The "South African Quota" catch-all thread

[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

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I pinched your post for another thread Snoop as I considered it interesting.

I'd also say I fully respect any opinion on whether the SARU are working with quotas or targets. And whether such a course of action is right or wrong. I just find it difficult to accept posts that equate Apartheid (aimed at restricting opportunities in rugby (and life) for people from different backgrounds) to transformation (aimed at expanding opportunities for people from different backgrounds to get involved in rugby).

I totally understand that people will see both as wrong, but these "wrongs" are not of equal strength.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I pinched your post for another thread Snoop as I considered it interesting.

I'd also say I fully respect any opinion on whether the SARU are working with quotas or targets. And whether such a course of action is right or wrong. I just find it difficult to accept posts that equate Apartheid (aimed at restricting opportunities in rugby (and life) for people from different backgrounds) to transformation (aimed at expanding opportunities for people from different backgrounds to get involved in rugby).

I totally understand that people will see both as wrong, but these "wrongs" are not of equal strength.

Why do you say that these wrongs are not of equal strength? Which one is worse?

I'm inclined to agree with you as to the wrongs not being equal. But I think my opinion will be vastly different than yours on this matter.

As for the indian population. When I was in high school, I used to play cricket for the local town's club, and we had a lot of indian guys in the club (as we have a big Indian community, but their schools doesn't have sporting grounds). And when asked why they don't play rugby, and only cricket, they told me that their religion prevents them from playing such sports as there is a form of violence attached to the sport (of which tackling another player was seen as violence). It was a fair enough answer for me not to take the discussion any further. What is interesting though, is that they'd watch the rugby matches with us when it's on screen at the clubhouse, and even participate in discussions. But they won't play.

I think the issue here is that South Africa is one of the most liberal countries when it comes to religion, so there is a form of respect towards religion in SA. With that said, I think the Indian community is rather well represented in Cricket, so that there is no need to use a transformation clause for them. The Proteas have Hashim Amla, Keshav Maharaj, Tabraiz Shamsi & Imran Tahir playing consistently for us. While our domestic teams all have at least one or two indian players in their starting line-up.

 

[mdaclarke]

I don't understand the concepts of the wrongs being of unequal strength making one of the wrongs right? Does that mean if someone murders someone it is then OK for another person to rob a bank. Or if one person drink drives is it OK for another person to speed.

If 2 things are both wrong then they are both wrong.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I don't understand the concepts of the wrongs being of unequal strength making one of the wrongs right? Does that mean if someone murders someone it is then OK for another person to rob a bank. Or if one person drink drives is it OK for another person to speed.

If 2 things are both wrong then they are both wrong.

Well I don't consider transformation wrong. Maybe if they had rolled it out in 1995 I would have thought it was premature. They gave it 20 years, saw little to no improvement filtering through to Springbok level and took action to expand the reach of the sport.

If there are two genuine wrongs then the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" is a sound enough argument. If that is someone's argument on this topic then fair enough. I can appreciate where they are coming from.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Well I don't consider transformation wrong. Maybe if they had rolled it out in 1995 I would have thought it was premature. They gave it 20 years, saw little to no improvement filtering through to Springbok level and took action to expand the reach of the sport.

If there are two genuine wrongs then the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" is a sound enough argument. If that is someone's argument on this topic then fair enough. I can appreciate where they are coming from.

But you are not making a fair comparison.

To compare our current democracy and constitution to that of the Apartheid-regime is ludicrous.

During Apartheid there were Laws preventing black people from representing SA, segregation was law!

Now during our democracy, our constitution says that we mustnt be prejudicial according to race, yet transformation is exactly that! And the worst part of it all, these transformation idea is nowhere in any law!

 

[Ospervat]

A quick search for the definition of apartheid:-
(in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.

If this is universally accepted as a definition then the “or discrimination on grounds of race” aspect would imply that selection or appointment of one individual over another based purely on race is fundamentally an apartheid policy.

This is not “grand apartheid” where a particular race is denied ownership of property, business or even the right to vote, this practice is considered “petty apartheid”. It is nonetheless still apartheid.

