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

Fuhrer · 03-01-2012 01:13AM

eigrod wrote: »

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

I dont know how many times you have to be told this but Suarez admitted to saying it, he denied it.

No inconsistency, just you're inability to comprehend the basics.

Will I Amnt · 03-01-2012 01:13AM

eigrod wrote: »

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

Did Emre admit to saying Negro.
I think not,there lies the difference.

clubberlang12 · 03-01-2012 01:29AM

http://m.facebook.com/#!/story.php?story_fbid=2698938124695&id=1593926826&__user=1295700530

Having read a couple of his posts on his facebook page, i can see that he has some very valid points with regard the social and cultural translation of what Suarez may have said. However, i think it is also fairly obvious that he is fairly biased from reading this. Firstly, of course being a Uruguay, he would carry a patriotic attachment to Suarez, who is of course a very integral part of the national team. I personally don't see much wrong in this at it is an emotion most of us would attach to in a similar scenario. Another prevailing sentiment i seem to see is that of a dislike, for want of a better word, of forms of authority.

"The Argentine, unlike the Americans of the North and almost all Europeans, does not identify with the State. This is attributable to the circumstance that the governments in this country tend to be awful, or to the general fact that the State is an inconceivable abstraction. One thing is certain: the Argentine is an individual, not a citizen.

It's almost as if there is a stigma embedded in their culture that to go to the authorities at the cost of one of the community makes you some low level form of life regardless of the actions of the offender.

I don't understand why Evra did what he did; I do not understand how come he suddenly became so hatred towards a fellow player --especially since Suarez does not seem to have done anything outside what could be consider normal exchanges in any football match --some winding up, some insulting, etc. For us South Americans, football is a GAME, not a High Morals public school or something like that. You need to keep things that happen in the field confined to that dimension, because football IS A GAME.

For me he fails to grasp the concept that football is not a separate reality to the world outside and that it is a functioning part of society, much as an everyday job is to a normal person. One cannot go into work and make racist or sexual remarks against a colleague and in return say "but sure it was at work, what happens at works, stays at work". This is a completely absurd way of thinking. I wonder if he would have the same opinion if one of his students labelled him with a racist remark in the classroom?

It is not that we don't see football as an important thing, but (maybe because we have always had much bigger problems than that to cope with) we just cannot understand when somebody crosses the line and makes what was clearly a normal discussion within the limits of the game, occasion for a public lynching of a colleague. Justice is not being served there because the whole thing is completely out of proportion.

His description of Evra is even more damning, comparing him to a "pariah" and a "incomprehensible swine". Really? For what? Standing against what he felt was a racist remark. Come on. This is not Louisiana in the 1960's. Get a grip.

Will I Amnt · 03-01-2012 01:34AM

clubberlang12 wrote: »

http://m.facebook.com/#!/story.php?story_fbid=2698938124695&id=1593926826&__user=1295700530

Having read a couple of his posts on his facebook page, i can see that he has some very valid points with regard the social and cultural translation of what Suarez may have said. However, i think it is also fairly obvious that he is fairly biased from reading this. Firstly, of course being a Uruguay, he would carry a patriotic attachment to Suarez, who is of course a very integral part of the national team. I personally don't see much wrong in this at it is an emotion most of us would attach to in a similar scenario. Another prevailing sentiment i seem to see is that of a dislike, for want of a better word, of forms of authority.

"The Argentine, unlike the Americans of the North and almost all Europeans, does not identify with the State. This is attributable to the circumstance that the governments in this country tend to be awful, or to the general fact that the State is an inconceivable abstraction. One thing is certain: the Argentine is an individual, not a citizen.

It's almost as if there is a stigma embedded in their culture that to go to the authorities at the cost of one of the community makes you some low level form of life regardless of the actions of the offender.

I don't understand why Evra did what he did; I do not understand how come he suddenly became so hatred towards a fellow player --especially since Suarez does not seem to have done anything outside what could be consider normal exchanges in any football match --some winding up, some insulting, etc. For us South Americans, football is a GAME, not a High Morals public school or something like that. You need to keep things that happen in the field confined to that dimension, because football IS A GAME.

For me he fails to grasp the concept that football is not a separate reality to the world outside and that it is a functioning part of society, much as an everyday job is to a normal person. One cannot go into work and make racist or sexual remarks against a colleague and in return say "but sure it was at work, what happens at works, stays at work". This is a completely absurd way of thinking. I wonder if he would have the same opinion if one of his students labelled him with a racist remark in the classroom?

