The "South African Quota" catch-all thread

[GarethGriffiths]

As Mdaclarke rightly points out it IS racist.

Here's how I see it:

A White person, a Black person and an Asian person are all Human Beings. Most of these people are great, some aren't. Some of them might be good at something like hmm...rugby, for example and others not.

Telling somebody that they have to pick a certain number of people because they are in a Minority Ethnic category offends both common sense and also the race in question. Would you, for example, tell the New Zealand All Blacks that they are not allowed to score against Namibia in a competitive match because it may upset the Namibians? They might get triggered or deeply offended. That is basically calling out Namibia as Special Needs which they are not, they are just not in the same class as the All Blacks (and indeed VERY few teams are of that calibre).

Every race and every person has their own drawbacks and limitations, so to say 'we must help Group A by punishing Group B' is stupidity. Group A can improve by working harder, training better, applying themselves more. Even then, they are not entitled to wear the shirt - that privilege is only for the best XV plus subs. Would you put an Asian person in the Infantry just because some (usually) morbidly obese angry hemidemisexual genderfluid human-shaped thingamebob Trigglypuff lookalike says to?

You cannot award somebody something as sacred as a place in an International team if he/she/other definition has not earned that privilege. Being born a specific race is irrelevant - it is what you bring to that team which matters. Would you rather have 15 Martin Johnson's in your starting XV or a handful of leaders plus the politically correct add-ons who are only playing because the 'Everything Is Horrible Boo Hoo' parade got rained off (by racist rain, of course)?

Anybody who chooses cool and PC over picking the best team regardless of race is a Category A Spunknut.

* Addendum - An inwardly racist Category A Spunknut.

 

[User1245]

In his own way B_M_G clearly cares about the Springboks and as a Saffas I do appreciate that. It would be much easier for him to avoid the topic altogether and, although I don't know him, I'm sure if he was bored he could find something far more entertaining to do. Overall the global rugby community wants a competitive African side as indicated by them putting up with our shenanigans pretty much since the beginning.

The ANC regime must have some good people operating their PR because the general feeling from most sport loving South Africans (strongly opposed to and vocal against racial quotas) seems to contradict the general mood in the global rugby community (not concerned enough to voice opinions either way). There are some posters from other countries who engage in the discussion however it's a small percentage of the 33 000 members TRF has. The transgression of a World Rugby rule doesn't match the reaction. I think us Saffas need to take a step back and reflect why we're the only ones harping on about it and why nobody else seems to care. Are we presenting the issue in the wrong way?
I don't for one second believe that if presented all the facts the rugby community would not see how short sighted and down right racist it is. Political views aside, this is sport and the ANC policy is against the spirit of sport.

I'm confident that the vast majority of South Africans want there to be an increased focus on rugby development in the rural areas of SA. I have yet to meet a Springbok supporter who doesn't agree. Why? Because we know it would contribute to a strong national rugby team. I reckon if you took the most racist of genuine rugby supporter (both black and white) and said here is two Springbok teams one has the majority race you belong to and the other has the majority of the another race. The former will loose to the All Blacks while the latter will beat the All Blacks comprehensively. I would bet that they would go for the win even if it was against their archaic/distorted belief system. If they don't go for the win then they should crawl back into their respective caves and spare society their presence.

 

[mdaclarke]

In his own way B_M_G clearly cares about the Springboks and as a Saffas I do appreciate that. It would be much easier for him to avoid the topic altogether and, although I don't know him, I'm sure if he was bored he could find something far more entertaining to do. Overall the global rugby community wants a competitive African side as indicated by them putting up with our shenanigans pretty much since the beginning.

The ANZ regime must have some good people operating their PR because the general feeling from most sport loving South Africans (strongly opposed to and vocal against racial quotas) seems to contradict the general mood in the global rugby community (not concerned enough to voice opinions either way). There are some posters from other countries who engage in the discussion however it's a small percentage of the 33 000 members TRF has. The transgression of a World Rugby rule doesn't match the reaction. I think us Saffas need to take a step back and reflect why we're the only ones harping on about it and why nobody else seems to care. Are we presenting the issue in the wrong way?
I don't for one second believe that if presented all the facts the rugby community would not see how short sighted and down right racist it is. Political views aside, this is sport and the ANC policy is against the spirit of sport.

I'm confident that the vast majority of South Africans want there to be an increased focus on rugby development in the rural areas of SA. I have yet to meet a Springbok supporter who doesn't agree. Why? Because we know it would contribute to a strong national rugby team. I reckon if you took the most racist of genuine rugby supporter (both black and white) and said here is two Springbok teams one has the majority race you belong to and the other has the majority of the another race. The former will loose to the All Blacks while the latter will beat the All Blacks comprehensively. I would bet that they would go for the win even if it was against their archaic/distorted belief system. If they don't go for the win then they should crawl back into their respective caves and spare society their presence.

