Hr. Holm

Not to say I disagree with the sentiment that the FA are being needlessly PC for the sake of virtue signalling, but using Andreas Beck Holme's argument, if I were to visit Japan and break some sort of customary cultural law(?), would I be held responsible on the grounds that I should have been more aware of the every day norms of Japan's social infrastructure, or will Japan be accused of cultural racism?

1. The comments were made online between 2 Uruguayans. Does the fact that Cavani now play in England means he needs to follow UK customs even in a conversation pertaining to an entirely different cultural context?

2. Following that line of thought, let's say you did go to Japan and say something inappropriate, but you are notified of this, apologize and retract your comments immediately. Should that not play into a role into whatever 'sentence' you are given?

Edinson Cavani has been suspended for three games, fined £100,000 and must complete face-to-face education after admitting a charge for a breach of FA Rule E3 in relation to a social media post on Sunday 29 November 2020. Full statement: https://t.co/6H9ncJgz2u. pic.twitter.com/Ij7HF3CwH6

— FA Spokesperson (@FAspokesperson) December 31, 2020

Only 3 matches. Probably got off lightly because it can be argued that unlike Suarez he didnt mean it in an overtly negative fashion.

Young Kaz wrote:

Edinson Cavani has been suspended for three games, fined £100,000 and must complete face-to-face education after admitting a charge for a breach of FA Rule E3 in relation to a social media post on Sunday 29 November 2020. Full statement: https://t.co/6H9ncJgz2u. pic.twitter.com/Ij7HF3CwH6

— FA Spokesperson (@FAspokesperson) December 31, 2020

Only 3 matches. Probably got off lightly because it can be argued that unlike Suarez he didnt mean it in an overtly negative fashion.

Disgraceful.

The racist, imperialist FA strikes again. Hypocritical country, policing the cultural norms of foreigners as an anti-racist gesture while enacting completely racist policies such as the deportation of the Windrush generation.

So much for professor Sherlock Holms appeal up top

I mean he is employed by British people and there are certain standards he has to adhere to while being an employee of an English football club so I don't see how the cultural argument works here. If I was born in Bhutan and then became a permanent UK resident they wouldn't just let me marry 3 women at once there just because it's culturally and legally acceptable in wherever the fuck Bhutan is.

Myesyats wrote:I mean he is employed by British people and there are certain standards he has to adhere to while being an employee of an English football club so I don't see how the cultural argument works here. If I was born in Bhutan and then became a permanent UK resident they wouldn't just let me marry 3 women at once there just because it's culturally and legally acceptable in wherever the fuck Bhutan is.

If you’d been taught that negrito was a term of endearment, I don’t think you’d hesitate to use it with people from that culture either, even though you are much more familiar with the modern day, PC culture than Cavani is.

Personally, I would’ve concluded that, in the worst case scenario, I’d just explain the meaning and context behind the use of the word. I wouldn’t anticipate a 3 match ban and a hefty fine without any warning. Who would? How was he supposed to know? Unlike the FA, he didn’t have plenty of time to inform himself before doing something rash and stupid.

If you'd been taught that beheading infidels was an act of magnanimity, I don't think you'd hesitate to do it at a tube station in London.

Everybody knows that 'negro' is a no-no in the anglosphere, arguably it is overblown to a degree but even my grandma and my dog would know not to use it.

I'm on the fence here. The rules may be stupid but also as a grown man Cavani should've known what is acceptable in his current place of residence. In Poland a chocolate cake is sometimes referred to as "pickaninny" basically, but I would know not to say or post that anywhere in the public sphere.

It really is absolutely fucking ridiculous

Thimmy wrote:

Myesyats wrote:I mean he is employed by British people and there are certain standards he has to adhere to while being an employee of an English football club so I don't see how the cultural argument works here. If I was born in Bhutan and then became a permanent UK resident they wouldn't just let me marry 3 women at once there just because it's culturally and legally acceptable in wherever the fuck Bhutan is.

