32 outlets in the UK on June 15.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39
    rbelizerbelize Posts: 22member
    That’s awesome. When will Apple also stand up for LGBTQ+ rights in the Middle East? That’s also important 
    drdavidcat52Ofer
  • Reply 2 of 39
    XedXed Posts: 2,547member
    rbelize said:
    That’s awesome. When will Apple also stand up for LGBTQ+ rights in the Middle East? That’s also important 
    Some battles are harder fought and take longer, but LGBTQ+ rights aren't just a "Middle East" problem.
    drdavidsphericGeorgeBMacOferronnbeowulfschmidtchemengin1
  • Reply 3 of 39
    williamhwilliamh Posts: 1,033member
    Ok Apple.  That shop is on Buchanan Street, across from the Buchanan Galleries mall etc.  Who knew or cared what Apple called it. Buchanan died before the American independence, so thanks
    for highlighting the fact that the British established slavery in their colonies.  Perhaps they can pay the reparations.  Thanks for that, jerks. 

    That all said, it’s a lovely Apple Store in a great location. Go across the Street to the John Lewis cafe, I think 3rd floor, for tea and a pastry and have a great view of Buchanan Street and Sauchiehall. If they’re open, of course.  

    If you’ve been there, you probably noticed there’s always some guy with sandwich boards in front of the Apple Store advertising cheaper repairs at some independent shop. 


    edited June 2020 cat52elijahg
  • Reply 4 of 39
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    cat52 said:
    rbelize said:
    That’s awesome. When will Apple also stand up for LGBTQ+ rights in the Middle East? That’s also important 

    Virtue signaling is cheap and easy, which is why you see it so often.

    On the other hand standing up to China and/or supporting the Hong Kong protestors?

    Crickets.

    And shouting at your neighbours to clean their backyard when your own is a mess just makes you a hypocrite, so why should your neighbours listen to you?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-iran-mock-us-amid-ongoing-riots-i-cant-breathe/ar-BB14Oon0

    Criticising others is easy. Taking a good look at yourself and making a change: that’s hard. 

    Tell me, how can Cook go to the Chinese and complain about the rights of Hong Kong protesters, when US police are cracking the heads of 70 year-old men, driving cars into protesters, yanking tampons out of women in public, and kneeling on the necks of US citizens until they die calling out for their mothers?

    Yes, that’s right. He f**king can’t, so he wisely keeps his mouth shut and focuses on what he can change. 

    But you carry on engaging in whataboutisms if it makes you feel better. 
    edited June 2020 sphericGeorgeBMacXedOferdewmeronn
  • Reply 5 of 39
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,560member
    rbelize said:
    That’s awesome. When will Apple also stand up for LGBTQ+ rights in the Middle East? That’s also important 
    At least they’re standing up for them in the US, where they're under fire as well.
    ronn
  • Reply 6 of 39
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    rbelize said:
    That’s awesome. When will Apple also stand up for LGBTQ+ rights in the Middle East? That’s also important 
    If they're going to do that, perhaps they should start in their own country as those rights are being eroded and undermined.

    U.S. health agency reverses Obamacare transgender protections



    sphericOferdewmeronn
  • Reply 7 of 39
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    cat52 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    cat52 said:
    rbelize said:
    That’s awesome. When will Apple also stand up for LGBTQ+ rights in the Middle East? That’s also important 

    Virtue signaling is cheap and easy, which is why you see it so often.

    On the other hand standing up to China and/or supporting the Hong Kong protestors?

    Crickets.

    And shouting at your neighbours to clean their backyard when your own is a mess just makes you a hypocrite, so why should your neighbours listen to you?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-iran-mock-us-amid-ongoing-riots-i-cant-breathe/ar-BB14Oon0

    Criticising others is easy. Taking a good look at yourself and making a change: that’s hard. 

    Tell me, how can Cook go to the Chinese and complain about the rights of Hong Kong protesters, when US police are cracking the heads of 70 year-old men, driving cars into protesters, yanking tampons out of women in public, and kneeling on the necks of US citizens until they die calling out for their mothers?

    Yes, that’s right. He f**king can’t, so he wisely keeps his mouth shut and focuses on what he can change. 

    But you carry on engaging in whataboutisms if it makes you feel better. 

    Ah, the moral equivalence argument again.

    No one is saying the US is perfect, but China enjoys harvesting the organs of its political opponents.  And if you think our current president is bad, try criticizing the CCP and see where that lands you.

