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

Des wrote: »

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

But he didn't.

And of course what is deemed acceptable in Holland is pretty much the same as what is acceptable in England right?


In an ideal politically correct world everyone within the boundaries of a country would adhere exactly to the cultures and conventions of that country. But it simply does not work that way in most western countries and anyone who tries to claim that it does and that it should be as black and white (no pun intended) as that is either very naive or looking for a reaction.

If anything the English (and Irish) are two of the worst groups in terms of going to other countries and sticking to their own slang/usage of words even if in other countries for years, and England is a country that has many nationalities sticking to word usage/meaning from their homeland over the local usage/meaning.

Hell there are things that get said up North in England that would be offensive to a Southern ear and vice versa and that's in the same country let alone the types of insult that could happen between two men from different countries having a verbal arguement in a couintry that neither are from.

I have lost count at this point the amount of times that I have been met with surprise/bemusement/amusement in many of the countries I have lived/worked in like Belgium, Germany, Holland, Japan etc., when it became apparant that not only could I speak the language of the country I was living/working in, but I had a strong grasp of many of the sub dialects and the nuances of the languages.

Suarez living in one European country does not set him up to know exactly what is deemed acceptable in a different european country with a different language.

The same thing applies to Evra's Spanish. He speaks European Spanish so what he heard would be understood in terms of the language he knows and he would most likely not understand the differences between what he knows and what Suarez speaks.

I just think that there is a possibility of something being lost in translation between two waspy types, and it escalating quickly when neither side would give an inch.

SlickRic wrote: »

some posts deleted.

killwill, manual_man....back on topic and stop the petty sideshow.

thanks.

agreed. Never should have started in the first place

Speaking of prejudice there appears to be a lot of it in this thread.

It seems if you are a Man Utd fan he is guilty and if you are a Liverpool fan he is not. I am a Liverpool fan but I would not let it cloud my judgement on whether I think either party was in the wrong (when we hear the facts of course). I can hope that Suarez is innocent but that's as far as it goes, I don't know at this stage that he is.

There is hardly an unbias opinion in this thread which makes the entire debate defunct.

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

I think you mean that he is alleged to have called him a negro. Negrito was the word quoted as being what he said as well, and Negrito brings a lot of different meanings to the table despite it sounding similar to the ear of an english speaker and to the ear of a european Spanish speaker. So context has to be looked at if that was the word. One of the things the FA said they would have to look at is the context of what was said so despite you thinking that context is unimportant the FA rightly think otherwise.

Also the abide by what is acceptable in England is a very flawed arguement. What part of England are you referring to? Because as I said to Des even in the English language there are quite a few differences in meaning for the same word between Northern and Southern England. There are things that I can say casually back home in Liverpool that I would not say in London.

There are also plenty of areas in cities in England where the use of words that one culture deems acceptable would be grossly offensive to another culture, yet they are all living in England.

Mr Alan wrote: »

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?

In fairness I think you know my posting style that I wasnt in anyway being all high and mighty!

Everything im sayng is of course based on if's, which I said a few times in previous posts...

K-9 wrote: »

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!

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.

I dont think its reasonable and I just think thats where we differ. IMO, its up to someone when they move somewhere to adapt and make it their business to play by the rules of the country they are in.

Kess73 wrote: »

I think you mean that he is alleged to have called him a negro. Negrito was the word quoted as being what he said as well, and Negrito brings a lot of different meanings to the table despite it sounding similar to the ear of an english speaker and to the ear of a european Spanish speaker. So context has to be looked at if that was the word. One of the things the FA said they would have to look at is the context of what was said so despite you thinking that context is unimportant the FA rightly think otherwise.

Of course mate yeah. I forget to stick supposedly in sometimes. As I said before this is all ifs and buts based on what we are hearing and now what the FA has said is actual evidence.

I was going by the latest report of negro - for me this aint acceptable.

Kess73 wrote: »

Also the abide by what is acceptable in England is a very flawed arguement. What part of England are you referring to? Because as I said to Des even in the English language there are quite a few differences in meaning for the same word between Northern and Southern England. There are things that I can say casually back home in Liverpool that I would not say in London.

There are also plenty of areas in cities in England where the use of words that one culture deems acceptable would be grossly offensive to another culture, yet they are all living in England.

Im from the North of England too mate. AFAIK theres only one intended use of the word negro in all of England. Of course some words can be different but this particular one ive never known to mean anything else!?

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Of course mate yeah. I forget to stick supposedly in sometimes. As I said before this is all ifs and buts based on what we are hearing and now what the FA has said is actual evidence.

I was going by the latest report of negro - for me this aint acceptable.



Im from the North of England too mate. AFAIK theres only one intended use of the word negro in all of England. Of course some words can be different but this particular one ive never known to mean anything else!?

Ok if we assume that negro was used in the conversation. The conversation was still not in english, it was a conversation involving two types of spanish. So the context in which the word was meant has to be looked at in terms of the languages used and not the english version of the word.

I would accept your arguement about how the english meaning of the word a lot easier if the conversation had been in english and between two native english speakers of different colour. But both negro and negrito have a number of meanings and can be used in with differing context for most of those meanings, so for me it is important that the languages used, the meaning of the offending word in each language, and the possible contexts that are being claimed all get looked into in order to get as accurate a verdict as is possible.

Either man could be lying at this point.

Both men could be telling the truth based on their understanding of their own version of Spanish.

But the one thing that is clear to me is that for this case it is not as simple as just using what is acceptable in english as the defining guideline. To do so would be risking opening another can of worms. Imho of course.

rarnes1 wrote: »

Whens the John Terry case on ?

Not a word about that and it's there for all to see what he said

FA has said police investigation has to happen first

Why is this a matter for the FA anyhow? Why not a criminal matter?
I'd prefer a proper court and proper representation than a kangaroo court of FA insiders with an agenda.

Kirby wrote: »

The intent is obvious. It's an insult. What other possible use could he have for using that word other than to insult him? The 'nuance argument' if you can even call it that, is being used as an excuse...a technicality....a smokescreen for racism. The fact that the word is not racist somewhere else in the world is irrelevant. They are in Englad where it is.

This isn't his first rodeo. He isn't in the country a week. He knew full well what he was saying and said it because he was angry. It's understandable as we all make mistakes but he should be punished for it and all this 'language nuance' crap is just trying to weasel out of it. Nobody bought the Tevez language excuse and I don't think any non scousers buy this one either.

I asked you how you would determine the intent in a conversation involving two variations of a foreign language. You say it is obvious so tell me why it is. The conversation was not in english and the word negro has not been confirmed by the FA, by Suarez, or by Evra, so please tell me what this obvious intent is and how you came to your conclusion.

Also if we assume the word is either Negro or Negrito, can you please show me something that says that either word is a clearly defined racist term in England. To my knowledge the former is a word that can be used in a racist manner in English when spoken in a certain context or nuance, but the word itself is a racist term in the way that n*gg*r is.

So if we take your comment about nuances in language being irrelevant, then your claim for negro is gone, so with that in mind, and without using contect or nuances, please tell me how the intent is clear.