If you’d been taught that negrito was a term of endearment, I don’t think you’d hesitate to use it with people from that culture either, even though you are much more familiar with the modern day, PC culture than Cavani is.

Personally, I would’ve concluded that, in the worst case scenario, I’d just explain the meaning and context behind the use of the word. I wouldn’t anticipate a 3 match ban and a hefty fine without any warning. Who would? How was he supposed to know? Unlike the FA, he didn’t have plenty of time to inform himself before doing something rash and stupid.

Because his friend and coworker on the national team was suspended for 8 matches while trying to say he was using the EXACT same word?


I mean if Suarez never happened you could probably see him not knowing, but he has to know that doesnt fly in the country hes in. He has to know. He and Suarez apparently are the same age and grew up in the same neighborhood

Young Kaz wrote:

Thimmy wrote:

Myesyats wrote:I mean he is employed by British people and there are certain standards he has to adhere to while being an employee of an English football club so I don't see how the cultural argument works here. If I was born in Bhutan and then became a permanent UK resident they wouldn't just let me marry 3 women at once there just because it's culturally and legally acceptable in wherever the fuck Bhutan is.

If you’d been taught that negrito was a term of endearment, I don’t think you’d hesitate to use it with people from that culture either, even though you are much more familiar with the modern day, PC culture than Cavani is.

Personally, I would’ve concluded that, in the worst case scenario, I’d just explain the meaning and context behind the use of the word. I wouldn’t anticipate a 3 match ban and a hefty fine without any warning. Who would? How was he supposed to know? Unlike the FA, he didn’t have plenty of time to inform himself before doing something rash and stupid.

Because his friend and coworker on the national team was suspended for 8 matches while trying to say he was using the EXACT same word?


I mean if Suarez never happened you could probably see him not knowing, but he has to know that doesnt fly in the country hes in. He has to know. He and Suarez apparently are the same age and grew up in the same neighborhood

While there are some similarities to the incidents, they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

In fact, it is borderline IDIOTIC to compare the two. In this case, Cavani responded to a congratulatory message to an Uruguayan friend, using a term that is common in reference to that friend and is not considered "racist" in that language or part of the world.

In the case of Suarez, you could argue that there was no reason for him to use a term of endearment with Evra (who certainly wasn't his friend).

However, this is a case of policing another person's interactions with his own friends, in his own language.

Myesyats wrote:If you'd been taught that beheading infidels was an act of magnanimity, I don't think you'd hesitate to do it at a tube station in London.

Everybody knows that 'negro' is a no-no in the anglosphere, arguably it is overblown to a degree but even my grandma and my dog would know not to use it.

I'm on the fence here. The rules may be stupid but also as a grown man Cavani should've known what is acceptable in his current place of residence. In Poland a chocolate cake is sometimes referred to as "pickaninny" basically, but I would know not to say or post that anywhere in the public sphere.

Man, your strawman arguments are getting even more ridiculous.

There is no equivalency between legal contracts (you can actually get "married" to three people anywhere in the world, but most countries would only recognize one marriage as "legal"), murder (I would love to know which culture other than ISIS would condone the act you mention), and using one's own language.

In this case, the FA is saying that it is wrong for an Uruguayan to speak in his language and his terms.

In fact, they are no claiming that simply using the term "black" in any language where black = negro (i.e. many latin languages) is an "aggravated offense".

Also, it suggests that someone would understand British and American culture regardless of their own, no matter what, despite it not being part of the training or requirements to be employed in that country.

Finally, even if we somehow should believe that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD knows that the term "negro" is unacceptable in the anglosphere, then that doesn't actually work in Cavani's case, since he used the term "negrito", which is specific to South American Spanish.

P.S: Civil Right movement heroes, such as MLK and Malcolm X, referred to themselves as "negros". Historically, the negative term is the altered form "*bleep*" rather than the technical one.

Myesyats wrote:I mean he is employed by British people and there are certain standards he has to adhere to while being an employee of an English football club so I don't see how the cultural argument works here. If I was born in Bhutan and then became a permanent UK resident they wouldn't just let me marry 3 women at once there just because it's culturally and legally acceptable in wherever the fuck Bhutan is.

