The "South African Quota" catch-all thread

[mdaclarke]

As sad as the general state of South Africa is the elephant in the room is that the thiefing, corruption and backward politics can changed with people's votes. As backward as SA is sometimes its elections are mostly free and fair.
The international community can't and shouldn't do anything about that.
The DA is growing and certainly not because of the whites. The white population in SA is the only ethnic group that is getting smaller and I've found whites to be some of the most apathetic voters in the country. Many seem to have better things to do with the "I won't make a difference" attitude. Obviously a generalisation but I've found that to be true in my experiences. My contribution in this debate will be voting in the next elections from Australia.

However, when it comes to rugby I firmly believe that the racist ANCs philosophies should not dictate the teams composition in any way. It is simply not the point of sport and is in direct violation to the rugby world body's laws and I will continue to raise this until it changes because this is in the power of the international community to change. Further to this I think it's not a good reflection that the rugby community continues to let it slide. We like to harp on about rugby's traditions and ethos but let a power house in the game to be continually crippled. Doesn't make sense.

Agree 100%, are you allowed to vote as an expat?

 

[TRF_heineken]

Agree 100%, are you allowed to vote as an expat?

Yes, you just need to register with our Independent Electoral Commission.

In fact, according to this article below, 26000 people voted during the last election that lived abroad:
https://www.thesouthafrican.com/thousands-of-south-africans-cast-their-votes-in-london/

 

[unrated]

Yes, you just need to register with our Independent Electoral Commission.

In fact, according to this article below, 26000 people voted during the last election that lived abroad:
https://www.thesouthafrican.com/thousands-of-south-africans-cast-their-votes-in-london/

I can't find the report now, will post it when/if I find it. But apparently the Sa government is planning or is in the process to change the procedure so that expats would need to come to SA to vote and that they won't be able to do it in foreign countries.
This would massively favour the ANC as I think most expats votes for the DA.

 

[Da Grappla]

You need more white people

 

[GarethGriffiths]

The above post triggered Jacob Zuma.

He's now in his vault err... Safe Space

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Let me demistify the quota targets for you:
SARU Strategic Transformation Plan

That was a very interesting read for me, thanks. I know I'll be ploughing a lone furrow on this one but I found that quite a rigorous document. It will provide little comfort to those who want things to be "same as it ever was". It is worth noting that "transformation" involves disability, gender and poverty as well as the more obvious topic of race/ethnicity. For example, a target of 30% of middle management positions to be held by women and 2% by those with a disability (both of which I also find commendable). So it isn't purely about race.

A large number of the targets are being missed, which again emphasises we are talking about targets rather than quotas.

Also interesting that "black African" as opposed to "generic black" (which is simply anything non-white) is loosely defined as a South African from an indigenous African tribe. Given that Rhule is from Ghana I'm not sure he can meet that criteria. He could actually be being selected ahead of "black African" alternatives which to me suggests he is being picked for athletic potential first and foremost. A pet project for AC.

Also, a KPI was for the Boks to win medals and be top 3 in the World Rankings, both of which are being achieved. So it is not like there is zero consideration for the quality of performance and the sport must be "black at all costs".

Finally, the "township" figures are a bit poor and are the areas where the targets were being missed by the widest margin. I'd expect more focus on those areas and making sure kids from a wider social spectrum get their hands on rugby balls at an early age. I genuinely think most Tier1 and Tier2 nations would benefit from pursuing something similar now that they can't just buy players through residency. They all need to be casting the net as wide as possible for young talent.

 

[mdaclarke]

That was a very interesting read for me, thanks. I know I'll be ploughing a lone furrow on this one but I found that quite a rigorous document. It will provide little comfort to those who want things to be "same as it ever was". It is worth noting that "transformation" involves disability, gender and poverty as well as the more obvious topic of race/ethnicity. For example, a target of 30% of middle management positions to be held by women and 2% by those with a disability (both of which I also find commendable). So it isn't purely about race.

A large number of the targets are being missed, which again emphasises we are talking about targets rather than quotas.

Also interesting that "black African" as opposed to "generic black" (which is simply anything non-white) is loosely defined as a South African from an indigenous African tribe. Given that Rhule is from Ghana I'm not sure he can meet that criteria. He could actually be being selected ahead of "black African" alternatives which to me suggests he is being picked for athletic potential first and foremost. A pet project for AC.

