No they're not they're judging his actions not character. Cavani has made a comment without any intention that doesn't mean it's not breaking a rule, intent isn't relevant apart from heightening the charge like the Suarez case.
Using an idiomatic term which - clearly - does not refer to skin colour or "race" by default means..."breaking a rule"?
The meaning of "negrito", as an idiomatic term, has evolved beyond its literal meaning. Depending on the context, it doesn't mean "little black person". It means "mate" or "buddy" or "honey" or whatever. And it doesn't actually refer to skin colour.
Cavani isn't a fecking linguist (a fecking diachronic linguist, I suppose) - he's a footballer posting on Instagram.
If you want to scrutinize and criticize the contemporary usage of the term "negrito" in Spanish - hey, I'm all for it, sounds like an interesting exercise. But punishing a random fecker for using an idiomatic expression in his own language is...yeah, what?
It certainly isn't the FA's business, would be my take.
So the next time an England player plays for Spanish club and wrote something in english that they translated as racist in spanish he'll get a 3 match ban?
So the next time an England player plays for Spanish club and wrote something in english that they translated as racist in spanish he'll get a 3 match ban?
We have numerous posters - on this site - stating that calling your friend, boyfriend, girlfriend, wife, husband...whatever "negrito" or "negrita" does NOT refer to "race" per default.
It can refer to skin colour (or tone, shade, whatever). It can also refer to hair colour or eye colour. And sometimes it doesn't make much sense at all - it's just...something.
And it certainly is NOT used exclusively to refer to people of a different skin colour than the person using the term (which is the salient point, surely).
Using an idiomatic term which - clearly - does not refer to skin colour or "race" by default means..."breaking a rule"?
The meaning of "negrito", as an idiomatic term, has evolved beyond its literal meaning. Depending on the context, it doesn't mean "little black person". It means "mate" or "buddy" or "honey" or whatever. And it doesn't actually refer to skin colour.
Cavani isn't a fecking linguist (a fecking diachronic linguist, I suppose) - he's a footballer posting on Instagram.
If you want to scrutinize and criticize the contemporary usage of the term "negrito" in Spanish - hey, I'm all for it, sounds like an interesting exercise. But punishing a random fecker for using an idiomatic expression in his own language is...yeah, what?
It certainly isn't the FA's business, would be my take.
Yes - and that term is considered problematic. For good reasons. To formally designate a group of human beings as "little black people" is - yeah, what can you say?
But it would be utterly absurd to associate Cavani's use of the term "negrito" with that business - right?
Because the idiom, in its contemporary usage, in Spanish, simply doesn't refer to either "little" or "black" people in the literal sense.
Yes - and that term is considered problematic. For good reasons. To formally designate a group of human beings as "little black people" is - yeah, what can you say?
But it would be utterly absurd to associate Cavani's use of the term "negrito" with that business - right?
Because the idiom, in its contemporary usage, in Spanish, simply doesn't refer to either "little" or "black" people in the literal sense.
What I don't get is why the FA does not ask a competent authority in South America or Spain to provide an official statement about how they perceive what Cavani did, instead of trying to understand a language they do not speak. I don't think anything else makes sense.
Call me a cynic but they seemed to have announced this punishment within the same few days he returned to training from his injury. Why wasn't he sanctioned immediately? Clearly didn't want him serving his ban whilst he was unable to play anyway.
“It is alleged that, contrary to FA Rule E3.1, a comment posted on the Manchester United FC player's Instagram page was insulting and/or abusive and/or improper and/or brought the game into disrepute.
“It is further alleged that the comment constitutes an 'Aggravated Breach', which is defined in FA Rule E3.2, as it included a reference, whether express or implied, to colour and/or race and/or ethnic origin.
E3.1 fair enough, I can see you can call it misconduct and bringing the game into disrepute (malice or not, rightly or wrongly, it clearly has).
E3.2 is the issue as that's where it becomes an aggravated breach if you specifically establish it as a reference to someone's colour, race, etc (which whatever you think of the word it is not, as the guy is white).
The difference is E3.1 could just be a fine while aggravated breaches carry a minimum 6 (six, not 1 nor 3) game suspension.
So far we've dealt with it well. Next we have to appeal accepting 3.1 and rejecting 3.2, or at the very least obtaining their agreement that the minimum 6 doesn't apply due to the first mitigating factor listed below.
FA HANDBOOK PENALTY GUIDELINES
Sanction Range
A finding of an Aggravated Breach against a Player, Manager or Technical Area Occupant will attract an immediate suspension of between 6 Matches and 12 Matches (“Sanction Range”).
A Regulatory Commission shall take all aggravating and mitigating factors into account, including but not limited to those listed in these guidelines when determining the level of sanction within the Sanction Range.
The lowest end of the Sanction Range (i.e. 6 Matches) shall operate as a standard minimum punishment (the “Standard Minimum”).
A Regulatory Commission may impose an immediate suspension in excess of 12 Matches in circumstances where aggravating factors of significant number or weight are present.