Agree. I think it gets more attention up north than you'd think. People think it's wrong. I think it will be tolerated however as long as the springboks are competitive. If I'm being honest the Boks have such national resources that they will continue to be competitive, and may win the world cup, regardless of the monstrosity that is transformation.

 

[profitius]

The quotas are talked about by the fans but the media are ignoring it. The media is very much to the left so - heres the funny part - racism doesn't exist if anyone besides white are the culprits. If it doesn't fit the narrative its ignored.

 

[AM_Bokke]

In his own way B_M_G clearly cares about the Springboks and as a Saffas I do appreciate that. It would be much easier for him to avoid the topic altogether and, although I don't know him, I'm sure if he was bored he could find something far more entertaining to do. Overall the global rugby community wants a competitive African side as indicated by them putting up with our shenanigans pretty much since the beginning.

The ANC regime must have some good people operating their PR because the general feeling from most sport loving South Africans (strongly opposed to and vocal against racial quotas) seems to contradict the general mood in the global rugby community (not concerned enough to voice opinions either way). There are some posters from other countries who engage in the discussion however it's a small percentage of the 33 000 members TRF has. The transgression of a World Rugby rule doesn't match the reaction. I think us Saffas need to take a step back and reflect why we're the only ones harping on about it and why nobody else seems to care. Are we presenting the issue in the wrong way?
I don't for one second believe that if presented all the facts the rugby community would not see how short sighted and down right racist it is. Political views aside, this is sport and the ANC policy is against the spirit of sport.

I'm confident that the vast majority of South Africans want there to be an increased focus on rugby development in the rural areas of SA. I have yet to meet a Springbok supporter who doesn't agree. Why? Because we know it would contribute to a strong national rugby team. I reckon if you took the most racist of genuine rugby supporter (both black and white) and said here is two Springbok teams one has the majority race you belong to and the other has the majority of the another race. The former will loose to the All Blacks while the latter will beat the All Blacks comprehensively. I would bet that they would go for the win even if it was against their archaic/distorted belief system. If they don't go for the win then they should crawl back into their respective caves and spare society their presence.

This is an excellent comment and as an American Springbok fan that knows very little about South Africa I will take it on.

First, the global rugby media and community does talk about transformation from many different angles.

1014 here -

HYPR-SPORT here -

The Guardian here - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-racial-quotas-sport-rugby-springboks-cricket

It is an incredibly complex issue that is the direct legacy of deep inequality, injustice and disenfranchisement so it is hard to talk about. Most people just won't put the effort in because it is too much work to understand and very easy to be ignorant and lack empathy (for either side).

There is a comment on the Guardian article that I think sums up the discussion quite well though: "It was the quota system for white rugby players that screwed up South African rugby."

Apartheid was, and still is, a deep social trauma. While I appreciate all of the comments about how far South Africa has come in the past 25 years it will take many more, if not hundreds of years to fully heal. This doesn't make the current transformation program right, but it does make it understandable.

From what I understand, the South Africa Sevens team is able to execute transformation at all levels, from the squad to the players on the field, at all times. And the Blitzbokke have an incredible all around program. The players consistently talk about how proud they are of their structures in interviews. One of the reasons that SARU has been able to execute transformation successfully in sevens is because sevens is divorced from the "old boys" networks in the South African provincial rugby structure. While I have never heard or read anyone call anyone associated with South African rugby racist, South Africa has a long rugby heritage that has a culture just as deeply rooted that has been slow to adapt to the needs, and opportunities, of contemporary South Africa. Cultural change takes a long time and frequently requires incentives.

A lot of people have issues with Heyneke Meyer's selections and development of South African rugby. I think that his tenure as head coach really showed how far South Africa's conservative rugby culture has to go, and not just with regards to race. I have never seen anyone accuse Meyer of being racist, but I have seen people state that they think that he was comfortable with what he knew and understood, and that what he knew and understood was white rugby players.

And lastly, as a rugby fan from a non traditional country, I would say that I support South Africa because of the country's story and what it represents: multiculturalism, struggle and hope. If I wanted to support a white potato, prep school boy rugby team I wouldn't need South Africa. Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and even England mostly would have me covered.

 

[AM_Bokke]

and this one...

 

[User1245]

This is an excellent comment and as an American Springbok fan that knows very little about South Africa I will take it on.

First, the global rugby media and community does talk about transformation from many different angles.

1014 here -

HYPR-SPORT here -

The Guardian here - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-racial-quotas-sport-rugby-springboks-cricket

It is an incredibly complex issue that is the direct legacy of deep inequality, injustice and disenfranchisement so it is hard to talk about. Most people just won't put the effort in because it is too much work to understand and very easy to be ignorant and lack empathy (for either side).

