I suppose if you come from a country with no class you shouldn't expect too much!
I take it you've not been then? Up there with Chile and Argentina in terms of prosperity, ranked 59th in recent world economy rankings, it's a beautiful place full of class.
Suarez, by contrast, is truly a nasty low-life moronic cretin, and does a massive dis service to his country of birth.
I suppose if you come from a country with no class you shouldn't expect too much!
I take it you've not been then? Up there with Chile and Argentina in terms of prosperity, ranked 59th in recent world economy rankings, it's a beautiful place full of class.
Suarez, by contrast, is truly a nasty low-life moronic cretin, and does a massive dis service to his country of birth.
I'll second this - a very classy country.
Bigotry is, sadly, alive and well on CL.
Apparently against door-to-door salesmen too. Weird.
Door-to-door salesman in general tbh but especially those that specialise in selling overpriced, unsuitable disability aids to the elderly in their houses.
Sky Sports News @SkySportsNews 2m BREAKING: Uruguayan Football Association president Wilmar Valdez has confirmed they will appeal Luis Suarez's four-month ban.
Hmm, I must admit I was expecting more of a punishment. They should have at least laid out a suspended sentence of a lifetime ban for any future infractions.
I suppose if you come from a country with no class you shouldn't expect too much!
I take it you've not been then? Up there with Chile and Argentina in terms of prosperity, ranked 59th in recent world economy rankings, it's a beautiful place full of class.
Suarez, by contrast, is truly a nasty low-life moronic cretin, and does a massive dis service to his country of birth.
I'll second this - a very classy country.
Bigotry is, sadly, alive and well on CL.
And yet... I've seen several examples of paper and tv media in Uruguay trying to deflect criticism from Bitey and the denial merchants in the Uruguayan squad hotel by equating his repeated nasty assaults with the probable blunder by a Soviet ref at the 66 Cup Final. Those are clearly attempts to play on anti-English prejudice. It's not all as classy a country as you think, perhaps, and it's not surprising that it provokes some contempt in return.
I suppose if you come from a country with no class you shouldn't expect too much!
I take it you've not been then? Up there with Chile and Argentina in terms of prosperity, ranked 59th in recent world economy rankings, it's a beautiful place full of class.
Suarez, by contrast, is truly a nasty low-life moronic cretin, and does a massive dis service to his country of birth.
I'll second this - a very classy country.
Bigotry is, sadly, alive and well on CL.
And yet... I've seen several examples of paper and tv media in Uruguay trying to deflect criticism from Bitey and the denial merchants in the Uruguayan squad hotel by equating his repeated nasty assaults with the probable blunder by a Soviet ref at the 66 Cup Final. Those are clearly attempts to play on anti-English prejudice. It's not all as classy a country as you think, perhaps, and it's not surprising that it provokes some contempt in return.
Hmm. Again I'd say you've not spent time in the country. And those tiny examples are hardly a reason to tar a whole country, are they?
I'm not sure we in Britain should judge a country by what it's press say or do anyway. We live in the gutter where that is concerned.
I suppose if you come from a country with no class you shouldn't expect too much!
I take it you've not been then? Up there with Chile and Argentina in terms of prosperity, ranked 59th in recent world economy rankings, it's a beautiful place full of class.
Suarez, by contrast, is truly a nasty low-life moronic cretin, and does a massive dis service to his country of birth.
I'll second this - a very classy country.
Bigotry is, sadly, alive and well on CL.
And yet... I've seen several examples of paper and tv media in Uruguay trying to deflect criticism from Bitey and the denial merchants in the Uruguayan squad hotel by equating his repeated nasty assaults with the probable blunder by a Soviet ref at the 66 Cup Final. Those are clearly attempts to play on anti-English prejudice. It's not all as classy a country as you think, perhaps, and it's not surprising that it provokes some contempt in return.
For our sake, I hope the actions of a nation's media aren't taken as representative of the nation as a whole.
To Arthur and Gillis, my point is that there are of course good and bad in any country, but attempts by many Uruguayans to whitewash the episode and deflect outrage are pathetic. And, while some of our media are horrific, they would not have come out with such pathetic arguments to whitewash Rooney, for example. On the contrary, they would have been calling for him to be banned from ever playing for England again.
good article here by the editor of a top Uruguayan paper, trying to at least explain the mindset. And below it in the comments, I liked this one
the author offers an insight into Uruguayan culture - it is not an attempt at an excuse, it offers no conspiracy theory. While I agree that some of the arguments for the defence aired in the media suggest total denial, why should anyone other than Suarez himself apologise for what took place? I wouldn't apologise for John Terry, would you?
To Arthur and Gillis, my point is that there are of course good and bad in any country, but attempts by many Uruguayans to whitewash the episode and deflect outrage are pathetic. And, while some of our media are horrific, they would not have come out with such pathetic arguments to whitewash Rooney, for example. On the contrary, they would have been calling for him to be banned from ever playing for England again.
And yes, you're being a tiny bit PC.