A rose by any other name is still a rose!

I can’t imagine any reasonable person not wanting transformation however, there are two ways of going about this - organically and enforced.

Organic transformation takes longer through social and economic policies designed by government to encourage all of society without prejudice and by implication raise its overall quality of life.

Enforced transformation is seen as the fast track solution but almost always with negative outcomes in terms of social integration and economic development. These types of policy seek to punish certain elements of society through prejudice, economic sanctions and cultural extinction.

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. IE You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

But you are not making a fair comparison.

To compare our current democracy and constitution to that of the Apartheid-regime is ludicrous.

During Apartheid there were Laws preventing black people from representing SA, segregation was law!

Now during our democracy, our constitution says that we mustnt be prejudicial according to race, yet transformation is exactly that! And the worst part of it all, these transformation idea is nowhere in any law!

Proponents of transformation would argue that the evidence of the past 20 years shows that it is necessary to combat discrimination on race, gender, disability and wealth that had been systemic in rugby.

They would also make my point that we are talking about non-binding targets and that there is therefore no discrimination.

I think a few weeks ago the Boks had 11 non-whites in the 23. Last game it was 8 (or 9 if Leyds is mixed race). It has fluctuated between 6 and 11 in the last 12 months. If there are quotas then whoever has the abaccus has had one too many sherrys.


QUIZ TIME!

Question 1: Why was black Mohoje dropped (skilled at 8) and replaced with the merely coloured Cassiem (who may score less points on the transformation scale)?

Question 2: Why is Raymond Rhule (Ghanaian) still in the mix with the Boks after being recalled to training camp when his Cheetahs teammate Mapimpi (black South African) has been playing lights out (and would score more on the transformation scale)?

Question 3: Why is coloured Rudy Paige considered a "clear quota choice" for being a bench warmer at the weak scrum half position, but DDA (white apparently) is given a free pass for being a passenger in the 23 with arguably no form to justify it?

Question 4: Why is RJvR routinely overlooked while AC persists with the rather ordinary Kriel at 13 (rather than trying a different combination).

Answers next week!

 

[mdaclarke]

Well I don't consider transformation wrong. Maybe if they had rolled it out in 1995 I would have thought it was premature. They gave it 20 years, saw little to no improvement filtering through to Springbok level and took action to expand the reach of the sport.

If there are two genuine wrongs then the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" is a sound enough argument. If that is someone's argument on this topic then fair enough. I can appreciate where they are coming from.

Transformation is a dressed up way of saying that it OK for a player to be picked or not picked because of the colour of their skin. That someone should be picked because they are not white and someone shouldn't be picked because they are white. Picking teams of the basis of race was racist during apartheid and (regardless of the "good intentions" and regardless of how you window dress it) it is racist now.

 

[Da Grappla]

There's no problem in making an effort to place people in kind of the same starting line...sport facilities everywhere, known players touring schools, sponsor disadvantaged neighborhoods, etc. On the contrary, that's good for the sport, for the people...

What is out of the question is something like "no, you're white/brown/black so you can't play".

That's plain racism. And that was the base of the apartheid

You were the masters. You are the slaves now

 

[mdaclarke]

There's no problem in making an effort to place people in kind of the same starting line...sport facilities everywhere, known players touring schools, sponsor disadvantaged neighborhoods, etc. On the contrary, that's good for the sport, for the people...

What is out of the question is something like "no, you're white/brown/black so you can't play".

That's plain racism. And that was the base of the apartheid

Agree 100%

 

[mdaclarke]

A quick search for the definition of apartheid:-
(in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.

If this is universally accepted as a definition then the “or discrimination on grounds of race” aspect would imply that selection or appointment of one individual over another based purely on race is fundamentally an apartheid policy.

This is not “grand apartheid” where a particular race is denied ownership of property, business or even the right to vote, this practice is considered “petty apartheid”. It is nonetheless still apartheid.

A rose by any other name is still a rose!

I can’t imagine any reasonable person not wanting transformation however, there are two ways of going about this - organically and enforced.

