Well written, so won't get any response.
Shame

Please note Suarez has been charge with Racially Abusing an Opponent."

No mention of racism or racist in there and that's for a very good reason!!!

Pretty much agree with all that

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

That's all quite clear. The two significant questions in all this remain:

Is it OK to racially abuse someone?
Did Suarez racially abuse Evra?

I have a strong opinion on the question of principle and none on the question of fact.

It's true that some people have written opinions that go a bit far. Whether or not Suarez called Evra 'negrito', he's very unlikely to be an ideologically motivated racist. At the same time, a lot of people are dodging the question by saying things like "well, Evra is black and quite short so it's just a description".

Racism: The belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races.

----------------------------------------

So in saying 'negrito', he is saying because he is black, he is small!

Aha, thanks for clearing that up OP, or are you just contradicting yourself? Hmm..

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago

That's all quite clear. The two significant questions in all this remain:

"Is it OK to racially abuse someone?
Did Suarez racially abuse Evra?"


I believe it is not OK to racially abuse someone. I believe it is possible that Suarez did not intend the abuse to be of a racial nature but it could be hard to prove either way. One could certainly suggest it was an ill-advised choice of phrase no matter what the intent was, but then Suarez claims an ignorance of certain etiquette due to his limited knowledge of this country and it's culture.
........................................

"Whether or not Suarez called Evra 'negrito', he's very unlikely to be an ideologically motivated racist."

My opinion too!
........................................

"At the same time, a lot of people are dodging the question by saying things like "well, Evra is black and quite short so it's just a description".


Quite true, like saying Pak1 is just refering to someone from Pakistan.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Sir Bubbly - Wum Nation (U9126)
posted 12 minutes ago

"So in saying 'negrito', he is saying because he is black, he is small!"

Only Suarez knows his intension!
........................................

"Aha, thanks for clearing that up OP, or are you just contradicting yourself? Hmm.."

Don't know what you're getting at, I made no mention of Suarez or any other incident, just wanted to give others that chance to have a better understanding of Racism, Racist, Discrimination, and Racial so that they can apply them properly.

context should become a new buzzword of these baords like Lambo and an shambles

Lambsy you pretty much just summed everything up with this.

''Quite true, like saying Pak1 is just refering to someone from Pakistan.''

Certain individuals may not find certain comments racist (you, many LFC fans, Suarez, whoever) but the letter of the law is that it is deemed racist, (you and I changing the wording of 'pak1)

The letter of the law is Suarez used a racist remark by the authorities, much like you using that banned word just then. There is a punishment for you actually using the banned word on here, a ban, abuse deemed racist is not tolerated in football either. You say he's not being racist, but you yourself know not to use such terminology because you will receive punishment, Suarez likewise should know this.

The context of things takes it to another level.

Well said Lambsy.

Another thing: I don't really buy this 'where he comes from it isn't offensive' idea. In the 1970s there were a lot of things that were socially acceptable but were still completely out of order for the same reasons they are regarded as such today. Our society grew up to an extent. (I remember fellow United fans - hundreds and perhaps thousands of them - directing monkey noises at John Barnes.) We as a society may not have given it a second thought or told ourselves it was wrong 30 years ago but we still knew it was racially-motivated. And we all knew, without thinking about it consciously, that we were able to use certain language in the context of a social hierarchy whereby e.g. relatively recent arrivals from Jamaica were politically, financially and culturally less powerful than the white mainstream.

Maybe no one bats an eyelid at certain phrases in Uruguay. That doesn't mean certain phrases or customs like addressing people according to their skin colour don't carry a demeaning or hierarchical context. Black people in South American are by and large the descendents of people who went their as slaves and a lot of them remain in an underclass, whereas white immigrants (even poor ones) had economic freedoms and legal rights, and many were given land to set themselves up.

