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

Blatter

Well I didn't think it was possible, but this case has become an even bigger clusterfúck than it already was.

It's hard to take the articles that you read too seriously as too many of them are written in a fairly biased manner, it has become a MUFC v LFC shítfest. You will read some articles that give off the impression that Suarez is innocent, and then others that infer he is as guilty as sin.

If Evra did play the race card on the referee, then that would have been incredibly stupid on his part and potentially very damaging to his credibility and he should be dealt with accordingly. You just can't be going around doing that.

With regards Suarez alledgedly saying the word ''negro'', I'm not sure how people are seeing nothing wrong with that. If I go into a pub and see a group of black people, I would in my fúck go up to them and call them negros or even consider it acceptable. And to say it on the pitch to an opponent during a feroicious game, is incredibly dodgy.

It may be acceptable in Uruaguay, but to my mind, it is nowhere near acceptable in Europe. IF Suarez did use that term, I feel he may have a hard time convincing the panel that he was unaware of any racial sensitivities connected with the word, taking into account he was living in Northern Europe since 2007.

Just looking forward to a conclusion to this one way or the other and hope to God it doesn't drag on even further.(Which it almost certainly will if Suarez is found guilty)

Mr Alan

Blatter, what would you say is the equivalent of "caucasion" for a black man?

Will I Amnt

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

This wont last long

Wrong :pac:

I don't think it would have if Melion didn't edit his original op. :pac:

Paul Tergat

If I called a black person the word negro in England id expect some repercussions, especially in an argumentative context. This bs about him being from Uruguay and it being ok there is irrelevant.

Also, if Evra said that to the ref hes a retard.

Mr Alan

Its also hilarious that the "he called me a certain word more than 10 times, its clear on the cameras" has seemingly been downgraded to one utterance, in Spanish, between two fluent Spanish speakers which means "black man" & has no racial abuse element attached to it at all in that dialect. And it was in response to the little hotheads already furious actions, whereas originally it was meant to have been the cause of his furious behaviour.

The "you're booking me coz i'm black", is my favourite part though. Brilliant.

JimsAlterEgo

Mr Alan wrote: »

Its also hilarious that the "he called me a certain word more than 10 times, its clear on the cameras"

THE FA CHARGE HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. ITS IRRELEVANT. DO YOU NOT GET THAT? ONCE IS ENOUGH.

SlickRic

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

THE FA CHARGE HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. ITS IRRELEVANT. DO YOU NOT GET THAT? ONCE IS ENOUGH.

whether irrelevant to the actual case or not, the downgrade is still interesting enough considering Evra's protestations.

Mr Alan

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

THE FA CHARGE HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. ITS IRRELEVANT. DO YOU NOT GET THAT? ONCE IS ENOUGH.

I'm not quite sure you're grasping my point.

But thanks for playing anyway.

killwill

manual_man wrote: »

If someone throws the first stone then i think it's fair game whatever is said in return
If it turns out Evra was the first to bring ethnicity/cultural background in to it, then i think he should be the one charged, and banned

Thankfully it is not up to you then.

Paul Tergat

Mr Alan wrote: »

Its also hilarious that the "he called me a certain word more than 10 times, its clear on the cameras"

As I have said all along I want to wait to hear what was definitively said before ruling out something was said multiple times.

Mr Alan wrote: »

in Spanish, between two fluent Spanish speakers which means "black man" & has no racial abuse element attached to it at all in that dialect.

You need to get this into your head that this is irrelevant. If its PC in Uruguay fair enough but it's not in England. I couldnt give a **** where its ok to say it but if he did say this then he's pretty ****ing stupid and deserves punishment if he made the racist comment (negro) - of course we dont know he did say that and I dont believe he is racist.

Mr Alan wrote: »

And it was in response to the little hotheads already furious actions, whereas originally it was meant to have been the cause of his furious behaviour.

You should really be above this sort of petty ****..

YouTookMyName

There may be an outcome which doesn't complete satisfy either club - Suarez not found guilty, Evra not accused of inventing allegations

manual_man

killwill wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

If someone throws the first stone then i think it's fair game whatever is said in return
If it turns out Evra was the first to bring ethnicity/cultural background in to it, then i think he should be the one charged, and banned

Thankfully it is not up to you then.

Thankfully you're a r*tard with no sense of reason so it doesn't matter what you say

Less of the jibes pal, everyone's entitled to their opinion. No need to make it personal

_blank_

Mr Alan wrote: »

Blatter, what would you say is the equivalent of "caucasion" for a black man?

Why?

Why is this important?

