Racism - Mod Note on 1st Post - Read before posting.

J. Marston

flahavaj wrote: »

Will those Liverpool fans who accused Evra of lying now admit they were wrong?

Will they admit that Evra had a right to be offended given that what was said to him sounds remarkably like a common racial slur?

And finally, its a gtreat pity Suarez didn't just explain himself and apologise after the game for the misunderstanding instead of letting this drag on like it did. If I was in a new country and had inadvertently offended someone by using a phrase that caused offence I'd want to explain myself and apologise straight away.

He could have saved everyone an awful of of time and trouble by just explaining himself straight after the game.

Those who immediately assumed Evra was a liar when the story broke look like right fools now too.

But....but...but where's the Sky footage?! Where is the Sky footage?!?

niallo27

J. Marston wrote: »

But....but...but where's the Sky footage?! Where is the Sky footage?!?

Said Manchester utds Patrice evra after the match.

redzerdrog

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

I have to say I'm disgusted by the attitude of a good chunk of my fellow Liverpool supporters in this thread.

We used to be considered an intelligent bunch of fans.

Pretty much how the majority feel when they read your hate filled drivel

flahavaj

niallo27 wrote: »

Said Manchester utds Patrice evra after the match.

Yes and he was wrong, like every Liverpool fans that assumed everything that was said between the players would be caught on camera.

It wasn't.

Pro. F

niallo27 wrote: »

Well, I really don't understand why you got so worked up about what I though happened, I never once said it was fact, just my opinion, it made sense at the time and it does now as well. I am biased yes, but i did keep saying I thought evra was innocent as well.

Yes you don't understand it, despite myself and Blatter explaining it to you in simple terms. You just couldn't follow the simple discussion. I'm not explaining it to you again.

niallo27

flahavaj wrote: »

Yes and he was wrong, like every Liverpool fans that assumed everything that was said between the players would be caught on camera.

It wasn't.

Yes mistakes have been made by all sides, from the players to the clubs to the fans.

niallo27

Pro. F wrote: »

Yes you don't understand it, despite myself and Blatter explaining it to you in simple terms. You just couldn't follow the simple discussion. I'm not explaining it to you again.

I understand alright, you and blatter seemed to have a huge problem with me speculating what happened with the info I had. A lot of posters have agreed that it seems to be a misunderstanding, what's wrong with a little speculation.

flahavaj

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes mistakes have been made by all sides, from the players to the clubs to the fans.

It could and should have all been avoided if Suarez had just explained himself.

Pro. F

niallo27 wrote: »

I understand alright, you and blatter seemed to have a huge problem with me speculating what happened with the info I had. A lot of posters have agreed that it seems to be a misunderstanding, what's wrong with a little speculation.

You weren't speculating, but the problem is that you don't know the difference between speculating and believing. Well done, your arguments and reasonings are still thick.

Chucky the tree

flahavaj wrote: »

It could and should have all been avoided if Suarez had just explained himself.

It was too late once Evra spouted ****e to the media straight after the game. Evra should have kept his mouth shout and just done it through proper channels like it should be done.

niallo27

Pro. F wrote: »

You weren't speculating, but the problem is that you don't know the difference between speculating and believing. Well done, your arguments and reasonings are still thick.

No your posts are stupid, what are you ****en 10.

#15

So, the term ''negrito'' can be used as a slur against black people and as a term of endearment between friends.

And the assumption on this thread is that Suarez used the term in a friendly way, despite him being in the middle of an argument with a black person?

And the black person who took offence at being literally called ''a little black man'' by a white person who was arguing with him, should now apologise for being disparaged?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

This is one of the most retarded threads that the soccer forum has ever seen.

The casual dismissal of Evra's complaints is pretty disgusting.

If there was a misunderstanding, the fault is with Suarez's cultural ignorance.
It's not accepted in the Anglosphere or Northern Europe, so Suarez is the one out of line here.
Perhaps he genuinely wasn't aware that he was using racially sensitive language at the time - he is certainly aware now, and should admit as much.

A little googling threw up an interesting article on the Honduran foreign minister who was forced to resign for describing Barack Obama as a 'negrito'.

Proof enough that the term has two meanings - the people claiming that Evra was just called a 'buddy' or 'pal' are being completely disingenuous.

