Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[mick the click]

Really poor argument in that Jamaican newspaper article.

That piece is the kind of support that hurts Suarez' cause IMO.

I'm not sure whether it's helpful to the cause or not. Just posted it because it offers a frank, if unsophisticated, view from a black journalist in a predominantly black country.

[Neil Young]

I never said the associations we might have with the word are irrelevant, just that we cannot be so arrogant as to affect changes to meanings in their language for them; our associations have no bearing on the authentic meaning, only on the perceived one.

Why like calling a black man 'boy'? There is absolutely nothing about the way the word is used (completely in line with similar expressions) that suggests this to me, what about it's usage leads you to suggest this?

You keep coming back to not blaming Evra for taking offence. Well, I can only repeat myself and say I don't blame him for taking offence, but that has no bearing on the actual meaning of what Suarez said.

Perhaps I misunderstand you but I think you're missing an element here. For me there are three things: Suarez's intended meaning, based on the associations the word has in his culture; how Evra hears it, translated or in Spanish, based on the associations in his cultural background; and the fact it was said in England, with the cultural reference points that come to bear as a result.

So Suarez didn't mean to say something racist, Evra heard (or perhaps even chose to hear) it that way and if Suarez had said it in Uruguay it wouldn't be regarded as racist, no matter what Evra might have thought. Then the onus would be on the authorities to clarify to Evra that it wasn't meant in the way he thought, i.e. to educate him to understand the culture in which it was said and that it isn't considered racist, let alone inherently racist.

But it wasn't said in Uruguay, it was said in England so the onus is on the English FA to explain to Suarez that his comments are deemed inherently racist here.

My problem with the FA is not that they have chosen to interpret the word (or its translation) according to the prevailing cultural norms here - that seems perfectly proper in my view - but that they have ignored the mitigation that follows by accepting the cultural reference points of someone from a different culture. It's an absolutist position that effectively relegates other cultures to an inferior status.

In other words, as I said earlier, "We're not racist and you are because you're a foreigner. You can't help it because you don't understand but we're still going to punish you and f*ck your cultural background."

[Shaggy]

But it wasn't said in Uruguay, it was said in England so the onus is on the English FA to explain to Suarez that his comments are deemed inherently racist here.

I don't really get this - how are the FA fit to make judgements on non-English, non-racist words and suddenly decide that they are deemed "inherently racist" in this country, even though it is not an English word and also demonstrably not racist?

[Neil Young]

Because it was said in England. Context is everything and part of the context is where it was said.

In some countries it's legal to be homophobic. Does that mean we ignore homophobic comments if they're made by someone such a country?

[Shaggy]

Because it was said in England. Context is everything and part of the context is where it was said.

In some countries it's legal to be homophobic. Does that mean we ignore homophobic comments if they're made by someone such a country?

But your latter point is black and white - homophobia is homophobia and there's no nuance there.

Suarez's remarks, in Spanish, were made in England - but they were not racist? The English seem to be deciding that because it sounds a bit like "n*gger", or a derivative, that it *should* be racist?

[Exiled_red]

Because it was said in England. Context is everything and part of the context is where it was said.

In some countries it's legal to be homophobic. Does that mean we ignore homophobic comments if they're made by someone such a country?

But equally it was part of a sentence said in Spanish, so can you not assume that the Spanish/South American context is also relavent? (Which makes it very difficult to establish the context).

[Neil Young]

But your latter point is black and white - homophobia is homophobia and there's no nuance there.

Suarez's remarks, in Spanish, were made in England - but they were not racist? The English seem to be deciding that because it sounds a bit like "n*gger", or a derivative, that it *should* be racist?

I'm sure we can think of a similarly nuanced scenario involving a homophobic remark or a sexist remark or whatever. But let's avoid that game.

I don't see the confusion here. So the word is translated, so what? A Spanish word is said in England, the direct English translation is certainly capable of being interpreted as racist (if Terry had said it, I have no doubt we'd all quickly see it that way) so it's reasonable for the FA (and everyone else here) to understand and adjudicate on it in terms of how it resonates here.

What I think is unacceptable is to blame Suarez for saying it when it means something quite different in Uruguay. That's why I think it's OK to disapprove of him using the word, to tell him not to use it again and for him to learn about what is and what is not acceptable here (since this is where he now lives and works). A ban though is unjust. As John Barnes says, ignorance (of the cultural context here) is an excuse.

[Shaggy]

The conversation was reported to have taken place in Spanish - surely that is of far more relevance than where they were when the conversation took place?

[Neil Young]

But equally it was part of a sentence said in Spanish, so can you not assume that the Spanish/South American context is also relavent? (Which makes it very difficult to establish the context).

Yes. That's why Suarez saying it is different from you or me or John Terry using the same phrase but in its English translation.

But, beyond recognising that vital point, I don't see why the English FA are expected to interpret it according to how the Uruguayan FA would.

[The_weatherman]

The conversation was reported to have taken place in Spanish - surely that is of far more relevance than where they were when the conversation took place?

It's a key point for me, english authorities can't censor a conversation in another language.

[Neil Young]

The conversation was reported to have taken place in Spanish - surely that is of far more relevance than where they were when the conversation took place?

It's all relevant. Which aspect is more relevant than another aspect is a matter of debate but certainly the law (or in this case the FA's law) surely can't be ignored or overruled entirely.

[Vermilion]

It's all relevant. Which aspect is more relevant than another aspect is a matter of debate but certainly the law (or in this case the FA's law) surely can't be ignored or overruled entirely.

It's their interperation of their law that's the problem though, imo, and they way they pick and choose how to enforce it.

[Exiled_red]

Yes. That's why Suarez saying it is different from you or me or John Terry using the same phrase but in its English translation.

But, beyond recognising that vital point, I don't see why the English FA are expected to interpret it according to how the Uruguayan FA would.

Surely recognising the Spanish/South American meaning is a huge part of understanding the situation especially as the conversation was conducted in Spanish. If the same word was used in a conversation in English then they would be entitled to believe that the intended meaning of the word was that widely accepted in English culture. As the conversation was in Spanish (by a South American) it seems reasonable to take a Spanish/South American meaning.

[Neil Young]

It's a key point for me, english authorities can't censor a conversation in another language.

Why not?

That's preposterous. So, nuances aside, authorities in England can't prosecute someone for saying something offensive if it's in a foreign language? Pah.

Laws are laws. The issue is whether there is mitigation here and there is, plenty of it.

[Exiled_red]

It's their interperation of their law that's the problem though, imo, and they way they pick and choose how to enforce it.