The Liverpool Thread

[Aannddyy]

I'm curious, is referring to somebody's race, racist? [In Britain] I'm pretty sure it is. However, it seems that a lot of South American's aren't like this, hence the term 'negrito', it is possible that Suarez wasn't aware of the way British people view racism.

Also, I'd just like to point out if 'little black guy' is racist, then so is literally every single JD-Turk joke on scrubs.. Just sayin'.

 

[Chokopop]

"Proof" that Suarez isn't racist: David Lida » Blog Archive » “Negrito” and other terms of endearment

 

[Mike.]

This would seem to conflict with what GC said about it roughly equating to champ.The problem is, because the word has a positive meaning, you can't simply say: it was used as a jeer, thus the negative racist form is evoked, because almost any word with a positive connotation can be inverted via sarcasm. Basically, even if you could prove it was used in a jeering context, you can't prove that it was used in a racial way because there are (at least) two ways it can be used as an pejorative, only one of which is racist.

Still intrigued about the scouser question though, again not trying to start a flamewar but I can't understand why it's acceptable to stereotype and devalue one group based on their speech/place of birth and not another.

it doesnt conflict. it isnt black and white. this is the grey area. it can be jovially AND as a derogatory term. Context is everything. You're ignoring the context it was put out in.

 

[Jack Fulham]

"Proof" that Suarez isn't racist: David Lida » Blog Archive » “Negrito” and other terms of endearment

So Suarez is calling Evra Negrito which translates to 'little blackie' in an affectionate way?

Clears that up :/

 

[Mike.]

I'm curious, is referring to somebody's race, racist? [In Britain] I'm pretty sure it is. However, it seems that a lot of South American's aren't like this, hence the term 'negrito', it is possible that Suarez wasn't aware of the way British people view racism.

Also, I'd just like to point out if 'little black guy' is racist, then so is literally every single JD-Turk joke on scrubs.. Just sayin'.

Bang on here. it is racist to refer to someones race in a derogatory manner, and you're right about South America. little black guy is the literal translation, but it has different connotations. Its certainly not as clear cut as cut as calling someone a "******" etc in english. For what its worth i can very much see both sides on this. However i still think Suarez was very silly to put himself in this position. Its just not a term he needs to use in that situation

 

[Mike.]

So Suarez is calling Evra Negrito which translates to 'little blackie' in an affectionate way?

Clears that up.

No it doesnt, becuase it can also be used in a derogatory way.

as an aside, take a look at the 3rd picture in that article. Try running that advert here, and watch the sparks fly.

What we are seeing here (in my opinion anyway) is a clash of different cultures and what is/isnt acceptable in them

 

[Jack Fulham]

No it doesnt, becuase it can also be used in a derogatory way.

Ah **** sarcasm not effective on the internet.

 

[Mike.]

Ah **** sarcasm not effective on the internet.

Lol you need the tongue!

But on a serious note, its very messy all round.

Although have to say, not too impressed with Liverpool on this one. Not becuase they backed their player, given that nothing is proved or even clear cut ( and i would expect any other club to do the same); but because of the way some parts tried to publically paint Evra as the villian, even one of the liverpool officials was tweeting that Evra has previous (he doesn't), I expected more from a club as dignified as Liverpool to be honest, and KD in particular

 

[Subtle]

it doesnt conflict. it isnt black and white. this is the grey area. it can be jovially AND as a derogatory term. Context is everything. You're ignoring the context it was put out in.

Being said in an insulting context does not solve the issue of whether or not it was a racial slur. If you think it does, please elaborate. As I have said, because it has a positive context it also has an inverted, negative context via sarcasm. Accepting it was an insult simply narrows it down to a negative context,it doesn't specify exactly what the insult was.

To use my earlier example, if I shout at someone and call them a ****, it's clearly in a negative context. However, because there is more than one negative meaning to the word "****", you can't establish whether or not my insult was based around sexual or physical dirtiness. Unless I missed the bit where Suarez points to Evra's skin (which would still be far from conclusive) or makes monkey noises or something equally obvious and repulsive, then you will struggle to narrow down the "context" to a degree where you can assert it was a racial slur.


@Jack Fulham- Down South, Scouser has negative connotations associated with the stereotypical Liverpudlian, it's basically a byword for a thieving, uncouth pisshead. Given that this is the Lpool thread, I'd like to point out that that's not why I think but what the word generally means down.

 

[Mike.]

