The "South African Quota" catch-all thread

[TRF_heineken]

What's your game Bruce? That is an extremely slanderous claim. Please show us who said that about Beast and Bongi?

You continuously try to paint the South Africans in the forum, and in general, in a bad light. Like we have some ulterior motive when attacking a bad policy.

Read the facts about what South Africans think about policies like this:
https://irr.org.za/reports/occasional-reports/reasons-for-hope-2019-unite-the-middle

I know you won't though or you'll spin it to fit your bizarre narrative, but maybe somebody actually wants to learn about what South Africans really think.

Edit: Sport selections is Table 5

I guess the emoji at the end of that sentence meant to be a joke. But I get the gist of what you mean.

Bruce has been nit-picking on only certain topics/sections of this issue since this thread started, and has on several occasions not been able to grasp the totality of this issue. It's clear that he doesn't like us Saffas, and no matter what we say on this thread, he will continue to be pessimistic about us and be more like the ANC and pro-quota.

I think it's time we all add him to the ignore list, at least then we won't see his drivel on this thread, and can have a more constructive discussion about this issue.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

What's your game Bruce? That is an extremely slanderous claim. Please show us who said that about Beast and Bongi?

You continuously try to paint the South Africans in the forum, and in general, in a bad light. Like we have some ulterior motive when attacking a bad policy.

Read the facts about what South Africans think about policies like this:
https://irr.org.za/reports/occasional-reports/reasons-for-hope-2019-unite-the-middle

I know you won't though or you'll spin it to fit your bizarre narrative, but maybe somebody actually wants to learn about what South Africans really think.

Edit: Sport selections is Table 5

I'm sorry, but given that the opening paragraph are a tirade against the majority black political parties it makes it hard to consider the report and the survey as being extremely partial (not that all points are invalid, and I long for a change of SA govt myself, which is why I am so frustrated at the Democratic Alliance's recent developments).

Quotas is a massively loaded term that will not rate well in polling. Questions that also wouldn't get a good response might include:

- Was a Boks side with 4 non-white players in the 23 for the 2015 RWC final representative of the country?
- is it good for the sport or society if we never see more than 4 non-white rugby players in a Bok 23 for another 25 years?
- Is it acceptable that children from poorer backgrounds are physically smaller due to poor nutrition caused by poverty?
- is it okay to limit chances to experience rugby to children who can't access basics, like a pair of shorts?
- should children from wealthy families be the only ones able to access high quality rugby coaching and conditioning training?
- are we comfortable with rugby doing nothing to try and overcome economic, social and health barriers to playing the sport?

Obviously, much of the above is absolutely nothing to do with the remit of the SARU, so I'm not trying to make that point. I think they have done a very good job in challenging circumstances, even ignoring the RWC win. They are successfully navigating extremely challenging economic and political position. It is a shame if the administration of cricket is not in such capable hands.

As for Beast and Bongi, I would hope most would be able to read that as a deliberately flippant remark in response to the opinion a few posts above that "Bantu" people are undersized and can't possibly be expected to become Bok locks. I'll be polite and restrained and say... I do not agree with that point. I'd argue that a black child with a good diet has every chance of outgrowing a non-black child with insufficient nutrition, or indeed a non-black child with a good diet. I'd also argue that rugby is filled with handy white wingers (Penaud possibly the best in the world at present), but I digress.

I'd also point out, again, that you speak only for yourself. You don't speak for South Africa. Similarly, when I reply to a poster or respond to a topic, I am not addressing a nation, or a nation of posters.

I appreciate we are poles apart. I would only encourage people to not assume the worst at every instance about transformation. By all means the Boks could have arguably beaten England, Wales and Italy at the RWC with a different selection policy, but the existing one didn't end in tears and wasnt as rigidly enforced as many feared (Bok selection in 2019 didn't reach the transformation target).

There will be plenty of time to complain if the Proteas go up in flames and the wider South African public disengage with Test, T20 and 50 overs cricket. But we aren't there yet, so I'd hope people will not get too dismayed with this particular news item.

And as a reminder that things don't change if you don't make it a policy to change things, in the UK in 2011, 152 out of the leading 250 companies had all-male boardrooms - probably a figure little better than what had been the case for the preceding 200 years of non-change. Following a policy change by government to pursue targets for female representation that figure is now 2 out of 250. And guess what? The economy didn't tank, the world kept spinning and more schoolgirls will know of businesswomen that they may seek to emulate when they grow up. Perhaps in a few decades people will simply look back and consider the policy as a trivial footnote in the development of social equality. (I'm not that optimistic, but you get the point).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50398477

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I guess the emoji at the end of that sentence meant to be a joke. But I get the gist of what you mean.

Bruce has been nit-picking on only certain topics/sections of this issue since this thread started, and has on several occasions not been able to grasp the totality of this issue. It's clear that he doesn't like us Saffas, and no matter what we say on this thread, he will continue to be pessimistic about us and be more like the ANC and pro-quota.

I think it's time we all add him to the ignore list, at least then we won't see his drivel on this thread, and can have a more constructive discussion about this issue.

Well, I won't ignore anyone drivel about tiny "Bantus" and Elton Jantjies' hair being "thuggish". And calling that drivel is being diplomatic.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I'm sorry, but given that the opening paragraph are a tirade against the majority black political parties it makes it hard to consider the report and the survey as being extremely partial (not that all points are invalid, and I long for a change of SA govt myself, which is why I am so frustrated at the Democratic Alliance's recent developments).

