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

Kirby · 15-12-2011 06:03PM

Kess73 wrote: »

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.

http://www.football365.com/news/21554/7378491/-Suarez-Will-Admit-To-Saying-Negro-Once-"

We don't need to assume anything. He will admit he said it and try to argue that because its harmless where he comes from, its all hunky dory.

I'll break it down for you where I'm coming from with the "intent" arguement.

I'm not happy with you on this thread. I'm going to call you gay. When a mod comes along to punish me, I am going to simply say, "Well in my eyes, gay means happy! I simply called him a happy person!"

That excuse wouldn't wash because its rubbish. While technically true, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what I did there. It's obvious I would be trying to pull a fast one and anybody with an common sense would see through it.

The bottom line is, he was involved in an altercation and said something he shouldn't. Some Liverpool fans will see things one way because he's their man. You won't be seen championing Terry. Strange that, eh?

If the decision was made by three scousers he would no doubt walk but it won't be. It will be three neutrals so I expect so see him fined heavily.

The_Kew_Tour · 15-12-2011 06:04PM

man there some hilarious comments in here.

this be more suited to conspiracy thread with some of the lol comments here.

Mr Alan · 15-12-2011 06:09PM

SlickRic wrote: »

racism has to be dealt with, there is no high-horse.

i don't believe Suarez is racist, but allegations have to rightly be investigated.

but if there's no proof, that is when a disincentive has to be put in place to stop people crying wolf.

we'll see.

there is no excuse for racially abusing someone, which is what Evra claimed, and is what is being investigated. it's right to be investigated. i don't see how anyone can disagree with that and think it should just be left.

Agreed.

However, as a result of the circus this case has become there should be a clear procedure laid out of how such complaints should be made in future, obviously running to the media & giving an exagerated/false version of events should be a big no no.

Kirby · 15-12-2011 06:11PM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

man there some hilarious comments in here.

this be more suited to conspiracy thread with some of the lol comments here.

I don't find racist comments worthy of "lol" to be honest and think it speaks badly on the game that people are trying to defend what Saurez and Terry said just because they play for "their team".

Leiva · 15-12-2011 06:14PM

Kirby wrote: »

I don't find racist comments worthy of "lol" to be honest and think it speaks badly on the game that people are trying to defend what Saurez and Terry said just because they play for "their team".

???

Innocent until proven guilty and all ?

Kess73 · 15-12-2011 06:21PM

Kirby wrote: »

http://www.football365.com/news/21554/7378491/-Suarez-Will-Admit-To-Saying-Negro-Once-"

We don't need to assume anything. He will admit he said it and try to argue that because its harmless where he comes from, its all hunky dory.

I'll break it down for you where I'm coming from with the "intent" arguement.

I'm not happy with you on this thread. I'm going to call you gay. When a mod comes along to punish me, I am going to simply say, "Well in my eyes, gay means happy! I simply called him a happy person!"

That excuse wouldn't wash because its rubbish. While technically true, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what I did there.

The bottom line is, he was involved in an altercation and said something he shouldn't. Some Liverpool fans will see things one way because he's their man. You won't be seen championing Terry. Strange that, eh?

If the decision was made by three scousers he would no doubt walk but it won't be. It will be three neutrals so I expect so see him fined heavily.

Your excuse would not work as there would be less doubt as to your intent given that we both speak the same language and the word is more commonly used as an insult in heated debate between English speakers nowadays than in it's original meaning , and the mod would also be looking at it in terms of the language it was spoken in and the context in which the word was used.

Now if you came at me in Irish and used the word aerach instead of gay, and I was arguing back with you in Scots Gaelic, now suddenly we have two people in an arguement using languages that have a lot in common, enough for us to be able to communicate with some understanding, but suddenly the word aerach in Irish does not mean the same thing as what the similar sounding word in Scottish means.

Now we have to prove one of two things to ban you. Either we prove that you had a working knowledge of Scottish and you knew that the Irish word sounded like something else in Scottish, or we would have to prove that you used the Irish word Aerach in a slang fashion and not in the gay is happy meaning that the word has in that language.

Basically to ban you we would have to prove that you were aware of the nuances between the languages or the nuances that exist between the language you speak and the meaning of the same word in another country.

So nuances and context would have to come into it, otherwise you could not be banned and some devious plan would have to be hatched in the Mod forum to get ya.

Now you could well be right when you say the intent was there to cause insult, but to prove that intent was there with Suarez, you would have to get him to admit it, or prove without a shadow of doubt that he was aware of the nuances between the languages and used that to his advantage in the context of what he said. If there is room for any reasonable doubt then I don't see how he can be found guilty of making a racist comment by the FA or anyone else. There are two many potential grey areas and banana skins waiting for the FA if they cock up and no doubt they know this, hence how long this has been going on.

barone · 15-12-2011 06:27PM

your willing to call someone a racist i.e say they actually hate a certain race of people, simply because they may have called you a name?

mind boggling,

im ginger, ill be thinking of taking a case myself against everyone if saha wins this case

5starpool · 15-12-2011 06:46PM

If this happened in a match between Fulham and West Brom, there would be almost no chatter about it, never mind a thread with nearly 2500 posts. I doubt many of the outraged people would be outraged in that instance, and I doubt many of the defenders would be defending either.