Being said in an insulting context does not solve the issue of whether or not it was a racial slur. If you think it does, please elaborate. As I have said, because it has a positive context it also has an inverted, negative context via sarcasm. Accepting it was an insult simply narrows it down to a negative context,it doesn't specify exactly what the insult was.

To use my earlier example, if I shout at someone and call them a ****, it's clearly in a negative context. However, because there is more than one negative meaning to the word "****", you can't establish whether or not my insult was based around sexual or physical dirtiness. Unless I missed the bit where Suarez points to Evra's skin (which would still be far from conclusive) or makes monkey noises or something equally obvious and repulsive, then you will struggle to narrow down the "context" to a degree where you can assert it was a racial slur.


@Jack Fulham- Down South, Scouser has negative connotations associated with the stereotypical Liverpudlian, it's basically a byword for a thieving, uncouth pisshead. Given that this is the Lpool thread, I'd like to point out that that's not why I think but what the word generally means down.

I have never said it was conclusive, merely that there is a case for Saurez to answer. It does have strong racial connotations, you would not walk up to a black guy in the street in here and refer to him as negrito, It can be used as a racist jibe, equally in different cultures and circumstances they dont see it as particularly racist. They will look to the context and the testimony of others to decide whether it is so. Given the hostile nature and the fact they were clashing before it will be difficult for Suarez to say it can be viewed in any other light than a racial jibe. In the same way you might banter on race between friends, you wouldnt then run up to a complete stranger, or someone you were not solid ground on because it could be construed as a racial insult.

Actually scouser isnt necessarily derogatory either. Plenty of liverpudlians proudly refer to themselves as scousers, in term of multiple meanings to you could draw parallels to negrito on this, hence why its a grey area. One that Suarez need not walk into

 

[Mike.]

Not really much more to say on this. He will have the hearing, so we will see

 

[Chokopop]

So Suarez is calling Evra Negrito which translates to 'little blackie' in an affectionate way?

Clears that up :/

In my defence I put " before I wrote "proof". It still doesn't say that he's innocent, it's just how it can be understood.

 

[Subtle]

ed in any other light than a racial jibe.

Again, you have failed to actually explain why. It doesn't matter than it was hostile, as I've said multiple times now there is more than one possible meaning for negrito when used a hostile remark. One is rascist, one is not.
[/QUOTE]


I agree with you that he has a case to answer, the problem is that it will be very hard to determine whether or not he used the term in a rascist manner.

 

[Mike.]

Why what? you keep pulling my words out of context, then asking for a reply. The word comes from Spanish "Little Negro" and is a fairly old term to denote the generally short-statured, dark-skinned people found in small surviving pockets all over Asia. When used as degoratory term at a black person (im not saying that was his intent) it is to reduce the person as a "savage" or primitive becuase of his colour (in essence because you are black you are a little primitive "savage"), in a direct reference to this people, like calling someone a Sambo. WHY it has taken over this mean over time i dont know, i do not control the fluencies of their language. When used as with derogatory intent, there is only one meaning when directed at a black person, and that is one that holds racial connotations. its not at insult you can throw at a black person without it having racial connotations. Thats like saying i called him ****** or a sambo as an insult, not to be racist, doesnt work

 

[Joel`]

To use my earlier example, if I shout at someone and call them a ****, it's clearly in a negative context. However, because there is more than one negative meaning to the word "****", you can't establish whether or not my insult was based around sexual or physical dirtiness. Unless I missed the bit where Suarez points to Evra's skin (which would still be far from conclusive) or makes monkey noises or something equally obvious and repulsive, then you will struggle to narrow down the "context" to a degree where you can assert it was a racial slur.

In your example, firstly, I've never even heard of using **** in modern context to reference physical cleanliness. Secondly, it can be judged from the CONTEXT what the meaning is. E.g. If a woman is doing something unhygienic, and you call them a ****, then that's what you mean. If a woman is sleeping around, and you call them a ****, that's what you mean. That's context. Just like if you call someone a racial slur against someone you dislike, within teams that dislike each other, in an argument, you can generally infer the meaning of it. Just like if two friends call each other a ****** in a friendly tone, no offence is taken, whereas if a white man calls someone a ****** randomly in the street, they'll take the racial slur meaning. Context is linguistics and communication, I'm not sure why you think Suarez would have to point out his skin or other physical actions, that's not context. It also completely disproves your own scouse example, by your logic it's only discriminatory if you call someone a scouse while they're picking up items or drinking.

 

[Joel`]

Also don't buy that he doesn't understand cultural differences. Even if it means something completely different in Uruguay, he has lived in Holland for 5 years, (A country that has strong multi-cultural issues, just like the UK), and has lived in the UK for almost a year now. Surely in all that time he has picked up that in European culture you don't reference people's skin as a slur?

