2023 (expanded) Rugby World Cup for South Africa

First topic message reminder :

doctor_grey wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:JFK left a final directive just weeks before he was assassinated that impelled the CIA to stop at all cost South Africa having more than one hosting of a World Cup per 20 year period.

The CIA, feeling guilty about Oswald and all, are trying to keep to the promise.... for old time's sake.

That's the only connection I can find between JFK and this thread...from reading 700 autobiographical books by Kennedy's Women.

I have the same abridged version of JFK and his women, too.  I read the same thing.  Camelot (the JFK presidency) strictly prohibited SA from hosting more than one RWC.  Said  it would endanger world security.  I thought I read in the Snowdon leaks the CIA is keeping Zuma in charge because no one in his right mind would put a major competition in a country wohch woul elect him.  It is all a plot hatched over 40 years ago.

The final part makes more sense then him simply appealing to the electorate.

I always thought it was the Mafia who got him elected.  So the mafia was his electorate, no?  Just like FIFA.

standard policy of slandering your rivals as witches and getting lookalikes to feature in grainy video stings with prostitutes.

FerN wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

FerN wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I know there are quotas. That's what I'm saying. I think they are a good thing.

Yet the new directive is literally quotas on speed.

I myself don't believe in them. Only that the game is heavily promoted in non white regions and players are given the full chance of making it beyond things such as financial constraints etc... i.e. if you are a player of potential and can't afford fees for a school that wants you, then SARU should sponsor these kids... for all races (and given most are African, African kids will benefit the most by default).

Non whites are now good enough to not need quotas, now have a strong foothold in the game.

For me it doesn't help... at all.

How is SARU going to sponsor you for a school?  Are you going to apply for a special bursary from SARU?  Schools already "give bursaries" to students

Why not.

Lets say they have a pool of money say r1 million a year. School has only funding for say 5 players. But if say Paul Roos, Grey, Paarl Gim, Bishops etc said... ok well we like this player, he is of potential but we've filled our busary quota already. Why not?

Either that or after those who have not got places, SARU touts players... would you like this player?

SARU scouting under priviledge schools and buy them for the big schools?  The big schools already have a big advantage over the normal previous model C schools, although in Pta it seems to be changing.  And have you seen the fees of some of those schools?  That R1m won't last that long, 1 player per grade...

Paul Roos one of the best schools in SA for rugby costs R65,000 per year for fees and board. 1 million rand would be 15 players. Its an investment which could go a long way.

I think white people are statistically under-represented at the top level of athletics and basket ball. Should we implement quotas allocating places in both sports to white people? Places which would otherwise go to black people on merit?

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

FerN wrote:
That is the only thing within SARU's control.  They don't have any control at what happens at school level (where things should), except for maybe the Craven week (but all they can do is enforce things on the Craven week teams, not the school teams itself).  Most Springbok players come from the same schools, even if you look at the non white ones.  IMO the government should have approached these schools and worked out how to upskill the people in the area which they service.

On the provincial side thing.  A few of my friends played provincial rugby, Vodacom Cup and a few Currie Cup - you don't support your family with that.  SARU has the mandate to transform the game, that is the best place to do it in my opinion.  If the pool of players increase it will filter through to the Franchises and the Springboks.  We have different tiers of rugby in SA, Varsity Cup is probably more prestigious than Vodacom Cup these days - I see Vodacom Cup has been stopped this year.  A white player not getting picked for his province will not be able to make a career of rugby in SA where you might find black people that might still but normally drop out because of socio-economic reasons.  Just my opinion though.  That is the plan that I would have taken to the Minister.  SARU were measured against their own plan which they agreed to and didn't make.

Of course you can't support a family out of just playing at Vodacom and currie cup level, it's a stepping stone onto bigger things. You are asking for this crucial stepping stone to be denied to young white players however, just because of their skin colour thus almost certainly denying them the chance to become full time professionals and that's the point. Why should anyone have an entitlement to any position?

I am not asking for any of this. I know it is going to happen. This is just the reality of the situation. I am saying this is where I would have done it as it would have bigger impact on the drop outs because of socia-economic affects. Look at the non-white players that made it to Springbok sides. They either come from wealthier families, so they could have hung on longer to get to their respective franchises or had beneficiaries like Ashwin/Ralepelle.

I agree with Guns to the extent that often here we seem to talk about a certain ideal reality in isolation from real history.

The truth happened - and that truth happened in my lifetime, and was still fully operational in my lifetime and 'non-whites' weren't responsible for it.  

So the present is South Africa trying to organise itself away from the conditions inflicted by that Apartheid system, conditions that undoubtedly linger even now in areas of society, given how very recent in historical terms that period was.

I suppose there is a growing voice in South Africa that declares the transition Must be seen to be real.... a real transition - not a symbolic one.  Some 'non-whites' seem to believe they were cheated by the symbolism, a symbolism adopted to placate the criticism from the International community.  But it's obvious many 'non-whites' now believe the revolution wasn't real.

You might compare it to the history of the US.  Their Civil war was in part fought to end slavery (probably out of grim financial necessity more than a moral awakening really - in that even then, slavery was becoming a practice that might stifle the transaction of International business.)  
But that was in the 1860s.  Nothing much changed after that war, and it took another 100 years, and another period of agitation in the 1960s for blacks to be finally given the rights they were entitled to.  Even now, that struggle still goes on in certain areas of society.

So we here in a rugby forum think that South Africa should get over itself, stop taking itself so seriously, be a fully functioning wonder State where all citizens are happy and none should feel less a citizen than another citizen?