Dress it up all you like, it's still down to football tribalism in the main imo.

Iang87 · 15-12-2011 07:03PM

barone wrote: »

your willing to call someone a racist i.e say they actually hate a certain race of people, simply because they may have called you a name?

mind boggling,

im ginger, ill be thinking of taking a case myself against everyone if saha wins this case

your ginger, i'm sorry

when can we expect a suarez decision. I think he could be facing up to an 8 match ban if it happens. I vaguely recall reading some english lad got an 8 match ban after being found guilty couple of years back

Mr Alan · 15-12-2011 07:17PM

Denis Smith, a man who in his autobiography talks of how he helped keep Ferguson in a job & of their great friendship, is on the 3 man panel for this Evra/Suarez case.

You actually couldn't make it up.

willmunny1990 · 15-12-2011 07:21PM

mixednuts wrote: »

???

Innocent until proven guilty and all ?

The fans that think Suarez and Terry are innocent are deluded. Both are great players but both are also despicable human beings.

killwill · 15-12-2011 07:24PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Denis Smith, a man who in his autobiography talks of how he helped keep Ferguson in a job & of their great friendship, is on the 3 man panel for this Evra/Suarez case.

You actually couldn't make it up.

A bit early for excuses!!!
Only joking by the way. I just hope the truth comes out and justice is served.
Regardless of the truth favouring either or.

Iang87 · 15-12-2011 07:24PM

willmunny1990 wrote: »

The fans that think Suarez and Terry are innocent are deluded. Both are great players but both are also despicable human beings.

luckily you're not on the panel.

dont put those two together, we're yet to see any proof of suarez guilt just so you know

Mr Alan · 15-12-2011 07:31PM

killwill wrote: »

A bit early for excuses!!!
Only joking by the way. I just hope the truth comes out and justice is served.
Regardless of the truth favouring either or.

Ha you have to admit having someone who is a close friend of Ferguson on the panel is very very questionable.

tommyhaas · 15-12-2011 07:34PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Ha you have to admit having someone who is a close friend of Ferguson on the panel is very very questionable.

How are these panel's assembled? Do they work for the FA? It would be quiet difficult I would imagine to find someone involved in the game who hadn't had dealings with either Kenny Dalglish or Alex Ferguson, or indeed either club

Fuhrer · 15-12-2011 07:39PM

mixednuts wrote: »

great contribution :rolleyes:

Barone i hear what your saying but there has to be standards .

If Suarez is guilty i want him banned , but when i say guilty i mean he went up to Evra with venom and called him a ****** , with solid evidence to back up his guilt .

If it was done any other way then it becomes a matter of opinion (rightly or wrongly) and the FA are going out on a limb pursuing it .

Ah great contribution from you then.

It doesnt matter what Suarez said to Evra unless he did it with venom.

He could walk up and call him anything he wanted, a monkey, a jiggaboo a tar baby as long as he doesnt admit he did it with venom.

What an utterly moronic opinion. Jesus Christ.

willmunny1990 · 15-12-2011 07:40PM

Iang87 wrote: »

luckily you're not on the panel.

dont put those two together, we're yet to see any proof of suarez guilt just so you know

I'm aware Suarez hasn't been proven to be guilty yet, but i'm forming an opinion of him on his past deeds i.e biting another human being, unsavory on field antics. The first example is simply disgusting and probably worse than racism TBH.

He may be no Terry but he is well capable of racism IMO and he is far more likely to be guilty than not.

Mr Alan · 15-12-2011 07:43PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

How are these panel's assembled? Do they work for the FA? It would be quiet difficult I would imagine to find someone involved in the game who hadn't had dealings with either Kenny Dalglish or Alex Ferguson, or indeed either club

Agreed, however it shouldn't be difficult to find someone who isn't a life long friend of one of theirs.

Iang87 · 15-12-2011 07:45PM

willmunny1990 wrote: »

I'm aware Suarez hasn't been proven to be guilty yet, but i'm forming an opinion of him on his past deeds i.e biting another human being, unsavory on field antics. The first example is simply disgusting and probably worse than racism TBH.

He may be no Terry but he is well capable of racism IMO and he is far more likely to be guilty than not.

you sure are and your OPINION doesn't make him guilty or make fans deluded for presuming he's not guilty

Fuhrer · 15-12-2011 07:45PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Ha you have to admit having someone who is a close friend of Ferguson on the panel is very very questionable.

I like how you're already putting in the ground work for worming out of the Suarez being guilty before hes even heard the verdict.

