• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

SA rugby in trouble

For a start saying someone is stupid isn't calling them a name, it's making an observation.

You want to ban me for that fine, it illustrates how poor the level of modding has become on this forum over the last few months with mods waging petty vendettas as much as regular posters - still have your message threatening to take things further for telling you you didn't understand something.

If people are going to accuse people of things, or deliberately misinterpret facts then they need to be called out on it....he's misinterpreting something on purpose.

I often don't see eye to eye with GN10, but afraid he's right on this one, everyone's entitled to their opinion but that means someone's opinion might be that something is stupid as well.
 
I often don't see eye to eye with GN10, but afraid he's right on this one, everyone's entitled to their opinion but that means someone's opinion might be that something is stupid as well.

No he's wrong on this one; it's totally different to say what someone is saying is stupid, and calling someone stupid ... There's absolutely no need for it (from anyone)
 
Funny how some groups pretend to be for human rights but in reality they're anti white.
 
Funny how some groups pretend to be for human rights but in reality they're anti white.

A lot of white people assume pro black movements are anti-white. They aren't. Obviously some followers will be and the main figures will occasionally overstep the mark but that doesn't make them racist against white people.

Same with feminism, transgenderism etc.

Anyway as others have stated, I'd be ALL for a relocation of resources into bringing rugby into more impoverished communities or even communities where it doesn't exist (regardless of race, creed, social status, money). Rugby has a set of values carried by a lot of supporters which can help all sorts of demographics. It may damage rugby in other areas as they'll lose out on funding but rugby can be used as a force for good and often this is at a slight detriment to others.

Making a shambles of the national team and saying that THEY are the team which demonstrates inequality is wrong. The teams that demonstrate inequality are grass roots. People from SA will have to tell me whether this is their impression, but from grass roots level it appears to be favouring "white" areas for funding etc (whether through schools or clubs). Love to be proven wrong though!
 
No he's wrong on this one; it's totally different to say what someone is saying is stupid, and calling someone stupid ... There's absolutely no need for it (from anyone)

No, because it's an observation saying he is thicker than i orginally thought if he belives my posts are in support of the Quota.

If i'd just said, "you're stupid" then it would be calling names.
 
Funny how some groups pretend to be for human rights but in reality they're anti white.

Unfortunately this seems to be true for a lot of movements in the modern day. Anti-white, anti-male, etc. Well reasoned, thought out, discussed, reasonable, fact-driven arguments are thrown out in place of hateful blather and 'quota' systems and other 'two wrongs make a right' solutions.

I have a lot of admiration and respect for movements in the older days before I was born. I have nearly zero for modern day movements that claim to empower minorities. More often than not they are race hating. They are man hating. Just finding a way to be vile under the cloak of self righteousness. It makes me sick that they're pretending to be something that they clearly aren't. They're bigots looking for something to loath.
 
No, because it's an observation saying he is thicker than i orginally thought if he belives my posts are in support of the Quota.

If i'd just said, "you're stupid" then it would be calling names.

Trying to hide behind semantics as always.

Saying "it's my opinion" by masking an insult between the line "if you think this than you're more of a [insert insult] than I thought" is just insulting someone passive aggressively.
 
You want to know how stupid this situation is, and how petty this minor (and IMO racist) South African political party is?

The transformation criteria call for 30% of the Springbok RWC squad to be players of colour

Heineke Mayer has chosen 9 players of colour... that's 29%

This is all about political posturing, and all these insignificant pissant politicians are succeeding in doing is making complete arses of themselves front the rest of the world.
 
Trying to hide behind semantics as always.

Saying "it's my opinion" by masking an insult between the line "if you think this than you're more of a [insert insult] than I thought" is just insulting someone passive aggressively.

Even if you were right it's certainly no worse than insulting someones wife is it nickdnz? Or worse than calling someone a c*nt as smartcooky has frequently done on here.

Nothign like double standards eh? ironic in a thread all about it.
 
Even if you were right it's certainly no worse than insulting someones wife is it nickdnz? Or worse than calling someone a c*nt as smartcooky has frequently done on here.

Nothign like double standards eh? ironic in a thread all about it.

Feel free to post somewhere else mate.
 
I have a lot of admiration and respect for movements in the older days before I was born. I have nearly zero for modern day movements that claim to empower minorities. More often than not they are race hating. They are man hating. Just finding a way to be vile under the cloak of self righteousness. It makes me sick that they're pretending to be something that they clearly aren't. They're bigots looking for something to loath.


Really?! Ridiculous thing to say. Take the black lives matter movement in the USA. There are thousands and thousands who march peacefully but one person kicks off with a gun and suddenly they're bigots. Or two non-affiliated people shout down a microphone hating whites and the charity money raised by the ANC is forgotten.

