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

tommyhaas · 15-12-2011 01:19PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

Of course not in Ireland.

What about Uraguay?

What re talking about in the last paragraph?

Whether they say it or not in Uruguay is largely irrelevant to his guilt, as the incident occurred in England. He wouldn't get away with driving his car down the wrong side of the motorway, just because they drive on that side in Uruguay

As I understand it, the cultural misunderstanding is a mitigating factor if anything

Will I Amnt · 15-12-2011 01:24PM

Ah,my favourite thread is up and running again

A thread where people will argue down to their last breath,a point they do not even agree with themselves.

A thread where a quote from some obscure site nobody has heard of becomes cold hard fact as long as it backs up their opinions.

A thread that brings out the regional dialect expert and socially acceptable terms expert in all of us.

Have fun guys,I'll just be reading this time

tommyhaas · 15-12-2011 01:26PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

A thread where people will argue down to their last breath,a point they do not even agree with themselves.

A thread where a quote from some obscure site nobody has heard of becomes cold hard fact as long as it backs up their opinions.

A thread that brings out the regional dialect expert and socially acceptable terms expert in all of us.

You'll have to be more specific. Are you referring to this thread? Or one of the super threads? A match thread maybe? Perhaps the transfer window thread?

menoscemo · 15-12-2011 01:29PM

Des wrote: »

Black.

But you are proving my point.

"The black man walked through the door"

is different to

"The black walked through the door"

I would NOT say the second example there.

Would you?

You are completely wrong here. Negro means black in Spanish but it also means black man. The gender of the adjective (in this case male) means you don't include the noun (man), You would never say 'Hombre Negro' in Spanish to say 'Black man' you just say 'Negro' (and it's pronounced naygro, not neegro). To say 'Black woman' is Spanish it's 'Negra', Black men is 'Negros' and black women 'Negras'. There is absolutely nothing racist about the term in spanish it is just a descriptive one. Obviously, like any word it can be used in a racsit way, but that depends on context/tone etc.

Negro/negrito are the same word, just negrito is a little more endearing, something you would say to a mate.

Will I Amnt · 15-12-2011 01:31PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

You'll have to be more specific. Are you referring to this thread? Or one of the super threads? A match thread maybe? Perhaps the transfer window thread?

Sorry Tommy,I was referring to this one and the non football related points that are being argued about,you know like Martin Luther King and black American history,the meaning of words in south America etc.

Mr Alan · 15-12-2011 01:32PM

menoscemo wrote: »

You are completely wrong here. Negro means black in Spanish but it also means black man. The gender of the adjective (in this case male) means you don't include the noun (man), You would never say 'Hombre Negro' in Spanish to say 'Black man' you just say 'Negro' (and it's pronounced naygro, not neegro. To say 'Black woman' is Spanish it's 'Negra', Black men is 'Negros' and black women 'Negras'. There is absolutely nothing racist about the term in spanish it is just a descriptive one. Obviously, like any word it can be used in a racsit way, but that depends on context/tone etc.

Negro/negrito are the same word, just negrito is a little more endearing, something you would say to a mate.

I think this thread has a winner.

MagicMarker · 15-12-2011 01:40PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

I think this thread has a winner.

Context Mr Alan, context.

Even if Suaraz used the word black, which is perfectly acceptable by all accounts, it becomes racially abusive if used in a racially abusive context.

Why would Suaraz refer to the colour of Evra's skin at all? What possible scenario is likely in a football match that requires Suaraz to do that in a way other than derogatory?

tommyhaas · 15-12-2011 01:43PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

Sorry Tommy,I was referring to this one and the non football related points that are being argued about,you know like Martin Luther King and black American history,the meaning of words in south America etc.

You certainly wouldn't see anon-footballing points being argued elsewhere on the SF :pac:

Have to agree though, gas the way people through football find the motivation to educate themselves (by that I mean scan through wikipedia) on all sorts, from the cultural habits of South America, to the global financial crisis to the healing time of a metatarsal injury. And I include myself in that

manual_man · 15-12-2011 01:45PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Mr Alan wrote: »

I think this thread has a winner.

Context Mr Alan, context.

Even if Suaraz used the word black, which is perfectly acceptable by all accounts, it becomes racially abusive if used in a racially abusive context.