Exceptions to the Standard Minimum
A Regulatory Commission may only consider imposing a suspension below the Standard Minimum where the following specific (and exhaustive) circumstances arise such that the Regulatory Commission determines that the Standard Minimum would be excessive: Where the offence was committed in writing only or via the use of any communication device and:
• Where the Regulatory Commission is satisfied that there was no genuine intent on the part of the Participant Charged to be discriminatory or offensive in any way and could not reasonably have known that any such offence would be caused; or
• The age of the Participant at time of the offence (e.g. where the Participant was a minor at the time the offence was committed); or
• The age of the offence (e.g. a social media post made a considerable time ago).
For the avoidance of doubt, the existence of the circumstances above will not necessarily result in a departure from the Standard Minimum. A Regulatory Commission must be satisfied that the unique circumstances and facts of a particular case are of such significance that a departure from the Standard Minimum is justified to avoid an unjust outcome for the Participant Charged. In reaching a decision, the Regulatory Commission must also consider whether or not it is in the best interests of the game in tackling all forms of discrimination to depart from the Standard Minimum. In any event, a Regulatory Commission shall impose a suspension of no less than 3 Matches.
We have numerous posters - on this site - stating that calling your friend, boyfriend, girlfriend, wife, husband...whatever "negrito" or "negrita" does NOT refer to "race" per default.
It can refer to skin colour (or tone, shade, whatever). It can also refer to hair colour or eye colour. And sometimes it doesn't make much sense at all - it's just...something.
And it certainly is NOT used exclusively to refer to people of a different skin colour than the person using the term (which is the salient point, surely).
Through this ruling, the FA has quite clearly showed their utter ignorance on what cultural inclusivity actually means - i.e. understanding the cultural context underlining different expressions of speech regardless of where they used. Cavani posted it online so you could argue that it was a global platform.
The FA are making a mockery of the hard work that has gone into combatting racism, which is not simply about doing what is politically correct, but ensuring equitable treatment/coverage and rational understanding of ALL voices across cultures.
What I don't get is why the FA does not ask a competent authority in South America or Spain to provide an official statement about how they perceive what Cavani did, instead of trying to understand a language they do not speak. I don't think anything else makes sense.
Any competent authority in South America wouldn't even understand what the issue is supposed to be in the first place.
You have pitch invasions, mass player brawls, people getting shot outside stadiums... and the English FA is going to enquire what their thoughts are on Cavani posting "thanks mate :thumbsup:" on Instagram? Nutters.
I think they are saying that we have until Jan 4th to respond. Should we respond earlier and accept the ban, we can start it at the moment of the response.
If not, it gets enforced on Jan 4th.
If we appeal, not sure what the timeline is.
I think they are saying that we have until Jan 4th to respond. Should we respond earlier and accept the ban, we can start it at the moment of the response.
If not, it gets enforced on Jan 4th.
If we appeal, not sure what the timeline is.
Unbelievable that this is going to end in a long ban while Jordan Henderson openly says that referees are bending offside lines to manufacture offsides and the FA’s like “oh well then”
The Danish professor at the Department of Culture and Society, Andreas Beck Holm, has filed a complaint to FA due to FAs cultural racism towards Cavani.
Pasting in the full complaint here. I'm 100 % behind this. FA can't stand on a pedestal, telling the world that our culture is better than yours, and your sayings and customs are in fact racism. Did FA use google translate in this case?
After a recent football match, Edison Cavani responded to a congratulatory tweet from a friend with the words "Gracias negrito". The FA insists it will punish this as an act of racism. It clearly is not, for the following reasons:
1) It was a greeting to a friend. You generally do not racially abuse friends who congratulate you.
2) The word "negrito" in South America is affectionate, not racist.
3) As soon as the player was informed that his greeting might be misunderstood, he deleted it, precisely because he did NOT want it to come across as racist.
The claim I want to make is that while Cavani's words are not racist, the decision to indict him is. Specifically, it is a case of cultural racism that is closely connected with ethnocentrism.
Edison Cavani is a foreign worker who is being punished for his inadequate mastery of the English language and for his equally limited understanding of British social rules. In fact, he is being punished for not obeying these codes in a foreign language communication with a foreigner. This is clearly an example of discrimination based on a person's culture, also known as cultural racism. The indictment implicitly yet very clearly states that the cultural norms of South Americans are inferior to those of Great Britain and should not be tolerated at all.
The charge put forward by the FA is based on several assumptions that are obviously ethnocentric. First, that words in foreign languages that resemble words in English have identical semantics. Second, that it is the task of the FA to police the communications of foreign players with their fellow countrymen. And third that the cultural norms and ways of thinking of western elites constitute a universal normative ideal that should be enforced on people from dissimilar cultural backgrounds.
In short, the FA's indictment is nothing short of reprehensible by the very same standards, the organization sanctimoniously claims to uphold.
May I just add, in conclusion, that while Britain's horrendous colonial history clearly warrants a focus on avoiding racism, this is in no way an excuse for renewed bigotry and oppression masked as political correctness.