There is a comment on the Guardian article that I think sums up the discussion quite well though: "It was the quota system for white rugby players that screwed up South African rugby."

Apartheid was, and still is, a deep social trauma. While I appreciate all of the comments about how far South Africa has come in the past 25 years it will take many more, if not hundreds of years to fully heal. This doesn't make the current transformation program right, but it does make it understandable.

From what I understand, the South Africa Sevens team is able to execute transformation at all levels, from the squad to the players on the field, at all times. And the Blitzbokke have an incredible all around program. The players consistently talk about how proud they are of their structures in interviews. One of the reasons that SARU has been able to execute transformation successfully in sevens is because sevens is divorced from the "old boys" networks in the South African provincial rugby structure. While I have never heard or read anyone call anyone associated with South African rugby racist, South Africa has a long rugby heritage that has a culture just as deeply rooted that has been slow to adapt to the needs, and opportunities, of contemporary South Africa. Cultural change takes a long time and frequently requires incentives.

A lot of people have issues with Heyneke Meyer's selections and development of South African rugby. I think that his tenure as head coach really showed how far South Africa's conservative rugby culture has to go, and not just with regards to race. I have never seen anyone accuse Meyer of being racist, but I have seen people state that they think that he was comfortable with what he knew and understood, and that what he knew and understood was white rugby players.

And lastly, as a rugby fan from a non traditional country, I would say that I support South Africa because of the country's story and what it represents: multiculturalism, struggle and hope. If I wanted to support a white potato, prep school boy rugby team I wouldn't need South Africa. Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and even England mostly would have me covered.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. Especially coming from a country like the USA. Like you say, learning what the heck is going on in a country like SA must be a time intensive task and getting wrong can stir emotions. As a Bok supporter it's nice to support for our team outside the country. Normally people from non-traditional rugby countries go straight to the All Blacks (although I don't blame them as I jumped on the Detroit Red Wings bandwagon back in the day).

You're right about the Sevens team being our shining beacon of what's possible when talent and merit are the main focus. Whoever is running the show there with talent identification is doing a great job overall. Can't ever think of a time when there was a political episode. They do heavily rely on Unions to produce the players in the first place though. Often they get cherry picked while playing for their Union.

However with politics you often just need to follow the money and that is where you find the meddling. You're obviously left at the mercy of the media to try and formulate a picture. The ANC has normalised political interference again and the rest of the world seems to be going along with it because "that's just the way things are in SA" . Again, we need to take a step back and remember that politics in sport is by no uncertain terms prohibited by World Rugby.

Is there an old boys network pulling the strings? I don't know, I haven't seen evidence of this. I know that KZN and Western Province unions are headed up by a black and coloured person respectively but it wouldn't shock me if there was some form nepotism and/or discrimination in certain sectors of a Union.

Was Meyer genuinely favouring white players? Again I don't know, I haven't seen evidence of this. I never come across the journalist Siya Mnyanda who claims this, a Google search on him shows he mostly writes about politics so I do question his authority on the subject of rugby. He talks about Hougie playing on the wing as evidence and references his own article. Meyer played Hougie on the wing many times at the Bulls, at one stage that was his primary role there. Coaching preference most probably. Remembering Meyer was key to Habana becoming a super star.

I am not naive enough to think that racism isn't in the sport. There surely is but I can't believe it is the central tenet as it's made out to be. In fact the evidence seems to swing the other way in a purely political manner like Luke Watson's forced inclusion. That whole fiasco is a perfect example of how politics is driving the whole agenda rather than genuine rugby and social interests. Cheeky Watson, Luke's dad, is currently on trial for massive corruption along with some of his ANC cronies. Surprisingly not for bankrupting the Eastern Province Union! Maybe that is coming up next... So much for the agenda of helping black talent.

HYPR-SPORT's video comes the closest in my opinion. It was a good laugh as well haha. One thing he does get wrong and I've heard it a couple of times is that rugby is not a private school thing in SA like other countries. Grey College, Jeppe, Glenwood, etc are public schools. Private schools are the whipping boys traditionally. I remember loving playing against private schools lol best time to practice new stuff for the big games. He is absolutely right that the rugby culture needs to expand in SA. And it should be the main focus, the culture and exposure to the sport. One of my biggest gripes with the ANC is they're always trying to get a piece of the pie instead of helping create a new pie. Transformation and quotas are not related. Again the vast majority of rugby fans want transformation, we want more black talent coming through to help make the Boks stronger. We know that this will make us stronger. Quotas at international level is not how you get this happening though and if anything it's counter productive. A winning team is how you get people on board. Things like getting the sport shown live on free to air is what the government needs to do for grass roots exposure. Rugby clinics and new competitions for rural schools. Rugby has a formidable challenge in soccer which is historically favoured by black Africans not just in SA but obviously the entire continent. What other team sports do you see African teams competing in? It's also good to remember that this is an African country we're talking about. The worst poverty in SA is pretty much the same as any African country and will be just as difficult to overcome.