That report is in fact completely impartial. It was done by the Institute of Race Relations, not by some biased member of society.

- Was a Boks side with 4 non-white players in the 23 for the 2015 RWC final representative of the country?

The Boks weren't in the 2015 RWC final. And they played with the players they felt was the best on merit. And yes, they were representative of the country. You represent your country when you put on that jersey. Regardless of the colour of your skin/background/sexual orientation/religion.

- is it good for the sport or society if we never see more than 4 non-white rugby players in a Bok 23 for another 25 years?

Well, according to that study, yes. People in SA don't care of the colour of the skin of the players, as long as they are picked on merit and play with pride. Society has embraced the sport, have you not seen the videos of our victory parade???

- Is it acceptable that children from poorer backgrounds are physically smaller due to poor nutrition caused by poverty?

Yes. That is not a sport issue, that is a socio-economic, health and rural development issue. Sport can't change that, just inspire.

- is it okay to limit chances to experience rugby to children who can't access basics, like a pair of shorts?

Unfortunately, yes. But again, that is not SA Rugby's responsibility. That's the responsibility of the Department of Education and the Department of Sports, Arts and Culture.

- should children from wealthy families be the only ones able to access high quality rugby coaching and conditioning training?

No, but then again, they aren't the only ones able to access high quality rugby coaching and conditioning training. The middle-class people have an equal opportunity as the wealthy.

And again, this is not a Rugby issue, as your question could be for any sport, such as cricket, swimming, athletics, golf, motorsport etc.

- are we comfortable with rugby doing nothing to try and overcome economic, social and health barriers to playing the sport?

You are still missing the point. Economic, Social and Health barriers are the government's problems to sort out, not SA Rugby. Yet this same government, you are failing in those mentioned areas, expect the Sports teams to represent the whole of a nation, and basically sweep the government's poor work under the rug.

Obviously, much of the above is absolutely nothing to do with the remit of the SARU, so I'm not trying to make that point. I think they have done a very good job in challenging circumstances, even ignoring the RWC win. They are successfully navigating extremely challenging economic and political position. It is a shame if the administration of cricket is not in such capable hands.

SA Rugby has always done a good job. It's actually one of the very few sporting codes in SA that hasn't been in much turmoil as the other Sporting Codes.

SA Cricket is unfortunately seemingly now in the worst position they have ever been in, and it's going to be a very big task to rescue the sport and bring us back to our glory days.

Rugby has always been the most successful team sport in South Africa, that hasn't changed.

As for Beast and Bongi, I would hope most would be able to read that as a deliberately flippant remark in response to the opinion a few posts above that "Bantu" people are undersized and can't possibly be expected to become Bok locks. I'll be polite and restrained and say... I do not agree with that point. I'd argue that a black child with a good diet has every chance of outgrowing a non-black child with insufficient nutrition, or indeed a non-black child with a good diet. I'd also argue that rugby is filled with handy white wingers (Penaud possibly the best in the world at present), but I digress.

That's okay, you don't need to agree with us. Clearly you have never been to South Africa and have walked in the streets with the South African people. Overall the black people are shorter in length than white people.

But yeah, you do get tall black people too, they just rather play basketball than rugby.

I'd also point out, again, that you speak only for yourself. You don't speak for South Africa. Similarly, when I reply to a poster or respond to a topic, I am not addressing a nation, or a nation of posters.

The same as you. You are only speaking for yourself. You are not here in a representative capacity, with a mandate to continuously disregard the information provided to you, so that your attempt to conform us non-believers over to the dark side....

I appreciate we are poles apart. I would only encourage people to not assume the worst at every instance about transformation. By all means the Boks could have arguably beaten England, Wales and Italy at the RWC with a different selection policy, but the existing one didn't end in tears and wasnt as rigidly enforced as many feared (Bok selection in 2019 didn't reach the transformation target).

We are not assuming the worst. In fact, we all embrace the idea, that has been said on numerous occasions. The issue shouldn't be at the top level though, National teams must be selected by merit only. And that is exactly what the survey is saying.

Oh and SA Rugby did reach their transformation target. Mark Alexander confirmed that even prior to the World Cup. And because the targets were reached successfully, there were assurances given to Rassie and his team that the government won't interfere at the world cup, regardless of the team selected by Rassie.

There will be plenty of time to complain if the Proteas go up in flames and the wider South African public disengage with Test, T20 and 50 overs cricket. But we aren't there yet, so I'd hope people will not get too dismayed with this particular news item.

We are. We have been there for the last year and a half.

And as a reminder that things don't change if you don't make it a policy to change things, in the UK in 2011, 152 out of the leading 250 companies had all-male boardrooms - probably a figure little better than what had been the case for the preceding 200 years of non-change. Following a policy change by government to pursue targets for female representation that figure is now 2 out of 250. And guess what? The economy didn't tank, the world kept spinning and more schoolgirls will know of businesswomen that they may seek to emulate when they grow up. Perhaps in a few decades people will simply look back and consider the policy as a trivial footnote in the development of social equality. (I'm not that optimistic, but you get the point).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50398477

Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) should in no way, shape or form be compared to what you are saying here. It's a completely different issue. If you can't see that, then there really is no point in talking to you any further at all.

