Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1161162164166167222

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 850 ✭✭✭SoulTrader


    K-9 wrote: »
    Ignorance is not a defence for a Daily Mail writer. Its a prerequisite.
    SM01 wrote: »
    It means that as they write for The Mail they've an ultra conservative right-wing agenda and they don't let simple facts (or fachts for those who are easily amused) get in the way of a inflammatory story.

    It's pretty much accepted that any of the Mail publications aren't considered in high regard by anyone with any semblance of intelligence.

    Kenny Dalglish writes a column for the Mail. You were saying?

    (sample article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1345430/Kenny-Dalglish-Fernando-Torres-relish-chance-Nemanja-Vidic-nightmare.html)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭daithijjj


    SoulTrader wrote: »
    I've re-read your post and have come to the conclusion that you have actually missed the point of the article you are backing up. I can understand what Boardman is saying from reading his complete article but, the way you have clipped it and interpreted it, shows you haven't really understood it.



    Yes, you have misunderstood. Jim Boardman takes the "Ignorance is not a justifiable defence" quote that Des Kelly once used, and then asks why Des Kelly himself tried to plead ignorance on some other article he wrote some time ago, to paint him as a hypocrite. You have hopped on the "Ignorance is not a justifiable defence" quote and used that as the basis for discrediting Kelly. That wasn't Boardman's intention, who fully accepts that "Ignorance is not a justifiable defence". Well done you!:o

    And no need to patronize me about what I read and don't read, I'm well read, thank you very much. How about understanding what you're reading before making a fool of yourself?

    I didnt mean to patronise you, and Christmas night wont be the time that i will get long winded about it. Safe to say, that if you are as well read as you claim you are, you dont need me to explain..........but i will, and i will try not to be patronising.

    As has been said, the Daily Mail has a blatant and nasty right wing agenda and frequently distorts and misrepresents facts to try and push this agenda. It picks on defenceless minorities of society, asylum seekers, refugees, the unemployed, single mothers and those living on disability benefits for example.

    But this 'rag' has a history. They started throwing their toys out their pram about immigration at a time too, when they vehemently opposed 'aliens' flooding the country. That referred at the time to Jews fleeing the terror, ostracisation and beatings of the then Third Reich and Hitler (or The Great Adolf, as Rothermere called him). Nowadays they have different but equally facile and generalised 'aliens' to make scapegoats from and the traditional values emanating from that mindset 70 odd years ago live on.

    They are the type of people who are happy to vent spleen and blame anyone different to themselves for all society's ill's rather than examine any objective truth or balanced perspective that may lie behind the simple sloganeering of an obviously hostile headline.

    It's not as trashy as the S*n, however that also makes it more accessible to a wider audience whilst at the same time appearing to be more acceptable and respectable and therefore more trustworthy than the S*n, which makes it worse.

    Des Kelly's article panders to these 'symptoms' and if you cannot see the point im making, a point that does not bring football into the equation so much but the legitimacy of Kelly as a pillar of tolerance, then i cant really add anything.

    I dont object to people bringing it into my house, i mean, the S*n doesnt 'darken' my door but the Mail?, well, its not so bad, i mean i have to put something in the dog basket that will help dry him up after i have taken him out on the strand for a couple of hours. Occasionally i can see him picking up a few tasty recipes or some fashion tips from it but apart from that?, he isnt really interested in who is shagging who!!!!

    Make no mistake, the Daily Mail is a stain on that nation it represents.

    But i realise i am preaching to the converted now, you are well read and you know what audience Kelly was putting that out to!!.

    Merry Christmas and enjoy the holidays, i do genuinely mean that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 850 ✭✭✭SoulTrader


    You know, I had actually deleted my post quite some time ago. I re-read your post and concluded that I was wrong in saying that you hadn't understood it. (Does Boards take a while to delete posts? I had checked half an hour after I deleted it and there was no response, so I'm not sure how you were able to quote it :confused:).

    Regardless, I absolutely take your point on the Daily Mail, it is a rag. If people think that I am here to defend it, then I will back out of this thread. There is a weight of opinion against Liverpool and Chelsea's actions in the press; I probably should have picked an article from a more reputable paper as an example, as people will, justifiably, dismiss anything from the Mail right out of hand.

    Happy Christmas to you too.:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭daithijjj


    SoulTrader wrote: »
    You know, I had actually deleted my post quite some time ago. I re-read your post and concluded that I was wrong in saying that you hadn't understood it. (Does Boards take a while to delete posts? I had checked half an hour after I deleted it and there was no response, so I'm not sure how you were able to quote it :confused:).

    Regardless, I absolutely take your point on the Daily Mail, it is a rag. If people think that I am here to defend it, then I will back out of this thread. There is a weight of opinion against Liverpool and Chelsea's actions in the press; I probably should have picked an article from a more reputable paper as an example, as people will, justifiably, dismiss anything from the Mail right out of hand.