It is not that we don't see football as an important thing, but (maybe because we have always had much bigger problems than that to cope with) we just cannot understand when somebody crosses the line and makes what was clearly a normal discussion within the limits of the game, occasion for a public lynching of a colleague. Justice is not being served there because the whole thing is completely out of proportion.

His description of Evra is even more damning, comparing him to a "pariah" and a "incomprehensible swine". Really? For what? Standing against what he felt was a racist remark. Come on. This is not Louisiana in the 1960's. Get a grip.

Cheers,I wanted to quote them very paragraphs

Copy and paste doesn't work on Facebook for iPhone.

cloptrop · 03-01-2012 02:34AM

forget what he meant what he didnt
why do people still think he should be allowed live in the uk and follow the laws of uraguay
if i was in saudi arabia i wouldnt go getting drunk and streaking at football matches then expecting a 50 quid fine and a warning
be grown up here and realise he did wrong , he needs to repect the laws of the country

Blatter · 03-01-2012 03:58AM

opr wrote: »

Good post imo.

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

Opr

The whole premise of that post is based on the fact Suarez could not have said “tu eres” negro because if you were from Montevideano you would say “vos sos negro”.

Now, look at paragraph 181 of the FA's report:

Originally posted by The FA Report

The experts noted that the use of the verb form "porque tu eres negro" is not the most usual form for Montevidean Spanish, since the form of the verb "ser" most commonly used would be the "vos" form, that is "porque (vos) sos negro". Nevertheless, a small percentage of people from Montevideo do use the "tu" form (in contrast to Buenos Aires, where it is rarely used) or even a mixture of both. In the interview with Mr Suarez the transcription indicated to the experts that he uses the "tu" form of the verb, though there are other filmed interviews published on the internet in which he uses the "vos" form of the verb. Given that he has spent some considerable time in Europe it is possible that his use of Spanish alters between Uruguayan and European contexts. It is also possible that Mr Evra, who may have learned his Spanish in Spain, where the "vos" form is not used, may, when recalling the incident in interview, have rendered Mr Suarez’s usage as the "tu" form, even if Mr Suarez used the "vos" form.

And paragraph 196 states that Suarez accepted the findings of the experts:

Originally posted by The FA Report

It is important to note that both the FA and Mr Suarez agreed the contents of the experts'
report. Neither required the experts to attend the hearing for cross-examination.

Well, that's that cleared up then. That pretty much renders that guy's post, (that has spread some way through twitter, even in the form of articles!), entirely invalid.

El Inho · 03-01-2012 04:53AM

Fuhrer wrote: »

I dont know how many times you have to be told this but Suarez admitted to saying it, he denied it.

No inconsistency, just you're inability to comprehend the basics.

to be fair...Howard suffers from tourettes so he's not much of a witness

:P

J. Marston · 03-01-2012 05:02AM

Just for arguments sake, what is the difference between ''tu'' and ''vos''?

03-01-2012 05:10AM

J. Marston wrote: »

Just for arguments sake, what is the difference between ''tu'' and ''vos''?

well I'd say vos is the plural version of you and would be used in more of a formal context. Going by my knowledge of Vous and tu in French anyway, can't see it being too different.

thebullkf · 03-01-2012 08:38AM

.....

The following is written by award-winning Professor in Hispanic Studies at Brown University, Aldo Mazzucchelli.

I will first quote the FA document on the key point:

“90. Mr Evra’s evidence was that, in response to his question “Why did you kick me?”, Mr Suarez replied “Porque tu eres negro”. Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean “Because you are a ******”. He now says that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean “Because you are black”.”
I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn’t use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

thebullkf · 03-01-2012 08:39AM

http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/01/professor-in-hispanic-studies-dissects-the-fas-suarez-report/

And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:

“141. Mr Suarez’s version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him “Don’t touch me, South American”. Mr Suarez had said “Por que negro?”. Mr Suarez told Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said.”
What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words.

The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:

“284 (…) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said “you are South American” to Mr Suarez who responded with “Tues Negro” which translates as “you are black”.”
It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.

In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.

Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.

Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the “negro” word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿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. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.

Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:

1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used –even though they grounded the verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
3) They believe the word “negro” cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion–which means they don’t really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.
A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.

Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the “wild animals” South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey’s famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.

Blatter · 03-01-2012 08:42AM

thebullkf wrote: »

http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/01...suarez-report/

That professor is wrong, and it is shown in my last post prior to this one as to why.