 

[mdaclarke]

Picking any player based on the Colour of their skin is racism and wrong. Doesn't matter what arguments you put forward, quotas are a fancy way of saying an "an eye for an eye"

No problem with ensuring that every one gets a fair opportunity to make it to Super Rugby/Pro 14 level but when you get to the Super Rugby and Pro 14 Level the players are all on a level playing field in terms of resources and facilities and must be picked solely on merit.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

That report is in fact completely impartial. It was done by the Institute of Race Relation.

I'll give it a second look incase my radar was off. The fact the institute was established in the 1920s during British colonial rule made me somewhat sceptical and that first couple of pages is very partisan for a sobre social commentary. The only instance of racism by a white person they chose to mention was to say that the sentence was too harsh, making an unevidenced assumption that the culprit had psychological issues! High profile crimes with a racial element (that I won't dredge up) are ignored and the picture painted is of white victimhood. But maybe I was hasty to have that put me off, and it improves later on.

You are still missing the point. Economic, Social and Health barriers are the government's problems to sort out, not SA Rugby. Yet this same government, you are failing in those mentioned areas, expect the Sports teams to represent the whole of a nation, and basically sweep the government's poor work under the rug.

I've said before I am not unsympathetic to that. It's a completely valid perspective and a credit to the SARU despite my concerns that they haven't extended their reach enough beyond their usual bastions of rugby support (a problem that blights many unions). A better government could have taken different approaches to the topic and this MIGHT have resulted in more natural success and may have gone some way to removing the argument for Transformation targets.

Where I am coming from is with hindsight. Multiple former Boks said that this RWC triumph was completely different to the previous one, in part because of the more representative makeup of the side (and yes, the example of poor representation I gave was the 2015 semi, sorry).

Even if you dislike transformation, I think you could easily envisage a 2019 Springboks whose diversity, without transformation, would have just been one or two black dudes on the wing, and for that to continue for decades into the future. That is not athletic or sporting merit, genetics or some innate sporting preference of children from different communities. That is barriers to entry, 'rugby blazer's' cliques and social division.

That's okay, you don't need to agree with us. Clearly you have never been to South Africa and have walked in the streets with the South African people. Overall the black people are shorter in length than white people. But yeah, you do get tall black people too, they just rather play basketball than rugby.

Yes, yes. I have read the arguments here. They'll like to play anything but rugby (unless its 7s of course) and don't like physical contact, regardless of which of the many diverse peoples of colour (both native and immigrant) across a huge swathe of territory they hail from. It is foolish of me to consider that a young South African, perhaps with a passing similarity to Itoje, Lawes or Nakarawa could ever be interested in rugby or flourish as a lock by receiving opportunities and specialist training on a highly technical sport at a young age.

Apologies for the sarcasm, I just find such arguments from otherwise coherent individuals very unusual. I'm not sure how to even respond, so I chalk it up to cultural differences.

I do acknowledge that there can be difficult physical propensities in different populations, even though that is an understandable prickly topic. But North Europeans were often very short even 200 years ago. You just have to look at doorways to buildings from the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe to see that people were dramatically shorter 200 years ago than people from the identical gene pool now. A massive part of the height issue is diet rather than genetics, but maybe this takes some generations to filter through? I don't know. But I can agree that there are also tall black males in South Africa.

The same as you. You are only speaking for yourself. You are not here in a representative capacity, with a mandate to continuously disregard the information provided to you, so that your attempt to conform us non-believers over to the dark side....

I have never claimed a mandate or to represent anyone other than myself. I have never said something as ignorant as "what South Africans don't get".

Oh and SA Rugby did reach their transformation target. Mark Alexander confirmed that even prior to the World Cup. And because the targets were reached successfully, there were assurances given to Rassie and his team that the government won't interfere at the world cup, regardless of the team selected by Rassie..

I'm fairly certain there was a 50%+ target set for 2019 in the Transformation document that was linked to earlier in the thread. Perhaps there was some diplomatic massaging of the target, but it was definitely something way larger than 8 out of 23 or whatever we saw in 2019. To be honest, I wasnt paying much attention to the numbers out of the 23 this year, because it seemed nobody was so focused on it after Rassie took over, so it didnt seem to come up. Let's hope that the new coach gets a similar approach from fans.

Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) should in no way, shape or form be compared to what you are saying here. It's a completely different issue. If you can't see that, then there really is no point in talking to you any further at all.

There is no comparison between a century of exclusion of sections of society in different countries from involvement from aspects of society and the economy? Nothing to be learned from a comparison of different responses to that and how they were addressed, specifically through the use of targets? I think you are being a bit harsh there at my comparison.

Targets are introduced, it is painful and it gets people's backs up, then the old engrained barriers are gradually eroded until targets are no longer required, because people are selected, on merit, based on their potential to do the job, not in terms of who their dad knows or what school they went to.

But anyway, I appreciate the time taken for an extended response. It'd be a dull world if we all agreed.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I'll give it a second look incase my radar was off. The fact the institute was established in the 1920s during British colonial rule made me somewhat sceptical and that first couple of pages is very partisan for a sobre social commentary. The only instance of racism by a white person they chose to mention was to say that the sentence was too harsh, making an unevidenced assumption that the culprit had psychological issues! High profile crimes with a racial element (that I won't dredge up) are ignored and the picture painted is of white victimhood. But maybe I was hasty to have that put me off, and it improves later on.