    Happy Christmas to you too.:)

    Was probably me taking timeouts to speak to friends/clan in Australia and NZ, i had started the reply and it was open in tab for a while before i got around to finishing it. No worries, enjoy the Turkey.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭SM01


    SoulTrader wrote: »


    My stance on the Mail doesn't change. It's a rag and I would have nothing to do with the publication. Would you really expect an LFC supporter to like the Mail because Dalglish has a column in it?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,034 ✭✭✭✭Nalz


    Merry Christmas Mr Alan


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    You too man.

    Nice to see Daithijjj owning this thread.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    The Terry whitewash continues.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/23/john-terry-chelsea-tottenham1
    Tottenham Hotspur's Emmanuel Adebayor and Ledley King have expressed admiration for John Terry's strength of character after the Chelsea captain excelled in Thursday's draw at White Hart Lane on his first appearance since the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed he has a case to answer over an alleged racist remark directed at Queens Park Rangers' Anton Ferdinand.

    Terry was subjected to prolonged abuse from the home support during the 1-1 draw but, after a shaky start, stamped his authority on the game and conjured a fine goalline clearance in added time to deny Adebayor a winner. The Chelsea manager, André Villas-Boas, claimed afterwards that the 31-year-old had "grown in terms of performance" since the alleged incident with Ferdinand at Loftus Road on 23 October. Terry, who denies any wrongdoing, will appear at West London magistrates' court on 1 February to be formally charged, when a date will be set for trial.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    Poyet "Whatever I say is wrong", well Gus, perhaps you'll learn your lesson then and keep your gob shut.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭el dude


    Perhaps already been posted. But anyway,Tim Vickery on the World football phone-in should be essential listening for anyone that wants to look at this case with any semblance of balance and fair mindedness.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/wf


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    Liverpool fan and Times Journalist Tony Evans getting abuse from some for this article.
    I don’t know much about South American culture and slang. I do know, however, a little about the mechanics of confrontation. Even at Sunday League level, I’ve had verbal spats and faced down opposition players from Everton Valley to East Los Angeles. As a fan, I’ve exchanged insults — and worse — with rival supporters from Trafford Park to the Tiber.

    That’s just the football-related stuff. In real life, I’ve been in the middle of riots, squared up to police on picket lines and fought fascist bully-boys with bare knuckles.

    What have I learnt? Not much, but enough to know that if I’m having a row with a black man and I make a reference to his colour, he’s going to think it’s a racist slur.

    Luis Suárez, Liverpool Football Club and legions of their fans seem bewildered that the word negrito directed at a black man in the course of an argument would lead the individual concerned to assume that he had been racially abused.

    Nobody would deny that the exchange between Suárez and Patrice Evra was acrimonious. Nobody would deny that the word negrito makes reference to blackness. So where are Suárez’s grounds for defence?

    Well, the linguistic experts tell us that negrito is not a pejorative term. In fact, it appears that it is a friendly phrase in Hispanic culture. In one defence of the Liverpool striker, the writer talked of hearing a young, white woman with a dark complexion being referred to by the same term during a business transaction in Buenos Aires.

    The problem with this is that Evra is not a young white woman, nor is he Hispanic. He is a short, black Frenchman, who, from his perspective, appears to have been called something akin to “little black boy” by someone he was having a row with. Suárez, quite clearly, was not being genial. He was winding up Evra on the pitch in the heat of a Liverpool v Manchester United game. No wonder the defender felt racially abused.

    In September, a mere handful of Liverpool fans would have even heard the term negrito. Now they are experts in the semantics of Hispanic slang, describing in detail how it is a term of affection. Well, if Suárez was being affectionate to a United player during a game, the club should crack down on him. An eight-game ban? Surely that should be a sackable offence?

    There are so many words in English, French and Spanish that can be used in a quarrel that referencing colour in any way seems at best ill-advised and at worst racist. Either way it’s ****** stupid.

    Suárez may not have had any racist intent but the Hispanic subtleties were lost on Evra. They’d be lost on most in Britain.

    So this unedifying spat continues with Liverpool supporters — almost to a man — behind Suárez.

    It is embarrassing. Is it not possible for Liverpool fans to have some empathy with Evra? To see that he felt racially abused? Seemingly not in the pathetically tribal world of football, where basic decencies are thrown out the window and the “my club right or wrong” ethic prevails.

    If it were all a cultural misunderstanding, why didn’t Liverpool nip it in the bud in October? It may be me, but once the word negrito cropped up I winced. I may be culturally naive, but it sounded ugly. It would sound worse to a black man.