Back in the days of people like MLK, Pankhurst and Ghandi there were a lot of violent revolutionaries, outspoken critical voices of the majority etc. They are forgotten about because the media didn't focus on them, time absolves etc.

Certainly slam the man-hating, race-hating individuals but saying the whole movements are just a cover is both offensive to the work being done by decent, hard working, charitable underprivileged people as well as being just an uneducated statement I'm afraid. Although I completely sympathise that the media pushes these extremist views from many individuals and the most obnoxious often shout the loudest so I get why you'd say that. Just remember that they ARE the minority! Try telling someone in a feminist group who raises awareness of rape that she is part of a bigoted, man-hating group when all she'd want is to stop something terrible happened.
 
Unfortunately this seems to be true for a lot of movements in the modern day. Anti-white, anti-male, etc. Well reasoned, thought out, discussed, reasonable, fact-driven arguments are thrown out in place of hateful blather and 'quota' systems and other 'two wrongs make a right' solutions.

I have a lot of admiration and respect for movements in the older days before I was born. I have nearly zero for modern day movements that claim to empower minorities. More often than not they are race hating. They are man hating. Just finding a way to be vile under the cloak of self righteousness. It makes me sick that they're pretending to be something that they clearly aren't. They're bigots looking for something to loath.



clap.gif
clap.gif
clap.gif
clap.gif
 
You want to know how stupid this situation is, and how petty this minor (and IMO racist) South African political party is?

The transformation criteria call for 30% of the Springbok RWC squad to be players of colour

Heineke Mayer has chosen 9 players of colour... that's 29%

This is all about political posturing, and all these insignificant pissant politicians are succeeding in doing is making complete arses of themselves front the rest of the world.

That seems ridiculous. But that measley attitude asides, what is really being done to bring black players into the game? Genuinely only know the very basics and would love to see if someone knows a reliable source to see.
 
Feel free to post somewhere else mate.

why should i?

it an open/public forum, if i've broken the rules deal with it in the appropriate manner - if not have a coke and a smile and do one and stop picking a fight for once.

Now shall we get back on topic? Both you and smartcooky have deliberately misconstrued and presented comments out of context.

My fundamental point in all of this is it can only be choice if it's equal - just as an aside this is not a position exclusive to SA, there are many examples of racial under representation in many other countries, just none with such a virulent history of racism in such recent times.
 
No, because it's an observation saying he is thicker than i orginally thought if he belives my posts are in support of the Quota.

If i'd just said, "you're stupid" then it would be calling names.

Your original post was a little bit more inflamatory than saying "he's thicker than I originally thought" nor did it reference the support quota remark (or any remark for that matter)

For a start saying someone is stupid isn't calling them a name, it's making an observation.

It's pretty clear that you calling him stupid here, which is what both PD and I were both referencing when we made our posts.
 
Really?! Ridiculous thing to say. Take the black lives matter movement in the USA. There are thousands and thousands who march peacefully but one person kicks off with a gun and suddenly they're bigots. Or two non-affiliated people shout down a microphone hating whites and the charity money raised by the ANC is forgotten.

Back in the days of people like MLK, Pankhurst and Ghandi there were a lot of violent revolutionaries, outspoken critical voices of the majority etc. They are forgotten about because the media didn't focus on them, time absolves etc.

Certainly slam the man-hating, race-hating individuals but saying the whole movements are just a cover is both offensive to the work being done by decent, hard working, charitable underprivileged people as well as being just an uneducated statement I'm afraid. Although I completely sympathize that the media pushes these extremist views from many individuals and the most obnoxious often shout the loudest so I get why you'd say that. Just remember that they ARE the minority! Try telling someone in a feminist group who raises awareness of rape that she is part of a bigoted, man-hating group when all she'd want is to stop something terrible happened.

Of course there is good work done in these movements today. But not nearly as much as there was done in older times. I think part of the problem is that we now have social media, and key messages get around like chinese whispers. It starts off as one thing, then gets filtered through blogs and re-blogs, and people putting their personal twist on a key message which changes it into something completely different and then the wrong type of messages spread like wildfire. And I guess that's how we get such diverse pockets of feminism, or whatever movement it is.

If you honestly think that the misguided people who propose wayward policy to fix imbalances are just a couple of people here and there then you are wrong. I live in the first country to give woman the right to vote, and not that long ago it was proposed by the opposition party (second largest party) that 50% of their caucus be women. For no reason other than they're women; not based on skill, knowledge, experience, anything. That kind of solution, or proposing that one CEO who happens to be a woman gets paid as much as another CEO (who might be doing something different or have a different level of expertise) is completely wrong.