Evra was called a 'buddy' or a 'little black man'.
What way do you think a black person will take that when they are addressed in such a manner by someone they are arguing with?

If you think the former, you are pulling the absolute piss.

I also found an interview that was done after the Obama/Negrito controversy. I'll post it in full here, with the important part bolded for some of the more ignorant members of this forum. You know, the ones who can't get see past their own pathetic fanboyism to actually see the bigger issue.

MICHEL MARTIN, host:

In the dispute over the Honduran presidency, both sides have appealed to and sought good relations with the U.S., but allies of interim President Roberto Micheletti suffered a setback last week when Enrique Ortez, the acting Foreign Minister of Honduras, referred to President Obama as negrito or the little black guy.

Mr. ENRIQUE ORTEZ (Acting Foreign Minister, Honduras): (Through Translator) In the first place the President of the Republic, who I respect, the little black guy doesn't know where Tegucigalpa is.

MARTIN: Tegucigalpa, of course, is the capital. But Ortez later apologized. He stepped down as foreign minister. He was transferred to the Ministry of the Interior, but that followed an uproar by many Americans, including the Ambassador to Honduras, who called the comments disrespectful and racially insensitive. But we wanted to ask, what would motivate this kind of comment? So we've called on Mark Sawyer. He is an expert on Afro-Latino identity. He's an associate professor of African-American studies and political science at UCLA. Mark, thank you for joining us.

Professor MARK SAWYER (African-American Studies and Political Science, UCLA): Thank you.

MARTIN: What did you think when you heard these comments? I know that a lot of Americans are surprised that somebody in that kind of a position would make a comment like this publicly. This was not a private conversation, this was an interview. So what was your reaction?

Prof. SAWYER: My reaction was, is that it's fairly typical about the way in which race gets talked about in Latin America and people will frequently make comments like that or use the term negrito both in sort of - as a term of endearment, as he sort of tries to do, but he brackets it with the criticism. When you have a place where officially there is no racism, where racism is so denied, you don't have the kind of dialogue where there's a kind of policing of this kind of language.

MARTIN: Well, first, is Honduras unique in this respect? Is there something unique about racial relations?

Prof. SAWYER: It's a common phenomenon across Latin America, if we think back to the comments of the Mexican President Vicente Fox about, you know, Mexicans will do work even blacks won't do. And then also the use of the Mexican stamp of men in penguin that used the sort of Sambo character, and the sort of Mexican public not being able to sort of understand what was racist about it.

MARTIN: And talk me little bit more about the word, negrito, if you would. Is there a - first, it's a diminutive, right? So even if it's - if you call a child that, calling a grown man that, particularly the president of the United States, clearly it's meant to be disrespectful. But what I'm curious about, is there a white corollary? Would someone, if for example, he were referring to President Bush might, is there a term that's racial that would be used to a white person?

Prof. SAWYER: (Foreign language spoken).

(Soundbite of laughter)

MARTIN: Yeah.

Prof. SAWYER: That means, literally, whitey.

MARTIN: Is that ever, you know…

Prof. SAWYER: No, it's not really used. And, in fact, if you watch sort of Latin American soap operas, one sometimes will refer to someone, even if the person is not black but you're showing that you feel close to them, that you have care for them as either mi negro or mi negrito. So…

MARTIN: Well, we do that here though in the U.S. It's a term - but it's a term used intra-racially…

Prof. SAWYER: Right.

MARTIN: …it's not a term when one would use in diplomatic circles or in public discourse but…

Prof. SAWYER: Right, certainly you would never have two white people sitting across from one other using that term. Or maybe you do, I don't know but…

MARTIN: But, why would you use it - I don't understand, what's the connection between using a racial term to describe intimacy? What is that, what's that?

Prof. SAWYER: Yeah, it's part of the problematic representations of blackness, right? So, blackness is represented by closeness, by intimacy, by being friendly and nice, though blackness is never represented by being smart, intelligent, et cetera. And certainly the term should not be used when it's not someone that you have, that you know very closely. So even in the Latin American context his use of it was quite improper. But the point is, is that the lines are very fuzzy because this kind of language is used all the time. And is - one of the things that's being challenged by black activists who are trying to reveal the kind of casual and unthinking racism that underlies using terms like negrito, a black diminutive, to describe black people, or to describe relationships of intimacy.