I would like to make it very clear that this is not a prank and that I am extremely serious about this report. The Premier League is a worldwide brand, it attracts players from across the globe and Premier League football is watched in countries across the world. This gives the FA a responsibility for having an international outlook and an appreciation of cultural and linguistic differences instead of narrowmindedly exercising cultural imperialism and handing out punishments to foreign players who do everything they can to adapt to the norms of British society and British football.
The Danish professor at the Department of Culture and Society, Andreas Beck Holm, has filed a complaint to FA due to FAs cultural racism towards Cavani.
Pasting in the full complaint here. I'm 100 % behind this. FA can't stand on a pedestal, telling the world that our culture is better than yours, and your sayings and customs are in fact racism. Did FA use google translate in this case?
It would be a stretch of course, and I don't really advocate it, just being a bit mischievous. Mind you, I have seen cases in the media where people were reported for such that I thought was daft.
Malicious complaints is one of the criteria, could say that Cavani was being maliciously targeted due to his ethnic/cultural/language differences or being an immigrant if we take that professor's line. The police would probably be duty bound to investigate it.
Ah yes, it'll probably be a gentle punishment when he's been charged of an aggravated breach of a rule which in non-aggravated cases leads to a minimum 3 game ban.
The Danish professor at the Department of Culture and Society, Andreas Beck Holm, has filed a complaint to FA due to FAs cultural racism towards Cavani.
Pasting in the full complaint here. I'm 100 % behind this. FA can't stand on a pedestal, telling the world that our culture is better than yours, and your sayings and customs are in fact racism. Did FA use google translate in this case?
The Danish professor at the Department of Culture and Society, Andreas Beck Holm, has filed a complaint to FA due to FAs cultural racism towards Cavani.
Pasting in the full complaint here. I'm 100 % behind this. FA can't stand on a pedestal, telling the world that our culture is better than yours, and your sayings and customs are in fact racism. Did FA use google translate in this case?
I love you, Professor Andreas Beck Holm. Thanks for having the eloquence and standing that I lack. He may just advance our case better than any of United's lawyers. Put this out there and shout it loudly. I don't know if he's a United fan, but if Cavani escapes a ban (like he rightly should), the good professor should get a box seat at the first game back with fans!
“It is alleged that, contrary to FA Rule E3.1, a comment posted on the Manchester United FC player's Instagram page was insulting and/or abusive and/or improper and/or brought the game into disrepute.
“It is further alleged that the comment constitutes an 'Aggravated Breach', which is defined in FA Rule E3.2, as it included a reference, whether express or implied, to colour and/or race and/or ethnic origin.
E3.1 fair enough, I can see you can call it misconduct and bringing the game into disrepute (malice or not, rightly or wrongly, it clearly has).
E3.2 is the issue as that's where it becomes an aggravated breach if you specifically establish it as a reference to someone's colour, race, etc (which whatever you think of the word it is not, as the guy is white).
The difference is E3.1 could just be a fine while aggravated breaches carry a minimum 6 (six, not 1 nor 3) game suspension.
So far we've dealt with it well. Next we have to appeal accepting 3.1 and rejecting 3.2, or at the very least obtaining their agreement that the minimum 6 doesn't apply due to the first mitigating factor listed below.
FA HANDBOOK PENALTY GUIDELINES
Sanction Range
A finding of an Aggravated Breach against a Player, Manager or Technical Area Occupant will attract an immediate suspension of between 6 Matches and 12 Matches (“Sanction Range”).
A Regulatory Commission shall take all aggravating and mitigating factors into account, including but not limited to those listed in these guidelines when determining the level of sanction within the Sanction Range.
The lowest end of the Sanction Range (i.e. 6 Matches) shall operate as a standard minimum punishment (the “Standard Minimum”).
A Regulatory Commission may impose an immediate suspension in excess of 12 Matches in circumstances where aggravating factors of significant number or weight are present.
Exceptions to the Standard Minimum
A Regulatory Commission may only consider imposing a suspension below the Standard Minimum where the following specific (and exhaustive) circumstances arise such that the Regulatory Commission determines that the Standard Minimum would be excessive: Where the offence was committed in writing only or via the use of any communication device and:
• Where the Regulatory Commission is satisfied that there was no genuine intent on the part of the Participant Charged to be discriminatory or offensive in any way and could not reasonably have known that any such offence would be caused; or
• The age of the Participant at time of the offence (e.g. where the Participant was a minor at the time the offence was committed); or
• The age of the offence (e.g. a social media post made a considerable time ago).
For the avoidance of doubt, the existence of the circumstances above will not necessarily result in a departure from the Standard Minimum. A Regulatory Commission must be satisfied that the unique circumstances and facts of a particular case are of such significance that a departure from the Standard Minimum is justified to avoid an unjust outcome for the Participant Charged. In reaching a decision, the Regulatory Commission must also consider whether or not it is in the best interests of the game in tackling all forms of discrimination to depart from the Standard Minimum. In any event, a Regulatory Commission shall impose a suspension of no less than 3 Matches.
