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

Will I Amnt · 02-01-2012 09:45PM

opr wrote: »

Sorry cambo2008 I haven't been following this thread that closely. It is on page 5 of the report point 6. How has it become clear that Evra never said the below ?

When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra spoke to Mr Suarez and said (in English) "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez replied "Por que, negro?". He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar from his upbringing in Uruguay.

Opr

Sorry,my apologies,it was the sudaca term that was rubbished.

Anyway in response to the general point of that post,do you not think Suarez would have spoke up on it??do you not think the language experts would have picked up on it??

Leiva · 02-01-2012 09:48PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

Sorry,my apologies,it was the sudaca term that was rubbished.

Anyway in response to the general point of that post,do you not think Suarez would have spoke up on it??do you not think the language experts would have picked up on it??

The whole jist I got from that link is the "language experts" the FA employeed are to be totally discredited .

That is IF and when this professors claims are verified .

Kinda all relates back to what I have been saying about inconsistent statements , which was replied to (and very well I must add) by Soul trader as been validated by the translation of the Spanish language experts .

Will I Amnt · 02-01-2012 09:49PM

Actually that's just Suarez account of what happened where it says "don't touch me South American"
I'm pretty sure I've seen that dismissed aswel somewhere.

opr · 02-01-2012 09:54PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

Sorry,my apologies,it was the sudaca term that was rubbished.

Anyway in response to the general point of that post,do you not think Suarez would have spoke up on it??do you not think the language experts would have picked up on it??

Suarez did speak up on the issue. The below is probably as much as he could put across given his limited command of English. I have seen people with very good commands of both languages find it hard to explain the way in which the terms could have been used.

He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar from his upbringing in Uruguay.

Guy from the post says he is a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. This is his take on things.

“¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation.

Opr

clubberlang12 · 02-01-2012 10:00PM

While that link could be used to benefit Suarez's claim, there isn't any credentials associated with the "professor" bar saying that he is Uruguayan and is a professor of Literature and Language in the US. He neither states his name or what his area of Literature and Language he specializes in. Is it Latin, South American, North American, European, English, etc, etc?

To be honest this holds no more credibility than any other un-verified post on an internet forum. Problem is, that there will be a few that will hold this as gospel and start referring to it.

Will I Amnt · 02-01-2012 10:01PM

opr wrote: »

Guy from the post says he is a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. This is his take on things.

Hmmmm.
Could easily be a scouser with a thesaurus

J. Marston · 02-01-2012 10:05PM

clubberlang12 wrote: »

To be honest this holds no more credibility than any other un-verified post on an internet forum. Problem is, that there will be a few that will hold this as gospel and start referring to it.

''But...but the professor said!''

menoscemo · 02-01-2012 10:06PM

opr wrote: »

Suarez did speak up on the issue. The below is probably as much as he could put across given his limited command of English. I have seen people with very good commands of both languages find it hard to explain the way in which the terms could have been used.

Guy from the post says he is a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. This is his take on things.

Opr

OPR, The report establishes that Suarez did not say 'Por que negro?' (Why Blackman?). That is just Suarez version of the events.
Evra says he said 'porque tu eres negro' (beacuse you are black) in response to Evra asking him why he kicked him. There is a big difference between asking Porque Negro? and saying Por que tu eres negro. It could be argues that the first is not offensive, but it can't be argues that the second isn't.

Evra's version is backed up by testimony from both Kuyt and Comoli who testified that Suarez told them he said 'because you are black' in response to Evra (he said it to Comoli in Spanish and Kuyt in Dutch) after the match.

If you'd read the previous few pages you'd already know this. Why can't you stop getting your info from Liverpool fan forums?

tommyhaas · 02-01-2012 10:06PM

opr wrote: »

Suarez did speak up on the issue. The below is probably as much as he could put across given his limited command of English. I have seen people with very good commands of both languages find it hard to explain the way in which the terms could have been used.

Guy from the post says he is a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. This is his take on things.

Opr

Negro could mean I love you in Uruguay, it doesn't matter because in terms of the verdict, its irrelevant. As the report said, his intentions did not have to be proven for a guilty verdict to be returned. Negro is the word he was charged with using, and negro is the word he admitted using. Any misunderstandings related to language and cultural differences are only mitigating factors, they don't have any bearing on his guilt

opr · 02-01-2012 10:21PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

Negro could mean I love you in Uruguay, it doesn't matter because in terms of the verdict, its irrelevant. As the report said, his intentions did not have to be proven for a guilty verdict to be returned. Negro is the word he was charged with using, and negro is the word he admitted using. Any misunderstandings related to language and cultural differences are only mitigating factors, they don't have any bearing on his guilt

To hell with the report. For me personally no matter how this whole circus ends what will be most important to me is what I believe in terms of what Suarez intended.

If I feel Suarez intended genuinely to be rascist towards Evra I wouldn't want him to ever pull on a Liverpool shirt again.

Opr

tommyhaas · 02-01-2012 10:25PM

opr wrote: »

To hell with the report. For me personally no matter how this whole circus ends what will be most important to me is what I believe in terms of what Suarez intended.