I'm not talking about Black Lives Matter. I'm talking about the copious amounts of social media outlets where people who purport to be part of these movements spew their disgusting nonsense. Where they openly say "good, now you know how we felt after many years." Their big solution is demonize a group in society, because apparently two wrongs make a right, and it's more tempting to do than to find constructive solutions. And I say again, it's more than 'one or two' people here and there.

Anyway, going a bit off topic here so I'll give you the last say.
 
It's a terrible comparison because of all the reasons above, if the white community decided Football was the game they'd have the financial and logisitcal systems/power in place to excel at it.

You keep bringing up the financial aspect as if the white minority is still in charge of everything. That's no longer the case. At school level, where the development of our future countrymen starts, white kids are the minority. Just because there are millions of black kids living in shacks, does not mean there are no black kids in proper schools. +70% of current primary school students are black. This has been so for the last 10 years. This means, those kids could have decided to engage in rugby at school. Yet, they decide to go for soccer (football) since it's more common for them and they know the rules. The interest level in rugby by the black community is just not there on a large scale. Is that bad? I don't think so. There's more money to be made in football than in rugby in South Africa (and the rest of the world by the way). The majority will always back the most popular sport in the country. How many countries are there in the world where rugby is the most popular sport? New Zealand, the Pacific Islands and that's about it. Rugby is not a major sport and it never will be. It certainly won't replace football as the most popular sport in countries like Argentina, South Africa, Namibia, England or Italy.

Secondly Football is a much simpler sport it's easier to play, understand and excel at, there is no requirement for specialist training as we see across the world with kids in poverty stricken areas such as Brazil excelling.

Agree. It's a simpler sport. Why? Because all you need is a ball. That's it. Can we blame the sport of football then, for the lack of black kids playing rugby at a young age? The main reason black kids prefer football over rugby is because it's the most popular sport in the country. In the Netherlands we have minorities like the muslim community or colonials (from Suriname, Dutch Caribbean) playing football instead of other sports like field hockey, volleyball etc.

20 years is nothing

Germany was in ruins and they rebuilt an entire country in less than 20 years. South Africa wasn't struggling in the same manner, but corrupt and inadequate governments have ruined the country after Apartheid was abolished. In 20 years, with the right government, this country could have been the gateway to Africa. An example for the rest of the continent where they build on the wealth and prosperity they achieved during the Apartheid years and despite of boycots from all over the world. The entire world opened it's doors to South Africa and what has happened? A 20-year long debate about racial diversity and blaming Apartheid for everything still. When a company goes bankrupt, the president blames Apartheid. When ESKOM (Electricity Utility) has to enforce load shedding the president blames Apartheid. South Africa will never grow as a country unless they get rid of the racist political party that gets voted into power by the poor because they simply don't know better.

It's a political battle that has nothing to do with sports.

No the problem is why do they make that choice? Saying blacks prefer football is an inherently racist statement (NB: to be clear i am not calling you racist, i'm making a generalist statement), there are a multitude of reason behind why that decision is made, and it doesn't change the fact that a massive % of the countries population are not involved in the National sport in anyway.

Okay, saying blacks prefer football is a racist statement, but enforcing a quota on a national team about to play in the World Cup isn't? The quota system forces players to be selected based on skin color (race). It judges people based on the color of their skin. Let's go with the term racially motivated or racial discrimination.

Clearly you're having a pop at my use of the term institutionalised racism, even though you are using it in the wrong context, and of course it applies here, how on earth can it not were talking about a sport that takes athletes and rewards them on a level undreamt of in the poverty strciken parts of the country.

Again, the poverty issue has nothing to do with the lack of black rugby players. Just because there are millions of people living in shacks, does not mean there aren't any black people living a normal life and being able to send their kids to schools. The amount of black kids in school is high enough to have them represent a rugby team, but do they want to do so? No. They decide to play football instead!

With all that's on offer to a top class rugby player I find the statement "they just prefer soccer' incredibly distasteful. It's like using crime statistics to say that a certain race is predisposed to certain crimes without taking into account the socio-economic impact on the society these criminals come from.

Call it distasteful, but it's the truth. My son is 7 years old. In a class of 24, there are 2 other white kids and 2 coloured. The remaining 19 are black. How many of those 19 kids play rugby? Want to guess? 1! Only 1 out of the 19 kids in his class wants to play rugby. The other 18 want to play football. They are crazy about football. They talk about nothing else. You see them wear Kaizer Chiefs shirts when they go out and play football in town after school. They love football. They don't like rugby because it's not their game. They know everything about the best football players in the world. Messi, Ronaldo, Ibrahimovic etc etc. Why don't they know anything about the best rugby players in the world? Well, there isn't enough exposure. Rugby is not on the same level as football. Even my son who loves rugby, doesn't know who guys like Manu Tuilagi, Ma'a Nonu, Will Genia or Ritchie McCaw are. Why? Because there isn't the same amount of exposure as there is with football. My son knows who Patrick Lambie is, because he plays for the Sharks. He knows players of the team he supports and that's it. He's 7. Meanwhile his classmates are obsessed with Messi and Ronaldo who play on the other side of the world.

