Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
New race quotas for SA rugby
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LittleGuy" data-source="post: 586802" data-attributes="member: 44360"><p><strong>Feel free to point out where I reject the market system?</strong></p><p></p><p>Most of your entire previous post and this one as well.</p><p></p><p><strong>I question it's morality. Do you genuinely believe its fair that we do have the resources to give the world a basic quality of life, but our distribution of resources results in malnutrition, starvation, deaths from very curable diseases, lack of clean water, no education etc in parts of the world? eg, western interests demand that we waste countless acres of agrarian land on the energy wasteful beef, whilst communities have barely enough food?</strong></p><p></p><p>The morality of it is irrelevant it is not designed to be a moral system, and of course it's unfair, life is unfair, expecting a system to balance one of the basic tenants of existence is silly. Nor as I said previously is our system entirely to blame for failures in other parts of the world, in fact if you look at those parts of the world you'll notice some glaring absenses....free markets, property rights, rule of law etc. Canada could donate more and more and more to these parts of the world and it still wouldn't do anything, since these countries wouldn't even be able to distribute it to their own citizens(do you expect Mugabe to just hand over our aid to his people?)</p><p></p><p><strong>I question the political influence of markets. For example, tobacco/alcohol/energy companies/arms industry lobbying.</strong></p><p></p><p>True but salient big buisness and free markets are two different entities and often the most anti-free market forces are actually big buisness, the beer companies in Canada are outrageously anti-competitive as are the big telecommunication companies. Sadly they are often in bed with government, which restricts entry or over regulates these markets.</p><p></p><p><strong>I question the laissez-faire system route we are going down, in particular trickle-down economics. Tax breaks for the rich aid the poor? **** that.</strong></p><p></p><p>Trickle down economics isn't actually an economic theory, it's a caricature made by the opponents of free markets. One of the first proponents of cutting marginal tax rates was John F. Kennedy hardly a right wing zealot.</p><p></p><p><strong>However, I don't believe that competition, for-profit companies, consumerism etc. is a bad thing. I don't propose a return to feudalism or anything like that.</strong></p><p></p><p><strong><strong>I'm economically illiterate</strong>? Riiight. Didn't you know that I fall asleep listening to an audiobook copy of <em>The Road to Serfdom</em>, crying wishing that Milton Friedman was still here and thinking about how classical liberalism will save us all? Tell you a secret though, promise not to hate me?<span style="font-size: 9px"> I think that Keynes was a pretty decent chap, and that Clement Attlee was probably the best Prime Minister the UK has ever had. Heck, I even <em>like</em> the NHS, and I have no real intention of moving to Hong Kong. I also never went to an Austrian School.</span></strong></p><p></p><p>Harsh on my point taken back, you know plenty of economic theories but approach the system through a moral lense and not a practical one. I guess you won't be surprised if I say that Clement Atlee was one of the the worst PM's in modern UK history(Wilson was probably worse, Heath was terrible as well) who utterly squandered the Marshall plan aid(England received more than any other country) on nonsense, Germany received less money, was in much worse shape after the war and ended up ahead of the UK and shockingly quickly mostly because they didn't pursue disastrous policies like nationalizing industries.</p><p></p><p>Sadly Keynes died fairly young and was unable to stop the utter perversion of his theories, he even wrote to Hayek before his death about this....</p><p></p><p>[media=youtube]VqU-AZh-wqU[/media]</p><p></p><p><strong>I'm not proposing a better system, I have none. That doesn't make the current one any more fair.</strong></p><p></p><p>Thomas Sowell always mentions how he asks those that criticize capitalism "What else?" The lack of an alternative screams volumes about how our system works better than all others, and as I said already of course it's unfair "ces't la vie"</p><p></p><p><strong>But I would describe myself as an economic centrist: one who believes that the free market is ordinarily a good thing that we should aim to uphold, at least for now, but that there has to be particular restrictions, there has to be a good benefit program for the unemployed and working poor, there has to be strong public infrastructure, there has to be avoidance of the laissez-faire in things such as medicine etc.