Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[Exiled_red]

There's something more fundamental wrong here, though. The words spoken were in Spanish and have no meaning short of assumption without translation. The goal of translation is to convey most correctly what is being connoted. If the 'direct' translation connotes something different in English than it does in the original language then it is a corruption of what was actually said, and it's that the FA appear to have made judgement on.

[Roboklopp]

[Fivex]

[kemm1]

There's something more fundamental wrong here, though. The words spoken were in Spanish and have no meaning short of assumption without translation. The goal of translation is to convey most correctly what is being connoted. If the 'direct' translation connotes something different in English than it does in the original language then it is a corruption of what was actually said, and it's that the FA appear to have made judgement on.

So the FA should not apply it's own anti-racist standards and sanctions and try to'culturally translate' what every non-native English speaker means? Would that be acceptable in any other workplace? Suarez did the crime so he must do the crime and Terry is next, whatever the motives of each person were.

[Exiled_red]

So the FA should not apply it's own anti-racist standards and sanctions and try to'culturally translate' what every non-native English speaker means? Would that be acceptable in any other workplace? Suarez did the crime so he must do the crime and Terry is next, whatever the motives of each person were.

The difference here is that what Suarez said was part of a conversation in Spanish, the word used has a different meaning in English, but to only consider the meaning in English is to mis-represent the evidence. If the same word were used in a conversation in English you could assume that the meaning was the English meaning rather than the Spanish meaning. Context or motives as you say are a huge part of these types of cases. The authorities admitted as much in the built up to the hearing.

[Red_Polo]

So the FA should not apply it's own anti-racist standards and sanctions and try to'culturally translate' what every non-native English speaker means? Would that be acceptable in any other workplace? Suarez did the crime so he must do the crime and Terry is next, whatever the motives of each person were.

You are arguing against things I have not stated. I did not say culturally translate, I'm talking about getting the language right rather than expecting to be able to draw fair conclusions from running something through babelfish.

[TheElephantMan]

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?

Neil - it's not often that I disagree with you, but if there is no equivalent word in the English language and the term used isn't racist in its language of origin then it cannot be regarded as racist.

Although Suarez perhaps didn't need to refer to Evra's colour during their discussion, it is commonplace in Uruguay and other Spanish speaking countries and he should be cut some slack (especially if there were similar terms also used by Evra). I agree that he should be made aware that it is not the norm in our country, but is it really wrong? I don't think it is or should be generally. We should be more like the Latin Americans - more comfortable with verbally acknowledging our differences without such references being used or taken offensively.

One thing I think we are all agreed about (apart from Ferguson) is that the FA ****ed this up horrendously.

[Neil Young]

I thought we were on different pages then!







There's something more fundamental wrong here, though. The words spoken were in Spanish and have no meaning short of assumption without translation. The goal of translation is to convey most correctly what is being connoted. If the 'direct' translation connotes something different in English than it does in the original language then it is a corruption of what was actually said, and it's that the FA appear to have made judgement on.

Why is that more fundamental than the right, indeed the responsibility, of the relevant authority to make a judgement on what is said, whatever the original language?

I think we entirely agree the FA's judgement is very partial (in both senses). But just because something is said in a different language it does not mean it cannot be ruled upon or that the translation is not relevant (just as the meaning and connotations in the original is also relevant).

[kemm1]

The difference here is that what Suarez said was part of a conversation in Spanish, the word used has a different meaning in English, but to only consider the meaning in English is to mis-represent the evidence. If the same word were used in a conversation in English you could assume that the meaning was the English meaning rather than the Spanish meaning. Context or motives as you say are a huge part of these types of cases. The authorities admitted as much in the built up to the hearing.

................but I still don't understand your position on the matter, plus Spanish in Uraguay is not the same as Spanish in Mexico, Cuba or Spain and 4 countries use the language in different ways.............so how deep should the FA dig or do we know that they haven't dug? Suarez plays in the English Premier League and must make and effort to understand the laws of the land. In England there is no need to address ones colour or ethnicity in a work setting especially in a combatative football context to begin with.

[kemm1]

You are arguing against things I have not stated. I did not say culturally translate, I'm talking about getting the language right rather than expecting to be able to draw fair conclusions from running something through babelfish.

OK, my apologies.................but I feel my reply is still adequate for your statement as one results in the other. I also think we're making a lot of assumptions on what the FA did or didn't do.

P.S. I generally have no time or respect for the F.A. and still don't but I'm not going to crucify them on this point.

[Neil Young]

I think it's reasonable to assume they're wrong though.

To assume otherwise would fly in the face of all available evidence in all previous matters.

[Shaggy]

In England there is no need to address ones colour or ethnicity in a work setting especially in a combatative football context to begin with.

How many times does it need to be said that the alleged word does not explicitly refer to skin colour? It can be used to refer to a person of any ethnicity or colour. Again, to me, it comes back to Brits deciding for themselves what they think it should mean...which appears somewhat intolerant.

[kemm1]

Neil - it's not often that I disagree with you, but if there is no equivalent word in the English language and the term used isn't racist in its language of origin then it cannot be regarded as racist.

Although Suarez perhaps didn't need to refer to Evra's colour during their discussion, it is commonplace in Uruguay and other Spanish speaking countries and he should be cut some slack (especially if there were similar terms also used by Evra). I agree that he should be made aware that it is not the norm in our country, but is it really wrong? I don't think it is or should be generally. We should be more like the Latin Americans - more comfortable with verbally acknowledging our differences without such references being used or taken offensively.

One thing I think we are all agreed about (apart from Ferguson) is that the FA ****ed this up horrendously.

Why should we cut him slack HE IS IN ENGLAND. When people travel and work in other countries I certainly can't use their country of origin cultural norms as an excuse for anything I have to respect local laws and traditions.

.................and yes it is wrong, this is not a movie, stand up comedy skit or political incorrect horsing around between friends of different racial or ethnic backgrounds, it was in a confrontational situation on a field of play.

[Neil Young]

How many times does it need to be said that the alleged word does not explicitly refer to skin colour? It can be used to refer to a person of any ethnicity or colour. Again, to me, it comes back to Brits deciding for themselves what they think it should mean...which appears somewhat intolerant.

It's not intolerant to do that though. It's intolerant to ignore the other meanings and interpretations.

And that cuts both ways.

[kemm1]

How many times does it need to be said that the alleged word does not explicitly refer to skin colour? It can be used to refer to a person of any ethnicity or colour. Again, to me, it comes back to Brits deciding for themselves what they think it should mean...which appears somewhat intolerant.

We're speaking on opposite sides of the argument, I see your point but I fundamentally and 100% disagree.