Regardles the Quota system is not racist, it's positive discrimination, that's a massive point of difference, and has been used across the world to redress the imbalance of many unfairly treated groups.

The whole debate about this quota system is how ridiculous it is. Have you ever tried to change something and instead of making changes at the start of the chain you go to the very end? It does not make sense. If the ANC, SARU and others want to implement a regime where more black players represent the Springboks, maybe they should just start at the beginning and let it run from there. Is it fair to pick a guy like Rudy Paige who hasn't even played a game for the Springboks and leave Cobus Reinach out of the team? Positive discrimination is the most ridiculous term uttered since the dawn of time. Just because you add the word "positive" doesn't make it right. It's racial discrimination and once we start to justify that, the human race is lost.

Is it right? Well no, as i've said i'm not saying Quota system is right, but if more had been done to demonstrate the development and opportunities afforded to the black population was the same as the white there would be no grounds for a quota system as everyone would be there on merit only.

And yes, it's linked to Economic development, which is why Rugby is so important within this discussion.

Nope. You think the black community has not had a chance to develop. SARU has been trying for 20 years to promote rugby to the black community. Rugby games are broadcast even with Xhosa commentary. The main language however is English. This is no longer pre-1990 South Africa where everything rugby-related is aimed at the white minority. Afrikaans is no longer the main language spoken during broadcasts and more and more black people are visiting rugby games. However, we will never get to a point where more than 50% of the players or spectators at rugby games are black. Why? Because they prefer other sports. Call is distasteful to say so, I don't give a rats ass. It's the truth. The smaller communities, whom combined make up more than half the population are proof that black kids prefer to play football. I wish we could go back to a world where sport was about having fun and trying to be the best, instead of only being the best among your race. Racial discrimination is wrong, and so is the quota system.
 
Your original post was a little bit more inflamatory than saying "he's thicker than I originally thought" nor did it reference the support quota remark (or any remark for that matter)

It quoted his post mate, it's abundantly clear it's in reference to his inflammatory closing gambit, "get it through your head" etc...

It's pretty clear that you calling him stupid here, which is what both PD and I were both referencing when we made our posts.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Even if i was, is calling someone stupid really a terrible personal attack? Is it really comparable with calling someone a c*nt as SC has done on many an occasion, or insulting someones wife as nickdnz has done? Is it really something worth threatening someone with a ban over when others have been merely told off for the above?

If i is then i expect to see a lot more bans dished out int he forthcoming weeks.
 
Last edited:
That seems ridiculous. But that measley attitude asides, what is really being done to bring black players into the game? Genuinely only know the very basics and would love to see if someone knows a reliable source to see.

What's being done? Well, rugby being made available at primary schools should be enough, right? Most schools I visited have a 70% ratio of black kids. These kids have the opportunity to play rugby. What's next? Forcing them to play rugby? No. They should be able to make that decision for themselves.

People need to realize that despite the fact that there are millions of people living in poverty, doesn't mean there are no black kids in schools these days with the opportunity to play rugby. The black community makes up 75% of the population. Of course a large portion of the poor people are part of the same demographic.
 
What's being done? Well, rugby being made available at primary schools should be enough, right? Most schools I visited have a 70% ratio of black kids. These kids have the opportunity to play rugby. What's next? Forcing them to play rugby? No. They should be able to make that decision for themselves.

Introducing rugby at primary schools is pointless if there is not sufficent facilities, and coaching and follow on... kids play all sorts of sports as infants and unless they are encourage all the way through to their teens you will get little come through on many of them.

What these children need is proper outreach programs based around the sport, the chance to see people from their own demographic make it in the sport, be represented through the age grades (on merit).

That doesn't mean change the Bokkes, but it does mean that a hell of a lot more can be done at the lowest levels of the countries population and that better pathways and structures can be put into place to encourage the less fortunate through.

If rugby is seen as a viable option to extract a family form poverty you can bet those kids will be taking a chance on it.

People need to realize that despite the fact that there are millions of people living in poverty, doesn't mean there are no black kids in schools these days with the opportunity to play rugby. The black community makes up 75% of the population. Of course a large portion of the poor people are part of the same demographic.

75% of the population is black yet 29 % of the World Cup squad is black - you can see why there are questions.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top