I'm not sure what information sources you think I should seek? The BBC is the state broadcaster in the UK and is usually extremely accurate. They have repeatedly reported that in this decade Afrikaans has remained the official language of some of the top universities and that this has understandably provided a barrier to learning. Clearly something has changed, or the University of Pretoria wouldn't have provided a quote expressing their regret at the change. If the BBC reports are inaccurate or misleading then I'm ****** off at them. I intentionally ignored the sections that are subjective and unverified (e.g. quotes from students).
I'm happy to accept that these institutions have been offering some classes in other languages and that this reduces that barrier. I'm also repeatedly stating that I consider this a "good thing" that will help level the educational playing field. I'm not using it to rag on South Africa.
I am sorry if people find it tiresome. But if people continue to conflate 'injustice' throwing a ball about on a pitch with decades of economic and social injustice (and the impact that has on a child's ability to pick up the game), then I am going to reserve my right to make comment on that from time to time. I'd left this thread alone for many months, only for it to be revived by someone who had previously complained about its existence.
All I can say is that if I give the impression of someone who is hell bent on holding a position irrespective of evidence then you are mistaken. Thanks again for taking the time to respond - it is appreciated even (and perhaps more so) when the response comes from a different perspective.
Thanks for participating in this discussion about this but I don't think you fundamentally understand the arguments of both sides regarding the issue. It is widely acknowledged, what past our parents and great grandparents had in this country. Most of the people on this forum have spent most of their lives in the aftermath of Apartheid and was not part of the original system.
Now for me growing up in a post Apartheid society, I have faced discrimination based on my skin colour, language and culture in multiple facets of society including the sports I wanted to play since I was a primary school child. This was justified as redress for what our forefathers did. The roles are reversed now and the ANC government is exacting revenge on the offspring of the creators of Apartheid. However, in the field of International relations, you have to be careful about what you say and what your public policy is, in this regard, the ANC is playing a smart game and kudos to them. You do have to grow the economy in order to remain in power, and for this to happen they cant be receiving international sanctions for actions that are considered an international crime. So they have to act within a situation where they juggle morality with economic gain.
They can passively attempt to change the injustices of the past by means of justified moral racism and discrimination based on skin colour and language. Its official ANC sentiment (This means you can literally go read ANC members professing this) that they consider Afrikaans a symbol of Apartheid and therefore has to be eradicated from universities, the next step would be all representative elements of South Africa on the international stage including sports teams. It's an embarrassment for them that teams such as the Springboks have the majority of white players 20 years after they took power. So don't necessarily be fooled by if they state their intentions for transformation as noble and ethically correct. This might be a side issue but the core of their intentions is rooted in the above argument.
There are other political parties who plays the more direct game and calls for radical solutions, including the slaughter of white people (I doubt that this would happen but its the rhetoric that is being circulated in the political circles of the so-called left in South Africa *remember the EFF is socialist in nature and socialism is considered left on the political ideological spectrum). So in this sense, the ANC is much more PC and I thank them for that. They do understand that having such radical ideas can destroy the economy for ALL South African.
So back on the topic of sport, the other side to the argument says ok the children of the beneficiaries of apartheid has higher living standards in a majority of cases in South Africa. Inequality causes animosity and therefore it would be in the best interests of all South Africans to strive for a more equal society. Race relations would improve. Both the black and white sides of South Africa acknowledge that almost everything in this country still has to change, but its the method of going about it that differs. Everyone would want a very successful Springbok side if we win the world cup with a 90% black team then I will be happy. And it's acknowledged that if we can get the majority black population of South Africa interested in rugby then our sport will thrive and we would become damn near unbeatable. But why do it at the expense of one race? Why not go for a solution where one race does not feel targeted by its government?
The one side is saying that with regards to sport, don't impose quotas on a national level as it's ethically wrong and amounts to nothing else but direct racialism. Wich is the the exact thing that the ANC did not want then they were the opposition. Oh, the irony.
The argument is yes, a majority of South Africa is living in poverty, and not all has equal opportunities. But instead of restricting those who currently have opportunities lets get more people to have them. Unfortunately this will take time as it is directly connected to economic growth and job opportunities, once this happens descendants of the current disadvantaged populations would have more options on where to send their children in terms of education and then ultimately what opportunities their children have in the job market (Professional sports would be included here). The issue is that this is not happening fast enough and quotas and large scale forced transformations is seen as a band-aid to fast track the end goal by questionable ethic means.
So yes in the short term help needs to be given to those with less opportunities to get into rugby if that's what the ANC wants, but the method again is where people differ, the one side says: "do it at grassroots level and do it more effectively than you have been doing it", government can really be investing more in grassroots programs, they should not just rely on the private sector. And to be honest this would be small money for them in the greater scheme of things. The other side to the argument is well it's taken too long and the national teams are too white, its an embarrassment so let's take radical action and make them have a certain amount of black African players in the team irrespective of merit.
"What? we are not racist by saying our national teams should be picked according to skin colour! You are racist for suggesting that transformation is wrong! You are an Apartheid denialist! Our people feel that the national teams are too white, we don't care that you say more people are interested in certain sports and we don't care about your arguments about how participation numbers affects player representation at the highest level, we care about one thing and that is to make the teams more representative by any means necessary. Even if the teams are currently being picked on merit then we don't want that because we simply can't allow a white majority team more than 20 years after we took power, our voting base won't allow that. Therefore we claim that this thing you accuse us of - institutionalised racism and discrimination is merely you actually being a racist!" -ANC
