Evra v Suárez

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Evra v Suárez

it does make you wonder about how the linguistic legacy of the various historical empires has affected thinking about racism in different parts of the world. what follows is speculative and i would welcome correction, but i guess the three european languages that are most spoken by black people around the world today would be english, french and portuguese.

Irish country people of a certain age refer to going balubas or being balubas drunk. With reference to an african tribe encountered by the irish troops in the congo in the sixties. There are quite a few other archaic words from empire that you come across from time to time. Usually equating a foreign group of people with madness, long after people have forgotten that the word came from somewhere.

But nefertiti, lets accept for a moment that the whole of south america is a big sprawling continent, where it acceptable to call your friend "my nigga" without reference to his actual heritage. (in the way that irish people will refer to a group of women as lads, or people on these islands cheerfully refer to men as cunts)

The point is that if you aren't that person's friend, and you are on the wind up, the -a switches to -er. and luis suarez had just kicked patrice evra in the knee cap, and tried to get him booked for simulation.

He was driving evra crazy by patting him on the head, and hissing things through his teeth. To claim that in the midst of this maelstrom of provocation that he was acting innocently is a bit bizarre to say the say the least.

If suarez has admitted to using the word negrito to someone who is not his friend, (as seems to be the case) then he is bang to rights for using an aggressive phrase making reference to a players ethnic background. That "negrito" is vastly more offensive in the UK than in south america doesn't really start to enter into it, it seems to be one of those things where intent isn't very important.

It's a five game ban minimum btw for using that sort of language. So god alone knows what is going to happen to john Terry.

[evilC]

Evra v Suárez

The Awesome Berbaslug!!! wrote:

It's a five game ban minimum btw for using that sort of language. So god alone knows what is going to happen to john Terry.

All the more time to spend in motorway service stations, flogging illicit tours of Stamford Bridge, I suppose.

[XXXXXX]

Evra v Suárez

I wonder if Hernandez has ever referred to Evra as Negrito ? " Me gustó mucho el gol del Negrito (Omar Esparza)

[Nefertiti2]

Evra v Suárez

So are we going to ban all players for winding up other players? Just players who use epithets that might have a racist connotation to wind up other players? Or just people who wind up Manchester United players.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Evra v Suárez

I wonder if Hernandez has ever referred to Evra as Negrito ? " Me gustó mucho el gol del Negrito (Omar Esparza)

probably not in a way that would provoke a negative reaction from patrice evra. I'd say that carlos tevez may have referred to him thus, but evra and tevez were bffs.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Evra v Suárez

Just players who use epithets that might have a racist connotation to wind up other players?

this.

[Guest]

Evra v Suárez

Is there proof of what Suárez said? Did someone else hear it? How can the FA charge him without proof? Seems odd. Though Suárez could have done without Poyets comments today.Seems to suggest he may have said something but that would have been acceptable in South America!

www.resultsbasedbusiness.co.uk

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Evra v Suárez

From what suarez said to the uruguayan media, it would seem that he has admitted to using the term negrito, with a big but at the end.

[EIM]

Evra v Suárez

chriskara wrote:

Is there proof of what Suárez said? Did someone else hear it? How can the FA charge him without proof? Seems odd. Though Suárez could have done without Poyets comments today.Seems to suggest he may have said something but that would have been acceptable in South America!

www.resultsbasedbusiness.co.uk

Something else seems odd here...

[Fussbudget]

Evra v Suárez

It all looks perfectly normal to me.

www.casualurldropping.com

[Ray de Galles]

Evra v Suárez

Nefertiti2 wrote:

So are we going to ban all players for winding up other players? Just players who use epithets that might have a racist connotation to wind up other players? Or just people who wind up Manchester United players.

Oh yeah, that's it. Because it's only Man U supporters who have been concerned about Suarez's alleged actions here.

[dalliance]

Evra v Suárez

A broader point here is our tendency to expect the world of football with its vastly different cultural norms to conform to what we define as the correct standards of behaviour, with any dissenting view crushed as a result.

Now I do feel that our more stringent views on racism are spot on and if the rest of the world doesn't agree then the rest of the world is wrong. From what I am reading today, unfortunately the rest of the world has done little more than mention this in passing with nothing of the storm of controversy we have here. Blatter answers equally in principle to every footballing nation on earth, it's pretty naive to think that he will resign when he is probably much more alligned in outlook to the world's views on such matters than we are.