Did you do your little lunchtime survey you promised us by the way?

Sappy404

Paul Tergat wrote: »

If I called a black person the word negro in England id expect some repercussions

What if you went to a non-English-speaking country and referred to someone as black, in English, where it's considered a racist term?

I'm starting to think finding Suarez guilty of referring to Evra's colour at all is enough for the FA to convict him, despite there probably being no more malice in it as there was in Evra referring to Suarez as South American.

killwill

YouTookMyName wrote: »

There may be an outcome which doesn't complete satisfy either club - Suarez not found guilty, Evra not accused of inventing allegations

That won't be up for discussion anyway.
The verdict is Suarez guilty or Suarez not guilty.
Allegation invention is irrelevant as Evra is not on trial

Kess73

Paul Tergat wrote: »

If I called a black person the word negro in England id expect some repercussions, especially in an argumentative context. This bs about him being from Uruguay and it being ok there is irrelevant.Also, if Evra said that to the ref hes a retard.

Of course where a person is from and what similar words mean in that person's culture comes into play.

The meaning of the word in each culture comes into play, or rather the difference in the meanings, and then the context with which the word was thought to have been used in has to be looked at.

MagicMarker

manual_man wrote: »

Thankfully you're a r*tard with no sense of reason so it doesn't matter what you say

Less of the jibes pal, everyone's entitled to their opinion. No need to make it personal

Stay classy

_blank_

Kess73 wrote: »

Of course where a person is from and what similar words mean in that person's culture comes into play.

The meaning of the word in each culture comes into play, or rather the difference in the meanings, and then the context with which the word was thought to have been used in has to be looked at.

If he moved to Europe a week before the incident, yes, fair enough.

But he didn't.

Mr Alan

Paul Tergat wrote: »

You need to get this into your head that this is irrelevant. If its PC in Uruguay fair enough but it's not in England. I couldnt give a **** where its ok to say it but if he did say this then he's pretty ****ing stupid and deserves punishment if he made the racist comment (negro) - of course we dont know he did say that and I dont believe he is racist.

Acutally if the word negro was said in the middle of a sentence in Spanish between 2 Spanish speakers, it is very relevant tbh because it is in no way deragatory or offensive (although tbh, someone has yet to provide me with the politically correct term for a black man - it seems that the society we live in has left us with no word for a black man that some don't find offensive! )

killwill wrote: »

Cringeworthy

I know. The caps made it worse. Bless his cotton socks though.

Paul Tergat

Sappy404 wrote: »

What if you went to a non-English-speaking country and referred to someone as black, in English, where it's considered a racist term?

If moving to a new country id make it my business to try and abide by their laws and have full respect for their culture. In this instance Suarez has not done this. Do you not agree?

Sappy404 wrote: »

I'm starting to think finding Suarez guilty of referring to Evra's colour at all is enough for the FA to convict him, despite there probably being no more malice in it as there was in Evra referring to Suarez as South American.

You calla black person a negro in a heated argument then theres going to be a reaction, again do you not agree?

_blank_

Mr Alan wrote: »

Acutally if the word negro was said in the middle of a sentence in Spanish between 2 Spanish speakers, it is very relevant tbh because it is in no way deragatory or offensive (although tbh, someone has yet to provide me with the politically correct term for a black man - it seems that the society we live in has left us with no word for a black man that some don't find offensive! )



I know. The caps made it worse. Bless his cotton socks though.

You are aware that S American Spanish is different to the Spanish Evra would have learnt in Europe, yes?

Much different than say, the differences between N American and European English.

Do you know this and are ignoring it, or didn't know it and now concede the point that Evra may not have understood peoperly?

Paul Tergat

Kess73 wrote: »

Of course where a person is from and what similar words mean in that person's culture comes into play.

The meaning of the word in each culture comes into play, or rather the difference in the meanings, and then the context with which the word was thought to have been used in has to be looked at.

Hes in England, abide by what is acceptable there. Suarez needs to learn and respect that. Simple situation for me.

Also, bringing up context is in no way going to help your argument. In an argument and he calls him a negro. No dice, sorry

Paul Tergat

Mr Alan wrote: »

Acutally if the word negro was said in the middle of a sentence in Spanish between 2 Spanish speakers, it is very relevant tbh because it is in no way deragatory or offensive

That doesnt matter a jot imo. They are in England and its not acceptable there. For me its cut and dry.

Kess73

Des wrote: »

You are aware that S American Spanish is different to the Spanish Evra would have learnt in Europe, yes?

Much different than say, the differences between N American and European English.

Do you know this and are ignoring it, or didn't know it and now concede the point that Evra may not have understood peoperly?

