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: 982084" data-attributes="member: 74121"><p>I got this far without disagreeing too much with you. You are saying I should see the Craven weekend to see how diverse the kids are playing it, then you are still saying non-white kids actively don't want to play rugby. </p><p></p><p>I'm not accepting your argument in the past; but looking ahead - if a kid can watch 23 of his countrymen beat the best the world has to offer, and some of them look like his dad or older brother; and if that kid can access kit and a patch of grass in a safe environment then they are going to be up for playing the sport. Sure, kicking or bouncing a ball around a backstreet will always be easier as there is no barrier to entry to doing these things.</p><p></p><p>I totally get that people can legitimately hold the opinion of not having state intervention in things. But some recent arguments here have been:</p><p></p><p>i) Targets are inappropriate at Bok level, it should be lower level</p><p>Then</p><p>ii) Targets at a lower level in cricket are inappropriate, it should be done in schools / age group.</p><p>Then</p><p>iii) non-white kids don't want to play rugby or cricket and/or we can't influence fee-paying / private schools. </p><p></p><p>I'm not saying that all of that has been your line of argument by the way, but it doesn't leave a whole lot of scope for expanding participation in sports for those who want transformation.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My only interest in posting in this thread are when remarks are in (what I consider to be) dubious taste or make sweeping generalisations about people of different origins, but I try hard to not let that reflect in my posts. I think as posters go, I'm at the more polite end of the spectrum generally (for evidence see one of this threads contributors and both sides of the conversation they had in the politics thread last week). </p><p></p><p>I have no interest in point scoring, or bashing people's points - so I shall leave the floor to you for any final words in this particular episode. If my contributions aren't welcomed then said "opinions or facts" against Transformation can perhaps be made without those generalisations and without historical comparisons; or at least, with an appreciation of how others might perceive such remarks. </p><p></p><p>Anyway, I am annoyed that I have felt the need to enter this thread again so soon after what was a sporting triumph and I hope anyone who is still reading is not offended with any of the above. With any hope the positivity and inspiration around the RWC victory provides a legacy that makes transformation in rugby, and discussions such as these, utterly redundant - and spares my poor keyboard.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bruce_ma gooshvili, post: 982084, member: 74121"] I got this far without disagreeing too much with you. You are saying I should see the Craven weekend to see how diverse the kids are playing it, then you are still saying non-white kids actively don't want to play rugby. I'm not accepting your argument in the past; but looking ahead - if a kid can watch 23 of his countrymen beat the best the world has to offer, and some of them look like his dad or older brother; and if that kid can access kit and a patch of grass in a safe environment then they are going to be up for playing the sport. Sure, kicking or bouncing a ball around a backstreet will always be easier as there is no barrier to entry to doing these things. I totally get that people can legitimately hold the opinion of not having state intervention in things. But some recent arguments here have been: i) Targets are inappropriate at Bok level, it should be lower level Then ii) Targets at a lower level in cricket are inappropriate, it should be done in schools / age group. Then iii) non-white kids don't want to play rugby or cricket and/or we can't influence fee-paying / private schools. I'm not saying that all of that has been your line of argument by the way, but it doesn't leave a whole lot of scope for expanding participation in sports for those who want transformation. My only interest in posting in this thread are when remarks are in (what I consider to be) dubious taste or make sweeping generalisations about people of different origins, but I try hard to not let that reflect in my posts. I think as posters go, I'm at the more polite end of the spectrum generally (for evidence see one of this threads contributors and both sides of the conversation they had in the politics thread last week). I have no interest in point scoring, or bashing people's points - so I shall leave the floor to you for any final words in this particular episode. If my contributions aren't welcomed then said "opinions or facts" against Transformation can perhaps be made without those generalisations and without historical comparisons; or at least, with an appreciation of how others might perceive such remarks. Anyway, I am annoyed that I have felt the need to enter this thread again so soon after what was a sporting triumph and I hope anyone who is still reading is not offended with any of the above. With any hope the positivity and inspiration around the RWC victory provides a legacy that makes transformation in rugby, and discussions such as these, utterly redundant - and spares my poor keyboard. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
The "South African Quota" catch-all thread
Top