I've barely seen any coverage about what Afro-Uruguayans feel about the term, that's the crucial part, not what the white population thinks about it.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Cavani gets 3 match ban from FA for his social media post
- Thread starter VP89
- Start date
The problem is not the word but using a person's skin color to identify and address them. In my native tongue "kara" has a positive connotation (because of Turkish history) but that doesn't mean it's alright to call a stranger by their skin color without the absolute need to do so. That's the issue with keeping using such terms. The fact that some countries and societies are ok with it, doesn't make it ok in general. Arab countries are ok with women having little to no rights. Is that ok too then?
And the fact that football clubs adapt to their markets is neither new nor commendable. Most recent example of commercial hipocrisy was the Rainbow Laces initiative which clubs only support where it is ok to openly speak about sexuality. They did not dare to open that discussion in Muslim countries where such reforms are most needed. Hi-po-cri-sy!
P.S. Since you don't have many posts to spend, just update your previous posts and annotate "EDIT 1", "EDIT 2", etc. I'll try to come back to see if you've written something new.
What do you mean by 'society'? Are you referring to Latin American society?
Latin Americans have nicknames that are associated with personal characteristics. It's part of their culture. It's also fair to say that there are boundaries when using these nicknames and that people have a right to reject them if they are not comfortable with them. You can't just call somebody anything you want.
The only matter of importance here is whether Edinson was being racist when he used that word. They need to look at the discrete context of the interaction and determine whether or not it was racist.
If it wasn't, then Cavani's name should not be tarnished with an association with racist language.
It's not about offending me or my culture. I didn't feel offended by Cavani's post. But it is about societies changing to the better. A few decades ago European societies were ok calling Jewish people all kinds of names. The fact that it was normalised did not make it ok. A few decades before that Americans fought a whole war over the small matter of owning other humans. It was normalised and it took a lot of time to change that.
Calling someone "fatty" is mean but not the same as calling people by their skin color. I don't see the point of debating how and why body shape is different from race and skin color. Hope you get my point.
I don't understand what took them so long to respond and now why it is so long for us to reply to their charge? The incident happened on Nov 29/30 and by the time the punishment is put in place, it will be well over a month (Jan 4). So we will play 8 games between the time of the incident and a possible suspension? WTF?
So the FA is now in the business of regulating speech, on a social media platform, with no regard for context. What a fecking joke, especially as it took place outside of the confines of the game. How the feck can anyone be okay with such a gross overreach of authority?
Let's be honest, at not time during human history have the offended had more of a voice than now.
Well specific subsets of people have I guess. But not general pop.
This reminds me of the black mirror / Orville episodes
I do get your point and I do agree that there is a tendency to pick on aspects in a person's physical appearance in Latin American culture. While sometimes it can be funny and affectionate, in others instances it feels crude and even reductive. Surprisingly, the term I found to be used with the most distaste in Latin America was the phrase ('flaca'/'skinny girl').
Whether or not they should move on from that is beside the point and really a matter for them to sort out. The point is whether or not Cavani should be charged with using racially sensitive language.
In my humble opinion, he has done absolutely nothing wrong, and the idea of charging him because in 'some contexts' the term is racist is flawed. Surely the context of import is the one in which Cavani was writing.
They has to wait until Cavani was fit for selection to make the charge so it was deemed effective a punishment. No point banning an injured player.
Literally a month ago Greg Clarke, their chairman, resigned for being actually racist.
On this exact issue, I wouldn’t claim they’re being racist per se, although not too difficult to view it as the FA taking it upon themselves to deem what is offensive in a foreign culture. But that would be false, I believe - this is purely Cavani as the victim of decades of mismanagement and incompetence.
Good job noone is likely to do that, isn't it?
Why would people in UK find a Spanish word they don't know the meaning of offensive? (I know there's a subset that find everything offensive, but even so).
I disagree that it is solely up to them to sort it out. Similarly, I do not think it is up to Middle East countries to sort out their treatment of women.
And I see this incident with Cavani in the same way. The ban is punitive and preventive. Punitive for Cavani and preventive for everyone careful enough to notice.
Cavani wasn't referring to his skin colour because by all accounts the guy he was speaking to isn't black.
That's not true though, is it. For centuries for example white christians were the only voice in Europe. And they were offended by everything and everyone that went against their dogma/hegemony/way of life. History is full of the powerful being offended by everything that is different from them and a potential threat to their power.
Not true at all. Whether or not a player is injured should play no part of it. Either way, even if that was true, why wait until the 4th? If they charge him today then United should have 2-3 days to respond, not 2-3 weeks...
I was actually wondering about this with all the 'its just the way they speak' protestations.
Two points:
1) Antohan (who unless I'm mistaken is Uruguayan and was vociferously defending Cavani) said in the other thread that the term relates to skin colour. The fact that it is also used in that "hey bro" context between white guys wouldn't change the fact that the term inherently carries reference to skin colour, if that is the case. And it appears that using social media to address people in terms that reference skin colour is a problem for the FA, in any language.
2) The bold part highlights its own issue, as @R.N7 rightly points out above. The 87% of people in Uruguay who are white aren't who I'd be turning to to determine how problematic the term is, as they can't dictate how comfortable/uneasy afro-Uruguayans are with its use. It would be good to hear more from the 4% of Uruguayans who are black on how they feel about the term and the way the overwhelmingly white population use it, even before we go beyond that to how other cultures (like the one Cavani is currently living and employed in) perceive the term.