Which pretty much brings us back to my earlier point of Suarez maybe having said Negrito or similar and maybe Evara genuinely thought he heard Negro.

Or Suarez saying Negrito the way he was brought up to understand the word, and Evra hearing it in European Spanish.

As I said then, it would give a scenario where neither man has lied, and each would be justified in terms of what was said and how it was reacted to.

K-9

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Hes in England, abide by what is acceptable there. Suarez needs to learn and respect that. Simple situation for me.

Also, bringing up context is in no way going to help your argument. In an argument and he calls him a negro. No dice, sorry

The context, if the article is correct, is Evra called him a "South American" and hardly as banter, it was meant in a derogatory manner. Suarez then calls him negro/negrito which he says isn't racist according to his culture.

It looks like the 2 of them were at it tbh. It seems Evra had no problem insulting Suarez and then took offence, though he obviously thought it was a reference to his skin colour. Suarez is saying it wasn't.

I don't think it is as clear cut as some are making out.

Blatter

Mr Alan wrote: »

Blatter, what would you say is the equivalent of "caucasion" for a black man?

Black, African American, Afro American, Black African etc.

I understand Negro is also used to identify black people(It's mainly only some of the older generation that relate to it) but there has also been efforts made in the past to move away from the term as many view it as being associated with segregation.

I still don't see why you think it's acceptable for a white person to call a black person a ''negro'' in Western Europe. It's blatantly unacceptable.

I doubt you will get any half repected journalist backing up your viewpoint Alan.

_blank_

Blatter wrote: »

I still don't see why you think it's acceptable for a white person to call a black person a ''negro'' in Western Europe. It's blatantly unacceptable.

I doubt you will get any half repected journalist backing up your viewpoint Alan.

He won't even do it himself. He's admitted that, but says it's ok for other people to do it, if they play for LFC and do it to a United player seemingly

Paul Tergat

K-9 wrote: »

The context, if the article is correct, is Evra called him a "South American" and hardly as banter, it was meant in a derogatory manner. Suarez then calls him negro/negrito which he says isn't racist according to his culture.

I agree Evra was a ****ing idiot as I said above and also what he supposedly said to the ref was borderline retarded. Again though, his culture for me shouldnt really come into play. He is in England and has to respect the culture of the land if he wants to live there

K-9 wrote: »

It looks like the 2 of them were at it tbh. It seems Evra had no problem insulting Suarez and then took offence, though he obviously thought it was a reference to his skin colour. Suarez is saying it wasn't.

They indeed both were but for me there is a very definite difference in the 2 terms which were supposedly used.

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think it is as clear cut as some are making out.

its quite possible i am taking too harsh a line on things

Mr Alan

Des wrote: »

Why?

Why is this important?

Did you do your little lunchtime survey you promised us by the way?

I promised no such thing.

Paul Tergat wrote: »

That doesnt matter a jot imo. They are in England and its not acceptable there. For me its cut and dry.

Were you not saying a minute ago that you were one of the enlightened ones waiting to see all the evidence etc before rushing to judgement?

Blatter wrote: »

Black, African American, Afro American, Black African etc.

I understand Negro is also used to identify black people(It's mainly only some of the older generation that relate to it) but there has also been efforts made in the past to move away from the term as many view it as being associated with segregation.

I still don't see why you think it's acceptable for a white person to call a black person a ''negro'' in Western Europe. It's blatantly unacceptable.

I doubt you will get any half repected journalist backing up your viewpoint Alan.

Actually Blatter, this is the issue, see the above examples of what its acceptable to refer to a black man as? That's all Suarez did.

He simply called Evra the politically correct name for someone of his race, "black". The altercation took place in Spanish remember. Negro in Spanish is widely used term that simply means black man, their is no stigma attached to the word whatsoever.

I'm sure they have other abusive terms when they want to abuse a black man (mono for example).

K-9

Paul Tergat wrote: »

I agree Evra was a ****ing idiot as I said above and also what he supposedly said to the ref was borderline retarded. Again though, his culture for me shouldnt really come into play. He is in England and has to respect the culture of the land if he wants to live there

Well yeah, but he was insulted and his defence is it isn't a racist term where he comes from. It could be as simple as he wasn't aware that it was that offensive here and obviously he now is.

I doubt he purposefully set out to not respect the culture of the land!

They indeed both were but for me there is a very definite difference in the 2 terms which were supposedly used.

Reading it looks bad and I agree there, but the guy is entitled to a defence!The only question really is, is it a reasonable defence and is it believable? I think it is.