South Africa is in transition - and it'll take a hell of a lot more years for it to be even reaching a level of normality.  Until then, it'll have it's flare-ups concerning 'race' again, it'll have degrees of corruption, it'll have situations like these, where impatience grows at the pace of the transition.

fa0019 wrote:

Rugby is not traditionally played by African persons in SA. They don't play the game. Even at junior level the numbers of white children playing the game is over 50% of all children.
In addition don't think that all people are the same... they are not and especially Africans. Sub-saharan Africans are genetically the most diverse in the world. White Europeans have more genetic similarities to Indians, Chinese, Polynesians etc than West Africans do to East Africans. South African Africans are genetically East African people.

They are also far shorter on average. White South Africans are on average 5'11. African South Africans are on average about 5'5-5'6. And that is not just because of poverty.

That's why quotas will help. By ensuring there are more Africans playing at the highest level young Africans will be much more likely to take up the sport. I believe that it is important for the unity of the country that the Boks have a very integrated national side.

As mentioned it will take generations to put structures in place to ensure a greater involvement of Africans so fast tracking this process with quotas is in my opinion an intelligent solution.

Knowsit17 wrote:I think white people are statistically under-represented at the top level of athletics and basket ball. Should we implement quotas allocating places in both sports to white people? Places which would otherwise go to black people on merit?

That's too broad a statement. Are you talking about in the UK? In Ireland for example there are comparatively less black people at the top level of athletics and basket ball.

Also it is less likely that in the UK white people are not making it to the top level because of discrimination because they aren't a minority and therefore statistically less likely to be subject to prejudice. I think quotas make sense only if there is a logical reason for them.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Rugby is not traditionally played by African persons in SA. They don't play the game. Even at junior level the numbers of white children playing the game is over 50% of all children.
In addition don't think that all people are the same... they are not and especially Africans. Sub-saharan Africans are genetically the most diverse in the world. White Europeans have more genetic similarities to Indians, Chinese, Polynesians etc than West Africans do to East Africans. South African Africans are genetically East African people.

They are also far shorter on average. White South Africans are on average 5'11. African South Africans are on average about 5'5-5'6. And that is not just because of poverty.

That's why quotas will help. By ensuring there are more Africans playing at the highest level young Africans will be much more likely to take up the sport. I believe that it is important for the unity of the country that the Boks have a very integrated national side.

As mentioned it will take generations to put structures in place to ensure a greater involvement of Africans so fast tracking this process with quotas is in my opinion an intelligent solution.

That is loose at best and its simply not true that only Africans can inspire Africans or do.

How many football loving kids in SA idolise Steven Pienaar? How many idolise Lionel Messi?

I would bet that Messi's shirts outsell Pienaars by 100-1 in SA. Even more.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Rugby is not traditionally played by African persons in SA. They don't play the game. Even at junior level the numbers of white children playing the game is over 50% of all children.
In addition don't think that all people are the same... they are not and especially Africans. Sub-saharan Africans are genetically the most diverse in the world. White Europeans have more genetic similarities to Indians, Chinese, Polynesians etc than West Africans do to East Africans. South African Africans are genetically East African people.

They are also far shorter on average. White South Africans are on average 5'11. African South Africans are on average about 5'5-5'6. And that is not just because of poverty.

That's why quotas will help. By ensuring there are more Africans playing at the highest level young Africans will be much more likely to take up the sport. I believe that it is important for the unity of the country that the Boks have a very integrated national side.

As mentioned it will take generations to put structures in place to ensure a greater involvement of Africans so fast tracking this process with quotas is in my opinion an intelligent solution.

That is loose at best and its simply not true that only Africans can inspire Africans or do.

How many football loving kids in SA idolise Steven Pienaar? How many idolise Lionel Messi?

I would bet that Messi's shirts outsell Pienaars by 100-1 in SA. Even more.

but Africans already love football. They are less likely to idolise a white rugby player if they aren't interested in rugby in the first place. By contrast if the best rugby player in the world was a black guy from a SA township there would be many kids from those communities that would all of a sudden become rugby fans.

GunsGerms wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I think white people are statistically under-represented at the top level of athletics and basket ball. Should we implement quotas allocating places in both sports to white people? Places which would otherwise go to black people on merit?

That's too broad a statement. Are you talking about in the UK? In Ireland for example there are comparatively less black people at the top level of athletics and basket ball.

Also it is less likely that in the UK white people are not making it to the top level because of discrimination because they aren't a minority and therefore statistically less likely to be subject to prejudice. I think quotas make sense only if there is a logical reason for them.

It's estimated that by 2050 that whites will be a minority in Europe. Fertility rates are worryingly low for white Europeans.

Can you give an example where racial quotas have worked?

fa0019 wrote:

FerN wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

FerN wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I know there are quotas. That's what I'm saying. I think they are a good thing.

Yet the new directive is literally quotas on speed.

I myself don't believe in them. Only that the game is heavily promoted in non white regions and players are given the full chance of making it beyond things such as financial constraints etc... i.e. if you are a player of potential and can't afford fees for a school that wants you, then SARU should sponsor these kids... for all races (and given most are African, African kids will benefit the most by default).

Non whites are now good enough to not need quotas, now have a strong foothold in the game.

For me it doesn't help... at all.

How is SARU going to sponsor you for a school?  Are you going to apply for a special bursary from SARU?  Schools already "give bursaries" to students

Why not.

Lets say they have a pool of money say r1 million a year. School has only funding for say 5 players. But if say Paul Roos, Grey, Paarl Gim, Bishops etc said... ok well we like this player, he is of potential but we've filled our busary quota already. Why not?

Either that or after those who have not got places, SARU touts players... would you like this player?

SARU scouting under priviledge schools and buy them for the big schools?  The big schools already have a big advantage over the normal previous model C schools, although in Pta it seems to be changing.  And have you seen the fees of some of those schools?  That R1m won't last that long, 1 player per grade...