Regardless there does seem to be an image problem for white South Africans who follow rugby. Given the history I can understand this. I would however plea that most of us are given the benefit of the doubt. Often our actions don't reflect what is being perpetuated by old perceptions. Notice how the entire crowd shouts BEAST when Tendai gets the ball and how well loved and supported the Sevens team is. We love good rugby regardless of who is playing. The ones that are stuck in the dark ages of race counting are as irrelevant and as influential as the ones who long for the amateur day.

Edit: PS I'm not solely replying to you AM_Bokke. It's aimed at all non-South Africans.

 

[AM_Bokke]

I love rooting for South Africa.

I hope the country gets a better government soon.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that picking teams on the basis of race is not racist?

The point I am making is:

- The SARU state there is no quota system in place and players are picked on merit.
- The ANC state there is no quota system in place and such a system would be wrong.
- Arithmetic proves that there is no hard quota system in place, with the number of non-white players in squads in the past 18 months ranging from 6 (or 5?) to 11.

Therefore, why would any right minded soul be desperate to see evidence to the contrary and read race into nearly every squad selection issue facing the Boks?

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I think you are clutching at straws now.

Rhule can be seen in the exact same light as Beast Mtawarira. as both were born in other countries and then moved to SA. When they got picked for the boks, they weren't considered as Xhosa, Zulu, Sotho, Khoi or San. But then again, neither was Kolisi, Mbonambi, Ralepelle or Mohoje.

All of them were considered as Black South Africans. end of story. They are picked because of the colour of their skin, not from which tribe they are from. If you really want to revert beack to history, then all the black south africans apart from the San and Khoi people, are Ghanaian or another northern/central african country.

honestly, your remarks are now becoming laughable. And I'm seriously beginning to think that you are some sort of agent trying to wind us up.

I'm using the Transformation report as my source document - if facts give you a giggle then fair enough. It is abundantly clear that the goal of transformation is not to "do a Scotland" and pinch players from neighbouring countries. It is to rear home grown players from as diverse a cross section of the population as possible.

Ergo, it is perfectly reasonable for me to assert that south African born black players like Mapimpi or Mohoje would be valued more from a transformation perspective. It is also therefore fair to suggest that if selections were massively influenced by transformation factors, then players like Mapimpi (Pro14 top try scorer, playing lights out for the whole year) would be in the Boks squad.

I see that the ANC government just outbid France and Ireland by pledging $160million for a sport that so many, for so long, have tried to keep a pursuit of a small minority of the population. Not a bad bit of financial assistance from a rugby hating bunch of racists is it?

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

My broad interpretation is that B_M_G is attempting to show that the target / quota system in the absence of any alternative, is a "fair" way to facilitate transformation despite its flaws however, with all due respect to his opinion this thinking is somewhat naive in as far as the theory always sounds better than the reality.
B_M_G contradicts your earlier post that selection is racist by quoting "The SARU, sports minister and arithmetic all state otherwise."
This point alone illustrates the naivety.
As any Saffa knows who has lived in SA recently the socio-political reality is very different to the PR tripe being peddled by corrupt officials with their prejudicial agendas and fudged stats.

The discrimination issues in SA Rugby are just the tip of the iceberg. Prejudice is rife and has permeated into every aspect of life in SA today and society is growing weary of this.

I would remind B_M_G that the definition of apartheid is a policy or system of discrimination on grounds of race.

Walk a mile in another mans shoes then you can make an objective call.

Apartheid is about "segregation" on the grounds of race and derives from the Afrikaans word for "seperateness" (so I'm told). It is the economic, social and political exclusion of human beings based on their race. That is a far stronger and repugnant version of "racism" than any hypothetical (and unproven) quota system and it is grossly indecent and inappropriate to draw a comparison between the two.

"a political system in which people of different races are separated"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/apartheid

It seems some posters could do with a few history lessons of their own for African affairs. Heck, I think Wikipedia would be a start for some gauging from a couple of posts above.

It's amusing that someone can think they know everything about a country get all they know from the internet and then think they know absolutely all! Ospervat, your words " Walk a mile in another mans shoes then you can make an objective call." is absolutely spot-on here. I mean, I might just as well go watch Braveheart three times in a row and then think I know every thing there is to know about the history and future of Scotland. GTFO!

I find it amusing that posters in an international forum should resort to the old cry of "you aren't from here, what do you know?" rather than engaging in any meaningful discussion, or forwarding any point with a credible reference.

The point of my posts, as with most posts in a public forum, is to stimulate discussion and debate. I try not to retread old ground and introduce new evidence into proceedings. But today I've decided to reiterate a fews points, if you'll pardon the indulgence.