A tiny bit PC? If failing to conflate a country's media with the country as a whole is a tiny bit PC, then I'm happy to be branded so.
While the defence of Suarez reportedly advanced by a section of the Uruguayan media is unjustified and patently absurd, we are writing this two days after the former editor of one of our largest newspapers was found guilty of conspiring to hack phones.
I really can't see what there was to object to or disagree with in my post.
To Arthur and Gillis, my point is that there are of course good and bad in any country, but attempts by many Uruguayans to whitewash the episode and deflect outrage are pathetic. And, while some of our media are horrific, they would not have come out with such pathetic arguments to whitewash Rooney, for example. On the contrary, they would have been calling for him to be banned from ever playing for England again.
And yes, you're being a tiny bit PC.
A tiny bit PC? If failing to conflate a country's media with the country as a whole is a tiny bit PC, then I'm happy to be branded so.
While the defence of Suarez reportedly advanced by a section of the Uruguayan media is unjustified and patently absurd, we are writing this two days after the former editor of one of our largest newspapers was found guilty of conspiring to hack phones.
I really can't see what there was to object to or disagree with in my post.
The point I was making is that it doesn't matter a hoot what our media is like. This is about Suarez and Uruguayan denial. You perhaps don't realise that you're doing more or less the same thing as the Uruguayans in question, trying to bounce the question back onto an irrelevant target.
To Arthur and Gillis, my point is that there are of course good and bad in any country, but attempts by many Uruguayans to whitewash the episode and deflect outrage are pathetic. And, while some of our media are horrific, they would not have come out with such pathetic arguments to whitewash Rooney, for example. On the contrary, they would have been calling for him to be banned from ever playing for England again.
And yes, you're being a tiny bit PC.
A tiny bit PC? If failing to conflate a country's media with the country as a whole is a tiny bit PC, then I'm happy to be branded so.
While the defence of Suarez reportedly advanced by a section of the Uruguayan media is unjustified and patently absurd, we are writing this two days after the former editor of one of our largest newspapers was found guilty of conspiring to hack phones.
I really can't see what there was to object to or disagree with in my post.
The point I was making is that it doesn't matter a hoot what our media is like. This is about Suarez and Uruguayan denial. You perhaps don't realise that you're doing more or less the same thing as the Uruguayans in question, trying to bounce the question back onto an irrelevant target.
I think I'll make this my last post on the subject, as we seem to be heading off on a bit of a bizarre tangent.
As far as I can see, two posters, seemingly with first hand experience of Uruguay, stated that it is a classy country (I've expressed no opinion on this, as I've never been to the country, never met anyone from there and I know little about it).
You responded to this by saying that, "It's not all as classy a country as you think, perhaps," based on "several examples of paper and tv media in Uruguay," that you had seen. To me, it appears that you were making a judgement on the country as a whole (which is what the aforementioned two posters were talking about), based on the activities of a section of the Uruguayan media.
My point was that it doesn't seem fair to judge a whole country based on the activities of its media, and it would not reflect well on us if one were to judge the United Kingdom by the same criterion. That was all.
I thought the point we were responding to was the simple incorrect generalisation that a country, especially Uruguay, should not be classified as having ''no class''.
good article here by the editor of a top Uruguayan paper, trying to at least explain the mindset. And below it in the comments, I liked this one
the author offers an insight into Uruguayan culture - it is not an attempt at an excuse, it offers no conspiracy theory. While I agree that some of the arguments for the defence aired in the media suggest total denial, why should anyone other than Suarez himself apologise for what took place? I wouldn't apologise for John Terry, would you?
Interesting article and discussion, but what you (by implication) say is a little bit of a logical error (no offence meant to you or anyone on CL for comments on this thread). Personally, I would never apologise for Terry, in fact I would readily condemn him, for example on account of his racism, even though I confess to a sneaking liking for Chelski, just because they break the mould of the traditional big clubs. But the point is that denying is not the same as not apologising for something. Uruguayans trying to set up a conspiracy theory, like saying the English media that voted Suarez player of the year in spite of his past misdemeanours is being racist, are pathetic.
I thought the point we were responding to was the simple incorrect generalisation that a country, especially Uruguay, should not be classified as having ''no class''.
Something surely you would agree with?
Sorry, I don't want to prolong this. Yes, I agree with both of you. I have no reason whatsoever to abuse Uruguayans in general, or anyone else for that matter. Otoh, I can see why some of our fellow CLers would feel offended by Uruguayan attempts to turn concerns over the behaviour of Suarez round into racism. One of you accused a fellow CLer (not me) of "bigotry". In the context of the Suarez debate, I thought at the time that that was way over the top.
Co-incidentally I'm just reading this on the BBC which highlights it's not just Uruguyans who defend the indefensible.