If the conversation took place at the workplace then maybe his place of employment mattered. But he was speaking in social media, in a different language/cultural context to a person from his home country. Why does the FA get to rule over all aspects of his life?

Can't wrap my head around the fine either. As per the rules the "standard" fee for an E3 rule breach (what he allegedly broke) is a 2 match ban and a 12k fine. 3 matches and 100k seem so excessive, especially when it's so obvious there was no ill will.

https://www.thefa.com/~/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/analysis/standard-penalties.ashx

Looking forward to what kind of "evidence" the FA report brings in. Hope Cavani explores all legal avenues available to him, but doubt it.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Myesyats wrote:I mean he is employed by British people and there are certain standards he has to adhere to while being an employee of an English football club so I don't see how the cultural argument works here. If I was born in Bhutan and then became a permanent UK resident they wouldn't just let me marry 3 women at once there just because it's culturally and legally acceptable in wherever the fuck Bhutan is.

If the conversation took place at the workplace then maybe his place of employment mattered. But he was speaking in social media, in a different language/cultural context to a person from his home country. Why does the FA get to rule over all aspects of his life?

Can't wrap my head around the fine either. As per the rules the "standard" fee for an E3 rule breach (what he allegedly broke) is a 2 match ban and a 12k fine. 3 matches and 100k seem so excessive, especially when it's so obvious there was no ill will.

https://www.thefa.com/~/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/analysis/standard-penalties.ashx

Looking forward to what kind of "evidence" the FA report brings in. Hope Cavani explores all legal avenues available to him, but doubt it.

Cavani already stated that he is pleading guilty to the charge and not fighting the case out of respect to anti-racist causes. He is also denying that he had any racist motivations but doesn't want the case to be dragged out and potentially damaging the anti-racist messaging in the PL (also, Man United are the ones paying the fine).

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Myesyats wrote:I mean he is employed by British people and there are certain standards he has to adhere to while being an employee of an English football club so I don't see how the cultural argument works here. If I was born in Bhutan and then became a permanent UK resident they wouldn't just let me marry 3 women at once there just because it's culturally and legally acceptable in wherever the fuck Bhutan is.

If the conversation took place at the workplace then maybe his place of employment mattered. But he was speaking in social media, in a different language/cultural context to a person from his home country. Why does the FA get to rule over all aspects of his life?

I'm sorry but no. Your employer has the power to fire you if you post some fucked up shit on Facebook even if you work register at Tesco. Footballer's job basically extends to social media, as a celebrity he can be held accountable for what he says on there same as politicians and also regular people too. I've seen plenty of cases where people lost their job due to what they have posted on social media.

In the context provided I would personally not issue any fine on Cavani however I refuse to believe that the only way "negro/negrito" could ever be used is in an endearing way. Historically, it wasn't true with regards to South America.

Any word can change meanings depending on who said it, to who, and how. But in this case there no evidence of it being malicious or meaning offense. Charging Cavani 100k for a non-racist event is ridiculous and borderline stealing as far as I'm concerned.

Myesyats wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Myesyats wrote:I mean he is employed by British people and there are certain standards he has to adhere to while being an employee of an English football club so I don't see how the cultural argument works here. If I was born in Bhutan and then became a permanent UK resident they wouldn't just let me marry 3 women at once there just because it's culturally and legally acceptable in wherever the fuck Bhutan is.

If the conversation took place at the workplace then maybe his place of employment mattered. But he was speaking in social media, in a different language/cultural context to a person from his home country. Why does the FA get to rule over all aspects of his life?

I'm sorry but no. Your employer has the power to fire you if you post some fucked up shit on Facebook even if you work register at Tesco. Footballer's job basically extends to social media, as a celebrity he can be held accountable for what he says on there same as politicians and also regular people too. I've seen plenty of cases where people lost their job due to what they have posted on social media.

The FA is not really his employer though, that would be United, and they seem to have no issue with what he said.