Did you cut out the rest of my post to make what you are saying correct?
Of course specific subsets always had power.
But never before has a 17 year old young girl from a poor village somewhere had the power to shut down a celebrity because she's offended about something.
Heck il probably be shut down for using a woman in the example above, even though I'm deliberately picking the historically mistreated gender
I can't comment on that, haven't seen that person at all. Assuming he isn't, what did Cavani mean then?
Bernardo Silva made his controversial tweet on Sept 22. The FA came up with their charge on Oct 2 and he had until Oct 9 to respond. So everything was done and taken care of in 17 days. He punishment was a 50k fine and one game suspension. I remember when it happened thinking "they sure did take their time with this". Well the FA heard my thoughts and said "You think that was bad, wait until you see what we do with Cavani". So Cavani made his post on Nov 29. The FA responded on Dec 17 and he has until Jan 4 to respond. That's 35 days between the incident and suspension. Ridiculous. And his suspension better not be more than 1 game. And considering the crime, even one game would be too much. This whole incident is ridiculous...
Have you not being paying attention at all?
The word itself has come to be used as a general term of endearment. It's all over this thread and the other locked one.
From Wiki:
negrito can also be used, as a term of endearment meaning 'pal'/'buddy'/'friend'. Negrito has thus also come to be used to refer to a person of any ethnicity or color, and also can have a sentimental or romantic connotation similar to 'sweetheart' or 'dear' in English.
"Buddy", "Brother" or "Bro".
This was what I was trying to insinuate, in a clumsy matter.
It would be like if an English speaker said "mate" to a friend in a country where mate could have some resemblance to a racist term.
Context is king.
The minimum ban is now 3 days so...
If Cavani was incredulous about how his language can be interpreted in this country then the FA would have a case, but I thought the whole point of the FA stamping out racism was to make people learn from their mistakes? Cavani did that as soon as it was pointed out to him. As in, immediately.
Throwing a three match ban at someone who accepted what they said was wrong in this country, and learned from it, is a bit of a step backwards surely?
Throwing a three match ban at someone who accepted what they said was wrong in this country, and learned from it, is a bit of a step backwards surely?
Would you call that type of "buddy", "brother" or "bro" to a white person? And why are then locals speaking out that it's high time such terms are being dropped?
The thing is though there has always and will always be a skin colour and names in all societies.
For example how many names in the UK are based on colour and most don't realise it?
Heck even albus (dumbledore) means white and he is portrayed as the good guy.
My own crush jessica alba is basically jessica white.
Gavin Wendy etc all have origins in white or fair etc.
It was part sarcasm to be honest, although I'd argue there's some merit to it.
He has been charged today, why we have until the 4th I don't know.... Is that longer than standard? We can accept the charge at any time up to that date & he will be banned from that date we accept for 3 games. So if we accept today/tomorrow any date up to the 4th he would be banned for 3 games from the following day. In essence we can pick the matches he will miss.... If we accept, which I think we will.
I had not paid enough attention, it appears. And would still question why are then locals asking for such address to be dropped.
It can relate to color of skin but also your eyes, hair etc. it’s simply means darkish.
Sure, for an actual racist incident I'd completely agree. But this wasn't and there is a precedent set. Does the precedent not mean anything?
It still references skin or hair colour in other contexts but apparently not in a derogatory way. My understanding is its also become a general term of endearment.
The min ban for what he's been charged with is 3 games.
They changed the rules after Bernardo's case if that's what you are referring to.
They would. And some people have grown to not like it which is fair enough and it shouldn't be used with them.
Then accept it now and miss Southampton, Leeds and Everton and be back for Leicester
Yep, could do.... but this is Utd so....
Sorry, I only meant to cut out the Orville line and probably messed that up.Did you cut out the rest of my post to make what you are saying correct?
Of course specific subsets always had power.
But never before has a 17 year old young girl from a poor village somewhere had the power to shut down a celebrity because she's offended about something.
Heck il probably be shut down for using a woman in the example above, even though I'm deliberately picking the historically mistreated gender
It is not a specific subset, it was the absolute majority for long periods of time that was constantly offended and had virtually 100% of "the voice". You make it seem that only the powerless can be offended. But the powerful are historically much better and much more successful at it. And at utilizing it as a means of domination. If that example with "One girl in a poor village" is even realistic, it does not add up to "at no time during human history have the offended had more of a voice than now".
In your over simplistic view of the situation, maybe.
But back in reality the rules are pretty clear and the FA were backed into a corner. Giving him the green light is saying anyone in english football can use the term 'negrito'. Regardless of whether some people are fine with that, it's pretty clear why the FA don't want to set a precedent on that.
I see most are choosing to ignore this important tweet.
I hope they don't accept any kind of punishment.
He did nothing wrong and the world should accept the word black as a normal word.
The FA should also accept there are other languages besides English.
I wouldn't even accept a financial punishment, let alone game bans.
He did nothing wrong and the world should accept the word black as a normal word.
The FA should also accept there are other languages besides English.
I wouldn't even accept a financial punishment, let alone game bans.