Paul Roos one of the best schools in SA for rugby costs R65,000 per year for fees and board. 1 million rand would be 15 players. Its an investment which could go a long way.

Affies is also in that price range, but there are other schools going over R100K

GunsGerms wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I think white people are statistically under-represented at the top level of athletics and basket ball. Should we implement quotas allocating places in both sports to white people? Places which would otherwise go to black people on merit?

That's too broad a statement. Are you talking about in the UK? In Ireland for example there are comparatively less black people at the top level of athletics and basket ball.

Also it is less likely that in the UK white people are not making it to the top level because of discrimination because they aren't a minority and therefore statistically less likely to be subject to prejudice. I think quotas make sense only if there is a logical reason for them.

I just looked at those selected for team GB at the 2012 olympic games. In athletics out of the 40 male competitors, 15 (or 37%) where non white and only 1 of those was of non West African/Caribbean ancestry. So 14 out of 40 are of black ancestry, 35% out of 3% of the UK population.

Its not a broad statement... and athletics is very wide in the UK. All schoolchildren do it.

They 'non-whites' are not currently rugby fans because they were never wanted as fans. Rugby - like in other nations, and even more so in South Africa because of it's political system - was a sport reserved for the elite.... like polo etc. Football has always been a sport more directed at the 'working class'.

Rugby was a white man's game in South Africa, and a rich man's game in other Nations. Why the surprise that blacks haven't 'taken' to it? It's like complaining that poor people don't drink much expensive Champagne - it wasn't on their grocery list, that's why - due to them needing bread instead.

FerN wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

FerN wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

FerN wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I know there are quotas. That's what I'm saying. I think they are a good thing.

Yet the new directive is literally quotas on speed.

I myself don't believe in them. Only that the game is heavily promoted in non white regions and players are given the full chance of making it beyond things such as financial constraints etc... i.e. if you are a player of potential and can't afford fees for a school that wants you, then SARU should sponsor these kids... for all races (and given most are African, African kids will benefit the most by default).

Non whites are now good enough to not need quotas, now have a strong foothold in the game.

For me it doesn't help... at all.

How is SARU going to sponsor you for a school?  Are you going to apply for a special bursary from SARU?  Schools already "give bursaries" to students

Why not.

Lets say they have a pool of money say r1 million a year. School has only funding for say 5 players. But if say Paul Roos, Grey, Paarl Gim, Bishops etc said... ok well we like this player, he is of potential but we've filled our busary quota already. Why not?

Either that or after those who have not got places, SARU touts players... would you like this player?

SARU scouting under priviledge schools and buy them for the big schools?  The big schools already have a big advantage over the normal previous model C schools, although in Pta it seems to be changing.  And have you seen the fees of some of those schools?  That R1m won't last that long, 1 player per grade...

Paul Roos one of the best schools in SA for rugby costs R65,000 per year for fees and board. 1 million rand would be 15 players. Its an investment which could go a long way.

Affies is also in that price range, but there are other schools going over R100K

True but they aren't the best schools... I think Grey is +50k only.

I wouldn't send my kids to Bishops/Hilton if I wanted them to get the best rugby education possible.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I think white people are statistically under-represented at the top level of athletics and basket ball. Should we implement quotas allocating places in both sports to white people? Places which would otherwise go to black people on merit?

That's too broad a statement. Are you talking about in the UK? In Ireland for example there are comparatively less black people at the top level of athletics and basket ball.

Also it is less likely that in the UK white people are not making it to the top level because of discrimination because they aren't a minority and therefore statistically less likely to be subject to prejudice. I think quotas make sense only if there is a logical reason for them.

It's estimated that by 2050 that whites will be a minority in Europe. Fertility rates are worryingly  low for white Europeans.

Can you give an example where racial quotas have worked?

Well we've seen gender quotas at work in supposedly free societies, whereby Political party constituencies can only choose a female candidate, whether the members want to or not.

Haven't heard many complaining in Europe about that kind of quota. It'd take a brave man to argue against it.... but I'm willing to accept the burden

SecretFly wrote:They 'non-whites' are not currently rugby fans because they were never wanted as fans.  Rugby - like in other nations, and even more so in South Africa because of it's political system - was a sport reserved for the elite.... like polo etc.  Football has always been a sport more directed at the 'working class'.

Rugby was a white man's game in South Africa, and a rich man's game in other Nations.  Why the surprise that blacks haven't 'taken' to it?  It's like complaining that poor people don't drink much expensive Champagne - it wasn't on their grocery list, that's why - due to them needing bread instead.

Thats simply not true.

Cape Coloured persons play the game in near equal number. They were just as discriminated against. Yet they still played. Why?

Well Cape Coloured live in the rugby heartland of the Western Cape. They are more European people culturally, educationally, linguistically and therefore they share a lot of the passtimes (rugby for example) as whites and more precisely, Afrikaners.

Thats why nearly all the non whites you see playing the game are Cape Coloured.

Then there is access to the sport.

You disagree with my point first fa and then agree with it?

SecretFly wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I think white people are statistically under-represented at the top level of athletics and basket ball. Should we implement quotas allocating places in both sports to white people? Places which would otherwise go to black people on merit?

That's too broad a statement. Are you talking about in the UK? In Ireland for example there are comparatively less black people at the top level of athletics and basket ball.

Also it is less likely that in the UK white people are not making it to the top level because of discrimination because they aren't a minority and therefore statistically less likely to be subject to prejudice. I think quotas make sense only if there is a logical reason for them.

It's estimated that by 2050 that whites will be a minority in Europe. Fertility rates are worryingly  low for white Europeans.

Can you give an example where racial quotas have worked?

Well we've seen gender quotas at work in supposedly free societies, whereby Political party constituencies can only choose a female candidate, whether the members want to or not.

