Edinson Cavani gets three match ban for not being racist

[omnomnom]

It doesn't translate to that btw, find me a Spanish to English dictionary that shows that.

Negrito
/nɪˈɡriːtəʊ/

noun

1. a member of a black people of short stature native to the Austronesian region

How are people defending this? If you go to a country that has a certain general viewpoint on something then you abide by it providing it isnt something mad like in China. He hasn't just come over here...he's been in Europe for 10 years. Its inexcusable.

 

[Shamikebab]

I said a dictionary, not google lol. Perhaps the clue that you're wrong would be that he wasn't talking to a short black person from the Austronesian region

 

[fez]

Again, how is the FA biggots? The word is offensive here...The FA didnt decide that but "little black person" is offensive here and its Cavani who needs to recognise that.

LOL at the idea that a foreign word cant be offensive by the way.

I was talking about the imcompetent rather than the bigot part....

I haven't argued that a foreign word can't offensive and to try and argue that I have is either wilfully stupid or you have no actual argument. We have decided that negrito is offensive because it is very similar to a word that is offensive in english. Negrito != negro when translated. So what he said wasn't offensive, his intention wasn't to offend, the language he used is not offensive in the country he is from and in the language he used so please do tell how what he said was offensive.

 

[jonneymendoza]

1. Cavani wasn't even talking to a black person, the word he used does not refer to race in his culture
2. Cavani was thanking a friend, Suarez was confronting an opponent.

It's all about context, there is nothing racist about the word black. I can describe my t-shirt as black and it's fine. But you can use it in a sentence (that I obviously won't write) in a racist manner.

In South America Negrito is not offensive. What we're saying here is that as soon as people move here they have to become fluent in our language, forget their own culture and have complete understanding of ours. It's xenophobic to the extreme and a sad sign of the Brexit means Brexit way this country is going.

Dont worry, in 4 years time there will be another referendum for joining the EU

 

[jonneymendoza]

Negrito
/nɪˈɡriːtəʊ/

noun

1. a member of a black people of short stature native to the Austronesian region

How are people defending this? If you go to a country that has a certain general viewpoint on something then you abide by it providing it isnt something mad like in China. He hasn't just come over here...he's been in Europe for 10 years. Its inexcusable.

well said!

 

[BaZ87]

I haven't argued that a foreign word can't offensive and to try and argue that I have is either wilfully stupid or you have no actual argument. We have decided that negrito is offensive because it is very similar to a word that is offensive in english. Negrito != negro when translated.

This isn't the case - they've not decided the word is offensive and certainly not because it sounds like negro. Whether you agree with the rule or not, the FA simply have a blanket ban on references to race in those sorts of situations. This is not new. This has been the case for at least 9 years now. In the FA's report into the Suarez/Evra incident they accepted that Suarez's version of events was not offensive however it also made it clear that even if they believed his version, he'd have still faced a ban.

As for the is it or isn't it offensive argument. Something not being considered offensive in South America right now doesn't therefore make it ok, even if his intent was not to cause offense. There's countless terms that were used in the past here that at the time were accepted and used by people that weren't racist but we would now consider highly offensive - unfortunately the majority white population here didn't consider the views of the people that those terms referred to. Is referring to a white person with dark features "little blackie" genuinely not offensive to black people or has it just been decided by the near 90% white population of Uruguay? That's a genuine question btw and being white myself it's difficult for me to give an answer to that.

Anyway, I think most people have accepted that there was no intent to offend by Cavani and despite the views of some people on here 9 years ago, ignorance is an excuse or at least is a mitigating factor with these things. Unfortunately ignorance has still lead to a 3 match ban (it would have been much longer had the FA believed he intended offence). Those are the FA rules and clubs and players have a responsibility to follow them, whether they like them or not.

 

[fez]

As for the is it or isn't it offensive argument. Something not being considered offensive in South America right now doesn't therefore make it ok, even if his intent was not to cause offense.

So how do we decide that something in a foreign language is not OK to say when they consider it OK. Translations are not 1:1. The meaning and connotations of a word does always translate. If you watch enough TV shows involving people from other cultures speaking different languages you will know that there are plenty of words that they say "it doesn't exactly translate but its similar to". This is the crux of the issue. We are deciding (the FA) that we are the arbiters of offensive terms even when not in our language or spoken by someone who counts english as their first language. We are saying that people in Argentina are being racist by using the term Negrito.

There's countless terms that were used in the past here that at the time were accepted and used by people that weren't racist but we would now consider highly offensive - unfortunately the majority white population here didn't consider the views of the people that those terms referred to. Is referring to a white person with dark features "little blackie" genuinely not offensive to black people or has it just been decided by the near 90% white population of Uruguay? That's a genuine question btw and being white myself it's difficult for me to give an answer to that.