We've done the poppy stuff to death and I think there was a general feeling here how particularly unreasonable the British were about this. Another gaffe attributed to Blatter and used in the prosecution's case against him was his comments on the John Terry and Wayne Bridge business. He came out and said that in other cultures Terry would be applauded for what he did, this causing more howls of protest here.

He's actually right though, in other cultures what Terry did WOULD be seen as a cool thing, christ, Berlusconi stayed in office longer than any other post-war Italian Prime Minister pretty much solely by appealing to the male population who thought he was one of them because he liked to put it about a bit with nice looking women. Blatter's comments were not even necessarily a validation of the view, just a correct statement of fact.

A deeper look at the Terry situation shows how selective the reporting is anyway. Players shag about all the time without all that much negative comment, many of their conquests will be married women too, so why was the Terry one so different just because they had been teammates? I believe if I remember correctly Bridge and the woman were separated anyway when it was alleged to have happened.

There's something about our country now where we are in a state of perpetual high dudgeon about any sort of perceived offence or slight. This victim mentality we have is quite horrid, it's one of the elements about Liverpool I truly disliked during my time there, the people there were always ready to be offended en masse by the slightest criticism. The Scots are guilty of this too I must admit. Now it seems to be a national pasttime.

Or is the Daily Mail just extremely effective at brainwashing the country into a general outlook of cultural colonialism?

[evilC]

Evra v Suárez

Maybe we're gearing up for U.S.-style 'litigation culture'?

Anyway... I kind of hate to refer to an article by a Telegraph journalist, but Jim White has a point here regarding the censorship of Blatter-criticism. However, that shouldn't distract us from his current misdemeanours.

[Jimmy Bignutz]

Evra v Suárez

Vernons Pools wrote:

Me gustó mucho el gol del Negrito

[Jimmy Bignutz]

Evra v Suárez

Sheriff John Stone wrote:

chriskara wrote:

Is there proof of what Suárez said? Did someone else hear it? How can the FA charge him without proof? Seems odd. Though Suárez could have done without Poyets comments today.Seems to suggest he may have said something but that would have been acceptable in South America!

www.resultsbasedbusiness.co.uk

Something else seems odd here...

Chris Kamara's lost his Ma

[Nefertiti2]

Evra v Suárez

Jimmy Bignutz wrote:

Chris Kamara's lost his Ma

Applause

[Amor de Cosmos]

Evra v Suárez

The difference between private and public comments/discussions might have validated Nef's argument once but can it these days? When almost everyone carries a smartphone and TV has multiple cameras at every Prem match can anything that happens on the pitch be said to be private? Players have to be aware that their every twitch, glance, and sound they utter is subject to scrutiny. It really isn't between two people anymore but millions.

[Nefertiti2]

Evra v Suárez

Fair enough we now accept that everything said on the pitch is now public speech and on the record.

Some for me still unanswered questions

Is negrito racist?

A moot point- Not always. But following Berbaslug's argument if it's said to upset, a relatively mild epithet becomes on a par with the worst of racist abuses. I don't buy that myself

Should Suarez expected to understand these nuances of what does and does not constitute racist abuse after three months in England?

Why is that kind of interchange between grown men is qualitatively different from asking (say) David Beckham if Posh takes it up the arse?

Rio Ferdinand (who of course has a dog in this fight) has commented

on twitter

Gus Poyet......drop me out....what age are we living in here?! Some pre historic talk I'm hearing.

Blatter of course has got the PR spin correct - he deeply regrets what he said and is "still hurting". But he "cannot resign" as to leave would be "unfair".

[Bored Of Education]

Evra v Suárez

Just players who use epithets that might have a racist connotation to wind up other players?

this.

Double this. I can't believe we are still at the point of making this absolutely plain

Fair enough we now accept that everything said on the pitch is now public speech and on the record.

Of course except it isn't 'now' thing for a lot of us.

[Nefertiti2]

Evra v Suárez

Bored of Education wrote:

Just players who use epithets that might have a racist connotation to wind up other players?

this.

Double this. I can't believe we are still at the point of making this absolutely plain

Fair enough we now accept that everything said on the pitch is now public speech and on the record.

Of course except it isn't 'now' thing for a lot of us.

It isn't absolutely plain-or not to me anyway. Where do you draw that line? Curly hair? that could be interpreted as racist. It's a serious question. Why is it worse to say negrito to a grown man than to ask him if his wife takes it up the arse?

