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: 982083" data-attributes="member: 74121"><p>1of2</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I am basing my opinion on that document based on it's content and trying to work out why it was written that way. I read all of it and didn't change my opinion that they are very much focussed on anti-transformation talking points. And whilst being a British Dominion in the 1920s wasn't Apartheid, it was not exactly a gold age of race relations! I have 'educational' British books from that period that speak about the "psychological propensities of yellow people", effectively lumping a quarter of the world's population on the Pacific Rim into the broadest stereotypes you might ever find! </p><p></p><p>Perhaps the South African IRR has no such baggage and was a proscribed organisation during the Apartheid years. It is fairly immaterial. My judgement was on the content of the report, which was more partisan than we should see in a true academic text.</p><p></p><p>But I digress. Ultimately, they can claim only 1% or 2% support for affirmative action and transformation all they want, but I'm not sure how they mentally reconcile that with the last general election where over 68% of voters voted for parties who support some form of state intervention to try and address historic inequalities (i.e. transformation). That figure is >90% if we include the Democratic Alliance who I believe also supported some manner of transformation programme at the last election, (but I don't know what their policy on the matter was).</p><p></p><p>The ANC may be showing all the flaws of a party with decades of uncontested power, but they aren't idiotic enough to push policies that, as that IRR report claims, 98% of people don't support!</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Yes, it does. But it was a side that not so very long ago, people on here were saying that IRB should step in to judge it as being illegal and thereby change the team's composition because some of these now World Cup winners presumably didn't "merit" being in the side. The SARU may have pulled off a blinder, but I'd argue that the Champions podium could have looked very different without political interference. I'm happy that whatever people's legitimate political perspectives, it hasn't ruined their ability to celebrate a triumph. And I'm not saying that with the lowest form of wit!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope. I can only go with what a non-black rugby journalist said on the matter voicing their frustration at the lack of non-white participation in leading rugby schools (as I posted previously). I'll check out any highlights online as I assure you the very second I see a bunch of non-white kids playing rugby in top rugby schools, or appearing in numerous positions in the U20s (sometimes more than 50%, some times less than 50%) then I will have no issue with the state of rugby in South Africa and will actively consider it in advance of what has been achieved in Scotland (and probably Italy, Australia and other unions that really struggle to spread participation in the sport).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Alas, arithmetic is arithmetic and is immune to official announcements. See the table on page 14 of the official transformation document for 2018/2019 (hopefully the link works).</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.springboks.rugby/pages/-/media/project/sa%20rugby/pagecontent/governance/strategic%20transformation%20development%20plan%202030-cycle%201" target="_blank">https://www.springboks.rugby/pages/-/media/project/sa rugby/pagecontent/governance/strategic transformation development plan 2030-cycle 1</a></p><p></p><p>It shows that the target of 45% non-white participation in the Bok 23 for 2018 was missed (39%). No figures are listed for if they met the 2019 target of 50%, but I doubt you (or anyone) would contest that 50% of Bok selections throughout 2019 were non-white?</p><p></p><p>I'm not making a big deal of that, just demonstrating that I wasn't wrong in my assessment. The link above is to a newer version of the transformation document. An earlier one in this thread I'm sure had some kind of crazy target in it (80% or something) and obviously that hasn't been met either, but perhaps it wasn't an official one. I think a South African posted here that with the change of sports minister there might have been less zeal for the targets and I suspect that might be the case (along with no longer being able to use funding to support a RWC bid as leverage against SARU). So perhaps the current sports minister was more open to compromise rather than pursuing the Bok target as a red line, and didn't want to do something that might have spoilt team spirit in the lead up to the RWC.