MARTIN: So, finally Mr. Ortez apologized for the gap, he was removed as foreign minister. But he was given another position in the government, he has moved, as we said, to the ministry of the interior. Do you think there is any lasting repercussions from this, this public discussion of this?

Prof. SAWYER: Yeah, I think it's an important moment for black activists across Latin America, but certainly there is a substantial community of black activists in Honduras. Everyone saw the Honduran national team playing the USA very recently in Chicago, you saw that most of the players are black. It provides a space for them to challenge that kind of language and to say that it has consequences and point out what's wrong with it. And previously these kinds of things happened without sanction in countries - in Latin America, people could say this kind of thing and no one would respond.

MARTIN: Mark Sawyer is an associate professor of African-American studies and political science at UCLA. He was kind enough to join us from our studios at NPR West. Professor Sawyer, thank you so much.

Prof. SAWYER: Thank you.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106681043

^^^ Underlined, it is not proper to use the term with someone you are not well acquainted with.

/endthread/

^

You are complaining about people assuming that Suarez said it in a friendly way, yet on the other hand you are assuming that he said it in a unfriendly way.

flahavaj

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It was too late once Evra spouted ****e to the media straight after the game. Evra should have kept his mouth shout and just done it through proper channels like it should be done.

Put his actions in the context of him being subjected to what sounds remarkably like a racial slur.

There was still nothing to stop Suarez, having seen the sh*t storm his supposedly innocent miatake had caused, from nipping the whole thing in the bud and explaining himself. His failure to do so has caused so much trouble, not least for himself.

greendom

Did Suarez say actually negrito or is this still an assumption.

niallo27

flahavaj wrote: »

It could and should have all been avoided if Suarez had just explained himself.

We don't know the reasons why, maybe he was told to keep quiet, we don't even know what he said yet.

greendom

greendom wrote: »

Did Suarez say actually negrito or is this still an assumption.

Hasn't been confirmed afaik.

#15

rarnes1 wrote: »

^

You are complaining about people assuming that Suarez said it in a friendly way, yet on the other hand you are assuming that he said it in a unfriendly way.

No, I'm saying the assumption that it is automatically friendly is pig ignorant.

I don't know what way it was said, I'm making the point that is completely possible that it was meant in a malicious sense.

Have another read over my post rarnes, I didn't make that assumption at all.
I even left open the possibility that it was a misunderstanding, in which case Suarez was just ignorant and not a racist, or else Evra made the mistake of not recognising that the person he was arguing with was actually being friendly.

#15

#15 wrote: »

No, I'm saying the assumption that it is automatically friendly is pig ignorant.

I don't know what way it was said, I'm making the point that is completely possible that it was meant in a malicious sense.

It is impossible for anyone here to know anything in fairness.

Everyone is making assumptions. Basically backing their own player ! Such is life on the SF

niallo27

flahavaj wrote: »

Put his actions in the context of him being subjected to what sounds remarkably like a racial slur.

There was still nothing to stop Suarez, having seen the sh*t storm his supposedly innocent miatake had caused, from nipping the whole thing in the bud and explaining himself. His failure to do so has caused so much trouble, not least for himself.

You could also say he could have just said nothing and with no evidence likely or witnesses, the assumption would have bring evra was lieing.

#15

rarnes1 wrote: »

It is impossible for anyone here to know anything in fairness.

Everyone is making assumptions. Basically backing their own player ! Such is life on the SF

Honestly rarnes, I'm not backing Evra because he's a United player.

I'm pointing out at how rotten it is that complaints of racism are so easily brushed off, or how casual terms that have racist undertones are defended with mealy mouthed justifications, e.g. it is part of his culture and he didn't know any better. Bollocks to that.

Switch the players around, and I'd still have the same view, believe it or not. I care more about racial issues than I do about football. It's not even close.

Chucky the tree

flahavaj wrote: »

Put his actions in the context of him being subjected to what sounds remarkably like a racial slur.

There was still nothing to stop Suarez, having seen the sh*t storm his supposedly innocent miatake had caused, from nipping the whole thing in the bud and explaining himself. His failure to do so has caused so much trouble, not least for himself.