If I feel Suarez intended genuinely to be rascist towards Evra I wouldn't want him to ever pull on a Liverpool shirt again.

Opr

I'm not saying Suarez intended it, as I obviously don't know. My point is that given the charge, his intentions were irrelevant. His guilt didn't hinge on whether or not he intended to use a racial term, it hinged on whether or not he used a racial term, which he admitted

His intentions and understanding of the word in his culture are obviously mitigating factors, and should be considered in determining the length of the ban, but they have no bearing on whether or not he is guilty of the charge

opr · 02-01-2012 10:40PM

menoscemo wrote: »

OPR, The report establishes that Suarez did not say 'Por que negro?' (Why Blackman?). That is just Suarez version of the events.
Evra says he said 'porque tu eres negro' (beacuse you are black) in response to Evra asking him why he kicked him. There is a big difference between asking Porque Negro? and saying Por que tu eres negro. It could be argues that the first is not offensive, but it can't be argues that the second isn't.

Evra's version is backed up by testimony from both Kuyt and Comoli who testified that Suarez told them he said 'because you are black' in response to Evra (he said it to Comoli in Spanish and Kuyt in Dutch) after the match.

If you'd read the previous few pages you'd already know this. Why can't you stop getting your info from Liverpool fan forums?

I presume you mean Comolli and Dalglish when you are talking about the phase used ? Neither of which has a good command of Spanish from what I believe.

“Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.

Opr

menoscemo · 02-01-2012 10:43PM

opr wrote: »

I presume you mean Comolli and Dalglish when you are talking about the phase used ? Neither of which has a good command of Spanish from what I believe.

Opr

Nope, Kuyt testified that Suarez said the same thing to him, but in Dutch,

opr · 02-01-2012 10:47PM

menoscemo wrote: »

Nope, Kuyt testified that Suarez said the same thing to him, but in Dutch,

Ah here come on ? This is Suarez trying to make an attempt to translate something to Dutch which is so nuanced in Spanish it's taken a panel of linguistic experts to try and understand.

Opr

daithijjj · 02-01-2012 10:51PM

clubberlang12 wrote: »

While that link could be used to benefit Suarez's claim, there isn't any credentials associated with the "professor" bar saying that he is Uruguayan and is a professor of Literature and Language in the US. He neither states his name or what his area of Literature and Language he specializes in. Is it Latin, South American, North American, European, English, etc, etc?

To be honest this holds no more credibility than any other un-verified post on an internet forum. Problem is, that there will be a few that will hold this as gospel and start referring to it.

Send him a friend request on facebook and ask him, he is openly talking about it on his wall. Aldo Mazzucchelli, Assistant Professor in Hispanic Studies at Brown University, originally from Montevideo.

http://www.facebook.com/aldo.mazzucchelli?sk=wall

By the way, it isnt just one or two random people who disagree with the conclusions reached by the FA, there is a collection of both scholars and respected journalists as referenced by Jen Chang and others. Many are reaching a conclusion now that Suarez has received poor advice from his legal team, but anyway, i digress.....

Blatter · 02-01-2012 10:53PM

opr wrote: »

Good post imo.

http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showpost.php?p=6859329&postcount=1148

Opr

You know Jim Boardman is really scraping the barrel when he's retweeting random posts from forums off the internet. He's literally trying everything and anything to try and pick holes in the FA report and embarrassed himself a few times now.

Even previous Suarez sympathisers like Rory Smithof the Times accept that Suarez was guilty.

opr wrote: »

Suarez did speak up on the issue. The below is probably as much as he could put across given his limited command of English. I have seen people with very good commands of both languages find it hard to explain the way in which the terms could have been used.

Opr

Suarez testified in Spanish and was given two interpreters, one independent and one provided by Liverpool.

Turtyturd · 02-01-2012 10:56PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

I'm not saying Suarez intended it, as I obviously don't know. My point is that given the charge, his intentions were irrelevant. His guilt didn't hinge on whether or not he intended to use a racial term, it hinged on whether or not he used a racial term, which he admitted

His intentions and understanding of the word in his culture are obviously mitigating factors, and should be considered in determining the length of the ban, but they have no bearing on whether or not he is guilty of the charge

Guilty or not, taking a stance like that which lacks any degree of cultural relativism could be seen as borderline racist itself.

homerjay2005 · 02-01-2012 10:57PM

opr wrote: »

To hell with the report.

Opr

f*cking hell. 1000s of liverpool fans reacted to the judgement with "its a sham and i will wait for the report" and all this rubbish.

now that its out, your come out with you dont care about it. christ, talk about a twisted bunch of people.

menoscemo · 02-01-2012 11:00PM

opr wrote: »

Ah here come on ? This is Suarez trying to make an attempt to translate something to Dutch which is so nuanced in Spanish it's taken a panel of linguistic experts to try and understand.

Opr

He told Kuyt in Dutch that he said to evra that he kicked him becasuse he was black. Nothing to do with nuances or translations and pretty damning. It also matched Evra's and Comolis testimony in the matter. You can clutch at all the straws you want but when it's the word of 3 (2 of which you would expect to be biased against Evra) against 1, it's pretty obvious whose version of the events that the panel were going to believe.