So you are basing your assumptions on an institute just because they are established long ago? Even before Apartheid took place??

A lot has changed since then. And we are now a democracy you know. Is all the sports clubs and teams now also racist and biased? Because some of them are older than the IRR. And by sports teams, I don't necessarily mean just rugby or cricket...

I've said before I am not unsympathetic to that. It's a completely valid perspective and a credit to the SARU despite my concerns that they haven't extended their reach enough beyond their usual bastions of rugby support (a problem that blights many unions). A better government could have taken different approaches to the topic and this MIGHT have resulted in more natural success and may have gone some way to removing the argument for Transformation targets.

See, you are still missing the point here. SARU has zero say at what happens at schoolboy level with regard to sport or representation. That is entirely the Department of Education and the Department of Sports, Arts & Culture jurisdiction.

SARU's only contribution is the hosting of the Rugby weeks and the coaching and training of the referees and coaches with their Boksmart programme.

Where I am coming from is with hindsight. Multiple former Boks said that this RWC triumph was completely different to the previous one, in part because of the more representative makeup of the side (and yes, the example of poor representation I gave was the 2015 semi, sorry).

It was different yes. The first black captain to win a World Cup. It does speak a lot about how SARU and the Boks have evolved hasn't it?

Then again, some of these former boks also said the same thing when we won in 2007, and how different it was to 1995.

There is always a difference. For me, all 3 was the same. I felt Elation, Happiness, Joy.

Even if you dislike transformation, I think you could easily envisage a 2019 Springboks whose diversity, without transformation, would have just been one or two black dudes on the wing, and for that to continue for decades into the future. That is not athletic or sporting merit, genetics or some innate sporting preference of children from different communities. That is barriers to entry, 'rugby blazer's' cliques and social division.

Really??? Have you even watched the Craven week?? Did you see how many black players there were, and in which schools they were. There aren't barriers. Come and see for yourself.

Yes, yes. I have read the arguments here. They'll like to play anything but rugby (unless its 7s of course) and don't like physical contact, regardless of which of the many diverse peoples of colour (both native and immigrant) across a huge swathe of territory they hail from. It is foolish of me to consider that a young South African, perhaps with a passing similarity to Itoje, Lawes or Nakarawa could ever be interested in rugby or flourish as a lock by receiving opportunities and specialist training on a highly technical sport at a young age.

Apologies for the sarcasm, I just find such arguments from otherwise coherent individuals very unusual. I'm not sure how to even respond, so I chalk it up to cultural differences.

Again, come and see for yourself. Your "lowest form of wit" isn't that funny. Rugby isn't the only sport being played in SA. And sports like baseball, basketball, ice hockey are growing in numbers.

Rugby is competing with cricket and soccer for the youth players, so there is a limited amount available for each sport. Some kids play all 3, or try to. But the school calendar is also limiting the opportunities. And most kids just don't have the time to play 2 or 3 sports at once.

Plus some schools only have certain sports available, and should kids want to play other sports, they will have to join a club in town.

I do acknowledge that there can be difficult physical propensities in different populations, even though that is an understandable prickly topic. But North Europeans were often very short even 200 years ago. You just have to look at doorways to buildings from the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe to see that people were dramatically shorter 200 years ago than people from the identical gene pool now. A massive part of the height issue is diet rather than genetics, but maybe this takes some generations to filter through? I don't know. But I can agree that there are also tall black males in South Africa.

There are. Like Marvin Orie and Giant Mthyanda. Some play rugby, some play cricket, some play basketball. Most play soccer.

I have never claimed a mandate or to represent anyone other than myself. I have never said something as ignorant as "what South Africans don't get".

Good. Glad we can sort that out.

I'm fairly certain there was a 50%+ target set for 2019 in the Transformation document that was linked to earlier in the thread. Perhaps there was some diplomatic massaging of the target, but it was definitely something way larger than 8 out of 23 or whatever we saw in 2019. To be honest, I wasnt paying much attention to the numbers out of the 23 this year, because it seemed nobody was so focused on it after Rassie took over, so it didnt seem to come up. Let's hope that the new coach gets a similar approach from fans.

Point is: You were wrong in your assessment, while SARU officially announced that the Springboks fulfilled the targets set to them.

There is no comparison between a century of exclusion of sections of society in different countries from involvement from aspects of society and the economy? Nothing to be learned from a comparison of different responses to that and how they were addressed, specifically through the use of targets? I think you are being a bit harsh there at my comparison.

You cannot make a comparison between Apartheid-era and the current Democratic era. Apartheid literally means seperate!! Where sections were excluded.

Our current democracy is all about inclusion, everywhere. And BEE is viewed as just reverse-apartheid being implemented.

Plus, the people still using the "Apartheid" excuse, are using it because of their inferiority complex.

Targets are introduced, it is painful and it gets people's backs up, then the old engrained barriers are gradually eroded until targets are no longer required, because people are selected, on merit, based on their potential to do the job, not in terms of who their dad knows or what school they went to.

In essence, yes, but then again, that has been the case for the past 20 years... Can they seriously still say that the system is working?? shouldn't they rather look at merit and the kids' choice of sport they want to play, rather than forcing them to play a sport they don't want to play???