Iang87 · 15-12-2011 07:47PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

I like how you're already putting in the ground work for worming out of the Suarez being guilty before hes even heard the verdict.

dont think thats what he's saying I think he's saying its a little ridiculous to have someone so close to either party on the panel.

Although Mr Alan is well able to speak for himself and deosn't need me

Mr Alan · 15-12-2011 07:47PM

I'm not, just saying its a little startling that someone like that would be selected on the panel. You not agree?

Pro. F · 15-12-2011 07:47PM

I doubt that Telegraph article is anything more than guess work and shìt stirring.

Mr Alan wrote: »

No.

But the crux of this case appears to be Suarez is an alleged racist for referring to a black man, as black.

The world has officially gone mad.

This line of reasoning is so faulty I can't believe how often it is used. If you were to use someone's skin colour when you were trying to describe or distinguish them that would be fine. If you were to refer to someone's skin colour completely unnecessarily when having an argument with them then that is obviously unacceptable.

Btw, if it is true that Evra referred to Suarez's ethnicity in the same way as reported then that would also be unacceptable.

Your argument about ''negro'' in English somehow being the acceptable word is wrong. Some older black peopl still use it, but it has mostly fallen out of use because most black people associate it with its offensive history. That's all irrelevant anyway if the conversation took place in Spanish.

Morzadec wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned before but the word 'negrito' in Spanish can mean 'bold', as in 'cheeky' (look it up on google translate). I play football in a 5 a side league in Spain and I'm pretty sure I heard someone say it when someone tried to claim a throw-in.

By all intents and purposes 'negrito' is NOT an offensive word in Spanish, especially in Latin American Spanish. Read this thread here http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=174859

A lot of it is in Spanish, but the jist is that 'negrito' or even 'negro' is by no means as loaded a term as '******' in English. It's a cultural difference as well as a language difference.

I work as an English teacher in SPain and I've had students refer to black people as '****', and I explained to them that it is not as acceptable term to use to describe black people. Are they racist? Not at all. Simply some of them are not aware of the seriousness and connotations of the term.

As far as I'm concerned, Suarez said something that in his language/culture is not at all racist and Evra misconstrued it.

Is Suarez a racist? No.

Is Evra a liar? No.

If he indeed used the word, Suarez is guilty of perhaps not understanding the linguistic significance and historical racial connotations of the way 'negro' or 'negrito' could be construed in England/France.

Evra is guilty of misunderstanding Suarez's intentions and perhaps overreacting, and not reflecting on what the actual significance of what Suarez said was.

In my opinion anyway

There was a link posted in this thread ages back to an expert in afro latin american identity and he mentioned that the discourse on racism in latin america is extremely stunted or non existent. That would match up with what I found in Spain too. So whether they think something is racist or not, would not mean they are automatically correct.

Mr Alan · 15-12-2011 07:52PM

Pro. F wrote: »

That's all irrelevant anyway if the conversation took place in Spanish.

I agree & I probably should have been clearer on that throughout the day.

My confusion was that I genuinely have no idea what is now the acceptable term for a black man.

willmunny1990 · 15-12-2011 07:52PM

Iang87 wrote: »

you sure are and your OPINION doesn't make him guilty or make fans deluded for presuming he's not guilty

Fans are deluded because they back him up for the simple reason he plays for the club they support, same as Terry.

If Suarez were playing for United i wonder what the Liverpool faithful would say on the issue?:rolleyes:
Some fans are so bias and delusional about the players that play for their club its laughable.

Fuhrer · 15-12-2011 07:55PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

My confusion was that I genuinely have no idea what is now the acceptable term for a black man.

You thought Negro was an appropriate term for a black man?

Have you ever called a black person a negro? I mean, obviously to their face.

CSF · 15-12-2011 07:56PM

They may aswell cancel this hearing seeing as everyone from both sides seems to have to already made their mind up on whether he is guilty or not.

Mr Alan · 15-12-2011 07:58PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

You thought Negro was an appropriate term for a black man?

Have you ever called a black person a negro? I mean, obviously to their face.

Yea I thought it was the official term for their ethnicity.

I've yet to be furnished with what is the correct term, ie. the equivalent to Caucasian.

No, i've never called a black person a negro. But I've never called a white person Caucasian either so it's kinda moot.

Grayditch · 15-12-2011 07:58PM

Negrito is a fun word to say. Negriiito. Neeeeggrriiito. Fun. Phonetically I mean.

Not out loud, just in your head. Obviously.

Fuhrer · 15-12-2011 08:00PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Yea I thought it was the official term for their ethnicity.

I've yet to be furnished with what is the correct term, ie. the equivalent to Caucasian.

No, i've never called a black person a negro. But I've never called a white person Caucasian either so it's kinda moot.

Yeah, its not.

Put it this way, you met a stranger on the strange, would you have a problem addressing him as a Caucasian?

then you meet another strange, you would feel the exact same way calling him a Negro?

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

Comments