Why would Suaraz refer to the colour of Evra's skin at all? What possible scenario is likely in a football match that requires Suaraz to do that in a way other than derogatory?

Possibly in reply to a derogatory comment in relation to his own background...

MagicMarker · 15-12-2011 01:46PM

manual_man wrote: »

Possibly in reply to a derogatory comment in relation to his own background...

Possibly, but still unacceptable.

Kess73 · 15-12-2011 01:47PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Context Mr Alan, context.

Even if Suaraz used the word black, which is perfectly acceptable by all accounts, it becomes racially abusive if used in a racially abusive context.

Why would Suaraz refer to the colour of Evra's skin at all? What possible scenario is likely in a football match that requires Suaraz to do that in a way other than derogatory?

Well one way would be if Negrito was used and not Negro.

Even if Negrito was used in a sarky way, it would be like someone going "yeah whatever, mate" with a bit of a waspy tone.

The two words do sound very similar though, and probably moreso if the person saying it to you has a foreign accent that you may not hear on a daily basis.

One man may have said Negrito in a cheeky or sarky manner, but the other man may have thought he heard Negro being spoken in a sarky tone.

Could actually produce a scenario where neither man is lying.

manual_man · 15-12-2011 01:48PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

Possibly in reply to a derogatory comment in relation to his own background...

Possibly, but still unacceptable.

Actually i think it is. If someone provokes you by a slur in relation to your ethnic/cultural background, then your first instinct is to respond in kind

MagicMarker · 15-12-2011 01:49PM

manual_man wrote: »

Actually i think it is. If someone provokes you by a slur in relation to your ethnic/cultural background, then your first instinct is to respond in kind

That doesn't make it acceptable.

manual_man · 15-12-2011 01:52PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

Actually i think it is. If someone provokes you by a slur in relation to your ethnic/cultural background, then your first instinct is to respond in kind

That doesn't make it acceptable.

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

Mr Alan · 15-12-2011 01:54PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

That doesn't make it acceptable.

But it does make it ridiculous that the guy who responded gets branded a racist in the media by the fella who brought ethnicity/background into it in the first place. And susequently gets charged whereas the other fella is seen as a "victim".

The other fella also allegedly having said the ref was booking him because he was black.

Hmmmmmm.

MagicMarker · 15-12-2011 01:54PM

manual_man wrote: »

If someone throws the first stone then i think it's fair game whatever is said in return

Well thankfully the world in general has a more mature outlook than you.

MagicMarker · 15-12-2011 01:55PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

But it does make it ridiculous that the guy who responded gets branded a racist in the media by the fella who brought ethnicity/background into it in the first place. And susequently gets charged whereas the other fella is seen as a "victim".

The other fella also allegedly having said the ref was booking him because he was black.

Hmmmmmm.

Did Suaraz or the ref make a formal complaint?

Jesus Wept · 15-12-2011 01:57PM

Evra sounds like a headcase.

wiki wrote:

In Portuguese, negro is an adjective for the color black, although preto is the most common antonym of branco (white). In Brazil and Portugal, negro is the most respectful way to address people of Black African descent, with preto sometimes being considered politically incorrect or a racial slur.
In Spain, Mexico and almost all of Latin-America, negro (note that ethnonyms, names of nationalities, etc. are generally not capitalized in Romance languages) means "black person" in colloquial situations, but it can be considered to be derogatory in other situations (as in English, "black" is often used to mean irregular or undesirable, as in "black market/mercado negro"). However, in Spanish-speaking countries such as Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay where there are few people of African origin and appearance, negro (negra for females) is commonly used to refer to partners, close friends[13] or people in general independent of skin color. In Venezuela the word negro is similarly used, despite its large African descent population.

manual_man · 15-12-2011 02:00PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

If someone throws the first stone then i think it's fair game whatever is said in return

Well thankfully the world in general has a more mature outlook than you.

By mature i'm guessing you mean 'p.c.'

Like i said if Suarez responded to said provocation by Evra he can be deemed to have been defending himself

He can still apologize, but his defense would be that he responded under severe provocation

And like i also said, if it turns out Evra was the one to bring cultural backgrounds in to it (of which there was absolutely no need), then most certainly he should be the one getting a ban

MagicMarker · 15-12-2011 02:04PM

manual_man wrote: »

By mature i'm guessing you mean 'p.c.'