But anyway, I appreciate the time taken for an extended response. It'd be a dull world if we all agreed.

Sure. It's just a pity you keep on bashing every opinion or fact we provide to you, instead of accepting that you might be wrong and apologise.

 

[mdaclarke]

I'll give it a second look incase my radar was off. The fact the institute was established in the 1920s during British colonial rule made me somewhat sceptical and that first couple of pages is very partisan for a sobre social commentary. The only instance of racism by a white person they chose to mention was to say that the sentence was too harsh, making an unevidenced assumption that the culprit had psychological issues! High profile crimes with a racial element (that I won't dredge up) are ignored and the picture painted is of white victimhood. But maybe I was hasty to have that put me off, and it improves later on.




I've said before I am not unsympathetic to that. It's a completely valid perspective and a credit to the SARU despite my concerns that they haven't extended their reach enough beyond their usual bastions of rugby support (a problem that blights many unions). A better government could have taken different approaches to the topic and this MIGHT have resulted in more natural success and may have gone some way to removing the argument for Transformation targets.

Where I am coming from is with hindsight. Multiple former Boks said that this RWC triumph was completely different to the previous one, in part because of the more representative makeup of the side (and yes, the example of poor representation I gave was the 2015 semi, sorry).

Even if you dislike transformation, I think you could easily envisage a 2019 Springboks whose diversity, without transformation, would have just been one or two black dudes on the wing, and for that to continue for decades into the future. That is not athletic or sporting merit, genetics or some innate sporting preference of children from different communities. That is barriers to entry, 'rugby blazer's' cliques and social division.



Yes, yes. I have read the arguments here. They'll like to play anything but rugby (unless its 7s of course) and don't like physical contact, regardless of which of the many diverse peoples of colour (both native and immigrant) across a huge swathe of territory they hail from. It is foolish of me to consider that a young South African, perhaps with a passing similarity to Itoje, Lawes or Nakarawa could ever be interested in rugby or flourish as a lock by receiving opportunities and specialist training on a highly technical sport at a young age.

Apologies for the sarcasm, I just find such arguments from otherwise coherent individuals very unusual. I'm not sure how to even respond, so I chalk it up to cultural differences.

I do acknowledge that there can be difficult physical propensities in different populations, even though that is an understandable prickly topic. But North Europeans were often very short even 200 years ago. You just have to look at doorways to buildings from the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe to see that people were dramatically shorter 200 years ago than people from the identical gene pool now. A massive part of the height issue is diet rather than genetics, but maybe this takes some generations to filter through? I don't know. But I can agree that there are also tall black males in South Africa.




I have never claimed a mandate or to represent anyone other than myself. I have never said something as ignorant as "what South Africans don't get".




I'm fairly certain there was a 50%+ target set for 2019 in the Transformation document that was linked to earlier in the thread. Perhaps there was some diplomatic massaging of the target, but it was definitely something way larger than 8 out of 23 or whatever we saw in 2019. To be honest, I wasnt paying much attention to the numbers out of the 23 this year, because it seemed nobody was so focused on it after Rassie took over, so it didnt seem to come up. Let's hope that the new coach gets a similar approach from fans.




There is no comparison between a century of exclusion of sections of society in different countries from involvement from aspects of society and the economy? Nothing to be learned from a comparison of different responses to that and how they were addressed, specifically through the use of targets? I think you are being a bit harsh there at my comparison.

Targets are introduced, it is painful and it gets people's backs up, then the old engrained barriers are gradually eroded until targets are no longer required, because people are selected, on merit, based on their potential to do the job, not in terms of who their dad knows or what school they went to.

But anyway, I appreciate the time taken for an extended response. It'd be a dull world if we all agreed.

A long winded way of saying

"An eye for an eye"

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

1of2

So you are basing your assumptions on an institute just because they are established long ago? Even before Apartheid took place??

No, I am basing my opinion on that document based on it's content and trying to work out why it was written that way. I read all of it and didn't change my opinion that they are very much focussed on anti-transformation talking points. And whilst being a British Dominion in the 1920s wasn't Apartheid, it was not exactly a gold age of race relations! I have 'educational' British books from that period that speak about the "psychological propensities of yellow people", effectively lumping a quarter of the world's population on the Pacific Rim into the broadest stereotypes you might ever find!

Perhaps the South African IRR has no such baggage and was a proscribed organisation during the Apartheid years. It is fairly immaterial. My judgement was on the content of the report, which was more partisan than we should see in a true academic text.

But I digress. Ultimately, they can claim only 1% or 2% support for affirmative action and transformation all they want, but I'm not sure how they mentally reconcile that with the last general election where over 68% of voters voted for parties who support some form of state intervention to try and address historic inequalities (i.e. transformation). That figure is >90% if we include the Democratic Alliance who I believe also supported some manner of transformation programme at the last election, (but I don't know what their policy on the matter was).

The ANC may be showing all the flaws of a party with decades of uncontested power, but they aren't idiotic enough to push policies that, as that IRR report claims, 98% of people don't support!

It was different yes. The first black captain to win a World Cup. It does speak a lot about how SARU and the Boks have evolved hasn't it?