Organic transformation takes longer through social and economic policies designed by government to encourage all of society without prejudice and by implication raise its overall quality of life.

Enforced transformation is seen as the fast track solution but almost always with negative outcomes in terms of social integration and economic development. These types of policy seek to punish certain elements of society through prejudice, economic sanctions and cultural extinction.

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. IE You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

Agree 100%

 

[TRF_heineken]

Proponents of transformation would argue that the evidence of the past 20 years shows that it is necessary to combat discrimination on race, gender, disability and wealth that had been systemic in rugby.

Combat discrimiation yes, I'm all for that, but enforcing a system that is in it's core, a discriminatory system, doesn't help the cause. Some of our own ministers have agreed that the top-heavy idea doesn't work.

You won't find many Saffas disagreeing with the process being done at lower age groups, and how the inclusion of non-white players in teams and tournaments are aiding the cause.

The introduction of players into rugby should recieve the required "transformation" attention it is getting. The problem we have is that after they were introduced, talent is taking a back seat for selection, and race is the first choice when it comes to selection.

They would also make my point that we are talking about non-binding targets and that there is therefore no discrimination.

False!

They are binding targets. And if they don't reach those targets, our government will do exactly what they did in 2015, and that is to withdraw support, and prevent our national sporting codes from hosting international events.

When Fikile Mbalula was minister, he even went as far as to say that they (government) would look at making the quota system a law should targets not be met.

So by making threats, they are "forcing" the teams to abide by those targets, and that is discrimination.

I think a few weeks ago the Boks had 11 non-whites in the 23. Last game it was 8 (or 9 if Leyds is mixed race). It has fluctuated between 6 and 11 in the last 12 months. If there are quotas then whoever has the abaccus has had one too many sherrys.

I think in 2017 there has been a consistency of 8 or more non-white players in every bok team. And it has been pretty simple:

1. Beast
16. Bongi Mbonambi / Chilliboy Ralepelle
17. Trevor Nyakane
7. Siya Kolisi / Teboho Mohoje
8. Uzair Cassiem / Teboho Mohoje
20. Rudy Paige
10. Elton Jantjies
11. Courtnal Skosan
14. Raymond Rhule / Dillyn Leyds
21. Curwin Bosch

AC has stuck with a base of 8, and here and there added 1 - 3 more players in certain positions based on availability.

QUIZ TIME!

Question 1: Why was black Mohoje dropped (skilled at 8) and replaced with the merely coloured Cassiem (who may score less points on the transformation scale)?

Mohoje wasn't dropped, he got injured. He only returned 2 weeks ago and played for the Cheetahs. Mohoje is a flanker, and not in better form than Kolisi/Kriel/Louw.

Mohoje only last week said that he will be looking at playing more at 8 and see if it's a role for him. The commentator even mentioned that in the last Pro14 match the Cheetahs played.

Question 2: Why is Raymond Rhule (Ghanaian) still in the mix with the Boks after being recalled to training camp when his Cheetahs teammate Mapimpi (black South African) has been playing lights out (and would score more on the transformation scale)?

What is this transformation scale you are talking about?? Rhule and Mapimpi are traditional black africans. They are equal when it comes to race. Rhule has been part of the Springbok setup longer, and that is why he was selected.

I also think Mapimpi is a better choice. But neither of them are better than Ruan Combrink

Question 3: Why is coloured Rudy Paige considered a "clear quota choice" for being a bench warmer at the weak scrum half position, but DDA (white apparently) is given a free pass for being a passenger in the 23 with arguably no form to justify it?

Probably because AC used to coach DDA at the Stormers, and AC has been just like many other Springbok coaches before him, been showing a bit of favouritism towards his old union's players. HM was exactly the same with Bulls players.

If Rudy Paige wasn't just a bench warmer, then surely he would have gotten more game time? Or even been selected ahead of Hougaard? Hougaard didn't start just against New Zealand. he also Started against Argentina, and was also in that match rather poor. Surely if AC had more confidence in Paige, he would've given him more chances.

Same can be said about Bongi Mbonambi. Has been sitting on the bench all year, playing the last 4 minutes of each game.