Haven't heard many complaining in Europe about that kind of quota.  It'd take a brave man to argue against it.... but I'm willing to accept the burden

Given woman do equally well in school, in university and if not surpassing the grades of men that is not an issue. Woman academically are on a equal footing so its sensible to suggest that they should be mentally just as capable in becoming law makers in such countries.

Sport on the other hand is different. East Africans dominate middle-long distance running, West Africans dominate sprinting, polynesians are 40 * more likely to get into the NFL than White Americans. Its not simply because Kenyans love hitting the track for ages.

SecretFly wrote:You disagree with my point first fa and then agree with it?

Not quite, I stated that your point of them NOT wanting to play rugby because it was seen as a white man's sport was not true given the huge numbers of cape coloureds playing the game... its equally as much their sport as it is the Afrikaners from a ideological point of view in SA.

Access perhaps but non whites have always played the game.

GunsGerms wrote:Personally I think the quotas are a good thing. It is a South African solution for a South African problem. There is no perfect answer and I'm all for merit based hierarchies in theory however, I don't not believe that there is any such thing as a fool proof merit based system in any form of business for many reasons because it is human nature to have conscious and sub conscious prejudices. That is undeniable.

From a mathematical point of view a back or coloured person is statistically much more likely to encounter conscious and sub conscious prejudice at every level of SA rugby. So why not make readjustments with quotas?

The goal of a fully integrated society or rugby team must consider and develop strategy at all levels right to the root however, that can take generations to implement and realise successfully and therefore I don't see why quotas cannot be used to support, fast track or normalise integration in the mean time. It is in my opinion the lesser of two unsatisfactory scenarios.

Good post, mate I can't believe what a bunch of juvenile animosity my own (similar) views on the topic have created here, and it really does give me some cause for concern about the rugby community. I must apologize to FA0019, however, because he is treating the topic seriously, but I'm busy with other stuff for most of the day and simply don't have the time to respond to everything that's being written.

Anyway, I am sure the latest saga with the sports minister will blow over very quickly, and South Africa will emerge as the leading candidate to host the 2023 tournament when the bids are confirmed in two months' time. This may be just the shake-up they needed.

Well we've seen gender quotas at work in supposedly free societies.

Yes, these have been highly praised where I come from...

fa0019 wrote: East Africans dominate middle-long distance running, West Africans dominate sprinting, polynesians are 40 * more likely to get into the NFL than White Americans. Its not simply because Kenyans love hitting the track for ages.

I refuse to believe that in a large population variety doesn't come into it. I refuse to believe no West Africans have stamina and that no Kenyan can sprint. What they specialise in in training is a different matter. Where National funds go is a different matter. But in a Nation as large as South Africa, let nobody tell me there are no black people suitable for playing rugby - or not enough of them. It's just not acceptable as an argument. After all, there are always the Cape coloureds to disprove the theory? No?

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote: East Africans dominate middle-long distance running, West Africans dominate sprinting, polynesians are 40 * more likely to get into the NFL than White Americans. Its not simply because Kenyans love hitting the track for ages.

I refuse to believe that in a large population variety doesn't come into it.  I refuse to believe no West Africans have stamina and that no Kenyan can sprint.  What they specialise in in training is a different matter.  Where National funds go is a different matter.  But in a Nation as large as South Africa, let nobody tell me there are no black people suitable for playing rugby - or not enough of them.  It's just not acceptable as an argument.  After all, there are always the Cape coloureds to disprove the theory?  No?

There are 1.3 billion Chinese in the world

There are 3 million Jamaicans in the world

Yet in 4 of the 6 Olympics since 1992 the gold medal has been won in the 100m by a man born in Jamaica. 5/7 if you count Ben Johnson in 88. What is it that Jamaicans simply love running fast from A-B and others don't? When was the last time you even saw a white person in the final? Europeans love Athletics.... its not an interest thing.

Many of the South Africans on here have said the same thing as I will again say now. I'm 5'11. I'm probably average for a white person in SA, probably shading slightly below compared to Afrikaners. I can't remember the last time I was shorter than an South African African and only very rarely shorter than a Cape Coloured.
Given rugby for props, hookers, locks, backrow, centres and wingers are almost always now over 6ft... hell half test halfbacks are too these days does it not surprise you in the slightest that Africans struggle to make an impact at the elite level.

If you go back you'll see testimony of maybe 3-4 other SA based persons saying the same thing on this very topic.... including whites and non-whites. Its a genuine factor, perhaps one of the most important ones of all.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I think white people are statistically under-represented at the top level of athletics and basket ball. Should we implement quotas allocating places in both sports to white people? Places which would otherwise go to black people on merit?

That's too broad a statement. Are you talking about in the UK? In Ireland for example there are comparatively less black people at the top level of athletics and basket ball.

Also it is less likely that in the UK white people are not making it to the top level because of discrimination because they aren't a minority and therefore statistically less likely to be subject to prejudice. I think quotas make sense only if there is a logical reason for them.

I just looked at those selected for team GB at the 2012 olympic games. In athletics out of the 40 male competitors, 15 (or 37%) where non white and only 1 of those was of non West African/Caribbean ancestry. So 14 out of 40 are of black ancestry, 35% out of 3% of the UK population.

Its not a broad statement... and athletics is very wide in the UK. All schoolchildren do it.

It is a broad statement as the poster has not specified what jurisdiction/s he is referring to.

What are your numbers meant to prove? Whites aren't a minority in Britain so it is unlikely that prejudice is playing a part in the numbers of top white athletes. Why have quotas if it is unlikely that prejudice is playing a part?