Yes, it does. But it was a side that not so very long ago, people on here were saying that IRB should step in to judge it as being illegal and thereby change the team's composition because some of these now World Cup winners presumably didn't "merit" being in the side. The SARU may have pulled off a blinder, but I'd argue that the Champions podium could have looked very different without political interference. I'm happy that whatever people's legitimate political perspectives, it hasn't ruined their ability to celebrate a triumph. And I'm not saying that with the lowest form of wit!

Really??? Have you even watched the Craven week?? Did you see how many black players there were, and in which schools they were. There aren't barriers. Come and see for yourself.

Nope. I can only go with what a non-black rugby journalist said on the matter voicing their frustration at the lack of non-white participation in leading rugby schools (as I posted previously). I'll check out any highlights online as I assure you the very second I see a bunch of non-white kids playing rugby in top rugby schools, or appearing in numerous positions in the U20s (sometimes more than 50%, some times less than 50%) then I will have no issue with the state of rugby in South Africa and will actively consider it in advance of what has been achieved in Scotland (and probably Italy, Australia and other unions that really struggle to spread participation in the sport).

Point is: You were wrong in your assessment, while SARU officially announced that the Springboks fulfilled the targets set to them.

Alas, arithmetic is arithmetic and is immune to official announcements. See the table on page 14 of the official transformation document for 2018/2019 (hopefully the link works).

https://www.springboks.rugby/pages/... transformation development plan 2030-cycle 1

It shows that the target of 45% non-white participation in the Bok 23 for 2018 was missed (39%). No figures are listed for if they met the 2019 target of 50%, but I doubt you (or anyone) would contest that 50% of Bok selections throughout 2019 were non-white?

I'm not making a big deal of that, just demonstrating that I wasn't wrong in my assessment. The link above is to a newer version of the transformation document. An earlier one in this thread I'm sure had some kind of crazy target in it (80% or something) and obviously that hasn't been met either, but perhaps it wasn't an official one. I think a South African posted here that with the change of sports minister there might have been less zeal for the targets and I suspect that might be the case (along with no longer being able to use funding to support a RWC bid as leverage against SARU). So perhaps the current sports minister was more open to compromise rather than pursuing the Bok target as a red line, and didn't want to do something that might have spoilt team spirit in the lead up to the RWC.

You cannot make a comparison between Apartheid-era and the current Democratic era. Apartheid literally means seperate!! Where sections were excluded.

Our current democracy is all about inclusion, everywhere. And BEE is viewed as just reverse-apartheid being implemented.

I'm not so much even pointing at the Apartheid era - when I say centuries I'm very much meaning the inequalities suffered by women in the developed world throughout the 20th century. If it helps, take the situation from Day 1 of your democratic era. There are issues that need addressed from Day 1 that I think measured and informed people can claim requires some manner of state intervention to remedy. They will not be addressed from the simple act of being a democracy alone (again, taking the example of UK women, who are making steps in political representation, the boardroom and, to a lesser extent, average earnings).

I don't really want to go into Apartheid, but I'm not talking about BEE (and I suspect you wouldn't want me to either!). My point about women was simply to show different types of inequality can be tackled by state intervention, and sometimes it works after decades of little or no improvement.

Rather than BEE, I'm talking about rugby targets, and there is no comparison between rugby targets and the appalling stuff that happened during Apartheid, and it does not read well to make these comparisons. I'll confess my studies of Africa did not extend to South Africa, but what I have read in recent years is far worse than I thought South Africa was when I was a kid (I was completely ignorant of the extent of damage that regime did). If an estimated 3 million black South Africans were removed from their homes in the 60s, 70s & 80s by the regime so that they could be resettled against their will then Apartheid is simply not something that should be brought into arguments about sport as a counterpoint.

For those who think rugby targets is "an eye for an eye" for Apartheid (as you put it mdaclarke), then by all means hold that position, but do some reading beforehand if you haven't already done so, so you at least know what you are comparing it with. Forgive me the link below is not considered an objective source, I tried to pick one that didn't seem inflammatory.

https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/forced-removals-south-africa

The Highland Clearances in Scotland were about 250 years ago, so are just a distant memory of destroyed communities with only mile upon mile of ruined buildings to tell the tale. If they were fresh in my families' memories from the 1980s (in my lifetime) then I wouldn't be impressed if anyone brought that up as an argument against political efforts to broaden sporting participation.

And yes, being a pessimist about the depressingly static South African political situation (as I am with Hungary, Poland, Israel, Turkey, India, Brazil, Phillipines, Russia etc that appear unable to vote out inadequate governments) then people are right to be vigilant against policies that have the intention of a majority lording it over a minority. But I'd argue that South Africa is not there yet and lets all hope it never is.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

In essence, yes, but then again, that has been the case for the past 20 years... Can they seriously still say that the system is working?? shouldn't they rather look at merit and the kids' choice of sport they want to play, rather than forcing them to play a sport they don't want to play???

I got this far without disagreeing too much with you. You are saying I should see the Craven weekend to see how diverse the kids are playing it, then you are still saying non-white kids actively don't want to play rugby.

I'm not accepting your argument in the past; but looking ahead - if a kid can watch 23 of his countrymen beat the best the world has to offer, and some of them look like his dad or older brother; and if that kid can access kit and a patch of grass in a safe environment then they are going to be up for playing the sport. Sure, kicking or bouncing a ball around a backstreet will always be easier as there is no barrier to entry to doing these things.