Still no excuse to lie and cry about it to the media. What good is that going to do? There was plenty to stop Suarez, once Evra made a compliant to the ref it was an offical matter, once that happens Suarez should never discuss it in the media. god only knows how the media would try and twist it. He was competely right to simply wait for the FA to investigate and speak to them about it, it's just a shame the FA have dicked about with this for so long and dragged it out.

#15

#15 wrote: »

Honestly rarnes, I'm not backing Evra because he's a United player.

I'm pointing out at how rotten it is that complaints of racism are so easily brushed off, or how casual terms that have racist undertones are defended with mealy mouthed justifications, e.g. it is part of his culture and he didn't know any better. Bollocks to that.

Switch the players around, and I'd still have the same view, believe it or not. I care more about racial issues than I do about football. It's not even close.

Are you saying that there's not a possability it wasn't a cultural difference then? If not then you must be assuming Suarez is guilty.

Nobody here knows. I wouldn't get too worked up about it tbh.

flahavaj

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Still no excuse to lie and cry about it to the media. What good is that going to do? There was plenty to stop Suarez, once Evra made a compliant to the ref it was an offical matter, once that happens Suarez should never discuss it in the media. god only knows how the media would try and twist it. He was competely right to simply wait for the FA to investigate and speak to them about it, it's just a shame the FA have dicked about with this for so long and dragged it out.

He should have made an attenpt to explain himself to Evra, either personaly or through a third party. That would be the very first thing I'd do if I thought someone thought I'd been racist towards them....

parker kent

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Why did he say this then?

"He never said you could see it on camera"

You do realise that is Evra assuming it would be on camera? It is mildy ridiculous to have such a minor sematic point argued to death. Given that Evra was speaking immediately after the game at a time when he could not possibly have watched any footage, it is extremely sensible to interpret his sentence the way I and others have interpreted it.

Look at that quote again:

“There were (TV) cameras,” Evra told Canal Plus. ”You can see him telling me this one word at least 10 times. There is no room for this in 2011.”

That is clearly a man saying that there are cameras at the game and that it should be in the footage. He is clearly not saying "I have seen the footage" or whatever other BS you want to claim.

Anyway, I have to agree with #15 that there is a pretty shockingly casual attitude to racism. I don't use this comparison lightly, but it is really reminiscent of blaming the victim of an assault for there not being conclusive evidence. Now it may not have happened, but whilst there is the possibility that it did happen, people should surely be more sensitive.

#15

rarnes1 wrote: »

Are you saying that there's not a possability it wasn't a cultural difference then?

No, it is possibly a cultural difference

flahavaj

flahavaj wrote: »

He should have made an attenpt to explain himself to Evra, either personaly or through a third party. That would be the very first thing I'd do if I thought someone thought I'd been racist towards them....

How do you know he didn't? He may well have. We don't know tbf.

Suarez - words of a racist?

“Football has got this tremendous power of joining people, without any skin, religion and social discrimination.”

flahavaj

rarnes1 wrote: »

How do you know he didn't? He may well have. We don't know tbf.

True actually. There would have to be somethimg wrong with a person who wouldn't want to explain themselves in all fairness.

Chucky the tree

flahavaj wrote: »

He should have made an attenpt to explain himself to Evra, either personaly or through a third party. That would be the very first thing I'd do if I thought someone thought I'd been racist towards them....

If it was being offically investigated I wouldn't want to risk anything and would just keep quiet as much as I'd like to explain my side. I think trying to contract Evra while the FA are investigatign would be very foolish.

parker kent wrote: »

You do realise that is Evra assuming it would be on camera? It is mildy ridiculous to have such a minor sematic point argued to death. Given that Evra was speaking immediately after the game at a time when he could not possibly have watched any footage, it is extremely sensible to interpret his sentence the way I and others have interpreted it.

Look at that quote again:

That is clearly a man saying that there are cameras at the game and that it should be in the footage. He is clearly not saying "I have seen the footage" or whatever other BS you want to claim.

So you think it's acceptable for me to accuse any player of rascism and then claim you can see it on TV cameras? Bollox. If the man is so clearly saying that it should be in the footage why not use the word should? Instead he uses a sentence that gives the impression there is definite evidence against Suarez, very poor form from Evra.