''Liverpool have been forced to deal with a serial offender since he joined from Ajax in a £22.7m deal on 31 January 2011. He was banned for eight matches after being found guilty of racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra in October 2011, and subsequently received a 10-game suspension for biting Ivanovic. The club released a holding statement - they probably have them ready to cut and paste for Suarez these days - but it remains to be seen whether this is the final straw for a player who has dragged the good name of Liverpool through the mud on a regular basis. Liverpool's fans, and to an extent the club, seem prepared to forgive all of Suarez's misdemeanours in exchange for his brilliance on the pitch. They even forgave him his ham-fisted attempts to force a move to Arsenal last summer as he returned in triumph to score 31 league goals and almost take them to their first title in 24 years.''
When you talk about football you tend to refer to football. It is impossible to say a country has no class, but Uruguayan football can be argued not to have. It is interesting that pundits on the telly were saying that people in Brazil couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I think it is one of the big issues with football, that standards are so different. We - the English are probably one of the countries nearer the old ideals of decency and fair play, it seems that others believe that you can do what you like as long as you get away with it. Now FIFA normally re-enforces that -back when Maradona handled the ball into the net - he faced no sanction for blatent cheating. I used to play in a football team with a couple of italians - they practised diving intraining and couldn't genuinely undertsand why it upset us so much. There is a culture difference.
This is where there is confusion. Biting is vile and enough countries think it is vile for FIFA to act. But most countries don't have standards when it comes to other forms of cheating. Brazil won their first game through cheating and that was all well and good. Honesty probably cost England a sending off for a Uruguyan. But even in the british game - I have heard people saying that the ban is unfair on Liverpool - the ban is a punishment for Suarez, Lierpool have nothing to do with it! But it shows how self interest rather than decency is what modern football is all about. That feels wrong, but I fear there is no hope as too many countries have an entrenched view that cheating is fine and we will soon adopt it completely ourselves. Rather than decide whether something is right or wrong, they thing - how does it affect us? Sad- so very sad.
Still, Suarez was rightly punished and Uruguay and Liverpool fans should shut up about it. They can't fight what is undesputable.
Comments
Could he not be prosecuted under Brazilian common assault laws?
Bigotry is, sadly, alive and well on CL.
Scousers steaming as usual
BREAKING: Uruguayan Football Association president Wilmar Valdez has confirmed they will appeal Luis Suarez's four-month ban.
Seb Abreu with a dink to seal the win.
I'm not sure we in Britain should judge a country by what it's press say or do anyway. We live in the gutter where that is concerned.
And yes, you're being a tiny bit PC.
the author offers an insight into Uruguayan culture - it is not an attempt at an excuse, it offers no conspiracy theory.
While I agree that some of the arguments for the defence aired in the media suggest total denial, why should anyone other than Suarez himself apologise for what took place? I wouldn't apologise for John Terry, would you?
While the defence of Suarez reportedly advanced by a section of the Uruguayan media is unjustified and patently absurd, we are writing this two days after the former editor of one of our largest newspapers was found guilty of conspiring to hack phones.
I really can't see what there was to object to or disagree with in my post.
As far as I can see, two posters, seemingly with first hand experience of Uruguay, stated that it is a classy country (I've expressed no opinion on this, as I've never been to the country, never met anyone from there and I know little about it).
You responded to this by saying that, "It's not all as classy a country as you think, perhaps," based on "several examples of paper and tv media in Uruguay," that you had seen. To me, it appears that you were making a judgement on the country as a whole (which is what the aforementioned two posters were talking about), based on the activities of a section of the Uruguayan media.
My point was that it doesn't seem fair to judge a whole country based on the activities of its media, and it would not reflect well on us if one were to judge the United Kingdom by the same criterion. That was all.
Something surely you would agree with?
''Liverpool have been forced to deal with a serial offender since he joined from Ajax in a £22.7m deal on 31 January 2011.
He was banned for eight matches after being found guilty of racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra in October 2011, and subsequently received a 10-game suspension for biting Ivanovic.
The club released a holding statement - they probably have them ready to cut and paste for Suarez these days - but it remains to be seen whether this is the final straw for a player who has dragged the good name of Liverpool through the mud on a regular basis.
Liverpool's fans, and to an extent the club, seem prepared to forgive all of Suarez's misdemeanours in exchange for his brilliance on the pitch.
They even forgave him his ham-fisted attempts to force a move to Arsenal last summer as he returned in triumph to score 31 league goals and almost take them to their first title in 24 years.''
This is where there is confusion. Biting is vile and enough countries think it is vile for FIFA to act. But most countries don't have standards when it comes to other forms of cheating. Brazil won their first game through cheating and that was all well and good. Honesty probably cost England a sending off for a Uruguyan. But even in the british game - I have heard people saying that the ban is unfair on Liverpool - the ban is a punishment for Suarez, Lierpool have nothing to do with it! But it shows how self interest rather than decency is what modern football is all about. That feels wrong, but I fear there is no hope as too many countries have an entrenched view that cheating is fine and we will soon adopt it completely ourselves. Rather than decide whether something is right or wrong, they thing - how does it affect us? Sad- so very sad.
Still, Suarez was rightly punished and Uruguay and Liverpool fans should shut up about it. They can't fight what is undesputable.