There are more than likely other factors at play so for me I cannot understand how this relates to the situation with SA rugby?

fa0019 wrote:

There are 3 million Jamaicans in the world

There are 3 million Jamaicans in the world.... and more than Ben Johnson have come under scrutiny for possible abuse of artificial methods used to gain their momentum...under less stringent testing conditions possibly than other Nations...who themselves have had their own methods and detection rates questioned.
So let's not go proving points yet that might be better proven otherwise by testimonies or evidence in the future.

Yes, there are types, yes there is genes. But nobody will tell me there is not a sufficient number of large non-white South Africans ready to be reaped if the structures invited them in.
The Cape coloured are obviously the wrong non-white type!! Pity that they are the ones that love the sport, eh?

Father of the New Nation, Mandela - he was around 6 ft and pretty bulky as a young man with it. Is he abnormal for his kind? The law of averages, and a population of some 53 million (80% of which are black) would suggest highly unlikely. He'd be perhaps above average but not any more than a height 6' would be above average in many European Nations. But they still have teams that operate at a high enough level in rugby.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I think white people are statistically under-represented at the top level of athletics and basket ball. Should we implement quotas allocating places in both sports to white people? Places which would otherwise go to black people on merit?

That's too broad a statement. Are you talking about in the UK? In Ireland for example there are comparatively less black people at the top level of athletics and basket ball.

Also it is less likely that in the UK white people are not making it to the top level because of discrimination because they aren't a minority and therefore statistically less likely to be subject to prejudice. I think quotas make sense only if there is a logical reason for them.

I just looked at those selected for team GB at the 2012 olympic games. In athletics out of the 40 male competitors, 15 (or 37%) where non white and only 1 of those was of non West African/Caribbean ancestry. So 14 out of 40 are of black ancestry, 35% out of 3% of the UK population.

Its not a broad statement... and athletics is very wide in the UK. All schoolchildren do it.

It is a broad statement as the poster has not specified what jurisdiction/s he is referring to.

What are your numbers meant to prove? Whites aren't a minority in Britain so it is unlikely that prejudice is playing a part in the numbers of top white athletes. Why have quotas if it is unlikely that prejudice is playing a part?

There are more than likely other factors at play so for me I cannot understand how this relates to the situation with SA rugby?

The point is that different racial groups have different physical attributes. Some are good at some things, some are good at others.

Furthermore

There are roughly 264 squad players in the 6 super rugby squads this year. 192 White, 41 African, 31 Coloured. Whites take 73% of the positions.  Since 2008 there have been 69 newly capped springboks. Of which 71% have been White so it suggests non whites aren't simply being given squad places without being tried in test rugby too. The ave. caps per player by group is also the same... which suggests non whites are simply not thrown caps and then told to get lost. The springboks look to nuture the non white talent they have.

However of those 69, whilst 65% of white players have been recruited to play in foreign leagues (Top14, AP, Pro12 and Japan), only 18% of Africans have and furthermore.. of the 139 SA players in these leagues (some capped pre 08, some capped since 08, some not capped at all) a whopping 123 are white (88%) compared to only 2 players who are African (1%).

So whilst South Africa ARE giving squad places and springbok caps to non whites in equal measure (close to 1/3).... so few are being actively recruited by foreign teams.... could it shock horror mean that they're not as good??? Foreign leagues are very lucrative, pay handsomely compared so are players simply too patriotic or home based to leave? Is it that foreign coaches are racist?.. in reality they recruit players from all over and really are judged on results only.

The very best non whites such as Mapoe, De Allende, Jantjies are getting foreign contracts (all 3 in Japan notably)... so why no guys like Odwa Ndugane, Juan de Jongh, Badise Maku, Oupa Mahoke.... especially since their test careers look to be over. Shouldn't they go and make some money or are they simply content with playing for their home clubs?

Take Earl Rose. A bit of a joke on here. I mean SA tried everything to make him into a player of note; different clubs, coaches, tours... yet he didn't make the grade. Tried his hand abroad but no one wanted him... because the truth was he wasn't good enough. In essence you can only do so much. Some players have it, some don't and social engineering only works so much. Foreign coaches have no such hang ups. They're interested in players that can do a job, improve their side.... not ones a particular nation simply hopes and prays is good enough.

So it comes back to how can the influx be speeded up?

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I think white people are statistically under-represented at the top level of athletics and basket ball. Should we implement quotas allocating places in both sports to white people? Places which would otherwise go to black people on merit?

That's too broad a statement. Are you talking about in the UK? In Ireland for example there are comparatively less black people at the top level of athletics and basket ball.

Also it is less likely that in the UK white people are not making it to the top level because of discrimination because they aren't a minority and therefore statistically less likely to be subject to prejudice. I think quotas make sense only if there is a logical reason for them.

I just looked at those selected for team GB at the 2012 olympic games. In athletics out of the 40 male competitors, 15 (or 37%) where non white and only 1 of those was of non West African/Caribbean ancestry. So 14 out of 40 are of black ancestry, 35% out of 3% of the UK population.

Its not a broad statement... and athletics is very wide in the UK. All schoolchildren do it.

It is a broad statement as the poster has not specified what jurisdiction/s he is referring to.

What are your numbers meant to prove? Whites aren't a minority in Britain so it is unlikely that prejudice is playing a part in the numbers of top white athletes. Why have quotas if it is unlikely that prejudice is playing a part?

There are more than likely other factors at play so for me I cannot understand how this relates to the situation with SA rugby?

I believe the prejudice comes from the presupposition that every single sport needs to be reflective of the composition of the national population. This is what the SA government is guilty of which relatively few other governments worldwide are guilty of, at least in sport. If the UK government took a similar stance it would mean a reduction of the amount of ancestral West African representation (which fa has indicated directly) in athletics for nothing better than ideological reasons.

