Thanks for the detailed and informative response Heineken, I appreciate that I am treading on a sensitive subject that ardent rugby fans are passionate about. I remain of the personal opinion that it would do your society or the sport you love no favours to fail to tap into 90% of the population but accept that quotas are far from ideal (even as a relatively short-medium term solution) and totally accept there are robust counter arguments.
A few points I'd make in response are;
It is certainly a sensitive subject, and I appreciate the interest from foreigners. But you have to understand how damaging this is to our sport, and not just rugby, but every sport in SA. It's one of the very few things us middle to low wealth income people can look forward to and creates hope to live in this beautiful country of ours.
a) it is not racist to say that seeing someone with a similar background as you (e.g. skin colour, accent) play a sport might make you as a kid more inclined to pursue that sport. My failure growing up to ever hear a Scottish rugby player who spoke anything like me or my friends is a large reason why I have the Italian flag in my profile rather than the Scottish one. As a kid I never really could relate to the bunch of southern-hemisphere born, non-Scottish UK and/or almost uniformly upper middle class players that seemed to form the entire Scottish team for years on end. They might as well have been from another planet to me (thankfully that is improving and their is now broader social representation in the team, including fantastic and highly skilled ex-fee paying schoolboys).
True, but it's not uncommon in South Africa for kids to have role models in sport regardless of their skin colour. Kids under 14 doesn't even understand the concept of racism, hell even some adults still doesn't get that concept.
The point I'm making is that kids look up to players who perform, not feature. There is a difference.
b) The suggestion that black kids are less inclined to pursue a sport with a lot of physical contact isn't something I can agree with as a long term follower of American football. It's filled with black and white men that delight in some of the most extreme physical contact in sport. I'm sure most of them will have East African heritage rather than Southern Africa, but I don't think that would make a huge difference.
That is why I'm suggesting that a study should be done. It's a personal viewpoint of mine because of how I was brought up. I was in a poor primary school where 75% of the kids were traditional black children. During breaks, the black kids would play soccer and the white kids would play rugby, on many occasions we would invite them to play along, as they were just too many to play soccer, and we weren't enough to play rugby. And they were afraid. They would only play if it was touch-rugby.
That perspective has never dissipated and I am a firm believer that it is the case.
c) If quotas are used extensively around the world in education to increase the chance of a kid from a deprived area to receive a "top education" then I don't see why it should be utterly unacceptable for sport to do similar. Some of the objectives are broadly the same in both arenas. Quotas are widely used in UK TV, for example, no panel/quiz show on state TV is allowed unless it includes at least one female. That's not about beating men on the head, it's about letting young girls know that they can grow up to be a comedian too if they want. This rule is not imposed by female supremacists looking for revenge, but by moderate political forces that considered TV wasn't doing enough to be welcoming to woman and, because it had failed to do so,'direct action had to be taken.
If Quota's were used as an educational tool, then implementing it in sports is the worst showcase they can use. They are then basically taking away the fundamentals of what sport is. A competition where the best prospers. Implementing Quotas basically says that Sport is nothing but a Montessori idea, where participation is the only aspect one should look at. Why keep score and have a winner then?
d) I understand that the current quota rule (if it is indeed in place, which your Sports minister confusingly appears to deny?) allows 16 places in the squad of 23 to be held by white athletes. So crudely 10% of the population can in theory hold over two thirds of the places in a match day squad. To try and draw a direct comparison between that and the apartheid situation where (correct me if I am wrong) it was guaranteed that 0% of the players must ever be of colour is not a fair comparison. Two wrongs do not make a right, but we are talking about two very different scales of wrong with different motivations. And the second wrong arguably would never have been seen as being required if the first wrong hadn't made participation in top level rugby and cricket all but impossible for large sections of society. A Kevin Pietersen of this world has never been put in a position that is comparable to being excluded from something because of the colour of your skin. No matter how much he might lose it due to the rules.
But there is a massive difference. During Apartheid we weren't a Democracy and we didn't have a Constitution or even human rights. In 1993 we drafted an interim Constitution and in 1996 the final version was implemented. One of the fundamental rights is that there must be no discrimination based on sex/race/religion/sexual orientation. This Constitution was the baby of Nelson Mandela, who was the leader of the ANC. He was one of the advocates against the Quota system and said that it has no place in SA sport. Now his own party, the ANC, are violating the Constitution, the democratic policies and the wishes of Mandela.
There has been many polls over the last few years with regard to the Quota system, and every time the South African public votes against it, and by a very large margin. So why keep on forcing it down our throats?? Because they can.
e) The Boks had a disappointing 7s at the Olympics but are filled with top non-white talent. It'd be hard to argue there are any players in that side who are not there on merit. I don't see why what is the reality in your current 7s team could not also become the reality in XVs. In a few years time the XVs, like the 7s, might reach the stage that the perceived need for quotas has disappeared, with kids and adults from all different backgrounds being given a fair shake of the stick. I am assuming that there are no quotas for the 7s of course.
This is a very narrow viewpoint. For 7's you need skills and speed. Something our black players always have (one or the other). And that's why we will always have great black wingers. But the black props and hookers and flankers. We struggle to get good Locks, Scrumhalves, Fly Halves, Centres and Fullbacks. Those are all positions where the skillset isn't always necessary to be good at 7's.
But if you look at our 7's team, you would see that it was only Seabelo Senatla and Gigaba that were ethnic black players. De Jongh, Kolbe, Specman, Geduld, Afrika, are all coloured (mixed race) players, so the problem is basically the same as in the XV's.
f) I am sure certain ethnic groups are not fully supportive of gender equality. It's a shame SA rugby reinforced the perception that rugby is a "man's game" by not sending a women's team to the Olympics. I've no idea the ethnicity of whoever took that decision though, so this point may be off topic. But if it was white men then that ethnic group is also partly culpable for what you highlight.
We have a 7's women's team. They just didn't qualify for the Olympics. We also have a XV's team for the women, and they compete every year in tournaments. Perhaps you should go do the research first.
g) my posting of the link to the aerial photographs wasn't to guilt trip anyone but to genuinely ask if you felt a kid with great physical potential, born into poverty in SA would have any realistic prospect to develop into a top rugby or cricket player if government had not taken steps to encourage the uptake of certain sports in non-white communities. While it's not as much of a problem with football (e.g. the stereotype of poor Brazilian kid who makes it), rugby across many Tier 1 nations has been abysmal in the 20th century (and sometimes beyond) in engaging with kids from poorer backgrounds. I think we'd be sitting with the ocassional Habana, JP Pietersen and Philander somehow making it to the top if SA sport if politics didn't take steps to expand the appeal of the sport. Again, this is not just an SA issue, it's a rugby issue. I think SA society would be poorer if sporting uptake of kids (and support of adults) was largely down to what community you grew up in, with each community largely doing their own thing.
As stated in my previous post, SA Rugby is doing everything in their power to develop the sport. But the obstacles they face are just too big. And they are fighting against SAFA (South African Football Association). But due to SAFA having a much bigger wallet, SARU is fighting a losing battle.
Again, you need to differentiate between coloured and ethnic black. Habana, Pietersen and Philander are all coloured players, not ethnic black players like Nyakane, Kolisi and Notshe. We have plenty of coloured players, but not enough ethnic black players.
h) Quotas can be considered awful. But they may be less awful than doing nothing and accepting a situation that, to a casual observer, may not look a whole of a lot different to what existed shortly after the end of apartheid.
True, but again, the implementation is wrong. Rather use it on kids from age 8 to 18. And then let the kids decide if they want to make the step up to the professional arena where they are picked on merit and not on the colour of their skin.