Also, a KPI was for the Boks to win medals and be top 3 in the World Rankings, both of which are being achieved. So it is not like there is zero consideration for the quality of performance and the sport must be "black at all costs".

Finally, the "township" figures are a bit poor and are the areas where the targets were being missed by the widest margin. I'd expect more focus on those areas and making sure kids from a wider social spectrum get their hands on rugby balls at an early age. I genuinely think most Tier1 and Tier2 nations would benefit from pursuing something similar now that they can't just buy players through residency. They all need to be casting the net as wide as possible for young talent.

Targets are fine so long as they are binding in honour only. Once there are sanctions then they stop becoming targets and become quotas which are 100% wrong.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Targets are fine so long as they are binding in honour only. Once there are sanctions then they stop becoming targets and become quotas which are 100% wrong.

Unfortunately, it sounds like in some sections of society it appears that there is no "honour".



The guy in the link above thinks Jantjies should have been dropped for Pollard and that AC is a low grade coach - so I don't think he has a particular axe to grind. He also corrects me on my ignorance about the Bok U21s (as others had above).

 

[mdaclarke]

I can't get sound on my pc so will need to look at it on another computer.

Although I am aware of the history it annoys me that rugby is even used for political purposes.

For me the only factor that should be taken into account when picking a team is how good the players are and what team has the best chance of beating their opponents. Politics and skin colour and other issues such as family background and class and sexual orientation shouldn't come in to it at all.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Being called to represent your country does NOT depend on:

* Your skin colour
* Intellect (or lack of)
* Whom you know

It's about the key qualities which you can bring to the team: Discipline, Honour, Duty, Courage, The Balls To Do The Job.

#leadership101

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I can't get sound on my pc so will need to look at it on another computer.

Although I am aware of the history it annoys me that rugby is even used for political purposes.

For me the only factor that should be taken into account when picking a team is how good the players are and what team has the best chance of beating their opponents. Politics and skin colour and other issues such as family background and class and sexual orientation shouldn't come in to it at all.

Selection for the Springboks has been politically driven for decades. For many white men (not all) from various countries it is only now that they take an interest. Funny that.

History 101

 

[TRF_heineken]

Unfortunately, it sounds like in some sections of society it appears that there is no "honour".



The guy in the link above thinks Jantjies should have been dropped for Pollard and that AC is a low grade coach - so I don't think he has a particular axe to grind. He also corrects me on my ignorance about the Bok U21s (as others had above).

Ugh!

What that moron in the video forgot to mention is that there are directives with regard to schoolkids and where they should be educated. It's a matter of regionality and access.

Each province have their own directive, and some have more strict directives than others. Some directives even mention that certain schools that doesn't have a hostel, are not allowed to take kids living farther than 50km away from the school. Which, in Limpopo, is a very harsh directive as most of Limpopo is farmland, and the schools are in the city. And in many cases there aren't schools closer than 80km's from certain towns/settlements.

I guess that that video was more aimed at the private schools? But then again, they have their own directives, and their Governing Body can have a system in place preventing certain kids from being admitted to schools.

The biggest problem that this guy is missing, is that at all these schools, Academics come first, sport comes 2nd. And it's usually the case that sporty kids doesn't always do so well in academics, and would rather go to a public school where it's a little bit easier than in the private school system.

That video, is again just showing 5% of the problem and not the other 95%.

 

[mdaclarke]

Selection for the Springboks has been politically driven for decades. For many white men (not all) from various countries it is only now that they take an interest. Funny that.

History 101

That may be so but

1. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
2. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
3. South Africa were banned from international rugby until the early 90s

Whatever has happened in the past shouldn't make a difference to the selection policy for the team now. Which should be pick the best team to beat the opposition.

I'm not quite sure what your part about white men was supposed to mean. If you think anybody who have a view that differs from you on this point is racist then at least have the decency to say it directly.

 

[TRF_heineken]

That may be so but

1. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
2. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
3. South Africa were banned from international rugby until the early 90s

Whatever has happened in the past shouldn't make a difference to the selection policy for the team now. Which should be pick the best team to beat the opposition.