Example:
The SA gov wants rugby union to reflect the predominantly non-white African demographic of the country as a whole.
Equivalent:
The UK gov wants athletics to reflect the predominantly white European distribution within the country as a whole.

In this hypothetical latter case the ancestral West African athletic contingent would be reduced from 37% to something much closer to 3%, as that accurately reflects the UK pop. percentage made up by people of West African descent.

Would that be the correct solution?
Answer: of course not, because sport should always reflect individual merit rather than population politics.

Yes Faa inevitably players who get in on quotas will be less qualified than others. It is worth it though in the grander scheme of things.

Knowsit17 wrote:

I believe the prejudice comes from the presupposition that every single sport needs to be reflective of the composition of the national population. This is what the SA government is guilty of which relatively few other governments worldwide are guilty of, at least in sport. If the UK government took a similar stance it would mean a reduction of the amount of ancestral West African representation (which fa has indicated directly) in athletics for nothing better than ideological reasons.

Example:
The SA gov wants rugby union to reflect the predominantly non-white African demographic of the country as a whole.
Equivalent:
The UK gov wants athletics to reflect the predominantly white European distribution within the country as a whole.

In this hypothetical latter case the ancestral West African athletic contingent would be reduced from 37% to something much closer to 3%, as that accurately reflects the UK pop. percentage made up by people of West African descent.

Would that be the correct solution?
Answer: of course not, because sport should always reflect individual merit rather than population politics.

The UK government want gold medals and title cups...that's what the UK government want because they know sport feeds back into National self-confidence and has a positive impact on how powerful and influential your neighbours and rival power units regard you.

So sport in the UK doesn't matter what colour you are or what ethnic origin as long as you are good enough to potentially win.  Sport in the UK, is, as it is in most Nations, highly political and strategic.... millions and millions are pumped into it not for the needs of sport itself but for the impact success has on perception from without.

The UK.... is Not South Africa however - and it's political priorities are not the political priorities of South Africa.  The South African government is using sport for its own political ends.... but it is certainly not the only Nation on earth that invests and manipulates in order to achieve much else that is outside the realm of sport alone.

Knowsit17 wrote:

I believe the prejudice comes from the presupposition that every single sport needs to be reflective of the composition of the national population. This is what the SA government is guilty of which relatively few other governments worldwide are guilty of, at least in sport. If the UK government took a similar stance it would mean a reduction of the amount of ancestral West African representation (which fa has indicated directly) in athletics for nothing better than ideological reasons.

Example:
The SA gov wants rugby union to reflect the predominantly non-white African demographic of the country as a whole.
Equivalent:
The UK gov wants athletics to reflect the predominantly white European distribution within the country as a whole.

In this hypothetical latter case the ancestral West African athletic contingent would be reduced from 37% to something much closer to 3%, as that accurately reflects the UK pop. percentage made up by people of West African descent.

Would that be the correct solution?
Answer: of course not, because sport should always reflect individual merit rather than population politics.

Sport in general should be free from politics however, national teams and politics have always been closely linked. That is a reality. We sing the anthem, fly the flags, show our national pride, parade our heads of state before national games, publish images of Mandela and Piennar globally, why not represent our population too rather than segregate it? Status quo can be reformed.

Whether you like it or not national sports teams do represent the country they are from so having a more integrated national team can only be a good thing for unity in SA and in the long run the strength of the sport.

Rowanbi wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Personally I think the quotas are a good thing. It is a South African solution for a South African problem. There is no perfect answer and I'm all for merit based hierarchies in theory however, I don't not believe that there is any such thing as a fool proof merit based system in any form of business for many reasons because it is human nature to have conscious and sub conscious prejudices. That is undeniable.

From a mathematical point of view a back or coloured person is statistically much more likely to encounter conscious and sub conscious prejudice at every level of SA rugby. So why not make readjustments with quotas?

The goal of a fully integrated society or rugby team must consider and develop strategy at all levels right to the root however, that can take generations to implement and realise successfully and therefore I don't see why quotas cannot be used to support, fast track or normalise integration in the mean time. It is in my opinion the lesser of two unsatisfactory scenarios.

Good post, mate I can't believe what a bunch of juvenile animosity my own (similar) views on the topic have created here, and it really does give me some cause for concern about the rugby community. I must apologize to FA0019, however, because he is treating the topic seriously, but I'm busy with other stuff for most of the day and simply don't have the time to respond to everything that's being written.

Anyway, I am sure the latest saga with the sports minister will blow over very quickly, and South Africa will emerge as the leading candidate to host the 2023 tournament when the bids are confirmed in two months' time. This may be just the shake-up they needed.

Well we've seen gender quotas at work in supposedly free societies.

Yes, these have been highly praised where I come from...

Maybe you should try and not misquote and take out of context you'd have more luck?

If you think forcing coaches to play a certain amount of black players and destroying the careers of many white players just because of their skin colour will bring unity in SA, then you really do need a reality check. This will bring more racial problems, not eradicate it.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:If you think forcing coaches to play a certain amount of black players and destroying the careers of many white players just because of their skin colour will bring unity in SA, then you really do need a reality check. This will bring more racial problems, not eradicate it.

Well, all Provincial coaches are forced to play a certain amount of 'home-grown' players. If they had leverage to choose their own collections, would we genuinely see so many academy Irish players coming through the ranks?

Is that not a quota system?

I'm personally not gone on quota systems and do believe the best should be chosen for whatever career - but the world isn't black and white - anywhere.

As long as there is one person that believes a player, or a worker, or a member of parliament was not chosen on true merit but on the values of an old-boy-network of contacts and secret handshakes...then there will always be suspicion about just how noble that principle of Best Man for the Job truly is. And believe me, I have a Bible full of memories through life when I know the excuse was a cover-up to keep things in the family, in the club, in the organisation etc etc.