    The club should have put out a statement that read something like this: “Patrice Evra has alleged that Luis Suárez made racist remarks to him during the game at Anfield. Suárez denies this emphatically but has come to realise that it was easy for Evra to misunderstand the nuances of the Spanish phrase used and believe that he had been racially abused. Suárez would like to apologise unreservedly for any upset caused and make clear that he is against racism and discrimination in all its forms. It was a poor choice of words in the context but any student of South American culture will explain it has no racial overtones. In future, Liverpool Football Club will issue its players with a set of guidelines as to what is acceptable and not acceptable.”

    Effectively, just say sorry, I didn’t mean that, I feel a bit stupid now.

    Suárez is not a racist but he has been a fool. The trick is not to compound foolishness.

    Instead, Liverpool put out a statement that threw the blame back at Evra, then gave us the risible sight of Suárez warming up at the DW Stadium before the Wigan Athletic match in a T-shirt supporting himself.

    Pointing the finger at Evra is shameful. It can only harden the FA’s determination to make its point. And despite the more rabid conspiracy theorists, this is a battle that the FA would rather not have.

    This situation — along with the John Terry/Anton Ferdinand incident — has brought the game into disrepute and exposed racial fault lines in football and society that most thought had been buried forever. One look at the abuse that Stan Collymore — a former Liverpool forward — has been receiving shows that. Sadly, it looks like decency has been buried instead.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    If this whole thing is a misunderstanding then I have no idea why Suarez didnt just apoloogise like anyone would if theyd genuinely insulted somoone by mistake. Instead we get old men looking stupid in t shirts and a PR disaster for Liverpool FC.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    If that is the word used & it's in response to the derogatory term used for South American, Suarez/Liverpool are dead right to be appealing it & dead right to have questions about Evra considering, 1) as a fluent Spanish speaker he is well aware it's not a racist term 2) it's at odds with the version of events he went to the media with.

    As Rory Smith has said, all those claiming this sort of cultural difference is not any sort of excuse should keep that in mind the next time a British couple is thrown in prison for having sex on a beach in Dubai, a visiting homosexual is stoned is some Muslim country etc etc.

    Xenophobia is so much bigger a problem in English football than racism.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    flahavaj wrote: »
    If this whole thing is a misunderstanding then I have no idea why Suarez didnt just apoloogise like anyone would if theyd genuinely insulted somoone by mistake. Instead we get old men looking stupid in t shirts and a PR disaster for Liverpool FC.

    Once Liverpool unanimously backed Suarez in their very first statement(It'll be interesting to know if they had known the full facts at that stage?), it was always going to be difficult for them to alter their stance. It's ended up a PR disaster for them.

    Btw, Martin Lipton says it is his understanding from sources that Evra DID tell the referee during the game about the abuse, twice. If that turns out to be the case then it would be fair to conclude the leak about him not saying anything to the ref during the game was another ploy to damage his credibility in the eyes of the public.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    If that is the word used & it's in response to the derogatory term used for South American, Suarez/Liverpool are dead right to be appealing it & dead right to have questions about Evra considering, 1) as a fluent Spanish speaker he is well aware it's not a racist term 2) it's at odds with the version of events he went to the media with.

    As Rory Smith has said, all those claiming this sort of cultural difference is not any sort of excuse should keep that in mind the next time a British couple is thrown in prison for having sex on a beach in Dubai, a visiting homosexual is stoned is some Muslim country etc etc.

    Xenophobia is so much bigger a problem in English football than racism.

    Let's work on the assumption that you're correct and Suarez was responding to Evra referencing Suarez's origins, surely that wouldn't be a defense but only a mitigating factor? Surely he would still deserve to be charged for referencing Evra's skin colour regardless of what Evra said?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    I would think neither should be charged & both should be told to cop themselves on.

    If one was charged with abusive & insulting language & making reference to someone's race/ethnicity & got an 8 game ban, whereas the other got nothing, I'd think that absolute quite extraordinary bull****.

    They'd both have done the exact same thing, breaking the exact same rules.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,100 ✭✭✭tommyhaas


    I fully agree with everything Tony Evans said in that article
    Mr Alan wrote: »
    If that is the word used & it's in response to the derogatory term used for South American, Suarez/Liverpool are dead right to be appealing it & dead right to have questions about Evra considering, 1) as a fluent Spanish speaker he is well aware it's not a racist term 2) it's at odds with the version of events he went to the media with.

    If it were in response, it doesn't change the fact Suarez is guilty of what he has been charged with. Its a mitigating factor, that's it
    Mr Alan wrote: »
    As Rory Smith has said, all those claiming this sort of cultural difference is not any sort of excuse should keep that in mind the next time a British couple is thrown in prison for having sex on a beach in Dubai, a visiting homosexual is stoned is some Muslim country etc etc.