 

[ajt09]

Well, what can be summed up. If it's proved that what he said was intentionally offensive, it is not only ignorant, stupid, full of malice, and basically inexcusable. And not only that, it's going to fuel the fire of any moronic fans from both sides when they play a match-which is a dangerous situation. Or pretty much any moronic fan-or non-football fan. This has opened a large can of worms that's threatening to spill everywhere.

 

[Subtle]

In your example, firstly, I've never even heard of using **** in modern context to reference physical cleanliness.

Implying that because you've never heard of it used in that way, it's not commonly used to mean that? That's a pretty basic logical fallacy. It's also still in the OCD as that, if the term had truly died out it would be classed as [archaic] which it's not.

Secondly, it can be judged from the CONTEXT what the meaning is. E.g. If a woman is doing something unhygienic, and you call them a ****, then that's what you mean. If a woman is sleeping around, and you call them a ****, that's what you mean. That's context.

Except you're the 3rd party observer here so you cannot determine intention. Your examples are straight cut and pretty irrlevant given that they bear no parallel to the case in question.

Just like if you call someone a racial slur against someone you dislike, within teams that dislike each other, in an argument, you can generally infer the meaning of it. Just like if two friends call each other a ****** in a friendly tone, no offence is taken, whereas if a white man calls someone a ****** randomly in the street, they'll take the racial slur meaning.

Context is linguistics and communication, I'm not sure why you think Suarez would have to point out his skin or other physical actions, that's not context.

Context
1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs


There is no other other word apart from Negrido (unless I am misinformed, in which case I apologise) to create a linguistic framework from. It's therefore impossible to have a purely linguistic context so to establish a more general context you have to look at the word itself, the situation in which it was said and any accompanying gestures. We know he said negrito something that may be rascists, we know it was an insult which still doesn't clarify it so that's why I said we would need gestures to be sure.

It also completely disproves your own scouse example, by your logic it's only discriminatory if you call someone a scouse while they're picking up items or drinking.

That doesn't affect the scouser example; there is a nuanced difference between saying that something requires physical action to confirm and saying that a specific example cannot be narrowed down without physical evidence.

 

[Joel`]

Implying that because you've never heard of it used in that way, it's not commonly used to mean that? That's a pretty basic logical fallacy. It's also still in the OCD as that, if the term had truly died out it would be classed as [archaic] which it's not.

And yet I made no argument based on that I'd never heard of it so how is it a logical fallacy in any form? It was a statement.

Context
1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs


There is no other other word apart from Negrido (unless I am misinformed, in which case I apologise) to create a linguistic framework from. It's therefore impossible to have a purely linguistic context so to establish a more general context you have to look at the word itself, the situation in which it was said and any accompanying gestures. We know he said negrito something that may be rascists, we know it was an insult which still doesn't clarify it so that's why I said we would need gestures to be sure.

And yet that definition still doesn't require physical actions by Suarez to create the framework for context. I said linguistics and communication. Communication was a deliberately broad term. It's perfectly possible to know context of the situation without Suarez acting. I outlined the context of the situation, disprove that rather than playing around with definitions of words, it's an argument that actually has substance.

That doesn't affect the scouser example; there is a nuanced difference between saying that something requires physical action to confirm and saying that a specific example cannot be narrowed down without physical evidence.

And there's no difference between the examples in the fact that neither require a physical action to know the context of the situations. Does that mean Gray and Keys weren't being sexist, since it's oh so ****** difficult to sense the context of what they said. The argument at point is whether what Suarez said was in a context, and I've given examples for the on-pitch implications and the cultural implications, disprove them if you want to argue Suarez' case, anything else is meaningless. So again, I can racially insult someone, but as long as I have no gestures while doing it, I'm not being racist? There's social context in Europe, you don't say what Suarez did in a non-racist way, it doesn't happen. You simply don't mention someone's race, unless you're friends with them and it's clearly jovial. Given the animosity that the two had shown in the game, that position between the two clubs and the way Evra felt afterwards, it quite blatantly wasn't jovial, and Suarez has lived in Europe for long enough now to understand our social expectations. You're clutching at straws.

 

[ajt09]

Gus Poyet accuses Patrice Evra of 'crying like a baby' in racism case | Football | guardian.co.uk

Uruguayan embassy to help Liverpool's Luis Suárez fight FA charges | Football | The Guardian

Very interesting reading. Especially the article about Gus Poyet. Disappointing. Very disappointing.