Exactly. To compare our Apartheid regime to our current democracy is a big slap in the face in the progress we've made in equal rights for all. During apartheid, black players were forcefully prevented from playing with white players. that is not the case anymore.

That remark, has just shown me how little the poster knows of our history, our previous crimes against humanity, and the progress made. It's actually becoming tiresome to repetitively point out the mistakes...

 

[User1245]

Exactly. To compare our Apartheid regime to our current democracy is a big slap in the face in the progress we've made in equal rights for all. During apartheid, black players were forcefully prevented from playing with white players. that is not the case anymore.

That remark, has just shown me how little the poster knows of our history, our previous crimes against humanity, and the progress made. It's actually becoming tiresome to repetitively point out the mistakes...

I don't like pulling this card as it stifles debate but unless you have lived in South Africa for a period of time it's difficult to understand how things really are.

The black middle class is more than double the size of the white middle class. Things have changed and progress has been made. The upper-middle class is about 55 white/45 black. Is there inequality? Yes. Is it all on the side of whites? No, although it is skewed within the white population of course. There's general inequality across the race spectrum.

In that video Ryan Vrede's view is as questionable as his fashion sense. Team that is representative of the popular hey? So how many of those players are Zulu? Where is the Indian representative? Armchair demographic engineers like him tend to paint blacks with one big brush but I think a Sotho, a Xhosa and a Zulu would disagree.

And nobody seems to give a toss about the sizable Indian population... My question is why...

 

[Da Grappla]

If you have to field (starters+bench) a 50% non white team, you have 50% apartheid rules in the system

This time is pro black and anti white

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

That may be so but

1. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
2. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
3. South Africa were banned from international rugby until the early 90s

Whatever has happened in the past shouldn't make a difference to the selection policy for the team now. Which should be pick the best team to beat the opposition.

I'm not quite sure what your part about white men was supposed to mean. If you think anybody who have a view that differs from you on this point is racist then at least have the decency to say it directly.

That may be so but

1. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
2. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
3. South Africa were banned from international rugby until the early 90s

Whatever has happened in the past shouldn't make a difference to the selection policy for the team now. Which should be pick the best team to beat the opposition.

I'm not quite sure what your part about white men was supposed to mean. If you think anybody who have a view that differs from you on this point is racist then at least have the decency to say it directly.

If I thought someone was being racist I'd have said it. If someone never spoke out against either of the following:

- exclusion of blacks from sports through apartheid
- post apartheid efforts to keep rugby a white majority pursuit in schools and at professional levels (as indicated in the video above by a South African rugby journalist as still being present in parts of the rugby community)

BUT

feel the need to speak out against the transformation process then I will happily label that person both a hypocrite and a racist.

I have had no dealings with posters in this forum until last year, so I've no idea if this description applies to anyone here.

I must say I have generally found South African posters here to be of a good calibre and quite enlightened even though I find myself disagreeing with them on a regular basis. It has challenged my own personal prejudices as someone who studied various African countries (albeit not South Africa) as part of my education.

I have no idea if a member of editorial staff for a rugby magazine that I posted a link to above will be right in what he says; but given his occupation it is probably a side of the argument that is at least worth being aware of. It is an argument that is rarely heard on the white dominated parts of the internet that so frequently seem to enjoy labelling transformation as "racist" whilst seemingly being hell bent in refusing to place that process into its cultural and political context.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

And nobody seems to give a toss about the sizable Indian population... My question is why...

A perfect point. They are focussing on improving participation of women, blacks, mixed raced and the disabled in the sport but ignore the Asian sub-continent. The head of the transformation process may say that Asians are included in the target for players of colour, but I don't think that is good enough and may be considered an oversight. From my perspective it isn't an argument against transformation though, more an argument that it could have included another major community.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Exactly that, with regards to Asians! No reason at all why they should be ignored.

I am tempted to add a #muhdiversity here.

 

[mdaclarke]

I personally have no problems with programs to reach out to disadvantaged members of the community (extra coaching, extra facilities, scholarships etc). However when it comes to actually picking a sports teams players selection must be on the basis of sporting ability only.

In so far as the Pro 14 I think the best bet would be to include the Pumas and one of the Griquas/Leopards. Leave the Super Rugby Teams in Super Rugby