    To answer your question what Cook can do is threaten to pull Apple manufacturing out of China unless China adheres to basic human rights as well as respecting the sovereignty of Hong Kong.

    But he won't.

    What he will do though, is rename Apple stores in Scotland.

    There is a separate thread on propaganda being propagated via social media.
    sphericronn
  • Reply 8 of 39
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    While I totally, 200% support the current uprisings (on many levels) against systemic racism and police violence, there are, I think, limits.
    You can't change the rules then condemn somebody for not following those changed rules.

    Specifically, I condemn condemning people who followed the social mores and values of their era.
    Watch any original series Startrek episode to see what today would be called out as blatant sexism -- but in 1968 it was normal and expected.   One can condemn the sexism without condemning those who lived with it and under it as a normal part of life.

    In the 16th, 17th and much of the 18th centuries slavery was condoned and even encouraged by both scientists and religious leaders of the day as the belief was that black people stemmed from a different branch than white people were no more human than a cow.   We now know that belief is ridiculous to the point that anybody who believes such nonsense today would be thought of as a fool or an idiot.   But back then it was a common belief that justified slavery.

    In short, we can condemn slavery and its close cousin racism without condemning those who practiced the acceptable and encouraged laws and social values of their day.
    In effect:   You can't change the rules that somebody lived under and then condemn them for not following rules that didn't exist when they were alive.

    In 50 years people will be condemning us for doing things we think of as normal and acceptable.....
    edited June 2020 elijahgcat52
  • Reply 9 of 39
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,560member
    While I agree that you can condemn the deeds of the past without necessarily condemning every person who lived by the norms of the day, there is a considerable walk from there to having statues in their honour. Put them in a museum, where they can be placed in critical context, or add monuments vis-a-vis, commemorating their victims or the horrors they perpetrated. 
    edited June 2020 Oferronn
  • Reply 10 of 39
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    spheric said:
    While I agree that you can condemn the deeds of the past without necessarily condemning every person who lived by the norms of the day, there is a considerable walk from there to having statues in their honour. Put them in a museum, where they can be placed in critical context, or add monuments vis-a-vis, commemorating their victims or the horrors they perpetrated. 

    In that case, I guess we should tear down the monuments to most of our founding fathers.  Plus. most people born before 1960 or 1970.

    To portray somebody like Thomas Jefferson (and many others) only by their actions towards black people -- which were again, in keeping with the laws and values of their day -- would be misguided to the extreme. 

    Honoring Thomas Jefferson (to use him as an example) is not honoring slavery.   It is honoring the man and all he did for our nation.

    Added:   Perhaps an analogy is people who smoked in the 50's, 60's and even 70's are portrayed as idiots.  Yet back then smoking was not only normal but expected and most physicians and the AMA backed it as not only safe, but healthy! 


    edited June 2020 cat52
  • Reply 11 of 39
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,123member
    rbelize said:
    That’s awesome. When will Apple also stand up for LGBTQ+ rights in the Middle East? That’s also important 
    How would renaming a store accomplish that? 
    Xedronn
  • Reply 12 of 39
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,123member

    spheric said:
    While I agree that you can condemn the deeds of the past without necessarily condemning every person who lived by the norms of the day, there is a considerable walk from there to having statues in their honour. Put them in a museum, where they can be placed in critical context, or add monuments vis-a-vis, commemorating their victims or the horrors they perpetrated. 

    In that case, I guess we should tear down the monuments to most of our founding fathers.  Plus. most people born before 1960 or 1970.


    This is ridiculous argument.

    The subjects of these monuments, military base names, etc, are not people who were simply alive at the time, they were people who trafficked slaves, advocated against abolishing slavery, and fought against our country to preserve their racist, bigoted ideals.
    sphericronn
  • Reply 13 of 39
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,123member


    Specifically, I condemn condemning people who followed the social mores and values of their era.
    Watch any original series Startrek episode to see what today would be called out as blatant sexism -- but in 1968 it was normal and expected.   One can condemn the sexism without condemning those who lived with it and under it as a normal part of life.


    You sound like the people who use the N word, then turn around and say they are not racist. The most absurd part of your post is your comparison of sexism to trafficking in human beings, and using it justify your moronic “but it was back then” exception. 

    This is a common tactic among modern era racists. They publicly denounce slavery, racial segregation, etc, but continue to justify that it was ok based in social norms. 

    Is something is wrong, it is wrong. Period. 
    ronn
  • Reply 14 of 39
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,363member
    While I totally, 200% support the current uprisings (on many levels) against systemic racism and police violence, there are, I think, limits.
    You can't change the rules then condemn somebody for not following those changed rules.