I totally get that people can legitimately hold the opinion of not having state intervention in things. But some recent arguments here have been:

i) Targets are inappropriate at Bok level, it should be lower level
Then
ii) Targets at a lower level in cricket are inappropriate, it should be done in schools / age group.
Then
iii) non-white kids don't want to play rugby or cricket and/or we can't influence fee-paying / private schools.

I'm not saying that all of that has been your line of argument by the way, but it doesn't leave a whole lot of scope for expanding participation in sports for those who want transformation.

Sure. It's just a pity you keep on bashing every opinion or fact we provide to you, instead of accepting that you might be wrong and apologise.

My only interest in posting in this thread are when remarks are in (what I consider to be) dubious taste or make sweeping generalisations about people of different origins, but I try hard to not let that reflect in my posts. I think as posters go, I'm at the more polite end of the spectrum generally (for evidence see one of this threads contributors and both sides of the conversation they had in the politics thread last week).

I have no interest in point scoring, or bashing people's points - so I shall leave the floor to you for any final words in this particular episode. If my contributions aren't welcomed then said "opinions or facts" against Transformation can perhaps be made without those generalisations and without historical comparisons; or at least, with an appreciation of how others might perceive such remarks.

Anyway, I am annoyed that I have felt the need to enter this thread again so soon after what was a sporting triumph and I hope anyone who is still reading is not offended with any of the above. With any hope the positivity and inspiration around the RWC victory provides a legacy that makes transformation in rugby, and discussions such as these, utterly redundant - and spares my poor keyboard.

 

[User1245]

My only interest in posting in this thread are when remarks are in (what I consider to be) dubious taste or make sweeping generalisations about people of different origins, but I try hard to not let that reflect in my posts. I think as posters go, I'm at the more polite end of the spectrum generally (for evidence see one of this threads contributors and both sides of the conversation they had in the politics thread last week).

You might seem polite but you also come across as disingenuous with arguments swimming in conjecture and you have a habit of taking things out of context to try connect unrelated things. I don't know if this is deliberate or not.

For example you said:
Well, I won't ignore anyone drivel about tiny "Bantus" and Elton Jantjies' hair being "thuggish". And calling that drivel is being diplomatic.

AND

Maybe transformation will ruin cricket in the same way that having undersized black forwards like Beast and Bongi destroyed the Boks' chances of being competitive at the RWC, as predicted consistently by some of the enlightened souls who frequent this forum.

AND

a deliberately flippant remark in response to the opinion a few posts above that "Bantu" people are undersized and can't possibly be expected to become Bok locks.

When you do that, how am I supposed to think you are being genuine and you're not deliberately trying to misrepresent what South African posters are saying or talking about? This is what I said about Bok locks:

It's not a coincidence that the Blitzboks have a bigger black representation than the Boks. This claimed institutionalized racism within rugby doesn't suddenly suspend itself for that team. Your average Afrikaner is larger than your average Bantu African. Afrikaners will ALWAYS dominate the lock position and Bantu Africans with dominate the wings. Your Eben Etzebeth's and Bismarck du Plessis' of rugby will typically come from Afrikaners and your Aphiwe Dyantyi's and S'bu Nkosi's of rugby will typically come from Bantu Africans.

Nothing I said there was discriminatory? I didn't even nearly imply that Black South Africans can't possibly be expected to become Bok locks

I know you response was:

I'd argue that a black child with a good diet has every chance of outgrowing a non-black child with insufficient nutrition, or indeed a non-black child with a good diet.

But reality doesn't support your point of view, in two ways.

1) The average height for men in Holland is 183cm (remember Afrikaners are Dutch descendants) and the average height of men in Japan is 160cm. Both highly developed countries where nutrition is not a problem but there are big differences in the outcome in terms of height. Quite obviously genetics play a bigger part than diet.
Ask any NZ'er on here about players from Pacific Island heritage, but that is of course self evident.

2) A good case study empirically manifested itself in James Moore and Luke Thompson being Japan's starting locks.
With the absence of forced selections, not one of the 4 locks in the squad was of Japanese descent. This is not a coincidence. The higher you go up a meritocratic system like professional sport, the differences like this become more apparent. Sportsmen like locks are on the extreme end of the bell curve so statistically that is the only outcome.

3) SA's black middle class is something like twice the size of the white middle class, and public schools are the grassroots for rugby talent. So in terms of volume there are more black people that are receiving a good diet. Also not saying a good diet doesn't make a difference but all things equal won't change much.

It is foolish of me to consider that a young South African, perhaps with a passing similarity to Itoje, Lawes or Nakarawa could ever be interested in rugby or flourish as a lock by receiving opportunities and specialist training on a highly technical sport at a young age.

Passing similarity? And we're the ones who are coming up with dubious generalisations of people...
Nakarawa (Fijian) and Itoje (Nigerian) are completely different from Black South Africans??? Fiji, a country with extreme poverty, is a good example supporting my view (well, fact really) that a "good diet" doesn't supersede genetics. Some big boys come out of the tiny country of Fiji. The SA Black middle class is about 5 times the size of the entire population of Fiji.

At this point how can I give you the benefit of the doubt when you say stuff like that? I mean that was reaching to the extreme to support your argues and it came off very distasteful.

