Multiculturalism is the demand that we understand, understand with people from other cultures, and meet them. but it is also logically the mutual requirement that they do the same for us. Moreover, our demands can easily become oppressive and dictatorial when we are more powerful than them.
A good example of this is Edinson Cavani, a Uruguayan soccer player who plays in England. Those who know about such things tell me that he is one of the best players in the world. After a particularly good game, he was congratulated by a friend on social media to whom he replied, “Gracias, negrito”.
Apparently, this phrase doesn’t have a derogatory racial connotation in Uruguayan Spanish as it represents a kind of affectionate salutation like mon vieux in French that has no connotation of age, but of course the language police couldn’t be expected to know or actually take this into account if this was the case or was communicated later. Their attitude was more like that of the American preacher, who said that if English was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for him: and the word Negrito obviously had a philological connection with the n-word insult in English for which it was enough the authorities to berate each other on behalf of the wretched of the earth, despite an immediate and pathetic apology from Cavani and his club Manchester United for any crime caused.
He was guilty of racism in the Stalinist sense, that is, he was “objectively” racist in the sense that in the Soviet Union anyone could be viewed as “objectively” an enemy of the people, even if they led a life that would normally be harmless and considered safe.
This was not enough for the Football Association, the governing body of English football. It banned Cavani for three games and fined him the equivalent of $ 135,000. Cavani pleaded guilty to violating the FA’s Code of Conduct regarding race etiquette. No doubt he did this to get the whole thing behind him as quickly as possible, but also because his sentence might have been more severe if he had been challenged and found guilty nonetheless. Here is summed up all the evils of the system of negotiation that completely undermines the rule of law: plead guilty even if you are innocent for fear of losing the game of poker that justice has now become and therefore face a worse sentence .
Of course, after Cavani admitted his guilt, he couldn’t appeal, at least not against the conviction. An appeal against the grossly disproportionate “punishment”, or rather the arbitrary imposition, that was imposed on him would most likely have produced an outcome contrary to that desired, since it would have shown the FA a much lower level of remorse than that one required. It would also have most likely enraged the FA, which itself acted out of the moral cowardice that seems to have overtaken almost all authorities in the country and led them to fight.
The football club, one of the most famous in the world, said it accepted the FA’s decision “out of respect and solidarity with the FA and out of the fight against racism in football”. This despite the fact that it also accepted that Cavani had no intention of racial insult and was never a racist. With a good moral sensibility worthy of Uriah Heep, he urged the FA to “invest” the $ 135,000 fine in “anti-racism initiatives,” most likely in the employment of someone who spies on racist aggressiveness like it the Spanish Inquisition was supposed to spy out Jewish tendencies or secret Jewish apostates among the Conversos. In occult racism there are job opportunities, clients and money to be made.
What was Cavani’s mistake (it can hardly be called a crime, at least in a moral sense)? He was not multicultural enough to understand the linguistic sensitivities of the bien pensant authorities whose grace and favor allowed him to earn sums of money that made him $ 135,000, which would mean $ 135 to me. He did not realize that under this rule, the mere lack of intent was insufficient to prove innocence and was not even an extenuating factor: the system was a system of absolute liability against which there was no defense. He was guilty of racism in the Stalinist sense, that is, he was “objectively” racist in the sense that in the Soviet Union anyone could be viewed as “objectively” an enemy of the people, even if they led a life that would normally be harmless and considered safe.
It is not necessary that someone is actually offended for something to be considered offensive. On the other hand, it also proves that it was offensive when someone took offense. That the offender was a paranoid, whose outrage was completely unreasonable or expressed in the hope of compensation or some other benefit, is not a defense, because one of the criteria for being offensive is simply that someone say, that he has taken offense, the Another criterion is a little more platonic, namely that someone could take offense.
Undoubtedly, the fact that Cavani could easily afford to forego the $ 135,000 theft of the FA under the guise of punishment somewhat reduced public sympathy for him. The fact is that people’s ties to the rule of law tend to be weak when a highly privileged, wealthy, or favorably placed person is badly treated. This of course means that the link with the rule of law is weak in court and is therefore easily undermined even in a democratic state. Democracy, after all, is perfectly compatible with tyranny, and we seem to be moving in its direction.
I first realized the irony of multiculturalism when a British newspaper sent me to cover the mass drunken loutishness of British tourists in Spain. I was horrified. It made Fellini’s Satyricon look like a Japanese tea ceremony. When I asked the participants in the perpetual public orgy if they weren’t ashamed to behave the way they did, they replied with the unanswerable multicultural answer: “It’s our culture”: which unfortunately it was now. And it has become our culture to steal a Uruguay’s money in order to use a word in their own language whose meaning and connotation we do not know or which we do not care.