I've spent the last four or five days biting my lip, taking the jibes, and taking in the quite ludicrous judgement handed down by the FA on Monday night. I've read, watched and listened to every one come out and regurgitate what they've been told to believe by the judgement, and the accompanying media. Jumping down the throat of both the player, the club, and those who choose not to be drawn in and manipulated by the decision, the establishment.
Oh, you might say, oh, a typical Liverpool fan who's response is tinged with the reddest of red tinted glasses... the world hates us... the system is corrupt, etc.
But is that really the case? Or is that simply because we, as a large body, have not been taken in by the hypocritical and xenophobic decision laid down by the governing body of this countries football?
The media in this country have such a cripplingly powerful effect over a large proportion of the population, whereby the word of Sky Sports, TalkSport or a journalist is taken at the absolute truth. The agenda these forms of media have is quite frankly astounding. Yesterday, a brilliant article was put up on the goal.com website - not usually a site to be associated with high class and knowledgeable writing - that looked at the case of Luis Suarez and took a step back, highlighting the 'ignorance and clumsiness' running through the veins of the case, who's decision making masters have 'an attitude that remains indisputably in the stone age.'
An article that went against the memo, the party line, and looked beyond the truths we were told to believe by the majority. This article remained unchanged for less than an hour, before, presumably, the editor felt it necessary to add:
'Nevertheless, Suarez has been made to look ignorant and clumsy, too. And
whatever his intentions were at Anfield on that day in mid-October, he
really should have known better in the first place.'
This, systematically changed the entire message of the article in two sentences. Disappointing.
And now, back to the 'case' - although it feels hard to call it so, such was the predetermined outcome weeks before the 'case' was even heard.
Luis Suarez, a Uruguayan, is reported to have said the word 'negrito' or 'negro' to Patrice Evra in response to the Frenchman's jibe of 'sudaca', a strongly derogative term aimed at South Americans.
Now,
it is important to understand that the world no longer revolves around
the English, in fact, the English on the whole are pretty despised by
the rest of the world. With that said, there's half a chance
that there are different cultures and ways of life that exist around the
world. So, you'd think, perhaps, that this would be taken in to
consideration when deciding the outcome of one of the most infamous
cases in recent memory.
In England, the word 'nigger' is unacceptable, there are no two ways about it. I would not say either of those terms,
certainly not in as public an arena as a Premier League football match, but then
I am English. It is within our culture not to say such a term, yet those who do (and there are many, many more than the powers that be will have us believe) have no excuse, and must simply be considered - a racist.

However, in the English language, the English
culture, there is no equivalent to the term negrito. The closest it can be considered to, is pal. Whilst there may be connotations to those with darker skin, in the Uruguayan culture, this is not considered offensive, rather a friendly colloquial term used as a nickname. A quick search on the internet will throw up a number of examples, 1950 Uruguayan World Cup winner Obdulio Varela - 'El Negro Jefe' or 'The Black Chief' - racist? I don't think so. Javier Hernandez referred to a Mexican teamate, Omar Esparza, in similar fashion, 'I liked the goal of the Negrito,
I think it's a sign of Chivas' youth'. Whats even more interesting, is that the Manchester United team mates of Evra reportedly use the word as a nickname for the Frenchman. I struggle to believe Evra runs around Carrington accusing people of racism, but then again, who knows?
Somewhat ironic, perhaps, that in this storm of outrage and disgust, the notion of race as an descriptive term, is seen far more negatively in England than it is in Uruguay.
Interesting.
To ban Suarez for 8 games for something that quite clearly was not said with any racist malice or intent is quite frankly staggering. The mere fact that Suarez has reportedly admitted saying the word shows that he does not consider it to be racist, or discriminatory at all. It could be argued that Suarez should have known the sensitivity around the term 'negro' or similar, but who are we, the English, to know how it is to come in to our culture and attempt to adjust - when so many of its nuances would seem quite frankly bizarre to a individual from South America.
Yes, that could be argued and yes, he may have been naive in saying what he did, but was that worthy of having his image and reputation tarnished with the most debilitating and despicable term of being a racist? No, quite honestly it was not.
Over recent years, foreign Football Associations have been given
pointless fines by UEFA and FIFA in response to clear and disgusting racism (Spain, Macedonia, etc)
and the FA have rightly fumed. They have been waiting to show the world
how to deal with racism in a ruthless and unforgiven manner. Yet this is
the wrong case to do it in. Luis Suarez's destiny was decided at the very
outset of the case, the FA wanted to be seen as swinging an iron fist in the
face of racism and spineless governing bodies.
But to do so in a situation which very foundations are built upon the loosest ground imaginable, whilst not taking in to account that cultural differences do exist and do provide a reality and conclusion so far from the judgement is quite frankly unreal in this day and age.
The actions of the FA have been at the very least strange, initially waiting over two months for the case to be heard, only interviewing Suarez once with no video footage and not asking for his version of events, whilst Evra was met more than once and shown footage before submitting his final statement. Strange. Further to that, where is the written reason for the decision? Whispers yesterday suggested it would be well in to January before Liverpool would receive such details. Again, strange.
Whats more, it is strange that Evra appears to have got off scot-free with his barbed 'sudaca' comment, widely considered in South American culture to be be far more derogative and hurtful than what Suarez responded with.
The obvious question is why? Why the delay in publishing the written reason for the case? With every passing hour, its fuels the fire that the ruling is holed.
Liverpool Football Club are not defending a racist, despite such individuals as Paul McGrath (who happily defended Ron Atkinson, lets not forget) and a multitude of tabloid hacks saying so. They are defending who they, and their legal
team, believe to be an innocent man, wrongly labelled and punished as a
racist.
I can't help but believe that the staggering hypocrisy in this country to accept different cultures
and nationality, despite the proclamations to the contrary of many in power, underlines
the ridiculous nature of this judgement, and following media explosion. This 'case' has a long, long way to run yet, that is for sure. The bullish nature of Liverpool FC does not suggest misguided arrogance, it suggests they are certain that a miscarriage of justice has occured, and to quote John Barnes, a player who had to deal with racism more than perhaps any other during the 1980's, a 'witch hunt' is underway against Luis Suarez.