    Specifically, I condemn condemning people who followed the social mores and values of their era.
    Watch any original series Startrek episode to see what today would be called out as blatant sexism -- but in 1968 it was normal and expected.   One can condemn the sexism without condemning those who lived with it and under it as a normal part of life.

    In the 16th, 17th and much of the 18th centuries slavery was condoned and even encouraged by both scientists and religious leaders of the day as the belief was that black people stemmed from a different branch than white people were no more human than a cow.   We now know that belief is ridiculous to the point that anybody who believes such nonsense today would be thought of as a fool or an idiot.   But back then it was a common belief that justified slavery.

    In short, we can condemn slavery and its close cousin racism without condemning those who practiced the acceptable and encouraged laws and social values of their day.
    In effect:   You can't change the rules that somebody lived under and then condemn them for not following rules that didn't exist when they were alive.

    In 50 years people will be condemning us for doing things we think of as normal and acceptable.....
    I agree with this argument, knowing also that the same man who wrote "All man are created equally" was also a slaveowner and fathered illegitimate children with one of his slaves. The hand of time must always be considered, but with each tick of the clock we must also be man enough to admit when something we are doing is wrong and correct it going forward. We can't change what's already happened but we should also not attempt to revise history by erecting monuments that erase or obscure the truth of what really happened.

    One big concern I have right now is as follows: if we judge the severity of concerns that we're faced with on a daily basis using a green-yellow-red alert scale (in order of increasing severity) we cannot simply call everything a red alert. We simply don't have the capacity to process everything as a red alert so we have to triage our reaction and responses to keep from driving everyone crazy. Some people may think that any kind of triage process is diminishing those things that are not assigned as being a red alert. What they fail to recognize is that calling everything a red alert normalizes all alerts. At some point people quit reacting at all because their ambient state of mind is always pegged in the red, i.e., full-on panic. When people are operating in panic mode they always make stupid mistakes and take shortcuts to ease their pain. We're not there yet, but it's getting near.
    edited June 2020
  • Reply 15 of 39
    XedXed Posts: 2,547member
    flydog said:
    spheric said:
    While I agree that you can condemn the deeds of the past without necessarily condemning every person who lived by the norms of the day, there is a considerable walk from there to having statues in their honour. Put them in a museum, where they can be placed in critical context, or add monuments vis-a-vis, commemorating their victims or the horrors they perpetrated. 

    In that case, I guess we should tear down the monuments to most of our founding fathers.  Plus. most people born before 1960 or 1970.
    This is ridiculous argument.

    The subjects of these monuments, military base names, etc, are not people who were simply alive at the time, they were people who trafficked slaves, advocated against abolishing slavery, and fought against our country to preserve their racist, bigoted ideals.
    I agree with your other post about it being silly to bring up LGBTQ+ rights in the Middle East in an article about renaming of a store, but I think George has a point here regarding the founding fathers, which did have slaves. The core difference and where I part with him is in thinking that founding fathers of the United States of America are somehow synonymous to the traitorous, Confederate generals. He doesn't seem to understand what Jim Crow Laws are and  why honoring these literal losers makes no sense. These names will all change in our lifetime.


  • Reply 16 of 39
    spheric said:
    While I agree that you can condemn the deeds of the past without necessarily condemning every person who lived by the norms of the day, there is a considerable walk from there to having statues in their honour. Put them in a museum, where they can be placed in critical context, or add monuments vis-a-vis, commemorating their victims or the horrors they perpetrated. 

    In that case, I guess we should tear down the monuments to most of our founding fathers.  Plus. most people born before 1960 or 1970.

    To portray somebody like Thomas Jefferson (and many others) only by their actions towards black people -- which were again, in keeping with the laws and values of their day -- would be misguided to the extreme. 

    Honoring Thomas Jefferson (to use him as an example) is not honoring slavery.   It is honoring the man and all he did for our nation.

    Added:   Perhaps an analogy is people who smoked in the 50's, 60's and even 70's are portrayed as idiots.  Yet back then smoking was not only normal but expected and most physicians and the AMA backed it as not only safe, but healthy! 