In short, this is a summary of what he was trying to claim(shamelessly stolen from the Caf:p)

03-01-2012 08:44AM

I love how his conclusion is that Evra made it all up :rolleyes:

JimsAlterEgo · 03-01-2012 09:46AM

So have Liverpool apologized to Evra yet for their despicable behavior in this? Given the evidence that has come out regarding KK (lets add another K I think), Kuyt and Comoli their stance since the start has been despicable and surely they must be close to a charge themselves for bringing the game into disrepute. I wouldn't be surprised when the Suarez saga ends that this happens. Their stance sends out the wrong message.

thebullkf · 03-01-2012 09:53AM

Blatter wrote: »

That professor is wrong, and it is shown in my last post prior to this one as to why.

In short, this is a summary of what he was trying to claim(shamelessly stolen from the Caf:p)

Sorry Blatter.... Didn't see it, had posted it in pool thread earlier:o

thebullkf · 03-01-2012 09:58AM

Blatter wrote: »

The whole premise of that post is based on the fact Suarez could not have said “tu eres” negro because if you were from Montevideano you would say “vos sos negro”.

Now, look at paragraph 181 of the FA's report:

It is also possible that Mr Evra, who may have learned his Spanish in Spain, where the "vos" form is not used, may, when recalling the incident in interview, have rendered Mr Suarez’s usage as the "tu" form, even if Mr Suarez used the "vos" form.

And paragraph 196 states that Suarez accepted the findings of the experts:

Well, that's that cleared up then. That pretty much renders that guy's post, (that has spread some way through twitter, even in the form of articles!), entirely invalid.

is this not contadictory

thebullkf · 03-01-2012 10:05AM

eh this is the racism thread...

so even if i quote a post you can still delete it ?? or just mods

ninja edit..!

Jesus Wept · 03-01-2012 10:10AM

thebullkf wrote: »

eh this is the racism thread...

so even if i quote a post you can still delete it ?? or just mods

ninja edit..!

Nah, I must have deleted just as you were quoting, my deletion wouldn't delete your quotation!

Nothing to see here. :cool::P

niallo27 · 03-01-2012 10:15AM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

So have Liverpool apologized to Evra yet for their despicable behavior in this? Given the evidence that has come out regarding KK (lets add another K I think), Kuyt and Comoli their stance since the start has been despicable and surely they must be close to a charge themselves for bringing the game into disrepute. I wouldn't be surprised when the Suarez saga ends that this happens. Their stance sends out the wrong message.

You could not give a flying horses bollox about racism, you just want to have a dig at Kenny and liverpool.

JimsAlterEgo · 03-01-2012 10:17AM

niallo27 wrote: »

You could not give a flying horses bollox about racism, you just want to have a dig at Kenny and liverpool.

Good man, attack the poster.

They have done enough themselves, can I ask what your opinion is now? Are you still maintaining innocence?

Jesus Wept · 03-01-2012 10:22AM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

So have Liverpool apologized to Evra yet for their despicable behavior in this? Given the evidence that has come out regarding KK (lets add another K I think), Kuyt and Comoli their stance since the start has been despicable and surely they must be close to a charge themselves for bringing the game into disrepute. I wouldn't be surprised when the Suarez saga ends that this happens. Their stance sends out the wrong message.

Pretty sure that insinuating that somebody is a member of the Klan is probably against the rules also.
You aren't attempting to have any real credible discussion when you are slipping glib sh1te like that the middle of your posts.

SlickRic · 03-01-2012 10:23AM

well, just back after a few days, and it's not good news.

Liverpool fans are in denial if they still believe our club is being picked on, and that Evra is still making shít up, or is using weird forms of Spanish as a reason to get wound up.

Suarez was in the wrong.

Liverpool were in the wrong to defend their player the way they did. i believe any club would've defended their player, but the manner of our full-on, cringeworthy, pro-Suarez instead of anti-racism t-shirt, coupled with public attempt to undermine Evra's character, i believe just because it was Utd, was very small-time.

it was a PR disaster, and we should've laid low until the facts got out, rather than assuming Suarez would never say something like that. he always could in an atmosphere like that especially.

so so unfortunate, and Liverpool FC, and it's fans, should just accept that the club was wrong and move on.

i still don't appreciate those rival fans who choose to call the club and its fans vile, despicable, and every other name under the sun. we believed there was something more to it in Suarez's defence because we support our club. some will continue to do so out of extreme loyalty. there'd be some on rival sides who would do the exact same thing.

also, our club has just been royally stupid rather than evil. it could take a long time to get any credibility back.

we should now accept the ban and move on.

we scored more goals without him in the team against Newcastle than we did in our previous few put together anyway :pac:

JimsAlterEgo · 03-01-2012 10:37AM

SlickRic wrote: »

well, just back after a few days, and it's not good news.

Liverpool fans are in denial if they still believe our club is being picked on, and that Evra is still making shít up, or is using weird forms of Spanish as a reason to get wound up.

