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
The "South African Quota" catch-all thread
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="Bruce_ma gooshvili" data-source="post: 981224" data-attributes="member: 74121"><p>I'm sorry, but given that the opening paragraph are a tirade against the majority black political parties it makes it hard to consider the report and the survey as being extremely partial (not that all points are invalid, and I long for a change of SA govt myself, which is why I am so frustrated at the Democratic Alliance's recent developments).</p><p></p><p>Quotas is a massively loaded term that will not rate well in polling. Questions that also wouldn't get a good response might include:</p><p></p><p>- Was a Boks side with 4 non-white players in the 23 for the 2015 RWC final representative of the country?</p><p>- is it good for the sport or society if we never see more than 4 non-white rugby players in a Bok 23 for another 25 years?</p><p>- Is it acceptable that children from poorer backgrounds are physically smaller due to poor nutrition caused by poverty?</p><p>- is it okay to limit chances to experience rugby to children who can't access basics, like a pair of shorts?</p><p>- should children from wealthy families be the only ones able to access high quality rugby coaching and conditioning training?</p><p>- are we comfortable with rugby doing nothing to try and overcome economic, social and health barriers to playing the sport?</p><p></p><p>Obviously, much of the above is absolutely nothing to do with the remit of the SARU, so I'm not trying to make that point. I think they have done a very good job in challenging circumstances, even ignoring the RWC win. They are successfully navigating extremely challenging economic and political position. It is a shame if the administration of cricket is not in such capable hands.</p><p></p><p>As for Beast and Bongi, I would hope most would be able to read that as a deliberately flippant remark in response to the opinion a few posts above that "Bantu" people are undersized and can't possibly be expected to become Bok locks. I'll be polite and restrained and say... I do not agree with that point. I'd argue that a black child with a good diet has every chance of outgrowing a non-black child with insufficient nutrition, or indeed a non-black child with a good diet. I'd also argue that rugby is filled with handy white wingers (Penaud possibly the best in the world at present), but I digress. </p><p></p><p>I'd also point out, again, that you speak only for yourself. You don't speak for South Africa. Similarly, when I reply to a poster or respond to a topic, I am not addressing a nation, or a nation of posters. </p><p></p><p>I appreciate we are poles apart. I would only encourage people to not assume the worst at every instance about transformation. By all means the Boks could have arguably beaten England, Wales and Italy at the RWC with a different selection policy, but the existing one didn't end in tears and wasnt as rigidly enforced as many feared (Bok selection in 2019 didn't reach the transformation target). </p><p></p><p>There will be plenty of time to complain if the Proteas go up in flames and the wider South African public disengage with Test, T20 and 50 overs cricket. But we aren't there yet, so I'd hope people will not get too dismayed with this particular news item. </p><p></p><p>And as a reminder that things don't change if you don't make it a policy to change things, in the UK in 2011, 152 out of the leading 250 companies had all-male boardrooms - probably a figure little better than what had been the case for the preceding 200 years of non-change. Following a policy change by government to pursue targets for female representation that figure is now 2 out of 250. And guess what? The economy didn't tank, the world kept spinning and more schoolgirls will know of businesswomen that they may seek to emulate when they grow up. Perhaps in a few decades people will simply look back and consider the policy as a trivial footnote in the development of social equality. (I'm not that optimistic, but you get the point).</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50398477" target="_blank">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50398477</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bruce_ma gooshvili, post: 981224, member: 74121"] I'm sorry, but given that the opening paragraph are a tirade against the majority black political parties it makes it hard to consider the report and the survey as being extremely partial (not that all points are invalid, and I long for a change of SA govt myself, which is why I am so frustrated at the Democratic Alliance's recent developments). Quotas is a massively loaded term that will not rate well in polling. Questions that also wouldn't get a good response might include: - Was a Boks side with 4 non-white players in the 23 for the 2015 RWC final representative of the country? - is it good for the sport or society if we never see more than 4 non-white rugby players in a Bok 23 for another 25 years? - Is it acceptable that children from poorer backgrounds are physically smaller due to poor nutrition caused by poverty? - is it okay to limit chances to experience rugby to children who can't access basics, like a pair of shorts? - should children from wealthy families be the only ones able to access high quality rugby coaching and conditioning training? - are we comfortable with rugby doing nothing to try and overcome economic, social and health barriers to playing the sport? Obviously, much of the above is absolutely nothing to do with the remit of the SARU, so I'm not trying to make that point. I think they have done a very good job in challenging circumstances, even ignoring the RWC win. They are successfully navigating extremely challenging economic and political position. It is a shame if the administration of cricket is not in such capable hands. As for Beast and Bongi, I would hope most would be able to read that as a deliberately flippant remark in response to the opinion a few posts above that "Bantu" people are undersized and can't possibly be expected to become Bok locks. I'll be polite and restrained and say... I do not agree with that point. I'd argue that a black child with a good diet has every chance of outgrowing a non-black child with insufficient nutrition, or indeed a non-black child with a good diet. I'd also argue that rugby is filled with handy white wingers (Penaud possibly the best in the world at present), but I digress. I'd also point out, again, that you speak only for yourself. You don't speak for South Africa. Similarly, when I reply to a poster or respond to a topic, I am not addressing a nation, or a nation of posters. I appreciate we are poles apart. I would only encourage people to not assume the worst at every instance about transformation. By all means the Boks could have arguably beaten England, Wales and Italy at the RWC with a different selection policy, but the existing one didn't end in tears and wasnt as rigidly enforced as many feared (Bok selection in 2019 didn't reach the transformation target). There will be plenty of time to complain if the Proteas go up in flames and the wider South African public disengage with Test, T20 and 50 overs cricket. But we aren't there yet, so I'd hope people will not get too dismayed with this particular news item. And as a reminder that things don't change if you don't make it a policy to change things, in the UK in 2011, 152 out of the leading 250 companies had all-male boardrooms - probably a figure little better than what had been the case for the preceding 200 years of non-change. Following a policy change by government to pursue targets for female representation that figure is now 2 out of 250. And guess what? The economy didn't tank, the world kept spinning and more schoolgirls will know of businesswomen that they may seek to emulate when they grow up. Perhaps in a few decades people will simply look back and consider the policy as a trivial footnote in the development of social equality. (I'm not that optimistic, but you get the point). [URL]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50398477[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
The "South African Quota" catch-all thread
Top