    Jefferson and other founding fathers had contemporaries that argued against slavery. They knew full well what they were doing was wrong but chose to do nothing because that is what benefited them personally.  They failed to rise to the occasion and fully deserve to be judged for it. Arguing that it was okay because it was it was consistent with values of the times is a complete whitewash of history.
  • Reply 17 of 39
    XedXed Posts: 2,547member
    spheric said:
    While I agree that you can condemn the deeds of the past without necessarily condemning every person who lived by the norms of the day, there is a considerable walk from there to having statues in their honour. Put them in a museum, where they can be placed in critical context, or add monuments vis-a-vis, commemorating their victims or the horrors they perpetrated. 
    In that case, I guess we should tear down the monuments to most of our founding fathers.  Plus. most people born before 1960 or 1970.

    To portray somebody like Thomas Jefferson (and many others) only by their actions towards black people -- which were again, in keeping with the laws and values of their day -- would be misguided to the extreme. 

    Honoring Thomas Jefferson (to use him as an example) is not honoring slavery.   It is honoring the man and all he did for our nation.

    Added:   Perhaps an analogy is people who smoked in the 50's, 60's and even 70's are portrayed as idiots.  Yet back then smoking was not only normal but expected and most physicians and the AMA backed it as not only safe, but healthy!  
    Jefferson and other founding fathers had contemporaries that argued against slavery. They knew full well what they were doing was wrong but chose to do nothing because that is what benefited them personally.  They failed to rise to the occasion and fully deserve to be judged for it. Arguing that it was okay because it was it was consistent with values of the times is a complete whitewash of history.
    And we can judge them for that, and we can tear down any stature of Jefferson that was erected because of his human rights atrocities… but it seems like they were instead focused on his founding of the country. Confederate traitors with Jim Crow era statues should not be honored.

    It's like how you talk about how impressive OJ Simpson was in American football, or what Henry Ford did for modernizing the moving assembly line, while still acknowledging that one is a murderer and the other an anti-Semite, respectively. 
    elijahg
  • Reply 18 of 39
    Xed said:
    spheric said:
    While I agree that you can condemn the deeds of the past without necessarily condemning every person who lived by the norms of the day, there is a considerable walk from there to having statues in their honour. Put them in a museum, where they can be placed in critical context, or add monuments vis-a-vis, commemorating their victims or the horrors they perpetrated. 
    In that case, I guess we should tear down the monuments to most of our founding fathers.  Plus. most people born before 1960 or 1970.

    To portray somebody like Thomas Jefferson (and many others) only by their actions towards black people -- which were again, in keeping with the laws and values of their day -- would be misguided to the extreme. 

    Honoring Thomas Jefferson (to use him as an example) is not honoring slavery.   It is honoring the man and all he did for our nation.

    Added:   Perhaps an analogy is people who smoked in the 50's, 60's and even 70's are portrayed as idiots.  Yet back then smoking was not only normal but expected and most physicians and the AMA backed it as not only safe, but healthy!  
    Jefferson and other founding fathers had contemporaries that argued against slavery. They knew full well what they were doing was wrong but chose to do nothing because that is what benefited them personally.  They failed to rise to the occasion and fully deserve to be judged for it. Arguing that it was okay because it was it was consistent with values of the times is a complete whitewash of history.
    And we can judge them for that, and we can tear down any stature of Jefferson that was erected because of his human rights atrocities… but it seems like they were instead focused on his founding of the country. Confederate traitors with Jim Crow era statues should not be honored.

    It's like how you talk about how impressive OJ Simpson was in American football, or what Henry Ford did for modernizing the moving assembly line, while still acknowledging that one is a murderer and the other an anti-Semite, respectively. 
    And you completely missed the point of what I was saying. 
  • Reply 19 of 39
    kenh26kenh26 Posts: 15member
    PC gone crazy as usual - who in Scotland knows who Bucannan is? I had to Google him - stop rewriting our heritage from the outside 
    GeorgeBMaccat52elijahg
  • Reply 20 of 39
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,123member
    cat52 said:
    flydog said:

    Is something is wrong, it is wrong. Period. 

    I agree, slavery is wrong.

    And yet, right here, right now in 2020, more than half a million people work as slaves in Sub-Saharan Africa.  But funnily enough, no one seems to care.  The progressives don't seem to care, the United Nations doesn't seem to care, Hollywood celebs don't seem to care, so these modern day slaves are pretty much on their own.

    On the other hand though, whew, do people love to rage against slave owners from 200 years ago.

    In any event I'm sure the slaves working today in places like Mauritania really appreciate your indignation against the Christopher Columbus types.

    Who says no one cares? Are you expecting protesters in NYC to hop on a flight to Africa and protest there?  Would the residents to those countries come here to protest?   Like a foreign exchange protest program to demonstrate they care about other countries?


Sign In or Register to comment.