My end game is that in a few years time, when South African rugby is more representative of their population in terms of race, gender and economic/social background they will be more competitive, and we can all look back and laugh at the folly of those who felt Transformation was an evil bogeyman out to deprive you of your enjoyment.

 

[mdaclarke]

You can say what you want Bruce ma goose, won't change my view that the only thing that should be considered when it comes to selection is sporting ability. Pick the best players, everything else is irrelevant and shouldn't be taken into consideration.

 

[unrated]

The point I am making is:

- The SARU state there is no quota system in place and players are picked on merit.
- The ANC state there is no quota system in place and such a system would be wrong.
- Arithmetic proves that there is no hard quota system in place, with the number of non-white players in squads in the past 18 months ranging from 6 (or 5?) to 11.

Therefore, why would any right minded soul be desperate to see evidence to the contrary and read race into nearly every squad selection issue facing the Boks?

Bruce i know you comment on a variety of topics across the board and i do respect that you have an interest in foreign matters. I do however believe you are fundamentally wrong on the matter at hand.
It seems you take official documents as fact? Rather observe the actions of ANC members and government officials along with their stated "policy".
No quota system in place?? yet 50% of the team has to be black within two years from now. Former black Springboks have come out and revealed how the government forced the Springbok coaches to pick them.

We would also like to have the whole nation involved in rugby as it would make the Springboks much stronger. But the fact that quotas are in play at the moment cannot be denied. The comments/threats ministers and government officials makes throughout the year clearly indicates this to people actually following the situation thoroughly.

The real problem is the quotas on international level while many believe the focus should be to introduce as many black kids to rugby as possible and try and forge a culture of loving rugby in the black population. No defence of quotas on a international or provincial level should ever be justified as it is reverse discrimination. In some of your posts you defend quotas and in others like the one i am quoting you are denying they exist.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I'm using the Transformation report as my source document - if facts give you a giggle then fair enough. It is abundantly clear that the goal of transformation is not to "do a Scotland" and pinch players from neighbouring countries. It is to rear home grown players from as diverse a cross section of the population as possible.

You're almost getting it. SA Rugby has a policy to use home grown talent, and we take pride in that. We've never been poachers, we are the country whose players are being poached.

But what I think you are trying to say is about 2 players. Beast Mtawarira, and Raymond Rhule, who was from other african countries but are now springboks. The issue is that both these players played rugby in SA since they were kids. They were never project players, or even targets. We never sent scouts to Zimbabwe or to Ghana to draft them to come to SA and become Springbok Rugby players.

Did you know that Former Springbok Captain, Corne Krige was also from another african country?? Zambia.

What you are not getting is that Transformation is a plan just like BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) where they want to put black people into certain position ahead of white people, regardless of qualifications/merits/skills/experience etc. But purely because of race.

By the way, are you aware that there is a case that is being heard at our Constitutional Court to abolish the BEE laws??

Ergo, it is perfectly reasonable for me to assert that south African born black players like Mapimpi or Mohoje would be valued more from a transformation perspective. It is also therefore fair to suggest that if selections were massively influenced by transformation factors, then players like Mapimpi (Pro14 top try scorer, playing lights out for the whole year) would be in the Boks squad.

I won't disagree with you with Mapimpi. But then again, this is his first year of high performance rugby, and based on previous events, we have seen many players in Super Rugby blow us away in their first year, and then can't cut it at international level, or even Super Rugby level the following years.

Mohoje, I think everyone will agree that he's a decent Super Rugby level player. But at the international stage he's falling short. And in his position we have a lot more players that's better than him.

I see that the ANC government just outbid France and Ireland by pledging $160million for a sport that so many, for so long, have tried to keep a pursuit of a small minority of the population. Not a bad bit of financial assistance from a rugby hating bunch of racists is it?

Do you seriously don't get the plan here?? The ANC government? The same government that is introducing the transformation policies?? The same government that said that if transformation doesn't happen will not give backing to us hosting major events?

Of course they will pump as much money as they can into Rugby. How else will they get their wish?? They provide the funds, now the unions must dance to their tune.

Apartheid is about "segregation" on the grounds of race and derives from the Afrikaans word for "seperateness" (so I'm told). It is the economic, social and political exclusion of human beings based on their race. That is a far stronger and repugnant version of "racism" than any hypothetical (and unproven) quota system and it is grossly indecent and inappropriate to draw a comparison between the two.

"a political system in which people of different races are separated"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/apartheid

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/apartheid

Yes, that is the definition of Apartheid. But it was a whole government.

Now we have a democracy, with a constitution. 2 things we didn't have during Apartheid.

Democracy along with the constitution is about equal rights and no discrimination no matter the race/gender/sexual preference/religion.

The difference is that now with the transformation idea, they are doing what was done during Apartheid, but being more crafty in how they enforce it.