Question 4: Why is RJvR routinely overlooked while AC persists with the rather ordinary Kriel at 13 (rather than trying a different combination).

Well, Rohan was also injured (just like Mohoje). Rohan wasn't part of AC's plans for the season, and made an early recovery. Rohan is also a 12 just like Serfontein, who can play a bit of 13.

I would also love a combination of Jan and Rohan, but Jesse has been playing rather well, and has been one of our more consistent backline players on form, and scoring tries. hell, he's scored more tries this year than Skosan and Rhule combined...

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Robert Mugabe would approve...

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Transformation is a dressed up way of saying that it OK for a player to be picked or not picked because of the colour of their skin. That someone should be picked because they are not white and someone shouldn't be picked because they are white. Picking teams of the basis of race was racist during apartheid and (regardless of the "good intentions" and regardless of how you window dress it) it is racist now.

The SARU, sports minister and arithmetic all state otherwise.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

QUIZ TIME!

Question 1: Why was black Mohoje dropped (skilled at 8) and replaced with the merely coloured Cassiem (who may score less points on the transformation scale)?

Question 2: Why is Raymond Rhule (Ghanaian) still in the mix with the Boks after being recalled to training camp when his Cheetahs teammate Mapimpi (black South African) has been playing lights out (and would score more on the transformation scale)?

Question 3: Why is coloured Rudy Paige considered a "clear quota choice" for being a bench warmer at the weak scrum half position, but DDA (white apparently) is given a free pass for being a passenger in the 23 with arguably no form to justify it?

Question 4: Why is RJvR routinely overlooked while AC persists with the rather ordinary Kriel at 13 (rather than trying a different combination).

Answers next week!

*drum roll*

The collective answer is that none of the questions are relevant to the matters of race, except for number 3. 1, 2 & 4 are simply matters of coaching preference which are standard in other international sides.

And Heineken, my point with Rhule vs Mapimpi is that clearly for proponents of transformation a man who is "black South African" and can speak an indigenous language would be far preferable to a Ghanian (who I assume will have been taught in English rather than Xhosa etc when schooled in South Africa). If matters of race and ethnicity were paramount then Mapimpi would get the nod in this RC and Mohoje would be starting the EOYTs.

I got it wrong with my prediction that the Boks would be 3rd in the world after the RC, largely due to the upswing in a Wallaby side that twice carved the ABs open defensively.

Still, to suggest that a side that is 4th in the world and just gave the ABs a fright is not based on merit is objectively questionable and ungenerous to the players. I see no reason to assume that any Boks 23 of eligible players would do any better or get close to 2nd in the world.

 

[mdaclarke]

The SARU, sports minister and arithmetic all state otherwise.

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?

 

[TRF_heineken]

*drum roll*

The collective answer is that none of the questions are relevant to the matters of race, except for number 3. 1, 2 & 4 are simply matters of coaching preference which are standard in other international sides.

And Heineken, my point with Rhule vs Mapimpi is that clearly for proponents of transformation a man who is "black South African" and can speak an indigenous language would be far preferable to a Ghanian (who I assume will have been taught in English rather than Xhosa etc when schooled in South Africa). If matters of race and ethnicity were paramount then Mapimpi would get the nod in this RC and Mohoje would be starting the EOYTs.

I got it wrong with my prediction that the Boks would be 3rd in the world after the RC, largely due to the upswing in a Wallaby side that twice carved the ABs open defensively.

Still, to suggest that a side that is 4th in the world and just gave the ABs a fright is not based on merit is objectively questionable and ungenerous to the players. I see no reason to assume that any Boks 23 of eligible players would do any better or get close to 2nd in the world.

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.

 

[Ospervat]

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?

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.

 

[TRF_heineken]

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.

This!!

I just don't get what the endgame is for BMG on this matter. It's clear that he won't change his mind when applying the information given to him on this matter. And the more this thread drags on, the less convincing is his argument.

It's now an issue of credibility. And it's going to be a battle should this propaganda continue.

 

[WaterboySA]

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!