I think there is a problem if you permit every other form of abuse and sledging on the pitch and demand the mildest form of abuse a five match ban because it is deemed (by the offended party) to have a racial element. Then stop abuse of all kinds. If you think that's the way to go.

[Bored Of Education]

Evra v Suárez

dalliance, I am so amazed by your post that I am thinking that someone else has found out your password.

What Terry did being OK in other countries and not here doesn't mean that we are particularly prone to high dudgeon. Similarly, our reaction to Blatter and the Evra/Suarez case being more than that in Europe doesn't make us more prone to high dudgeon.

Capital punishment is more acceptable in many countries than here, seal-clubbing is more acceptable in other countries than here and discrimination against the Roma is more acceptable in other countries than here but none of these means that those actions are morally acceptable or that we are more prone to high dudgeon in feeling that they are.

I don't really see how this part of debate has carried on so far. If you believe that racist actions and language is wrong, surely it follows that you believe that racist actions and language is wrong universally. Of course, you can perhaps understand why, in certain contexts, racism is more prevalent but that doesn't mean you accept that.

Poyet's remarks - the bits about long noses etc - are particularly vile

[Nefertiti2]

Evra v Suárez

Bored of Education wrote:

dalliance, I am so amazed by your post that I am thinking that someone else has found out your password.

What Terry did being OK in other countries and not here doesn't mean that we are particularly prone to high dudgeon. Similarly, our reaction to Blatter and the Evra/Suarez case being more than that in Europe doesn't make us more prone to high dudgeon.

Capital punishment is more acceptable in many countries than here, seal-clubbing is more acceptable in other countries than here and discrimination against the Roma is more acceptable in other countries than here but none of these means that those actions are morally acceptable or that we are more prone to high dudgeon in feeling that they are.

I don't really see how this part of debate has carried on so far. If you believe that racist actions and language is wrong, surely it follows that you believe that racist actions and language is wrong universally. Of course, you can perhaps understand why, in certain contexts, racism is more prevalent but that doesn't mean you accept that.

Poyet's remarks - the bits about long noses etc - are particularly vile

I actually find this conviction of British moral superiority over everyone else to be pretty objectionable and triumphalist. The reaction to Blatter and the Evra/Suarez case is a prime example of British high dudgeon. Moral panic - egged on by the tabloids is something this country excels at.

Furthermore I dont think it's as easy as you would like to make a clear definition of racist actions and language, as the current case shows- and it's already been established that intention and reception are major factors.

I haven't been able to find Poyet's remarks about long noses. I'm not sure if this is your rhetorical flourish. If he did say something of relevance perhaps you could point me to it.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Evra v Suárez

I actually find this conviction of British moral superiority over everyone else to be pretty objectionable and triumphalist. The reaction to Blatter and the Evra/Suarez case is a prime example of British high dudgeon.

I'm not british. and the evra suarez case is an example of a black frenchman taking offence at something a uruguayan said, and complaining about it on french television. it then becomes a major issue because the two players involved play for two of the biggest clubs in the world. This is a legitimately enormous story.

sepp blatter on the other hand, seems to have a worldview that sets him entirely at odds with the policies adopted by his own organization. He seems to think that racial epithets should be left on the pitch, a) because they ruin the name of football and b) the 2010 world cup solved racism. His organization on the other hand thinks they're an automatic five match ban.

The problem here is that these same standards are supposed to apply throughout all football, and the failure of other footballing cultures to act in accordance with fifa policy isn't really the fault of the british.

[Bored Of Education]

Evra v Suárez

I actually find this conviction of British moral superiority over everyone else to be pretty objectionable and triumphalist.

I wasn't saying that the British were morally superior, I was saying that other countries that didn't find racism as offensive aren't examples to hold up morally. As far as I know, there are plenty of other countries that find racism, adultery, etc morally unacceptable

Actually, I give up. You are missing the point so spectacularly that you are either on a wind-up or unbelievably naive.

[The Bean Counter]

Evra v Suárez

Don't quite get Suarez's defence, frankly. He's more or less admitted to using the word negrito which as I understand is a reference to skin colour, and his defence is that it is used as a friendly term, between friends. but it is blindingly obvious from the context that he was not being friendly. If he really had no idea of how offensive it might possibly be, he is either incredibly naive or simply deluded. Which is not to say that I think Suarez is racist, because I don't. Rather that he's the kind of player who would call his own mother a whore if it might get an opponent booked.