South African politicians are listening to their electorate - or else they wouldn't be interested. They are listening to the murmurs of discontent - and to the black opposition that is rising against ANC. They believe quotas are needed at this time in their history to open up channels of activity to their people that are as yet not open enough. They believe the necessity of it - and who are we to question their knowledge of their own people?

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I think white people are statistically under-represented at the top level of athletics and basket ball. Should we implement quotas allocating places in both sports to white people? Places which would otherwise go to black people on merit?

That's too broad a statement. Are you talking about in the UK? In Ireland for example there are comparatively less black people at the top level of athletics and basket ball.

Also it is less likely that in the UK white people are not making it to the top level because of discrimination because they aren't a minority and therefore statistically less likely to be subject to prejudice. I think quotas make sense only if there is a logical reason for them.

It's estimated that by 2050 that whites will be a minority in Europe. Fertility rates are worryingly low for white Europeans.

Can you give an example where racial quotas have worked?

Maori All Blacks.

However, the quotas are working, although not without complications. Some whites have claimed to be black in order to gain entry, but these cases are relatively few. Of much greater importance is the fact that Brazil’s public universities now have sizable black, brown and poor student populations. And as some affirmative action supporters point out, the police seem to have little trouble determining who is black.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/29/brazils-racial-identity-challenge/quotas-are-working-in-brazil

Still no apology or acknowledgement. Poor Rowanbi.

I guess the question is, are South Africans willing to sacrifice results and RWCs in favour of a more racially represented national team? At least in the short to medium term.

the-goon wrote:I guess the question is, are South Africans willing to sacrifice results and RWCs in favour of a more racially represented national team? At least in the short to medium term.

Exactly.

Really poor Rowanbi.

Introducing quotas to boost the number of women in corporate boardrooms is working, according to a new global index from Catalyst, the non-profit organisation for women in business.
Norway, the first country in the world to mandate that women account for 40pc of its board seats, tops the ranking of 20 countries across three regions, with 35.5pc female representation on the boards of its OMX-listed companies.
France, which gave its companies until January 2017 to reach the 40pc quota, is far ahead of its 20pc interim target with women accounting for 29.7pc of board seats, closing in on Finland’s 29.9pc.
Companies listed in Stockholm have women in 28.8pc of their board seats, ranking Sweden fourth on Catalyst's census.
In fifth place with 23.4pc and still three financial years left until its publicly-listed companies must meet the quota of 33pc, Belgium has 23.4pc female representation on its boards.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11341816/Proof-that-women-in-boardrooms-quotas-work.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11341816/Proof-that-women-in-boardrooms-quotas-work.html

I remember once author and columnist Alan Duff scoffing at a bunch of Polynesian rights campaigners for taking a plane to a conference (in Apia, I think), the assertion being that without the "white man's invention" they wouldn't have been able to do so. Strange that no columnist (to my knowledge) ever made such an assertion about feminists, who undoubtedly use planes as well. The point being, while women's rights are supported without question in modern society, those campaigning for ethnic rights continue to be regarded with a degree of suspicion and face obstacles that the feminists don't.

Really really poor.

Rowanbi wrote:However, the quotas are working, although not without complications. Some whites have claimed to be black in order to gain entry, but these cases are relatively few. Of much greater importance is the fact that Brazil’s public universities now have sizable black, brown and poor student populations. And as some affirmative action supporters point out, the police seem to have little trouble determining who is black.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/29/brazils-racial-identity-challenge/quotas-are-working-in-brazil

Well put it this way.

The African middle class in absolute numbers now equals those in the white community in SA. Many private schools are equally split African/White/Coloured from inception to Matric (18).
Take an African student who has gone through private school all the way. To enter medical school he only needs a C grade average to attend at matric. Not sure about you but you think that's a good thing? Hope you don't ever get ill if you travelled to SA that's for sure. Don't ask what white students require.

The SA accountancy board has actually said that students are of such poor standard now, that grades have been artificially lowered to increase graduations that the current status is dire for those going into their profession.

Some say its good, it does have good sides to it however all it does is to re-enforce  apartheid but this time of another colour. The African elite will now dominate, the African poor will still have a concrete ceiling like the rest.

If you turn positive discrimination from BEE to a poverty index you'd literally be helping the same people... but crucially, genuinely poor Africans would be ear marked... not just the current situation dominated by African students who just so happened to scrape past their exams whilst spending all their years in the best schools. Their are many smart African students out there yet bar the exceptional one off cases the best are being ignored for those born into comfort... and it hurts SA heavily.
I tell you what a kid from the squatter camps who gets a C grade average will lose out to a kid from the finest institutions yet had they been even in a decent public school they would have soared. The wrong people are being helped and the situation is akin to the middle ages of Europe; aristocrats and serfs.

But your arguments could be applied equally to gender quotas, which are invariably lauded. The only difference may be that female students probably fare better within the education system than ethnic groups which have suffered oppression. So I think that quotas within the education system are probably more important for ethnic groups than they are for females, because we all know academic ability has at least as much to do with psychological inclination as intelligence, and while ethnic oppression goes hand in hand with poverty, violence and family break-ups, gender oppression generally doesn't.

Rowanbi wrote:But your arguments could be applied equally to gender quotas, which are invariably lauded. The only difference may be that female students probably fare better within the education system than ethnic groups which have suffered oppression. So I think that quotas within the education system are probably more important for ethnic groups than they are for females, because we all know academic ability has at least as much to do with psychological inclination as intelligence, and while ethnic oppression goes hand in hand with poverty, violence and family break-ups, gender oppression generally doesn't.

You turn ethnic quotas into a poverty quota in SA then the same people will be helped... literally % for %. However, crucially it will earmark those who have ability not just those who have rich daddies.