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not so much even pointing at the Apartheid era - when I say centuries I'm very much meaning the inequalities suffered by women in the developed world throughout the 20th century. If it helps, take the situation from Day 1 of your democratic era. There are issues that need addressed from Day 1 that I think measured and informed people can claim requires some manner of state intervention to remedy. They will not be addressed from the simple act of being a democracy alone (again, taking the example of UK women, who are making steps in political representation, the boardroom and, to a lesser extent, average earnings).</p><p></p><p>I don't really want to go into Apartheid, but I'm not talking about BEE (and I suspect you wouldn't want me to either!). My point about women was simply to show different types of inequality can be tackled by state intervention, and sometimes it works after decades of little or no improvement. </p><p></p><p>Rather than BEE, I'm talking about rugby targets, and there is no comparison between rugby targets and the appalling stuff that happened during Apartheid, and it does not read well to make these comparisons. I'll confess my studies of Africa did not extend to South Africa, but what I have read in recent years is far worse than I thought South Africa was when I was a kid (I was completely ignorant of the extent of damage that regime did). If an estimated 3 million black South Africans were removed from their homes in the 60s, 70s & 80s by the regime so that they could be resettled against their will then Apartheid is simply not something that should be brought into arguments about sport as a counterpoint. </p><p></p><p>For those who think rugby targets is "an eye for an eye" for Apartheid (as you put it mdaclarke), then by all means hold that position, but do some reading beforehand if you haven't already done so, so you at least know what you are comparing it with. Forgive me the link below is not considered an objective source, I tried to pick one that didn't seem inflammatory.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/forced-removals-south-africa" target="_blank">https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/forced-removals-south-africa</a></p><p></p><p>The Highland Clearances in Scotland were about 250 years ago, so are just a distant memory of destroyed communities with only mile upon mile of ruined buildings to tell the tale. If they were fresh in my families' memories from the 1980s (in my lifetime) then I wouldn't be impressed if anyone brought that up as an argument against political efforts to broaden sporting participation. </p><p></p><p>And yes, being a pessimist about the depressingly static South African political situation (as I am with Hungary, Poland, Israel, Turkey, India, Brazil, Phillipines, Russia etc that appear unable to vote out inadequate governments) then people are right to be vigilant against policies that have the intention of a majority lording it over a minority. But I'd argue that South Africa is not there yet and lets all hope it never is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bruce_ma gooshvili, post: 982083, member: 74121"] 1of2 No, I am basing my opinion on that document based on it's content and trying to work out why it was written that way. I read all of it and didn't change my opinion that they are very much focussed on anti-transformation talking points. And whilst being a British Dominion in the 1920s wasn't Apartheid, it was not exactly a gold age of race relations! I have 'educational' British books from that period that speak about the "psychological propensities of yellow people", effectively lumping a quarter of the world's population on the Pacific Rim into the broadest stereotypes you might ever find! Perhaps the South African IRR has no such baggage and was a proscribed organisation during the Apartheid years. It is fairly immaterial. My judgement was on the content of the report, which was more partisan than we should see in a true academic text. But I digress. Ultimately, they can claim only 1% or 2% support for affirmative action and transformation all they want, but I'm not sure how they mentally reconcile that with the last general election where over 68% of voters voted for parties who support some form of state intervention to try and address historic inequalities (i.e. transformation). That figure is >90% if we include the Democratic Alliance who I believe also supported some manner of transformation programme at the last election, (but I don't know what their policy on the matter was). The ANC may be showing all the flaws of a party with decades of uncontested power, but they aren't idiotic enough to push policies that, as that IRR report claims, 98% of people don't support! Yes, it does. But it was a side that not so very long ago, people on here were saying that IRB should step in to judge it as being illegal and thereby change the team's composition because some of these now World Cup winners presumably didn't "merit" being in the side. The SARU may have pulled off a blinder, but I'd argue that the Champions podium could have looked very different without political interference. I'm happy that whatever people's legitimate political perspectives, it hasn't ruined their ability to celebrate a triumph. And I'm not saying that with the