I'm not trying to set myself up as an expert on South America but as far as I'm aware its countries have not gone down the same road of critically examining its use of language in relation to minorities that the Anglo-Saxon world in particular has. So it's quite possible that most Uruguayans would find what Suarez said completely inoffensive, while any of us who would prefer to live in today's world than our own era of monkey noises and banana skins ought to guard against complacently accepting the 'it's considered normal over there' defence.

thanks for the education Lambsy.

By the way, when a white person calls a black person a ni**er what do you think they mean? Do you really think it has nothing to do with white people believing they are superior in some way.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Sir Bobby, the only trouble with your post is that you get racist mixed up with racial. Suarez used a racial remark not a racist one, though of course a racial remark is still unacceptable.

If Suarez had said "black players are not as good as white or Hispanic players" then that would be racist.

Racial terminology is not the same as being racist. One is a slur that still should not be tollerated, the other is an ideology that people of other races are inferior, they are very different.

The trouble is if you don't recognise the differences you end up looking silly, like those on radio, TV, Twitter etc. all going on about Blatter, but because they get Racism, Racial, Racist, and Racial Discrimination all muddled up, to an intelligent observer they make themselves look ignorant and therefore they are not taken seriously, and FIFA start thinking we're a bunch of idiots because that's what they see; a bunch of ignorant ill-educated people who don't know the differences between the terms they use!

RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335)
posted 2 minutes ago

"By the way, when a white person calls a black person a ni**er what do you think they mean? Do you really think it has nothing to do with white people believing they are superior in some way"


Maybe, maybe not, but it aint necessarily so. They may be racist and believe that the person is inferior, but a racial slur is not proof of this, only the abuser knows their own mind for sure!

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

♠♥♣♦Galvin&Stacey♠♥♣♦She rodgered the boogley! ®Ω™61©† (U10415)
posted 4 minutes ago

"Course not.
According to Lambsy, no one has ever been, nor could be racist."


It seems you misunderstand, but then it seems most do! Being racist is not something you do it is something you are! it's and ideology you have, a belief that those of other races are inferior. So the KKK are racists but calling someone a n***er is not proof of racism.

♠♥♣♦Galvin&Stacey♠♥♣♦She rodgered the boogley! ®Ω™61©† (U10415)
posted 1 minute ago

"There ARE laws, racial, racist or otherwise Lambsy.
This just sounds like you are justifting things with loopholes or pedantry."


I'm not justifying anything. I believe racial abuse to be very wrong, very hurtful, and should not be tollerated, but when people get this confused with racism it detracts from the argument because it demonstrates a lack of understanding. If a lack of understanding is demonstrated then those who use racial abuse can say their accusers appear to lack credibility because they lack knowledge.

If we learn to use the right terms in the right places we can target racial abuse in a cohesive manner, as it should be.

So the argument has now about semantics?

Racial, racist, racial remark, racist remark, whatever. At the end of the day race should not come in to it on the football pitch, and it was the horrible, greasy, cheating, diving, biting "footballer" Suarez who brought race into it!

Being racist is not something you do it is something you are!
****
What's racist discrimination then? Its what racist do.


calling someone a n***er is not proof of racism.
*****
I still beg to differ. Not many white, non racists go about calling black strangers one. If you use this word without flinching its pretty obvious to me you are a bit of a racist. Don't think Im alone.

Racial abuse is not an act of discrimination either. To be discrimination the person would have to be shown to only abuse people of other ethnicities.

-----------------------------------

Nope, I'm pretty sure calling someone something derogatory based on his skin colour is discrimination, discrimination is acting upon your prejudices, he decided to call a black person a negrito because you know, they all use that terminology back in his home country. He 'pre-judged' the situation to not be particularly serious, or 'pre-judged' that by calling Evra a little black man, it would wind him up, by mentioning his skin colour, it would annoy him. So he acted upon this and said what he said to him. That is discrimination, acting upon your prejudices of another group

Whiteside, it's not racist discrimination it's Racial Discrimination.!!!

Acting upon your prejudices would be racial prejudice!!!

You may discriminate against someone because of your prejudice but racial abuse is not necessarily a manifestation of this!