Again we stress the fact that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

It seems some posters could do with a few history lessons of their own for African affairs. Heck, I think Wikipedia would be a start for some gauging from a couple of posts above.

Really? You're going to rely on Wikipedia, where a lot of information can be edited by any fool with a keyboard. Come on Bruce, you can do better than that.

I find it amusing that posters in an international forum should resort to the old cry of "you aren't from here, what do you know?" rather than engaging in any meaningful discussion, or forwarding any point with a credible reference.

We are trying our utmost best, to have a meaningful discussion, but you are not hearing what we are saying. You ignore our comments for weeks on end, and then come back and say the exact same thing over and over.

It feels like a redundancy cycle.

Can you really blame us for saying that? Which other country in the world is subjected to this? I think we have every right to say that.

The point of my posts, as with most posts in a public forum, is to stimulate discussion and debate. I try not to retread old ground and introduce new evidence into proceedings. But today I've decided to reiterate a fews points, if you'll pardon the indulgence.

Which new evidence have you provided? Actually what evidence have you provided?? We supplied you with evidence, but you seem to look past it, or not take it at face value.

My end game is that in a few years time, when South African rugby is more representative of their population in terms of race, gender and economic/social background they will be more competitive, and we can all look back and laugh at the folly of those who felt Transformation was an evil bogeyman out to deprive you of your enjoyment.

Man, seriously, you are not getting what we are saying.

We have no issue with getting people of all races involved in rugby. We are saying the way that it is being done is fundamentally flawed. The top-heavy idea is not working, and our sport has been suffering because of it. We welcome the idea of getting more kids involved in rugby, and maybe we will unearth more gems.

But trying to force things at Springbok level is not the right way to do it.

Maybe you missed the recent article of Tim Dlulane, who admitted that Jake White was forced to start him in the only test Dlulane played for the springboks due to political interference.

 

[Ospervat]

Apartheid is about "segregation" on the grounds of race and derives from the Afrikaans word for "seperateness" (so I'm told). It is the economic, social and political exclusion of human beings based on their race. That is a far stronger and repugnant version of "racism" than any hypothetical (and unproven) quota system and it is grossly indecent and inappropriate to draw a comparison between the two.

"a political system in which people of different races are separated"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/apartheid

It seems some posters could do with a few history lessons of their own for African affairs. Heck, I think Wikipedia would be a start for some gauging from a couple of posts above.



I find it amusing that posters in an international forum should resort to the old cry of "you aren't from here, what do you know?" rather than engaging in any meaningful discussion, or forwarding any point with a credible reference.

The point of my posts, as with most posts in a public forum, is to stimulate discussion and debate. I try not to retread old ground and introduce new evidence into proceedings. But today I've decided to reiterate a fews points, if you'll pardon the indulgence.

My end game is that in a few years time, when South African rugby is more representative of their population in terms of race, gender and economic/social background they will be more competitive, and we can all look back and laugh at the folly of those who felt Transformation was an evil bogeyman out to deprive you of your enjoyment.

OK B_M_G - let's get into the semantics if that's what you really want.

The original definition of apartheid in 1948 was that it was a system of forced racial segregation where races lived and developed separately. On paper it appeared to call for equal development and freedom of cultural expression, but the way it was implemented was quite different. Various prejudicial policies and practices evolved and morphed from the original philosophy. The reality was far more discriminatory.

You have quoted the Cambridge dictionary definition of apartheid as "a political system in which people of different races are separated"

This is the true definition on paper ito it's original meaning however, as we know from history the reality is very different. This reality has forced society to look very carefully at the definition of apartheid in practice not on paper and most would agree that the modern definition (a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race) is a more accurate definition.

I agree that there is no absolute comparison between the sinister apartheid policies of 1948-1986 and the current selection / appointment policies in SA Rugby but you really have missed the point. I will reiterate an earlier point for you - The discrimination issues in SA Rugby are just the tip of the iceberg. Prejudice is rife and has permeated into every aspect of life in SA today and society is growing weary of this.

In the same way that the reality of apartheid from 1948-86 was very different to the definition on paper so equally the reality in South Africa today is very different to the social, economic and political policies you have read on-line and on paper.

It is about this aspect that you have absolutely no experience and no idea. You are quite frankly clueless.
That might explain why you find it amusing that posters in an international forum should resort to the old cry of "you aren't from here, what do you know?"

In accordance with your request for a credible reference I will simply put myself forward. I lived in SA from 1970 - 2005. I have experienced living in SA during the apartheid era. I have experienced living in SA post apartheid. I have experienced living in the UK. I now know the difference between a free and fair society and a prejudicial one. The policies and practices of the SA government and its stakeholders (including SA Rugby) today are discriminatory based on race and this falls within the modern definition of apartheid.

That is the reality.

 

[User1245]

B_M_G,

My dude... My hombre... My china...