This is the problem. Who decides what is offensive. There have been plenty of black people who speak Spanish that have spoken up and explained that there is no offense to this term in Argentina. If someone decides its offensive in the UK, why does thier opinion matter more than someone in the country of origin. Was someone using the term negro at the time in history when that was the accepted term for black people a racist but default because they used the term? No of course not. Maybe they were racist but at the time that wouldn't mark them as so. Language is ephemeral, the meaning or words is constantly changing but we can't project our own current interpretations of a Spanish word with our own understanding of it.

Anyway, I think most people have accepted that there was no intent to offend by Cavani and despite the views of some people on here 9 years ago, ignorance is an excuse or at least is a mitigating factor with these things. Unfortunately ignorance has still lead to a 3 match ban (it would have been much longer had the FA believed he intended offence). Those are the FA rules and clubs and players have a responsibility to follow them, whether they like them or not.

Which is why any sort of sensible organisation would warn you for doing it and then ban you. I wouldn't in a million years think that a positive social media post in my own language that holds no negative conotations in my own country would get me banned in a foreign country that speaks a different language.

Their literal explanation for it was

The comment was “insulting, abusive, improper and brought the game into disrepute” and also was an “aggravated breach” because it “included reference, whether express or implied, to color and/or race and/or ethnic origin.”

So it appears that he fell foul on the first section and then it was escalated because of the second.

What would the punishment be for a Muslim player to say "Happy Eid to all my Muslim brothers around the world". I assume a 3 match ban would be the minimum as it "included reference to race and/or ethnic origin".

What about a black player saying "#BlackLivesMatter So proud of all the black people standing up for their rights today".

 

[BaZ87]

So how do we decide that something in a foreign language is not OK to say when they consider it OK....

The FA haven't decided that. They've decided that they want a blanket ban on all references to race in these situations. Had they decided he was intending to offend then he'd have got a longer ban.

As for the rest, there's no easy or right or wrong answer and that's probably why the FA have decided that the simplest way to deal with these things is to just issue a blanket ban. The comparisions to black lives matter are silly though - saying black lives matter is not the same as referring to a black man as 'the black guy over there', for example.

 

[IronSpider]

Tribalism in football is one of many problems when discussing what racism is and isn't.

You are not wrong, have a flick through the Suarez thread. Out of interest I looked back to see whose views have done a 180 now it's a Manu player and not a Liverpool player and vice versa. I guess those defending Suarez for 47 pages have now grown into new people over the years. Nice to see. Also United fans who would have happily hung Suarez and now it's an over reaction.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/forums/threads/suarez.18352919/

 

[Fubsy]

Both situations have totally different contexts even though the words used are the same.

What would the FA do if a black person uses the 'N' word the same way black rappers use it? I'm 100% certain they will not ban the player for 3 matches the same way if a white player would expect to happen to them. But that expectation is because I think the FA are inconsistent idiots.

 

[BaZ87]

Both situations have totally different contexts even though the words used are the same.

What would the FA do if a black person uses the 'N' word the same way black rappers use it? I'm 100% certain they will not ban the player for 3 matches the same way if a white player would expect to happen to them. But that expectation is because I think the FA are inconsistent idiots.

The words used weren't the same. The early newspaper reports were that Suarez said Negrito but that wasn't the case - he admitted to saying "why black" but was accused of saying "because you're black".

And the 2nd part of your post is nonsense. If a black player used that word they'd absolutely be banned. The FA's rules are black and white around this. As I said before, it came out in the Suarez report that context does not matter to the FA in relation to the charge, only the length of ban. The FA's linguistic expert accepted that what Suarez admitted to saying was not offensive in South America however he would have still be banned for saying it. If you make any reference to race then you're getting a minimum of a 3 game ban - that can be extended depending on the context.

 

[Fubsy]

Ok they words aren't the same but the contexts certainly are different. I'd be pretty annoyed at being given a ban intended for racists when I haven't been racist... Suarez was racist when he was in an altercation with Evra and brought his black skin into it, Cavani used a word that can be interpreted as having racist connotations in a different language, but in no way used it in a racist manner at an actual black person.

We'll see if it's nonsense when it happens. The FA's rules are not black and white at all seeing as they allow mention of skin tone before EVERY match currently. They have made allowances for Black Lives Matter (the slogan, not the political movement, they have clarified this haven't they? The clubs were at one point wearing the political movements logo on their shirts) to bring skin tone to the centre of everyone's attention. Is skin tone something to notice or not ffs?! I'm fine with either way, but be consistent. Either allow mentions of skin colour, or don't - allow political statements, or don't. It's all very grey in my eyes at the moment, and tbh that reflects actual reality.