Suarez was in the wrong.

Liverpool were in the wrong to defend their player the way they did. i believe any club would've defended their player, but the manner of our full-on, cringeworthy, pro-Suarez instead of anti-racism t-shirt, coupled with public attempt to undermine Evra's character, i believe just because it was Utd, was very small-time.

it was a PR disaster, and we should've laid low until the facts got out, rather than assuming Suarez would never say something like that. he always could in an atmosphere like that especially.

so so unfortunate, and Liverpool FC, and it's fans, should just accept that the club was wrong and move on.

i still don't appreciate those rival fans who choose to call the club and its fans vile, despicable, and every other name under the sun. we believed there was something more to it in Suarez's defence because we support our club. some will continue to do so out of extreme loyalty. there'd be some on rival sides who would do the exact same thing.

also, our club has just been royally stupid rather than evil. it could take a long time to get any credibility back.

we should now accept the ban and move on.

we scored more goals without him in the team against Newcastle than we did in our previous few put together anyway :pac:

Well said Slick. I think what has gotten under may skin is that Liverpool had the facts at their disposal so were not blindly supporting him

niallo27 · 03-01-2012 10:49AM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

Good man, attack the poster.

They have done enough themselves, can I ask what your opinion is now? Are you still maintaining innocence?

I feel the ban was a bit harsh but yes suarez was stupid in what he said and he deserves a ban. I just dont think yourself and a lot of other posters on here actually are all that bothered about racism in football and are using it to have a dig at Liverpool football club.

JimsAlterEgo · 03-01-2012 10:53AM

niallo27 wrote: »

I feel the ban was a bit harsh but yes suarez was stupid in what he said and he deserves a ban. I just dont think yourself and a lot of other posters on here actually are all that bothered about racism in football and are using it to have a dig at Liverppol football club.

or maybe we think Liverpools attitude towards this racism row is inexcusable

niallo27 · 03-01-2012 11:02AM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

or maybe we think Liverpools attitude towards this racism row is inexcusable

Well the amount of jokes and pictures that have being posted on this forum, it doesnt seem people are taking it all that serious.

Will I Amnt · 03-01-2012 11:15AM

niallo27 wrote: »

I just dont think yourself and a lot of other posters on here actually are all that bothered about racism in football and are using it to have a dig at Liverpool football club.

There definitely is a few that are using this for digs,only a small minority imo.
Sure are you really that concerned that Giggs was riding his brothers missus??That was a dig was it not??

The incident aside,I think most people are fairly pissed off with the way Liverpool FC handled it.
United fans are justified in their outrage over the blame game tactics used on Evra.

This thread would probably die out quick enough if people didn't come along with these new revelations that somehow everybody else missed in the report or providing links that try and clear his name on a misunderstanding.

JimsAlterEgo · 03-01-2012 11:28AM

can the ban be increased on appeal? Or does that only apply to frivolous red card appeals?

Handsome Bob · 03-01-2012 11:29AM

SlickRic wrote: »

well, just back after a few days, and it's not good news.

Liverpool fans are in denial if they still believe our club is being picked on, and that Evra is still making shít up, or is using weird forms of Spanish as a reason to get wound up.

Suarez was in the wrong.

Liverpool were in the wrong to defend their player the way they did. i believe any club would've defended their player, but the manner of our full-on, cringeworthy, pro-Suarez instead of anti-racism t-shirt, coupled with public attempt to undermine Evra's character, i believe just because it was Utd, was very small-time.

it was a PR disaster, and we should've laid low until the facts got out, rather than assuming Suarez would never say something like that. he always could in an atmosphere like that especially.

so so unfortunate, and Liverpool FC, and it's fans, should just accept that the club was wrong and move on.

i still don't appreciate those rival fans who choose to call the club and its fans vile, despicable, and every other name under the sun. we believed there was something more to it in Suarez's defence because we support our club. some will continue to do so out of extreme loyalty. there'd be some on rival sides who would do the exact same thing.

also, our club has just been royally stupid rather than evil. it could take a long time to get any credibility back.

we should now accept the ban and move on.

we scored more goals without him in the team against Newcastle than we did in our previous few put together anyway :pac:

Do you know what the funny thing about your post is Slick, it's the Man U fans that you referred to that are thanking it.

I agree with your post anyway, but not with your final comment, have some respect. :pac:

JimsAlterEgo · 03-01-2012 11:33AM

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Do you know what the funny thing about your post is Slick, it's the Man U fans that you referred to that are thanking it.

from my point of view its nice to see a Liverpool fan show some impartiality to the situation.

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

Comments