You really are clutching at straws here, Mystats

I don’t know how you can compare this to the beheading of infidels. Even if I try to rationalize that comparison, it’s really farfetched.

This post probably belongs in the Racism thread, but:

I've thought a ton about this Cavani situation. Had me thinking back to the Suarez-Evra one and where I stood on it. At the time, I sided with Evra and considered what Suarez said to be racist.

What I've learned over time is that racism is all about intent and malice. Absent both and with cultural difference inserted, we're left with what happened with both Suarez and Cavani: Honest mistakes brought on by language barriers.

Here's what really pisses me off about this though. The FA, in its quest to appeal to those of us who care about racial injustice, punished Cavani anyway, even though they knew he did not intend to be racist with his words. What's the point in punishing him when all parties agree his words weren't racist? That hurts the racial injustice movement. It doesn't help it. It also exposes the FA's intentions. They don't care about racism. They care about the money supporting anti-racism movements can bring in.

I was wrong about Suarez. I was wrong about Bernardo Silva and what he said to Mendy. I was wrong about Europeans who wear black face to celebrate holidays. I was even wrong about Serie A hanging art of monkeys at their HQ as a misguided attempt at a statement against racism. None of what was done in those instances was inherently racist, to me, because all of it is absent intent and malice.

Actual racists (like the ones who do the monkey chants) know what they're doing. It's always intentional. It's never accidental. I confused those facts.

I feel awful for Cavani.

Thimmy wrote:You really are clutching at straws here, Mystats

I don’t know how you can compare this to the beheading of infidels. Even if I try to rationalize that comparison, it’s really farfetched.

It was just to illustrate that customs don't always carry over and in no way I was trying to imply that the severity of both acts is comparable, obviously.

Besides I agree Cavani shouldn't have been fined and I was merely trying to play devil's advocate as you know I'm not very PC-oriented. I can accept that language barriers are what's causing the confusion and even though South America's racial past and the historical use of word 'negro' was not much better than in North America, the culture today is on the same page as far as this issue is concerned.

This is insane lmao

You gotta be kidding me

Myesyats wrote:

Thimmy wrote:You really are clutching at straws here, Mystats

I don’t know how you can compare this to the beheading of infidels. Even if I try to rationalize that comparison, it’s really farfetched.

It was just to illustrate that customs don't always carry over and in no way I was trying to imply that the severity of both acts is comparable, obviously.

Besides I agree Cavani shouldn't have been fined and I was merely trying to play devil's advocate as you know I'm not very PC-oriented. I can accept that language barriers are what's causing the confusion and even though South America's racial past and the historical use of word 'negro' was not much better than in North America, the culture today is on the same page as far as this issue is concerned.

How is the historical use of the word 'negro' not much better in South America? It just means black, as in the actual color, and how can you say that culturally today is in the same page as in North America?

It is such a common endearing term in parts of South America. Its actually a nice feature of our culture. Punishing Cavani for using this with his fellow South American friend is just going backwards.

There was no offended party in the conversation, no racist intent, and a completely valid cultural context. All it needs is an explanation to Cavani of why its not wise to do so as a public figure living in England and everyone should moved on.

rincon wrote:

Myesyats wrote:

Thimmy wrote:You really are clutching at straws here, Mystats

I don’t know how you can compare this to the beheading of infidels. Even if I try to rationalize that comparison, it’s really farfetched.

It was just to illustrate that customs don't always carry over and in no way I was trying to imply that the severity of both acts is comparable, obviously.

Besides I agree Cavani shouldn't have been fined and I was merely trying to play devil's advocate as you know I'm not very PC-oriented. I can accept that language barriers are what's causing the confusion and even though South America's racial past and the historical use of word 'negro' was not much better than in North America, the culture today is on the same page as far as this issue is concerned.

How is the historical use of the word 'negro' not much better in South America? It just means black, as in the actual color, and how can you say that culturally today is in the same page as in North America?