</strong></p><p></p><p>The welfare state is the single biggest burden on the working poor, those at a highest disadvantage in our society are those who are just above the cut off for receiving benefits who do not earn enough to be wealthy, nor do they qualify for the benefits enjoyed by those below the cut off. These individuals must deal with both subsidizing those below them directly and indirectly, while being the main squeeze of those above them who cut costs or simply shrink their buisness to avoid higher tax brackets. </p><p></p><p>Nor do those on welfare benefit in the long term, in the short term thay are indeed acting in their own self interest, but what about long term, they develop no skills, no self esteem they are treated like children or objects by those that run the welfare programs or politicians who stir them up for votes and power(it's been like that since Roman times with manipulation of the grain dole). Those that benefit the most from the welfare state ARE the PUBLIC SECTOR 'workers who run the welfare state!!! These individuals get comfortable upper middle class lifestyles, are essentially undismissable, long vacation times, don't work weekends/hoidays and worst of all do not have to produce results.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>re: not buying a ticket. Why the **** shouldn't I? An arbitrarily long time ago (30 years ago? 50 years ago? I'm not sure), tickets to football games were reasonably priced, and the working class man could afford them. Due to the introduction of high salaried players, pushing the expenditure of the club beyond crazy, ticket prices had to go up to sustain the model, and keep teams competing in the highest league. So now you offer me two ****ty choices: watch the game and team that I love (okay, I don't love football, but for the purposes of this) at great expense, or just shut up about it and don't buy a ticket. Does any rugby fan actually want to see the sport go down that road? Is it fair that the poor routinely get priced out of entertainment? </strong></p><p></p><p>You can if you want to, I'm not stopping you, but don't pretend you are not a reason for the high salaries if you do. What you are essentially saying is that the rest of the fan base are the ones that are wrong since they voluntarily paid money to go see the team play. There is also some mid-high quality sports action available at relatively low cost of your willing to search for it,the Toronto Maple Leafs which are my closest Ice Hockey franchsie(The LEAST affordable franchise to see in North America for a sports fan as studied by ESPN) I no longer by their merchandise and I laugh at people who fork over the amount they want fot tickets, but I don't sit outside begging to be let in, I'll go spend my cash on Jays or Raptors afforadbale seats instead. I will however grant you that if these teams have used taxpayer funding to build their stadiums than by god, I'll be right beside you on the ticket price protest line as that is outrageous!!</p><p></p><p><strong>re: collective bargaining. Why the **** shouldn't teachers be allowed to bargain for better living standards? Teachers are treated like mugs in most countries.</strong></p><p></p><p>If teachers are open to competition than absolutely, but in public sector bargaining there is essentially no negotiation. In the private sector the union denies it's employers the employees and labour, while management holds the stick of losing buisness to competitors, lost wages, lost productivity etc. it's in both parties interests in most cases to reach a deal, while in the public sector, the employee can withold their labour and guess what...there is no competitor for the consumer to go to! Pressure than builds with the public who are denied vital services provided by aforementioned workers, who than get angry at the government for having no deal done. Nor are customers of private sector entities compelled by law to continue doing buisness with a company who's prices they find to high. I am however compelled by law to pay taxes to the Ontario government even though I believe they over compensate the teacher's union.</p><p></p><p>I'm sure there are countries where they get a raw deal, but in most Western countries they are generally paid well to very well, with great benefits. In Ontario which I used as an example their compensation is borderline outrageous, I know fire and brimstone left-wing friends who have utterly no sympathy for a picket line of BMW drivers and "Land's end" clothing wearers discussing their raw deal.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Riiight. So rather than simply cutting the number of places and using the excess of people wanting to become teachers to encourage competition, allowing for the best of them to rise above and raising the standards of education as a whole, with the remaining people going on to take up other jobs having realised that they're not making it through... instead, you just want to play the nuclear option. Make the profession even more unappealing. Make it a waste zone, a place for people to go when they fail to land a job at another company. Make them feel undervalued. That'll certainly encourage them to put more work into their classes.</strong></p><p></p><p>The profession is currently very appealing here as evidenced by the oversupply of teachers. The cutting of salaries also does not nessecarily result in lower quality people, it may result in more passionate teachers with a true dedication to their craft who are willing to make a financial sacrfice to pursue a career they love, it also may not even affect current applicants, as it may push out older deadwood(dear god I remember some of the old union types here in Ontario before Harris threw them out, had a High School teacher who took the attendance down to the office, took him so long some of the other students drove down to McDonalds grabbed breakfast and ate before he got back!!)</p><p></p><p><strong>For what it's worth, teachers are for the most part <strong>underpaid</strong>. People seem to get it into their heads that teachers work 9-5 and dilly-dally otherwise, enjoying months of work off at a time. Only the kind of teacher that your plans would attract, would do that. Good teachers work for a lot longer than 9-5. The marking, preparing of resources, after school classes, holiday revision classes etc. Same with public sector nurses. My mum works at least two unsalaried hours every day as a nurse, for the personal reward of the job.</strong></p><p></p><p>I can't completely speak for England's teacher salary wages, as I said in Canada and Ontario they are compensated very well. If my plans would only attract this 9-5 type of teacher, than why were there high quality teachers(in fact possibly even better teachers) when pay rates were lower? In fact in Canada part of the problem is that teacher's unions were given the benefits, sick days(they could get up to 20 days at one point...or 1 in every 9 of their working days) etc. when the job had lower wages, now wages have gone up and the benefits mostly stayed.</p><p></p><p>Your mum sounds like a class person, but again this is irrelavent, economics is not a moral seminar, if we pay nurses extremely well, we won't find as many people applying to be the doctor!!</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Just look to the carer profession to see what happens when service jobs are so undervalued that they become unappealing and attract the wrong kinds of people. Is it any surprise that care scandals happen often, when they are underpaid and underappreciated? A lack of competition for careers in the jobs, just leads to the profession being full of undesirable people.</strong></p><p></p><p>People are people, there is corruption and neglect amongst the highest and lowest paid people, mulit billionaire ponzi schemers and my grape pickers who write their names on other peoples pick boxes for another $2.00</p><p></p><p><strong>I think you're confusing my frustration at the wrongness of the system, with that I think there's a better alternative.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>I'm not saying forsake the last centuries of development of economic models. I'm saying curb the massive flaws of laissez-faire markets as much as possible (the damage to the environment, some degree of wealth redistribution (the Scandinavian model is better than the United States one) etc.) and search to improve the system to a fairer one that also works.</strong></p><p></p><p>The Scandanvian countries are frequently brought up by social democrats but inter country comparisons have always been difficult and in fact the socialism aspect of our Northen friends frequently overstated. Norway floats off of oil money we can essentially dimiss any brilliance there, and the other examples are vastly different than the States, they have much higher population density's,(especially when you factor in the low Northen popluations) lower geographic area, less geopolitical responsibity/involvement(though the US should move towards this as well) and a more culturally homogenous population. The tax rates are a little higher but they aren't exactly night and day especially at the mid levels. The United States isn't exactly a beacon of laissez faire capitism either, bail out's to auto makers, poorly run banks</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Your argument relies on there not being an active interest of the black community in rugby.</strong></p><p></p><p>I suppose I could have understated the interest but I'll factor that in to my thoughts in this reply.</p><p></p><p><strong>As I said, 57 per cent of rugby players, U11 to U19, are black. This becomes an even higher percentage if you include mixed race people. <strong>There is an active interest there, it just seemingly doesn't transfer between U19 and the rugby academies.</strong> In other words, it seems that the scouting system is broken. The quota ensures that clubs actually give a damn about the U19 black people.</strong></p><p></p><p>They will anyway, because otherwise they will begin to lose to those teams with better scouting systems. Do you actually think most managers of South African rugby clubs aren't out there scouring for black talent to get an edge? I'll grant you there may be one or two racists out there that don't(The Boston Red Sox in MLB were infamous for refusing to field Black players...and as a consequence their on field performace vis a vis teams that had no such compunctions suffered). I honestly can't beleive that South African rugby scouts can be that stupid, and if so will you please call one of them and get him to show up at these schools they are missing!!!</p><p></p><p><strong>I believe that the fault comes from club scouts failing to put the effort in to finding the skilled black players, and clubs failing to engage black-majority schools. I bet that scouts keep their eyes on the same white-majority schools, year after year, and thus fail to notice the skilled black players. I bet that white-majority schools also have the best facilities and thus the best teams, easier for a player to get noticed. I bet that there are countless black players that are potential rugby giants and do have the skills, but are never given the opportunity to show their skills. Hell, I bet a lot of black-majority schools hardly even put much effort into running a rugby program. If this quota results in clubs taking an active interest in scouting black players and encouraging black-majority schools to take up rugby, then the ends most likely justify the means, and I believe that it will increase the standard of the team in the long-run</strong>.</p><p></p><p>You are treating the White players(or other races not icluded in the quota) that will not get spots as pawns on a chess board and not as flesh and blood human beings. I cannot justify the means to a guy who's worked his ass off for a Vodacom cup spot and tell him "sorry Jacques, but we had to give your spot to Thabo, simply because it makes us feel better about ourselves and previous injustices..." Just as I couldn't jusify the means to Thabo in 1995 when Jacques may have gotten the spot. I can't beleive you would so callously dismiss "Jacques" part of the bargain. That dosen't mean if Thabo was getting excluded for being black we shouldn't be outraged, and we might even actively encourage him to take up the sport or help him get started bu to take something away from someone and give it to someone who didn't earn it is highly immoral.</p><p></p><p><strong>EDIT: sorry for a bit of swearing. Read it as comic exaggeration rather than frustration. I wish we could get the smileys back.</strong></p><p></p><p>No worries about the swearing, and agreed on the Smiley's</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LittleGuy, post: 586802, member: 44360"] [B]Feel free to point out where I reject the market system?[/B] Most of your entire previous post and this one as well. [B]I question it's morality. Do you genuinely believe its fair that we do have the resources to give the world a basic quality of life, but our distribution of resources results in malnutrition, starvation, deaths from very curable diseases, lack of clean water, no education etc in parts of the world? eg, western interests demand that we waste countless acres of agrarian land on the energy wasteful beef, whilst communities have barely enough food?[/B] The morality of it is irrelevant it is not designed to be a moral system, and of course it's unfair, life is unfair, expecting a system to balance one of the basic tenants of existence is silly. Nor as I said previously is our system entirely to blame for failures in other parts of the world, in fact if you look at those parts of the world you'll notice some glaring absenses....free markets, property rights, rule of law etc. Canada could donate more and more and more to these parts of the world and it still wouldn't do anything, since these countries wouldn't even be able to distribute it to their own citizens(do you expect Mugabe to just hand over our aid to his people?) [B]I question the political influence of markets. For example, tobacco/alcohol/energy companies/arms industry lobbying.[/B] True but salient big buisness and free markets are two different entities and often the most anti-free market forces are actually big buisness, the beer companies in Canada are outrageously anti-competitive as are the big telecommunication companies. Sadly they are often in bed with government, which restricts entry or over regulates these markets. [B]I question the laissez-faire system route we are going down, in particular trickle-down economics. Tax breaks for the rich aid the poor? **** that.