We've gone past point of providing evidence. You can't sit on one article/document/report and say that this is not definitive proof. Look at everything you have been provided.

The sport minister banned SARU from bidding for the RWC for not meeting ANC targets = FACT

Jake White was forced to pick black players and politically connected players (Luke Watson) = FACT

Laurie Maines spoke about how the quota system should go = FACT

etc, etc, etc...

Not to mention the stories of quotas at school level from people on this very forum.

Provide us with something new.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I have provided you guys with:

- Quotes from the SARU and ANC denouncing and denying quotas as a system.
- A breakdown of squads showing that the number of non-white players has fluctuated between 6 (or 5) and 11 in the past 18-24months.

I would be delighted to read articles that provided clear evidence of pressure to select certain players. I am more than happy to read articles presenting the other side of the coin. Yet none are posted here. By last count I think not a single one in 10 pages (in this thread or any other). An argument is presented best when it is supported by something we can look at and understand, preferably one from a credible source with quotes from a primary source directly involved in the story in question (like when I provided links to quotes by the SARU or the Sports Minister).

It is a bit rich to accuse me of ignoring arguments or evidence when neither is presented to me. Put things infront of me and you might put my "gas at a peep" as we say here. I would not be surprised if there was nefarious political pressure in South African rugby but I'm not going to make that judgement based solely on the say-so of posters personal opinions. The Tim Dlulane argument I am not aware of (and would be good to read), but his Boks selection appears to have been back in 2004? Do we have anything more current than 13 years ago to use as an example?

Yes the ANC put very real pressure on the SARU over transformation targets (and the report posted above showed that targets in relation to race, economic background / social class and disability had all been missed by the union). But there are 101 ways for a government to undermine a minority grouping (like ethnic Europeans) or destroy a sport; most of which are a damn sight cheaper than pledging to throw $160 million at them.

In an international forum such as this there must surely be an expectation to hear opinions from other parts of the world and ideas contrary to our own? Otherwise what is the point? I wouldn't dream of saying an opinion on Scottish sport or society is invalid because it comes from someone outside of the country.

I do tend to post slowly in this forum as it is not a priority for me, it's an emotive subject and I feel it is counter productive and insensitive to post when the Boks have just received a beating. So I choose now to post following your victory in Paris and before you get a royal going over by Italy!

Anyway, especially for those of you who think thoughts on transformation are only legitimate if they are made in a South African accent, here is this rugby magazine fella, Ryan Vrede, with some stern words 50 seconds in for those who cry "quota" every time the Boks have a bad result.



While "racist bile" are not the words I'd choose, I can see where he is coming from - I think "lazy" and "ill thought out" would have been a better word choice for him. But it is perhaps a reality check for those who appear to think people who are not convinced that quotas are being imposed are just a daft wee foreigners that have an obscure opinion that no "real" South African could ever hold.

Mercifully one of the things that make this forum a pleasure to dip my toe into is that the vast majority of posters are far to mature to indulge in such antics, so this is not an attack on any of the posts made in this thread or elsewhere.

 

[mdaclarke]

https://images.supersport.com/content/SARUSTP.pdf

Of course the ANC and SARU won't say quota, that would be an explicit admission that they are breaking IOC and IRB rules.

 

[Brigantine]

There is one argument for quotas at the top level that makes a bit of sense to me.

Ignore messy reality for a moment and make these assumptions:
- Introducing more and more diverse people to beginner rugby is needed
- Everyone who wants to start rugby has adequate access to it (in terms of resources and approachability)
- There is no real racism in SARU or their selections at higher levels
- But there *is* a perception of racism, as perceived by many 'diverse' people who might otherwise start beginner rugby
- This perception leads these people to underestimate their prospects if they become good at rugby, and as a result many do not choose to start rugby
- An increased number of "role models" at the top level (i.e. quotas/"transformation") would mitigate this *perception* of racism

Making those assumptions, many more potential future stars would join beginner rugby *with quotas at the top*, so quotas are needed.
Otherwise it's a catch 22. To get eggs, first you need a chicken - even if it's ugly.

Each one of those assumptions can be argued (I don't know enough to judge), and you can also argue that the side-effects of a quota system do more harm than they're worth... But that's *one* chain of logic supporting quotas (at least in principle) that *doesn't* rely totally on accusing people of racism.

It isn't rugby fans who need to be convinced that there isn't a racism problem in SARU. It's everyone else - people who *don't* follow rugby, but should.
(Co-incidentally the same people the ANC want votes from)

I guess the relevance of all that, is that the way to argue against quotas is to make the case that SA rugby is perfectly able to prove its inclusiveness and appeal to a wider audience, even without XYZ policy. You can get the eggs first.