    I don't see a problem with the above. Its their country, their rules. If you're not prepared to comply with their law, then you're not welcome in their country. That's not to say I agree with their laws, but having been to countries like Libya, and spent time trading around the Persian Gulf, everyone knows the rules, if you're not prepared to comply, don't enter the country


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,661 ✭✭✭Fuhrer


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    If that is the word used & it's in response to the derogatory term used for South American, Suarez/Liverpool are dead right to be appealing it & dead right to have questions about Evra considering, 1) as a fluent Spanish speaker he is well aware it's not a racist term 2) it's at odds with the version of events he went to the media with.

    As Rory Smith has said, all those claiming this sort of cultural difference is not any sort of excuse should keep that in mind the next time a British couple is thrown in prison for having sex on a beach in Dubai, a visiting homosexual is stoned is some Muslim country etc etc.

    Xenophobia is so much bigger a problem in English football than racism.


    Jesus ****ing Christ

    I mean, really, Jesus ****ing Christ.


    Its truly breathtaking what you will delude yourself into believing rather then just back out and admit you were wrong at every single point.

    Suarez used a racial insult to Evra because he was pissed off at him and he was too stupid to realise what he was saying was incredibly racist.

    All this bull**** about Negrito meaning buddy/mate/pal is such laughably embarrassing rubbish that you have to wonder do some people here have mental problems. Its a racist term, same as n*gger.

    It is funny to see you desperately throw yourself from one position to another trying to find some way to defend the indefensible , the last one is my favourite. Trying to equate punishing Suarez for his Racist abuse is like stoning a homosexual to death.

    You literally have no shame, no integrity and absolutely no limit to how low you will stoop.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    Negrito is not now, nor has it ever been, a racial insult.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    If that is the word used & it's in response to the derogatory term used for South American, Suarez/Liverpool are dead right to be appealing it & dead right to have questions about Evra considering, 1) as a fluent Spanish speaker he is well aware it's not a racist term 2) it's at odds with the version of events he went to the media with.

    As Rory Smith has said, all those claiming this sort of cultural difference is not any sort of excuse should keep that in mind the next time a British couple is thrown in prison for having sex on a beach in Dubai, a visiting homosexual is stoned is some Muslim country etc etc.

    Xenophobia is so much bigger a problem in English football than racism.

    How can it be "in response" to what Evra said when Suarez says he ever heard that part?

    As for the rest o that post, Jesus wept.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,661 ✭✭✭Fuhrer


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    Negrito is not now, nor has it ever been, a racial insult.



    You would say anything at all, anything at all, to avoid ever admitting you were wrong.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    I would think neither should be charged & both should be told to cop themselves on.

    If one was charged with abusive & insulting language & making reference to someone's race/ethnicity & got an 8 game ban, whereas the other got nothing, I'd think that absolute quite extraordinary bull****.

    They'd both have done the exact same thing, breaking the exact same rules.

    And what will you say if The FA's report comes back and there is no evidence of Evra making any ethical reference towards Suarez?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    Negrito is not now, nor has it ever been, a racial insult.

    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... 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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    Negrito is not now, nor has it ever been, a racial insult.
    Not everyone would agree with you on that
    http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/7453/9/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    Blatter wrote: »
    Let's work on the assumption that you're correct and Suarez was responding to Evra referencing Suarez's origins, surely that wouldn't be a defense but only a mitigating factor? Surely he would still deserve to be charged for referencing Evra's skin colour regardless of what Evra said?

    I thought Suarez never heard wha Evra said anyway or am I mistaken?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    cambo2008 wrote: »
    Not everyone would agree with you on that
    http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/7453/9/

    Doesnt really prove anything as again it was the visiting foreigners who took offence to a word used in every day life in South America. Which is kind of my point.
    flahavaj wrote: »
    I thought Suarez never heard wha Evra said anyway or am I mistaken?

    There was a few different instances when Evra abused him apparently.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    flahavaj wrote: »
    I thought Suarez never heard wha Evra said anyway or am I mistaken?

    According to Liverpool's statement, that is correct.

    However, Mr Alan claims they were two separate incidents. One where Evra admitted to abusing Suarez but Suarez didn't hear it and another when apparently Suarez did hear abuse referring to his ethnicity and responded in kind to it.

    It's a scenario that he's conveniently created in his head rather than assuming it based on logic. The FA's report will thankfully clear it up one way or another.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,661 ✭✭✭Fuhrer


    Mr Alan wrote: »


    There was a few different instances when Evra abused him apparently.


    Apparently when?

    In what statement or report?

    Which credible newspaper has written about it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    Fuhrer wrote: »
    Apparently when?

    In what statement or report?

    Which credible newspaper has written about it?

    Telegraph.

    As Blatter has said, the findings being released will clear up the chronology of events.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,661 ✭✭✭Fuhrer


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    Telegraph.

    As Blatter has said, the findings being released will clear up the chronology of events.



    Link me to the article where it said that Evra abused Suarez multiple times.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement