Rassie talks quota's

[User1245]

To give him credit he has changed his position as facts have come to light. However I believe he has been selective to fit his narrative so I agree that there is circular reasoning here.

Quotas work --> the ANC say they are necessary --> therefore quotas are necessary and work

I think I've summed up his argument accurately there. Bruce you can restate this if I got it wrong.

First he has to establish that the assumption quotas work is true.

Then he has prove that they are necessary.

Only then can he provide a sound reason for his position.

However I believe intertwined with this position is an issue of morals and legality. This is why I want to bring this back to a conversation as opposed to an information dump.

 

[SomeOke]

I for one didn't see anything too egregious with what Bruce was saying, and the video by Ryan Vrede wasn't completely out of line either.
I agree with MdClarke however that political arguments like this one rarely accomplish anything, no-one is going to change their opinion on the matter.

The ANC are bad and implement bad policies, revolutionaries seldom make good governments, but white South Africans also use this fact as a shield to take little responsibility for our part in what ails our society - pretty much sums up every issue in South Africa.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I for one didn't see anything too egregious with what Bruce was saying, and the video by Ryan Vrede wasn't completely out of line either.
I agree with MdClarke however that political arguments like this one rarely accomplish anything, no-one is going to change their opinion on the matter.

The ANC are bad and implement bad policies, revolutionaries seldom make good governments, but white South Africans also use this fact as a shield to take little responsibility for our part in what ails our society - pretty much sums up every issue in South Africa.

It bothers me that any Tom, Dick or Harry can think that they can be so entitled to their opinion by going to google, look for a few articles from mainstream media (where some of them are even state owned or Gupta-linked) and think they would know more about this issue, or think they are right and we are wrong.

It bothers me that when he say contradictory things, and he is then supplied with hard facts, he doesn't have the decency to apologise, or change his stance on what he said, even though he is wrong.

It bothers me that this foreigner who has spent hardly any time in South Africa thinks he knows what is going on here, or that the policies our government is making are all above board and that everything is just hunky-dory and that we should just shut up and move on.

It bothers me that even our own Sports Minister has recently admitted to the quota system, in a public setting, yet for some strange reason this doesn't apply to the discussion.

It bothers me that we can't keep this discussion productive and revert back to the vicious cycle it has become, where a lot of posters are becoming frustrated or discouraged, or even lash out, or send me PM's saying that I should just add Bruce to my ignore list. I don't want to do that, on rugby related matters he is a very decent poster, and enjoy his contributions. But this is a matter on it's own.

 

[DumbAmerican]

Next month England will tour South Africa. A full strength England would definitely have 3 black home grown players in the 23 (Joseph, Watson & Itoje) and possibly a fourth (Sinckler). Heck, they might even be selecting a bi-sexual fly half (becoming the true "rainbow nation" of rugby! )

The "black" population of England (i.e. black or mixed race partial black) is 3% of the population. The comparable figure in South Africa is about 85%.

Wales (Charvis, Giles), Ireland (Zebo), Italy (Mbanda, Odiete) all manage to identify the occasional black player despite the tiny fraction of their populations that are black (far, far smaller than even the 3% of England) and intense competition with other sports.

. . .

I'm all ears for any other explanation for why a country with 3% of its population being black can select the same number of black players (on merit) as a country where 85% of the population is black.

This might seem a bit counterintuitive, but maybe the smaller black population of the UK actuals works in favor of selecting the best black talent. If what you stated is correct that rugby requires a social structure to be erected in order to find the best talent (as opposed to the "simpler" sports you mention like soccer or rugby 7s), maybe South Africa would have a higher % of black top level rugby talent if the black % of the total population was actually lower. In the US it's non-black money that funds sports infrastructure. The owners of major franchises are non-black. Most of the money from tickets and merch comes from non-blacks. Funding at the youth/college sporting level, whether through fees, donations, or taxes, comes mostly from non-blacks. All this cash is what funds the infrastructure which mines and develops black athletic talent so efficiently in the US. I'd assume something similar is happening in the UK. South Africa is a much poorer country, with a much smaller percentage of the population producing large economic surpluses that can be spent on something as frivolous as large scale and wide spread organized athletics.

 

[User1245]

This might seem a bit counterintuitive, but maybe the smaller black population of the UK actuals works in favor of selecting the best black talent. If what you stated is correct that rugby requires a social structure to be erected in order to find the best talent (as opposed to the "simpler" sports you mention like soccer or rugby 7s), maybe South Africa would have a higher % of black top level rugby talent if the black % of the total population was actually lower. In the US it's non-black money that funds sports infrastructure. The owners of major franchises are non-black. Most of the money from tickets and merch comes from non-blacks. Funding at the youth/college sporting level, whether through fees, donations, or taxes, comes mostly from non-blacks. All this cash is what funds the infrastructure which mines and develops black athletic talent so efficiently in the US. I'd assume something similar is happening in the UK. South Africa is a much poorer country, with a much smaller percentage of the population producing large economic surpluses that can be spent on something as frivolous as large scale and wide spread organized athletics.

That explains one side of it though. What about the Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Chinese) population in the UK which is double the size of the black population? Why are they under represented in rugby? Should there be quotas for them?

 

[unrated]

That explains one side of it though. What about the Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Chinese) population in the UK which is double the size of the black population? Why are they under represented in rugby? Should there be quotas for them?

Why stop there? Since we are bringing in quotas to artificially influence sport to represent the demographics then surely we should have equal Islam, Christianity, Buddhist and Atheist, Tribal, Spaghetti Monster, Flat earther players that adequately represents the makeups of the countries demographics.

 

[DumbAmerican]

That explains one side of it though. What about the Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Chinese) population in the UK which is double the size of the black population? Why are they under represented in rugby? Should there be quotas for them?

Can't say I know any South Asians, but based on the sports performance of their people in the West, and the performance of their countries in international competitions outside of cricket I'd say they just suck at sports. Probably competing with Mexicans / Central Americans as the group that most underperforms their population numbers + investment in sports. The same can't be said for black people, though I'm not sure how similar black South Africans are to the black people in the US and UK of West African descent. West Africans 100% dominate sprints and sports which require short bursts of amazing athletic talent. East Africans 100% dominate distance running. Not sure where South Africans fit into that mix, but I assume they don't just naturally suck at sports.

 

[User1245]

I for one didn't see anything too egregious with what Bruce was saying, and the video by Ryan Vrede wasn't completely out of line either.
I agree with MdClarke however that political arguments like this one rarely accomplish anything, no-one is going to change their opinion on the matter.

The ANC are bad and implement bad policies, revolutionaries seldom make good governments, but white South Africans also use this fact as a shield to take little responsibility for our part in what ails our society - pretty much sums up every issue in South Africa.

Look I agree that Bruce and Ryan make some valid points but it's mixed in with equally bad points. Developing grass roots and uplifting black communities: Yes! Discrimination of white people: No!

Using stats of South Africa can be misleading because of the unique nature of the economy. As you know there's a distinction between the formal and informal economy. The first is a world class economy and the second is just like any other poverty stricken African economy.
It needs to acknowledged that South Africa is in Africa and has African problems, specifically illiteracy and poverty. White people today can't carry that responsibility alone. Their fore fathers certainly did not help the situation but they did not create it. That's why it makes more sense taking about the upper, middle and lower classes. As Heineken pointed out geography also matters. I mean just look at the the crowd during the Glenwood vs DHS over the weekend (can't find the highlights video now but it's out there), the school kids in the crowd were at least 75% black for DHS. These aren't poor rural kids. The rugby team was more 50/50.
I've beat this drum already though. I think I've provided enough evidence that shows it's not as simple as black = poor, white = rich.
I'm not trying to drive some alternative agenda. I grew up poor and I had black, white and coloured friends who were richer than me, I don't have any Afrikaner friends (not that many where I grew up), I never had DSTV (yes, never), I'm the only person in my family to get a degree (a few didn't finish school), so I'm not trying to protect some kind of white privilege because I was never part of it.

But honestly that is all secondary. We're assessing quotas on it's merits. Do they actually work? Is it moral and is it legal?
That is the basis we should be working off because we start muddying the water with other layers like politics.

 

[User1245]

Can't say I know any South Asians, but based on the sports performance of their people in the West, and the performance of their countries in international competitions outside of cricket I'd say they just suck at sports. Probably competing with Mexicans / Central Americans as the group that most underperforms their population numbers + investment in sports. The same can't be said for black people, though I'm not sure how similar black South Africans are to the black people in the US and UK of West African descent. West Africans 100% dominate sprints and sports which require short bursts of amazing athletic talent. East Africans 100% dominate distance running. Not sure where South Africans fit into that mix, but I assume they don't just naturally suck at sports.

Put it this way, I'd wager that if you had to take the biggest team from a single Free State farm town they would be as big or bigger than a team of black players from all over the country. There is a reason why white players dominate a position like lock. Clearly the ANC need to start setting targets for how tall black people should be growing so we can have more black locks. And then in their infinite wisdom when that doesn't work they can limit how tall white people can grow.

Indian South Africans, who are about the same population as coloureds, are not represented at all in rugby. And I'm not talking about 1st or 2nd generation Indians South Africans. Like 5 generations of South African Indian. Most reside in KZN, the same province I grew up in, and I only ever saw 1 Indian guy playing rugby. The team was from a town called KwaDukuza (Stanger back then). The 2011 census on Wikipedia shows that demographics for Stanger is 53% black, 44% indian, 1.9% coloured, 0.7 white. Here is the latest photo of their rugby team.

Still no Indians! This is unacceptable! This team must racially represent the demographics of their community or else everybody will be sad. /s

 

[DumbAmerican]

Put it this way, I'd wager that if you had to take the biggest team from a single Free State farm town they would be as big or bigger than a team of black players from all over the country. There is a reason why white players dominate a position like lock. Clearly the ANC need to start setting targets for how tall black people should be growing so we can have more black locks. And then in their infinite wisdom when that doesn't work they can limit how tall white people can grow.

Indian South Africans, who are about the same population as coloureds, are not represented at all in rugby. And I'm not talking about 1st or 2nd generation Indians South Africans. Like 5 generations of South African Indian. Most reside in KZN, the same province I grew up in, and I only ever saw 1 Indian guy playing rugby. The team was from a town called KwaDukuza (Stanger back then). The 2011 census on Wikipedia shows that demographics for Stanger is 53% black, 44% indian, 1.9% coloured, 0.7 white. Here is the latest photo of their rugby team.

Still no Indians! This is unacceptable! This team must racially represent the demographics of their community or else everybody will be sad. /s

Hmmm. So another part of the equation our Scottish friend is missing when comparing the racial makeup of the England team vs. the South Africa is the genetic difference in the black population of the two countries. Black doesn't equal black just because they've got the same skin color. Group genetics matter, but population group doesn't necessarily equal broad racial categories. I've only met a handful of black South Africans, but they were smallish now that I think about it. I'd imagine UK blacks being mostly of West African descent are about the same size or maybe a bit bigger on average than white people.

It's funny you bring up the plight of the Indian people, because it's the same thing here with the Mexicans. If there's any sport, or any position within a sport, or any position within the coaching / business side of a sport where black people are unrepresented, underrepresented, or only barely overrepresented the media won't shut up about it. The people running the leagues pass new rules and sink money into programs designed to "fix" the situation. Meanwhile there are as many people with Mexican / Central American ancestry in the US as blacks. They have almost no presence in any major pro sports outside of soccer or boxing/MMA, and they have absolutely no presence in coaching/front office/ownership. You never hear a peep. California and Texas are both probably about 35-40% people of Mexican/Central American descent at the college age group. You watch major college sports teams from there and the football teams will be a mix of black and white, the baseball team will be mostly white with a few black guys, and the basketball team will be mostly black with a few white guys. It's the exact same as if you are watching a team from a state with almost no Mexicans like Mississippi or Minnesota. I just went and looked up the soccer team photos from a few Texas and California universities and there are Mexicans on those squads, but they are still way underrepresented. It's really a strange dynamic as to why the black vs. white representation is such a big deal, but nobody seems to care about the Mexicans. I don't really have a good theory on it.