[/B] Trickle down economics isn't actually an economic theory, it's a caricature made by the opponents of free markets. One of the first proponents of cutting marginal tax rates was John F. Kennedy hardly a right wing zealot. [B]However, I don't believe that competition, for-profit companies, consumerism etc. is a bad thing. I don't propose a return to feudalism or anything like that.[/B] [B][B]I'm economically illiterate[/B]? Riiight. Didn't you know that I fall asleep listening to an audiobook copy of [I]The Road to Serfdom[/I], crying wishing that Milton Friedman was still here and thinking about how classical liberalism will save us all? Tell you a secret though, promise not to hate me?[SIZE=1] I think that Keynes was a pretty decent chap, and that Clement Attlee was probably the best Prime Minister the UK has ever had. Heck, I even [I]like[/I] the NHS, and I have no real intention of moving to Hong Kong. I also never went to an Austrian School.[/SIZE][/B] Harsh on my point taken back, you know plenty of economic theories but approach the system through a moral lense and not a practical one. I guess you won't be surprised if I say that Clement Atlee was one of the the worst PM's in modern UK history(Wilson was probably worse, Heath was terrible as well) who utterly squandered the Marshall plan aid(England received more than any other country) on nonsense, Germany received less money, was in much worse shape after the war and ended up ahead of the UK and shockingly quickly mostly because they didn't pursue disastrous policies like nationalizing industries. Sadly Keynes died fairly young and was unable to stop the utter perversion of his theories, he even wrote to Hayek before his death about this.... [media=youtube]VqU-AZh-wqU[/media] [B]I'm not proposing a better system, I have none. That doesn't make the current one any more fair.[/B] Thomas Sowell always mentions how he asks those that criticize capitalism "What else?" The lack of an alternative screams volumes about how our system works better than all others, and as I said already of course it's unfair "ces't la vie" [B]But I would describe myself as an economic centrist: one who believes that the free market is ordinarily a good thing that we should aim to uphold, at least for now, but that there has to be particular restrictions, there has to be a good benefit program for the unemployed and working poor, there has to be strong public infrastructure, there has to be avoidance of the laissez-faire in things such as medicine etc.[/B] The welfare state is the single biggest burden on the working poor, those at a highest disadvantage in our society are those who are just above the cut off for receiving benefits who do not earn enough to be wealthy, nor do they qualify for the benefits enjoyed by those below the cut off. These individuals must deal with both subsidizing those below them directly and indirectly, while being the main squeeze of those above them who cut costs or simply shrink their buisness to avoid higher tax brackets. Nor do those on welfare benefit in the long term, in the short term thay are indeed acting in their own self interest, but what about long term, they develop no skills, no self esteem they are treated like children or objects by those that run the welfare programs or politicians who stir them up for votes and power(it's been like that since Roman times with manipulation of the grain dole). Those that benefit the most from the welfare state ARE the PUBLIC SECTOR 'workers who run the welfare state!!! These individuals get comfortable upper middle class lifestyles, are essentially undismissable, long vacation times, don't work weekends/hoidays and worst of all do not have to produce results. [B]re: not buying a ticket. Why the **** shouldn't I? An arbitrarily long time ago (30 years ago? 50 years ago? I'm not sure), tickets to football games were reasonably priced, and the working class man could afford them. Due to the introduction of high salaried players, pushing the expenditure of the club beyond crazy, ticket prices had to go up to sustain the model, and keep teams competing in the highest league. So now you offer me two ****ty choices: watch the game and team that I love (okay, I don't love football, but for the purposes of this) at great expense, or just shut up about it and don't buy a ticket. Does any rugby fan actually want to see the sport go down that road? Is it fair that the poor routinely get priced out of entertainment? [/B] You can if you want to, I'm not stopping you, but don't pretend you are not a reason for the high salaries if you do. What you are essentially saying is that the rest of the fan base are the ones that are wrong since they voluntarily paid money to go see the team play. There is also some mid-high quality sports action available at relatively low cost of your willing to search for it,the Toronto Maple Leafs which are my closest Ice Hockey franchsie(The LEAST affordable franchise to see in North America for a sports fan as studied by ESPN) I no longer by their merchandise and I laugh at people who fork over the amount they want fot tickets, but I don't sit outside begging to be let in, I'll go spend my cash on Jays or Raptors afforadbale seats instead. I will however grant you that if these teams have used taxpayer funding to build their stadiums than by god, I'll be right beside you on the ticket price protest line as that is outrageous!! [B]re: collective bargaining. Why the **** shouldn't teachers be allowed to bargain for better living standards? Teachers are treated like mugs in most countries.