And so what if somebody says Jantjies hair looks "thuggish"? And how is that connected to anything relevant to this topic? I'm truly stumped on that one. I'm sure Jantjies is thrilled that he has a white knight sticking up for his fashion choices

So again, show me who said:

• Bantu's are "tiny" and "undersized"
• "Undersized" black forwards were going to destroy the Boks chances at the RWC
• Bantu South Africans can't possibly be expected to become Bok locks

That is what you are implying has been said on this thread, which is demonstrably false. And if this was you being "flippant" it only eroded the conversation and your position.

I guess I should give you the benefit of the doubt because you are "polite"

The fact the institute was established in the 1920s during British colonial rule made me somewhat sceptical and that first couple of pages is very partisan for a sobre social commentary. The only instance of racism by a white person they chose to mention was to say that the sentence was too harsh, making an unevidenced assumption that the culprit had psychological issues! High profile crimes with a racial element (that I won't dredge up) are ignored and the picture painted is of white victimhood.

What is "white victimhood"? I'm not familiar with that term?
As it's based on race I'm assuming there an equivalent "Black/Asian/Jewish victimhood"?

The IRR has a stellar history. Amongst other things they have done over the years, they provided Nelson Mandela with a bursary in 1947 to complete his legal studies. What would have happened if they didn't exist to provide that bursary... So what if they were established in the 1920's? Sounds like you're making generalisations of people again.

I don't want to go down this path but again you are misrepresenting what the IRR said in an effort to discredit them and therefore the survey. A psychiatrist did testify that Momberg had a "psychological condition" at the time, so the "unevidenced assumption" claim is incorrect/false. Not an excuse for her but factually correct

Onto your claim of IRR's claim that there was harshness compared to the other punishment handed out, lets put 3 transgressions side by side to view them objectively.

Person A... employed as real estate agent

Scenario: Was a victim of a "smash and grab" (smash the car window and grab what they can) by a person of a different race. Cops of the same different came to her aid.
Person A called the cops the "K" word (equivalent of the "N" word in the USA) +-48 times in about a 2-3 minute rant

Punishment: 3 years in jail (1 year suspended) and fined R100 000

Person B... employed in the ANC provincial government

Scenario: Posted on Facebook: 'I want to cleans (sic) this country of all white people. we must act as Hitler did to the Jews' and 'white people in south Africa deserve to be hacked and killed like Jews.'

Punishment: Apologised and paid R30 000 to a charity and also pay legal costs

Person C... employed as an Army Major in the national defense force

Scenario: On Facebook, commenting on an assault by robbers on an 80-year-old white priest, said that 'We won't forget that life of African child meant nothing to you white people but now is your turn and you have to deal with it like we did before (sic). So actually they should have took (sic) his eyes out and the tongue so that the only last people he saw should have been them (killers) and live with that nightmare till to his grave that bloody racist old man (sic)

Punishment: Fired from his job

So you tell me, objectively did Person A get treated more harshly or not? Was the IRR's assessment correct?

And then the cherry on the top, you won't (or can't) accept what the respondents of the survey said. For some reason you can't accept it even when it's there in black and white.
Nope instead you throw out historic voting patterns (how that's related to sport quotas i don't know?) as another way to discredit the survey.

This is why I no longer try to genuinely discuss anything with you but rather just show time and time again where you are wrong.

 

[mdaclarke]

https://www.scribd.com/document/440...ion-Amendment-Bill-2020-19082019-0#from_embed

Page 10

4(c)(iii) any person who fails to comply with the obligations of the international controlling body is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or to imprisonment not exceeding two years;

Maybe I'm reading that wrong but that would make quotas a criminal offence as they are banned by World Rugby

 

[TRF_heineken]

Man, I find it very hard to respond here without being harsh or abusive. It's just becoming an endless cycle of one person's defiance in whatever is being said is just not acceptable to him, while every other poster on this forum, regardless of their nationality/ethnicity are in consensus as to what is going on.

The nit-picking of certian issues or phrases or posts is astounding. And the total disregard to look at the issue in totality boggles my mind.

This part specifically is something that stood out for me:

I totally get that people can legitimately hold the opinion of not having state intervention in things. But some recent arguments here have been:

i) Targets are inappropriate at Bok level, it should be lower level
Then
ii) Targets at a lower level in cricket are inappropriate, it should be done in schools / age group.
Then
iii) non-white kids don't want to play rugby or cricket and/or we can't influence fee-paying / private schools.

Can't you see that point (i), (ii), and (iii) are all interlinked with one another?? You can't separate them from each other and look at them as a point of contention individually.

I'm not saying that all of that has been your line of argument by the way, but it doesn't leave a whole lot of scope for expanding participation in sports for those who want transformation.

Again, you are missing the point. And this remark here, shows again that narrow line you keep on using to think about this issue. Those who want transformation, doesn't participate in sport, no matter what the sport is. For them it's all about scoring political points.

The report from the IRR is exactly the point we are trying to make. The people who participated in the report, are your average citizen. Not someone in government, or working as an administrator for the sporting codes. Just a normal citizen, and they vary in their education, wealth, residence, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc.

The majority of South Africans, not ANC-party members, doesn't want transformation in sport, and even less so the idea of a quota system where transformation is "forced".

 

[unrated]

https://www.sarugbymag.co.za/sa-players-play-overseas/

Research on why SA players are leaving SA