No, by mature I mean mature.

manual_man wrote: »

Like i said if Suarez responded to said provocation by Evra he can be deemed to have been defending himself

lol

manual_man wrote: »

He can still apologize, but his defense would be that he responded under severe provocation

And like i also said, if it turns out Evra was the one to bring cultural backgrounds in to it (of which there was absolutely no need), then most certainly he should be the one getting a ban

If both are found to have been racially abusive then both should be banned, regardless of who started it.

daRobot · 15-12-2011 02:10PM

I always wondered was the 'ooh ahh Paul McGrath' chant a bit tinged with the auld racism? :pac:

manual_man · 15-12-2011 02:10PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

By mature i'm guessing you mean 'p.c.'

No, by mature I mean mature.

manual_man wrote: »

Like i said if Suarez responded to said provocation by Evra he can be deemed to have been defending himself

lol

manual_man wrote: »

He can still apologize, but his defense would be that he responded under severe provocation

And like i also said, if it turns out Evra was the one to bring cultural backgrounds in to it (of which there was absolutely no need), then most certainly he should be the one getting a ban

If both are found to have been racially abusive then both should be banned, regardless of who started it.

You're making no sense whatsoever. You're saying that the provoker should receive no extra punishment than the provokee. A quick question. Do you think people of black skin colour have more of a right to defend themselves/be aggrieved than people of a different skin colour/ethnical background in relation to said colour of their skin/ethnical backgrounds?? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying

Sappy404 · 15-12-2011 02:12PM

So Evra allegedly says to Suarez, 'Don't touch me you South American" or something to that effect.

Suarez's reply allegedly includes the Spanish work for black, and may or may not have been in the same context as Evra's remark. If it is, he's racist and gets a ban. Evra goes free either way.

Is that about it?

Sappy404 · 15-12-2011 02:13PM

daRobot wrote: »

I always wondered was the 'ooh ahh Paul McGrath' chant a bit tinged with the auld racism? :pac:

Couldn't get away with calling him The Black Pearl these days it seems.

MagicMarker · 15-12-2011 02:13PM

manual_man wrote: »

You're saying that the provoker should receive no extra punishment than the provokee.

Where did I say that?

manual_man wrote: »

A quick question. Do you think people of black skin colour have more of a right to defend themselves/be aggrieved than people of a different skin colour/ethnical background in relation to said colour of their skin/ethnical backgrounds?? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying

15-12-2011 02:18PM

If Evra suggested that the ref was only booking him because he is black doesn't help his case.

Suggesting a referee has a bias against a certain race is a massive statement to make from Evra. Essentialy accusing the referee of being a racist.

Allegedly of course. Telegraph are running with it.

manual_man · 15-12-2011 02:22PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

You're saying that the provoker should receive no extra punishment than the provokee.

Where did I say that?

manual_man wrote: »

A quick question. Do you think people of black skin colour have more of a right to defend themselves/be aggrieved than people of a different skin colour/ethnical background in relation to said colour of their skin/ethnical backgrounds?? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying

You said they both should be banned. Personally i don't think someone should get a ban when they're simply responding to severe provocation. They can apologize, yes, but a ban no. We have a right to self defense. Anyways this is all conjecture. We'll see what comes out of the hearing

MagicMarker · 15-12-2011 02:25PM

manual_man wrote: »

You said they both should be banned. Personally i don't think someone should get a ban when they're simply responding to severe provocation. They can apologize, yes, but a ban no. We have a right to self defense. Anyways this is all conjecture. We'll see what comes out of the hearing

If both are racially abusive then both should be banned, if someone's more to blame than the other then the length of ban should be adjusted accordingly for that person.

Saying ''but he called me a name first'' isn't a defense for racism, we don't have a ''right'' to racially abuse anyone under any circumstances.

K-9 · 15-12-2011 02:25PM

Case just got even more ridiculous if that article is true.

Crazy Horse 6 · 15-12-2011 02:27PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

This wont last long

Wrong :pac:

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

Comments