lowest form of wit! Nope. I can only go with what a non-black rugby journalist said on the matter voicing their frustration at the lack of non-white participation in leading rugby schools (as I posted previously). I'll check out any highlights online as I assure you the very second I see a bunch of non-white kids playing rugby in top rugby schools, or appearing in numerous positions in the U20s (sometimes more than 50%, some times less than 50%) then I will have no issue with the state of rugby in South Africa and will actively consider it in advance of what has been achieved in Scotland (and probably Italy, Australia and other unions that really struggle to spread participation in the sport). Alas, arithmetic is arithmetic and is immune to official announcements. See the table on page 14 of the official transformation document for 2018/2019 (hopefully the link works). [URL]https://www.springboks.rugby/pages/-/media/project/sa%20rugby/pagecontent/governance/strategic%20transformation%20development%20plan%202030-cycle%201[/URL] It shows that the target of 45% non-white participation in the Bok 23 for 2018 was missed (39%). No figures are listed for if they met the 2019 target of 50%, but I doubt you (or anyone) would contest that 50% of Bok selections throughout 2019 were non-white? I'm not making a big deal of that, just demonstrating that I wasn't wrong in my assessment. The link above is to a newer version of the transformation document. An earlier one in this thread I'm sure had some kind of crazy target in it (80% or something) and obviously that hasn't been met either, but perhaps it wasn't an official one. I think a South African posted here that with the change of sports minister there might have been less zeal for the targets and I suspect that might be the case (along with no longer being able to use funding to support a RWC bid as leverage against SARU). So perhaps the current sports minister was more open to compromise rather than pursuing the Bok target as a red line, and didn't want to do something that might have spoilt team spirit in the lead up to the RWC. I'm not so much even pointing at the Apartheid era - when I say centuries I'm very much meaning the inequalities suffered by women in the developed world throughout the 20th century. If it helps, take the situation from Day 1 of your democratic era. There are issues that need addressed from Day 1 that I think measured and informed people can claim requires some manner of state intervention to remedy. They will not be addressed from the simple act of being a democracy alone (again, taking the example of UK women, who are making steps in political representation, the boardroom and, to a lesser extent, average earnings). I don't really want to go into Apartheid, but I'm not talking about BEE (and I suspect you wouldn't want me to either!). My point about women was simply to show different types of inequality can be tackled by state intervention, and sometimes it works after decades of little or no improvement. Rather than BEE, I'm talking about rugby targets, and there is no comparison between rugby targets and the appalling stuff that happened during Apartheid, and it does not read well to make these comparisons. I'll confess my studies of Africa did not extend to South Africa, but what I have read in recent years is far worse than I thought South Africa was when I was a kid (I was completely ignorant of the extent of damage that regime did). If an estimated 3 million black South Africans were removed from their homes in the 60s, 70s & 80s by the regime so that they could be resettled against their will then Apartheid is simply not something that should be brought into arguments about sport as a counterpoint. For those who think rugby targets is "an eye for an eye" for Apartheid (as you put it mdaclarke), then by all means hold that position, but do some reading beforehand if you haven't already done so, so you at least know what you are comparing it with. Forgive me the link below is not considered an objective source, I tried to pick one that didn't seem inflammatory. [URL]https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/forced-removals-south-africa[/URL] The Highland Clearances in Scotland were about 250 years ago, so are just a distant memory of destroyed communities with only mile upon mile of ruined buildings to tell the tale. If they were fresh in my families' memories from the 1980s (in my lifetime) then I wouldn't be impressed if anyone brought that up as an argument against political efforts to broaden sporting participation. And yes, being a pessimist about the depressingly static South African political situation (as I am with Hungary, Poland, Israel, Turkey, India, Brazil, Phillipines, Russia etc that appear unable to vote out inadequate governments) then people are right to be vigilant against policies that have the intention of a majority lording it over a minority. But I'd argue that South Africa is not there yet and lets all hope it never is. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
The "South African Quota" catch-all thread
Top