It is such a common endearing term in parts of South America. Its actually a nice feature of our culture. Punishing Cavani for using this with his fellow South American friend is just going backwards.

There was no offended party in the conversation, no racist intent, and a completely valid cultural context. All it needs is an explanation to Cavani of why its not wise to do so as a public figure living in England and everyone should moved on.

I don't even agree with the last part.

I think rather the FA, and the English public, should have accepted an explanation why it's wrong to see this as an infringement.
It's obvious they are the ones who need to wise up here.

How is this so hard to understand. I meanwe get it done here ffs. If I was in doubt about this usage of a word, all I needed to do is ask you or BC, or read your responses, and then I'm not in doubt anymore.
It's so unbelievably ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time and nerves, and a massive, quite possibly counterproductive, detour in the public campaign against racism.

The only thing I like about this is @myesyats fighting the good fight

rincon wrote:

Myesyats wrote:

Thimmy wrote:You really are clutching at straws here, Mystats

I don’t know how you can compare this to the beheading of infidels. Even if I try to rationalize that comparison, it’s really farfetched.

It was just to illustrate that customs don't always carry over and in no way I was trying to imply that the severity of both acts is comparable, obviously.

Besides I agree Cavani shouldn't have been fined and I was merely trying to play devil's advocate as you know I'm not very PC-oriented. I can accept that language barriers are what's causing the confusion and even though South America's racial past and the historical use of word 'negro' was not much better than in North America, the culture today is on the same page as far as this issue is concerned.

How is the historical use of the word 'negro' not much better in South America? It just means black, as in the actual color, and how can you say that culturally today is in the same page as in North America?

It is such a common endearing term in parts of South America. Its actually a nice feature of our culture. Punishing Cavani for using this with his fellow South American friend is just going backwards.

There was no offended party in the conversation, no racist intent, and a completely valid cultural context. All it needs is an explanation to Cavani of why its not wise to do so as a public figure living in England and everyone should moved on.

Historically people in South Ameirca were categorized into castas and Negros had the lowest position in society. It doesnt only mean color lol, it was used to represent their race: Espanoles/Inidios/Negros etc. And accoring to this article it's not always endearing: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news/vivek-chaudhary-i-lived-south-america-there-s-no-doubt-negro-racist-6285002.html

But I have sided with Cavani on this matter after input from our SA residents and honestly I shouldn't have even gotten into this same as the FA should re-structure whatever the hell they're doing.

Nope, the word means the color black. In English it doesn't, its a racial slur used by slavers and racists. In most of South America its not the case.

You say "historically people in South America were categorised into castas and negros (for some reason you capitalised it) had the lowest position in society".

That is colonial history. Why does your historical frame stop when these countries actually became independent? When Spain colonised these parts they brought slaves and established the tiered system you reference. You might also want to know that pretty far down that tier were all the kinds of brown people, who overwhelmingly make up the South American population. So what happened when Venezuela (the example I can speak of confidently) gained independence and formed as a nation? Slavery was abolished and the colonial structure of race was gone.

That happened on the onset of the independence wars, black people were seen as a part of the population from the get go with the leaders (Bolivar, Paez, etc) declaring slavery ilegal during the revolutions. This is a key difference as the US went to a civil war heavily hinging on slavery because half of the country still wanted slaves to that degree.

So you had the US as a country were American slavers used the word negro to oppress black people. Even after slavery was abolished plenty of cultural and legal segregation remained and the word continues to be used to denigrate.

This is a completely different historical context than you have in a lot South America. In many places, as used the example of Venezuela, slavery was ended or started to be ended with the revolutionary wars. Even starting in colonial times there was a process called "el mestizaje", a historical population mixing between europeans, indigenous, and Africans, which resulted in the brown people of today. Not so say there wasn't plenty of racism, but calling the historical context the same is completely incorrect. The level of historical antagonism with black people was nowhere near the same in South than in North America.

Neither was the use of the word negro of course, which once again, its the actual name of the color black in Spanish. It wasn't a word made up to describe a group of people as it is the case when it was adopted in English.