 

[unrated]

I would be delighted to read articles that provided clear evidence of pressure to select certain players. I am more than happy to read articles presenting the other side of the coin. Yet none are posted here. By last count I think not a single one in 10 pages (in this thread or any other). An argument is presented best when it is supported by something we can look at and understand, preferably one from a credible source with quotes from a primary source directly involved in the story in question (like when I provided links to quotes by the SARU or the Sports Minister).

The Tim Dlulane argument I am not aware of (and would be good to read), but his Boks selection appears to have been back in 2004? Do we have anything more current than 13 years ago to use as an example?

I fully agree with your "preferably one from a credible source with quotes from a primary source directly involved in the story in question (like when I provided links to quotes by the SARU or the Sports Minister)." statement that is one of the main requirements to determine whether an article is fake or not. Official sources is necessary in the creation of credible articles.
I'm glad foreign people is showing an interest in this and i encourage you to continue to do so. But i amongst others believe your opinion is incorrect although you have the right to express it. I hope you are willing to change your opinion if the necessary facts come to light as too many people in this world only want to stand by their opinion no matter the evidence proving the contrary. Secondly you are not experiencing this racist system at ground level the way we do and the only way we can try and translate what is happening on the ground here is via articles from respected media companies. The alternative is the South Africans on the Forum expressing their thoughts on the subject which you aren't really willing to believe. Which is totally
ok if you apply critical thinking principles in making a judgement. But dont be too dismissive of the South African posters comments. There might be hints of bias but even then elements of truth are present. The racial targets are not only present in sport but in almost all sectors of South African life such as Education and the Economic environment. I will try and link you to sources outside of rugby where they provide a clue of how this reverse discrimination affects other areas of life here. For one black people need a lower average than a white person in high school to get into university ( A relevant link to SA tertiary institutions will follow.) And yes i acknowledge your claim that some government and ANC officials has denied the existence of quotas but dont just believe the politicians look at their policy and actions such as the strategic transformation plan. A different name for quotas they use is transformation. Now they can deny quotas because its called something different. Transformation/ Black Economic empowerment/ Affirmative action etc.

i'd be surprised if there is a newer case then Tim Dlulane as players still playing would not want to risk their careers although guys like Duane Vermeulen has hinted about it.
There are many Sport 24 articles i would have liked more diversity in the articles i link but this site is by far the largest media organization in Sa and they are very liberal just go check out their homepage.


Links:
http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Spri...orced-jake-white-to-pick-me-for-boks-20171103 - A black player speaking about quotas
http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/CurrieCup/bulls-hit-back-at-dlulane-allegations-20171031
http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/sa-rugby-willing-to-defend-its-quota-stance-20170504
https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/...-africans-oppose-sport-quotas-survey-20160531
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-turmoil-as-south-africa-arrive-amid-a-crisis
https://businesstech.co.za/news/lif...as-for-sa-rugby-cricket-and-netball-revealed/
https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Local/South-Coast-Fever/quotas-at-medical-school-20170325-2
https://www.sapromo.com/racial-quotas-unconstitutional-irrational-says-sas-supreme-court/12262 - If you dont want to read everything atleast read this one.
http://www.sport24.co.za/Cricket/CricketWorldCup2015/Did-SMS-cost-Proteas-World-Cup-20150331
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/fikile-mbalula-punishes-sports-codes-for-missing-r
https://www.sapromo.com/new-affirmative-action-targets-sa-sport-coming-soon/12532
http://www.thedailyvox.co.za/transformation-targets-sa-sports/ (This has an infographic element to the quota issue)


Links about Racial targets/ transformation or whatever you want to call them for other sectors of life in South Africa

http://www.labour.gov.za/DOL/downloads/legislation/acts/employment-equity/eegazette2015.pdf



http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu....rnance-management/policy/3P-3.14-equity_e.pdf - this source go and check 5.2 and 5.4 they refer back to the source above on employment equity.
5.2 The university rejects unfair discrimination, whether direct or indirect, on all listed grounds, including but not limited to race, sex, marital status, religion or creed, age, HIV status, culture, pregnancy, language, sexual orientation, colour, ethnic or social origin and disability.
5.4 Selection and appointment processes must ensure that preference shall be given to candidates from the designated groups on grounds of merit as defined in the Act, in terms of the recruitment policy and as contained in the Employment Equity Plan.

Now please carefully read the above policy specifically the bold ones. People will immediately say oh see its on merit. But that merit is only applying to designated groups. Which you can read about in the first link on employment equity. They reject unfair discrimination but this race based selection policy is then not unfair or discriminatory because the government policy encourages it.


https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/...ion-bee-to-be-challenged-in-concourt-20171102





Here are links that challenges my point in the spirit of being as open as possible.
http://www.up.ac.za/media/shared/409/unfair-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-race.zp87166.pdf

https://businesstech.co.za/news/general/100000/whiteness-of-south-african-universities-questioned/