 

[BaZ87]

They've not made allowances for black lives matter Saying black lives matter is not the same as saying "that black/white/brown/blue man or that <insert racist term>". There is no grey area here which is why it was all but certain that he'd be banned the moment he said what he did.

You don't have to agree with the FA's rule, lots of people won't however all these "what about blm" and "if a black person said it" comments are nonsense.

 

[Fubsy]

That isn't what I wrote is it?

 

[BaZ87]

I've no idea what you mean here then

They have made allowances for Black Lives Matter.

What would the FA do if a black person uses the 'N' word the same way black rappers use it? I'm 100% certain they will not ban the player for 3 matches the same way if a white player would expect to happen to them. But that expectation is because I think the FA are inconsistent idiots.

They haven't made allowances for blm and they would ban a black player for saying that.

 

[Fubsy]

We all know that (rightly) the FA would not allow the statement "white lives matter" to be used as it is clearly incitement - but if the rules really were black and white then they would not be able to ban anyone for saying it, but I would bet they would based on the same rules they banned Cavani as it references skin colour.

As such, they have made allowances for BLM by allowing the use of skin colour to be used in a statement, that if the opposite were to be used would get a ban. Most sane people know that BLM doesn't mean other lives don't, but the rules don't say that you can pick and chose which skin colours you can reference.

I'm obviously being extremely facetious here, just to point out how ridiculous the whole situation of race relations has become when a bloke is banned by the rules to punish racists, for not being racist. I'm more annoyed at them muddying the waters with the reactionary BLM support when they had Kick It Out to re-embolden, using the BLM momentum to carry on that fight for all. As the BLM stuff started with a political movement it should never have been allowed anywhere near sport and should not have been allowed. Football should have had it's own message to push out racism, and needs to do far more than token gestures and repeated slogans.

Edit: all in all, I actually think Cavani being banned is the right outcome as the word he used shouldn't be used, but I'd caveat that with where does it end? I mean, there is no list of banned words, it's just all down to the mention of colour, connotation and interpretation. As long as it proves to be consistent over time it will help as the language used will become less problematic.
I've already noticed a lot less race focused commentary and analysis, remember when every black player was "powerful" or a "beast"? It was bloody boring to hear.

I just think there needs to be an area for understanding, learning and healing so that events like this don't get lumped in with events like the Suarez/Evra episode. We all know that Suarez intended it in a derogatory manner, and we know due to context that Cavani did not. But the charge is the same, when it should not. I don't like people being labelled as racist when making linguistic errors, we all make mistakes - label them as such.

 

[BaZ87]

You're mixing things up. To be clear, the rule around referencing race is in relation to references made towards an individual, not mentioning the colour in other contexts. You can say black lives matter, you can even say white lives matter (providing there's justification for saying it and you're not just being a ****), you cannot however say "that black/white guy" or "you black/white ....". You cannot refer to an individual by race - saying black lives matter does not do that, saying "you black" does. Those are the rules, they've been in place for ages and have always carried a ban, although minimum length of the ban was only set (or extended) fairly recently.

As for your annoyance at the whole BLM thing, that's a separate issue. From what I understand the PL (and EFL?) made it clear from the start that they were only supporting the BLM message rather than the political movement and at the start of this season changed the message to No Room For Racism. The reason for the change was no doubt at least partially down to links to the BLM political movement.

 

[bayo000]

Looks like the Uruguay's FA are not happy about it either.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55534759

 

[Fubsy]

@BaZ87 Mr Cavani did not address this word to anyone on a football pitch, in a football setting or to anyone under the FA's charge. His mistake was compounded by sending it to a friend in public, where the FA could then see it and apply their prejudices to his intent. Do we even know if this friend Cavani sent the message to is black? If they aren't, then is it allowed as he is then NOT referring to THEIR skin colour? Honestly, I just hate stuff like this as I can see the intention from the FA is pure, but the execution is clumsy. It's the way it's described as "aggrevated" and "abuse" that just garbles the intention of keeping the game friendly and inclusive to all, which I think is why the Uruguayan's ^^ are a bit annoyed.

I am not sure that the FA's rules end at the individual level either, well they certainly shouldn't end there any way. Expressing derogatory remarks against a group would also be punishment worthy which is why I think mention of skin colour should just be avoided outright.

Re BLM: Yes, after doing some reading I can see the political side of BLM has been well and truly distanced from, which is good news from a sustainable and support POV.

 

[BaZ87]

@BaZ87 Mr Cavani did not address this word to anyone on a football pitch, in a football setting or to anyone under the FA's charge.

The rules specifically include social media posts. Had it been said on the pitch he'd have been looking at a 6 game ban.

And no, his friend isn't black but it doesn't matter. It still references race. These are obviously just the FA's rules, not my views to be clear.