As has been pointed out, even if the panel were to believe Suarez' version of events he still had to be found guilty and given a ban (though not as lengthy). It is the fact that the panel believe Evra's version that the ban is 8 games.

opr · 02-01-2012 11:03PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

f*cking hell. 1000s of liverpool fans reacted to the judgement with "its a sham and i will wait for the report" and all this rubbish.

now that its out, your come out with you dont care about it. christ, talk about a twisted bunch of people.

Do you ever read in context or just skim posts to try and look foolish replying to them ? If the report finds like Tommy has said they feel the use of Negro was worthy of a ban or whatever they find that is fine. Much more important to me personally is whether Suarez actually meant it in a racial way.

Opr

tommyhaas · 02-01-2012 11:14PM

Turtyturd wrote: »

Guilty or not, taking a stance like that which lacks any degree of cultural relativism could be seen as borderline racist itself.

I'm not advocating ignoring the cultural relevance. My point is that it is only a mitigating factor, he still used a term which made reference to race, hence the correct verdict is still guilty

Depending on the validity of the cultural difference's, this could and should have an enormous bearing on deciding the extent of the punishment, but regardless of any misunderstanding, Suarez still used a racial term, and given the charge, that makes him guilty

I think any argument surrounding the investigation or report should focus on the validity of the context claimed by Suarez, with the aim of providing ground's to justify a reduced, or suspended ban. But any argument surrounding the verdict is just pissing into the wind really, because he has admitted using the term negro, and that in itself proves his guilt, regardless of intention

clubberlang12 · 02-01-2012 11:16PM

opr wrote: »

Much more important to me personally is whether Suarez actually meant it in a racial way.

Opr

Trouble is, only one person knows that for sure so i doubt we'll ever find the answer to that one out. Personally i don't think he is a racist. I question some of his antic's and i think it's fairly obvious that he does try and antagonize opponents during games. Perhaps this one back-fired disasterously? I really don't know, but i do think it was extremely poor judgement to use the word he did, regardless of how he meant it.

homerjay2005 · 02-01-2012 11:36PM

opr wrote: »

Do you ever read in context or just skim posts to try and look foolish replying to them ? If the report finds like Tommy has said they feel the use of Negro was worthy of a ban or whatever they find that is fine. Much more important to me personally is whether Suarez actually meant it in a racial way.

Opr

and how do you know he didnt mean it? cos he said so? are you actually aware of what happened and why the conclusion came like that?

Will I Amnt · 03-01-2012 12:02AM

http://m.facebook.com/#!/story.php?story_fbid=2698938124695&id=1593926826&__user=1295700530
Here's a comment from that professor fella.
It's almost Sepp Blatter like in the parts where he talks about moral codes and how those comments should have stayed on the pitch.

Fuhrer · 03-01-2012 12:28AM

cambo2008 wrote: »

http://m.facebook.com/#!/story.php?story_fbid=2698938124695&id=1593926826&__user=1295700530
Here's a comment from that professor fella.
It's almost Sepp Blatter like in the parts where he talks about moral codes and how those comments should have stayed on the pitch.

So, the jist of what hes saying is that Evra is an incomprehensible swine because South America is rife with corruption...

lordgoat · 03-01-2012 12:37AM

opr wrote: »

Do you ever read in context or just skim posts to try and look foolish replying to them ? If the report finds like Tommy has said they feel the use of Negro was worthy of a ban or whatever they find that is fine. Much more important to me personally is whether Suarez actually meant it in a racial way.

Opr

No he meant it in a friendly way, you know the way that when you're having an argument and you use skin colour to diffuse the situation.

wtf?

this really is the thread that keeps giving.

opr

Will I Amnt · 03-01-2012 12:41AM

Fuhrer wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

http://m.facebook.com/#!/story.php?story_fbid=2698938124695&id=1593926826&__user=1295700530
Here's a comment from that professor fella.
It's almost Sepp Blatter like in the parts where he talks about moral codes and how those comments should have stayed on the pitch.

So, the jist of what hes saying is that Evra is an incomprehensible swine because South America is rife with corruption...

Don't forget pariah....

03-01-2012 01:04AM

lordgoat wrote: »

No he meant it in a friendly way, you know the way that when you're having an argument and you use skin colour to diffuse the situation.

wtf?

this really is the thread that keeps giving.

opr

also Kuyt never made that statement about what Suarez said to him in Dutch to the commission, because Dutch is a different language to Spanish, derp.

eigrod · 03-01-2012 01:09AM

Consistency FA style : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-443373/FA-muddle-Emre-cleared-race-taunt.html

Crazy Horse 6 · 03-01-2012 01:10AM

Liam O wrote: »

also Kuyt never made that statement about what Suarez said to him in Dutch to the commission, because Dutch is a different language to Spanish, derp.

Ive noticed a lot of posters are incapable of making a point on this forum without insulting another poster. Why the childish insults?

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

Comments