[/B] If teachers are open to competition than absolutely, but in public sector bargaining there is essentially no negotiation. In the private sector the union denies it's employers the employees and labour, while management holds the stick of losing buisness to competitors, lost wages, lost productivity etc. it's in both parties interests in most cases to reach a deal, while in the public sector, the employee can withold their labour and guess what...there is no competitor for the consumer to go to! Pressure than builds with the public who are denied vital services provided by aforementioned workers, who than get angry at the government for having no deal done. Nor are customers of private sector entities compelled by law to continue doing buisness with a company who's prices they find to high. I am however compelled by law to pay taxes to the Ontario government even though I believe they over compensate the teacher's union. I'm sure there are countries where they get a raw deal, but in most Western countries they are generally paid well to very well, with great benefits. In Ontario which I used as an example their compensation is borderline outrageous, I know fire and brimstone left-wing friends who have utterly no sympathy for a picket line of BMW drivers and "Land's end" clothing wearers discussing their raw deal. [B]Riiight. So rather than simply cutting the number of places and using the excess of people wanting to become teachers to encourage competition, allowing for the best of them to rise above and raising the standards of education as a whole, with the remaining people going on to take up other jobs having realised that they're not making it through... instead, you just want to play the nuclear option. Make the profession even more unappealing. Make it a waste zone, a place for people to go when they fail to land a job at another company. Make them feel undervalued. That'll certainly encourage them to put more work into their classes.[/B] The profession is currently very appealing here as evidenced by the oversupply of teachers. The cutting of salaries also does not nessecarily result in lower quality people, it may result in more passionate teachers with a true dedication to their craft who are willing to make a financial sacrfice to pursue a career they love, it also may not even affect current applicants, as it may push out older deadwood(dear god I remember some of the old union types here in Ontario before Harris threw them out, had a High School teacher who took the attendance down to the office, took him so long some of the other students drove down to McDonalds grabbed breakfast and ate before he got back!!) [B]For what it's worth, teachers are for the most part [B]underpaid[/B]. People seem to get it into their heads that teachers work 9-5 and dilly-dally otherwise, enjoying months of work off at a time. Only the kind of teacher that your plans would attract, would do that. Good teachers work for a lot longer than 9-5. The marking, preparing of resources, after school classes, holiday revision classes etc. Same with public sector nurses. My mum works at least two unsalaried hours every day as a nurse, for the personal reward of the job.[/B] I can't completely speak for England's teacher salary wages, as I said in Canada and Ontario they are compensated very well. If my plans would only attract this 9-5 type of teacher, than why were there high quality teachers(in fact possibly even better teachers) when pay rates were lower? In fact in Canada part of the problem is that teacher's unions were given the benefits, sick days(they could get up to 20 days at one point...or 1 in every 9 of their working days) etc. when the job had lower wages, now wages have gone up and the benefits mostly stayed. Your mum sounds like a class person, but again this is irrelavent, economics is not a moral seminar, if we pay nurses extremely well, we won't find as many people applying to be the doctor!! [B]Just look to the carer profession to see what happens when service jobs are so undervalued that they become unappealing and attract the wrong kinds of people. Is it any surprise that care scandals happen often, when they are underpaid and underappreciated? A lack of competition for careers in the jobs, just leads to the profession being full of undesirable people.