Language in context

On November 29, 2020, Manchester United football¹ player Edinson Cavani made a social media post that said "gracias negrito". The Football Association (FA) promptly issued a £100,000 fine and three-match ban against Cavani for a "reference, whether express or implied, to colour and/or race and/or ethnic origin".

It is not surprising to see the FA strike down hard against any hint of racially charged statements given the Premiership's history of its players suffering from racist acts. This is a very real and ongoing problem that pervades the football world from the pitch to social media. Needless to say, any form of racism has no place anywhere, let alone in the most popular sport in the world.

From the FA's perspective, they do not want to be perceived as taking it easy on their fight against racism. A lack of punishment may be viewed as implicit approval. That being said, did they go too far in their punishment of Cavani? How do you evaluate speech on a racism scale -- if such a thing existed? We briefly explore three angles to examine this problem.

Before diving into the details, let us align on the definition of racism. Dictionary.com defines racism as

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
[…]
4. racial or ethnic prejudice or intolerance.

While many offenders in these racist incidents believe that they have higher inherent worth than the other party, I believe that the large chunk of these incidents are motivated by tribalism. Hooliganism -- which is still rampant in Europe -- is about my team against your team. Horrible acts of violence are committed sometimes leading to death. When looking for ways to taunt and deride the other side, physical characteristics are easy targets.

In a follow-up post, Cavani accepted the FA's decision in solidarity with the "fight against racism in football" but said "My heart is at peace because I know that I always expressed myself with affection according to my culture and way of life". Given this statement and the context, it seems unlikely that Cavani had meant this to cause any harm and indeed used it as a term of affection.

In Cavani's case, there were cultural differences that caused misunderstandings. In other cases, it is clear that words were said with the intent to cause distress to the recipient. The challenge with intent is that it is only truly known to the speaker.

It is also possible to cite cultural differences as a defense for speech intended to harm. Back in 2011, Cavani's compatriot Luis Suarez used the word "negro" against Manchester United player Patrice Evra in a heated exchange and ultimately served an eight-game ban. Digging into the details, this case was not so black and white as the conversation was in Spanish and Evra was not fluent in the language. Only Suarez knows what he meant.

If intent is hard to measure, what about how the words are received? On the other side of the aforementioned exchange, Evra perceived Suarez's words as a verbal assault based on race. Having been subject to racial slurs myself, it is quite unpleasant. This can lead people to dark places; you do not need guns or knives to kill.

However, the challenge with how words or actions are perceived is again in its subjective nature. In Cavani's case, his post was a response to a friend who was not offended and publicly stated that "negrito" is his lifelong nickname. So, the same word can have very different effects on people in different situations.

Social media platforms add another layer of complexity by expanding the reach to millions of people. By posting publicly and sharing it on social media, I risk offending someone, somewhere in the world². However, if we dare not risk offending, open discourse will cease to exist and people will increasingly isolate themselves in their bubble. We have already seen the extreme effects that this can bring in politics or social issues; a recent example being the then-president of the United States inciting a mob to storm the Capitol.

Now, I don't speak a lick of Spanish but Uruguay's National Academy of Letters does. They issued their strongest rejection of the FA's decision, stating that "negrito", similar to "gordito" (fatso) or "flaco" (skinny one) is commonly used as a term of endearment and does not hold a negative connotation.

There are similar examples in other languages. The Italian greeting ciao may seem innocent but it "derives from the Venetian phrase s-ciào vostro or s-ciào su literally meaning 'I am your slave'"³. So, any time you greet someone in Italy with ciao, you are actually referring to yourself as a slave. It was interesting to find out that some older Italians frown at the use of this word, not because of its roots in slavery (such servile connotations are now gone) but because of its informal nature in modern Italian.

North of Italy, the word servus is used as a common greeting in Germany and many other parts of central and eastern Europe⁴. This one is easier to decipher for English speakers. Similar to Italian, this was how servants used to address their lords. Language, history, and culture are closely intertwined. Should we demand that Italy and Germany update their language to erase traces of slavery? Should Uruguay modify their language to avoid offending non-Uruguayans on social media?

It is difficult to precisely rate any given utterance on a racism scale due to the subjective nature of intent and reception – assuming intent and reception should be a measure at all. In addition, history and culture can impact the socially accepted usage of language. Going by the definition, it is hard to argue that Cavani held any prejudice or intolerance towards his friend, let alone a sense of superiority. But his words were still punished nonetheless.

In a global world where diverse cultures mingle, it is practically impossible to avoid some clashes of acceptable behaviour or speech. To navigate these complexities, we need more generosity and curiosity towards other cultures and engage in open discourse. Only then will we start to break down walls and find common ground⁵. Are your actions and words, however big or small, moving the world towards unity or divisiveness?

¹It's called the Football Association, not the Soccer Association. C'mon folks.
²It was pointed out to me that my risk of offending is very low thanks to my low number of readers. Phew!
³Ciao. (n.d). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciao, accessed January 11, 2021
⁴German word of the day: Servus. October 2, 2019. https://www.thelocal.de/20191002/servus, accessed January 12, 2021
⁵Of course, this is easier said than done. All parties involved must be willing and able to engage in open discourse. Education, systems that encourage open discourse, and lifting people out of poverty should help but again -- easier said than done.