Good point. Poverty quotas probably would be more appropriate for the education system. But quotas nonetheless. & that's the only point I was making by comparing ethnic quotas to gender quotas.

Now let's have a quota system to tone down the number of 'working class' presenters on TV these days....

...it seems the days are long gone when a prim'n'proper, marble-talking gent like David Attenborough can get a bleedin' job!

Everyone has to have been from de street, man - keepin' it real, mate - urban and wik-ked!!!!

Rowanbi wrote:Good point. Poverty quotas probably would be more appropriate for the education system. But quotas nonetheless. & that's the only point I was making by comparing ethnic quotas to gender quotas.

Yet quotas on education fine, quotas in the workplace due to previous educational inequalities.... fine. But quotas in sport? No.

Why because they are quite simply areas where you can catch up on previous differences. Take education, you have a bad upbringing... come university you can catch up and in fact in UK studies they actually surpass those with better upbringings. That isn't the case with sport, if you don't get the initial grounding, you won't catch up and poverty doesn't mean much in rugby. Lots of bursaries out there for the best schools but yes more can be offered/enhanced.
Craven week the annual tournament showcases kids from all over SA.. the best ones have no trouble picking up bursaries with the biggest schools. But kids need access, they need funding in their own schools to get them to those tournaments, PT teachers to put rugby on the agenda, on the curriculum.

But simply putting token figures in the team who would barely make the club scene had he been white... who does that help? He struggles, he looks bad, Ouda Ndugane, Bandise Maku, Heini Adams, Mahoje... these guys are complete jokers and they won't and don't inspire anyone... that's unless you get inspired by hapless losers?
Its not being mean, its the truth. Kids don't follow such guys, they're embarrassed by them by association alone. African kids following football don't idolise the national team bafana bafana. They actually don't. They idolise ManU, Barcelona, Real Madrid... Ronaldo, Messi. They idolise winners... and no they don't go... oh I like Yaya Toure because he's African.

Want to be inspired by a guy... well Siya Kolisi is perhaps the best tackler in SA. He drops about 1-2 tackle a season and his completion rate is near 98% every season which is further enhanced by him being the Stormers first phase tackler of big centres/flankers. He's a guy to be inspired about... and he would get into the squad regardless of quotas. Yet he still has this "token" tag and it no doubt hurts him mentally and team morale.

Give non whites every opportunity to make the grade, get them playing them the game, get them into top rugby academies and schools, give them a good education and make sure they can do so without worrying about financing it. Give them time to build their game but don't throw them into a pool where they can't compete in. It doesn't help.
There are enough non white players of merit to play the game.

Here is the current issue to show the truth about the current plans.

Under the current plans Coloured players would be only allowed 1-2 players per team. Given Habana, Pietersen, Aplon, De Jongh, Kirchner, Basson, Petersen, Januarie, Jantjies, De Allende, Paige, Carr are all deemed cape coloured it shows its not a African-White agenda... its a non Africans not wanted agenda.

SecretFly wrote:Now let's have a quota system to tone down the number of 'working class' presenters on TV these days....

...it seems the days are long gone when a prim'n'proper, marble-talking gent like David Attenborough can get a bleedin' job!

Everyone has to have been from de street, man - keepin' it real, mate - urban and wik-ked!!!!

Youtube some old Attenborough videos.... the voice change (class wise not age wise) is pretty stark. Same with Tony Blair, when he first came through he was literally talking like he was the queen's 2nd cousin... 10 years later he's like "call me tony, fancy a pint and a fag me old mucka???"

I laugh, I joke.  But I'm deathly serious.  Volte-Face discrimination is a major issue and becoming greater still - and I'm not only talking about 'race' or 'class'.  

So South Africa must handle their quotas carefully.  But mostly, I feel that quotas must always come with a finite duration stamped on - and at such a date in the declared future - ended.

Once you establish a 'norm' through quota enforced 'habit' then the enforcement should be ended to allow 'normality' to have its way.  You can't 'enforce' normality eternally and call it non-discriminatory in and of itself.

SecretFly wrote:I laugh, I joke.  But I'm deathly serious.  Volte-Face discrimination is a major issue and becoming greater still - and I'm not only talking about 'race' or 'class'.  

So South Africa must handle their quotas carefully.  But mostly, I feel that quotas must always come with a finite duration stamped on - and at such a date in the declared future - ended.

Once you establish a 'norm' through quota enforced 'habit' then the enforcement should be ended to allow 'normality' to have its way.  You can't 'enforce' normality eternally and call it non-discriminatory in and of itself.

This is the very essence of the problem which you hit squarely on the head. When does it stop?

The BEE models the Malaysia positive discrimination model against immigrant Chinese who dominated education and the workplace. It started in the 60s and was only meant to be in place for a few years... its still in place, stagnates the economy, hurts the country terrible.... but it will always be in place. What they promised has not been delivered but its held simply to retain the discrimination and the dominance of the Malays over non Malays.

So when say equality is made.... will they stop it and say, ok everyone on a level playing field? Not a chance.

They will keep it until kingdom come if they have their way.

It ia always remarkable when people who laude the Boks of the 60s, 50s etc without ever bringing the probability (by law of averages if nothing else) that that wasn't the best possible side on the field bring up fairness and picking the best available squad. Or the phrase "fairness in sport" as if the first 80 years of South African rugby wasnt founded on a far darker evil.
You get guys like Jacques Kallis saying things like this make him sad to call himself South African. I wonder then if he's shame extends to the days he spent at Newlands (both) watching all white teams playing the sports he became very adept at? Probably not. Probably doesn't cross his mind. But this. This is an outrage. This is a crime on humanity. Yawn. Anyway. Do carry on