[/B] People are people, there is corruption and neglect amongst the highest and lowest paid people, mulit billionaire ponzi schemers and my grape pickers who write their names on other peoples pick boxes for another $2.00 [B]I think you're confusing my frustration at the wrongness of the system, with that I think there's a better alternative. I'm not saying forsake the last centuries of development of economic models. I'm saying curb the massive flaws of laissez-faire markets as much as possible (the damage to the environment, some degree of wealth redistribution (the Scandinavian model is better than the United States one) etc.) and search to improve the system to a fairer one that also works.[/B] The Scandanvian countries are frequently brought up by social democrats but inter country comparisons have always been difficult and in fact the socialism aspect of our Northen friends frequently overstated. Norway floats off of oil money we can essentially dimiss any brilliance there, and the other examples are vastly different than the States, they have much higher population density's,(especially when you factor in the low Northen popluations) lower geographic area, less geopolitical responsibity/involvement(though the US should move towards this as well) and a more culturally homogenous population. The tax rates are a little higher but they aren't exactly night and day especially at the mid levels. The United States isn't exactly a beacon of laissez faire capitism either, bail out's to auto makers, poorly run banks [B]Your argument relies on there not being an active interest of the black community in rugby.[/B] I suppose I could have understated the interest but I'll factor that in to my thoughts in this reply. [B]As I said, 57 per cent of rugby players, U11 to U19, are black. This becomes an even higher percentage if you include mixed race people. [B]There is an active interest there, it just seemingly doesn't transfer between U19 and the rugby academies.[/B] In other words, it seems that the scouting system is broken. The quota ensures that clubs actually give a damn about the U19 black people.[/B] They will anyway, because otherwise they will begin to lose to those teams with better scouting systems. Do you actually think most managers of South African rugby clubs aren't out there scouring for black talent to get an edge? I'll grant you there may be one or two racists out there that don't(The Boston Red Sox in MLB were infamous for refusing to field Black players...and as a consequence their on field performace vis a vis teams that had no such compunctions suffered). I honestly can't beleive that South African rugby scouts can be that stupid, and if so will you please call one of them and get him to show up at these schools they are missing!!! [B]I believe that the fault comes from club scouts failing to put the effort in to finding the skilled black players, and clubs failing to engage black-majority schools. I bet that scouts keep their eyes on the same white-majority schools, year after year, and thus fail to notice the skilled black players. I bet that white-majority schools also have the best facilities and thus the best teams, easier for a player to get noticed. I bet that there are countless black players that are potential rugby giants and do have the skills, but are never given the opportunity to show their skills. Hell, I bet a lot of black-majority schools hardly even put much effort into running a rugby program. If this quota results in clubs taking an active interest in scouting black players and encouraging black-majority schools to take up rugby, then the ends most likely justify the means, and I believe that it will increase the standard of the team in the long-run[/B]. You are treating the White players(or other races not icluded in the quota) that will not get spots as pawns on a chess board and not as flesh and blood human beings. I cannot justify the means to a guy who's worked his ass off for a Vodacom cup spot and tell him "sorry Jacques, but we had to give your spot to Thabo, simply because it makes us feel better about ourselves and previous injustices..." Just as I couldn't jusify the means to Thabo in 1995 when Jacques may have gotten the spot. I can't beleive you would so callously dismiss "Jacques" part of the bargain. That dosen't mean if Thabo was getting excluded for being black we shouldn't be outraged, and we might even actively encourage him to take up the sport or help him get started bu to take something away from someone and give it to someone who didn't earn it is highly immoral. [B]EDIT: sorry for a bit of swearing. Read it as comic exaggeration rather than frustration. I wish we could get the smileys back.[/B] No worries about the swearing, and agreed on the Smiley's [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
New race quotas for SA rugby
Top