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.

Thanks Sin

The boys could have raised a jetlagged hand or two in recognition a few times! Enjoy the bloody thing, guys - you might not be there again in Irish shirts.

I think you (and SA Gov) are being unrealistic in your expectations that SA will be completely integrated within 20 or 30 years of the end of apartheid.

Madiba and his government made a magnaminous gesture in 1995 by throwing their full weight behind the national team for the World Cup that year, in spite of the fact there was only one non-white player in the team. Most non-whites still despised the Springboks back then, and actually many still do. The rugby fraternity needed to repay that good faith by ensuring a rapid transition to full integration. But a generation later we see that this has not occurred, and that the game in the republic has conversely been dogged by controversies over race. Make no mistake that this is a failing on the part of the SARFU, not the government.

Rowanbi wrote: I think you (and SA Gov) are being unrealistic in your expectations that SA will be completely integrated within 20 or 30 years of the end of apartheid.

Madiba and his government made a magnaminous gesture in 1995 by throwing their full weight behind the national team for the World Cup that year, in spite of the fact there was only one non-white player in the team. Most non-whites still despised the Springboks back then, and actually many still do. The rugby fraternity needed to repay that good faith by ensuring a rapid transition to full integration. But a generation later we see that this has not occurred, and that the game in the republic has conversely been dogged by controversies over race. Make no mistake that this is a failing on the part of the SARFU, not the government.

What is SARFU?

Rowanbi wrote:Rubbish. It's obviously very difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where the South African government is coming from on this issue. You're not dealing with the legacy of the Apartheid system in your every day life. You don't have memories of that malignant era and did not once view the sport as a symbol of white rule, and neither did your parents and grandparents. You therefore cannot empathise with non-whites who continue to watch their national teams perform on the international stage with mostly white players. & you cannot empathise with a non-white who joins a team or club dominated by the privileged 9% minority; a legacy of the Apartheid era itself.

That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view. But it should be taken in that context, and you've certainly done your utmost to stifle mine.

Presumably your view should be taken in context as you don't have the knowledge of growing up in SA.

Rowanbi wrote:Rubbish. It's obviously very difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where the South African government is coming from on this issue. You're not dealing with the legacy of the Apartheid system in your every day life. You don't have memories of that malignant era and did not once view the sport as a symbol of white rule, and neither did your parents and grandparents. You therefore cannot empathise with non-whites who continue to watch their national teams perform on the international stage with mostly white players. & you cannot empathise with a non-white who joins a team or club dominated by the privileged 9% minority; a legacy of the Apartheid era itself.

That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view. But it should be taken in that context, and you've certainly done your utmost to stifle mine.

and neither did you Rowanbi. I've said it before and I'll say it again... the people in South African overwhelmingly reject quotas in sport.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/most-black-south-africans-oppose-sport-quotas-survey-20160531

74% of Africans, 87% of Cape Coloureds, 95% of Indians do not want quotas in South African sport.

Apartheid is dead and gone. It died in 1994 and given the majority of the population was born after that period the majority of the population did not experience it. Maybe their ancestors did... well whilst I can imagine the horrors of WWI & WWII which my and many Europeans direct ancestors participated (from a personal point of view I knew many well into my adult years) and yet I have no true idea of what went on. Descriptions are only descriptions, not experiences.
Should the white community be punished for crimes committed by their now grandfathers and great grandfathers? Should you or I be punished for crimes committed by our ancestors? When is enough enough? Well the black middle class now outnumbers the white middle class for instance.

Africans were not interested in civil western society until the mid-late 20th century its not really right to say that they were fundamentally held back. They didn't have schools closed, newspapers shut, shops smashed up... and why, because there were none. They were prevented from joining western society in South Africa absolutely but their own society was not crushed.
In 1994 they inherited infracstructure, commerce, business, power stations, an educated middle class, state assets such as mines, airlines that would make most people blush. They inherited a top 20 GDP nation, today its barely top 40.

You simply assume what people feel like. Do you know people who experience life under it? Not testimony of person x. I know some and without trying to generalise I will give you the picture I have been given below

Those who have simply want to get on with their lives. They were discriminated against but don't tend to have a grudge or a chip over their former oppressors. They want harmony, peace and the country to go forward.

Its very much like if you spoke to old tommy's or old soldiers from WWII; when speaking of the germans they didn't want revenge nor to get even. They wanted peace and to get on with their lives. Now youngsters in SA today, some yes, those looking for a reason to be angry can say my family was oppressed, I'm angry but in truth they never experienced it.... so life didn't give them the very best hand, too bad. Most of us didn't have multi-milionaires for parents, most of us didn't have and don't have the finest things in life.... oh and before you say it, don't assume living in Apartheid was infinitely worse than anything life in the UK for example could through at you. I grew up in the 80s in Glasgow and can tell you right now that there are parts of Glasgow which were near as bad as the worst townships bar the shack life (which not all lived in you should note) and even today the life expectancy is lower.

What you are asking for is a legitimising of vengeance of those who in essence didn't experience oppression for themselves and one the people of South Africa, White, Coloured, Indian, African... reject.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Rubbish. It's obviously very difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where the South African government is coming from on this issue. You're not dealing with the legacy of the Apartheid system in your every day life. You don't have memories of that malignant era and did not once view the sport as a symbol of white rule, and neither did your parents and grandparents. You therefore cannot empathise with non-whites who continue to watch their national teams perform on the international stage with mostly white players. & you cannot empathise with a non-white who joins a team or club dominated by the privileged 9% minority; a legacy of the Apartheid era itself.

That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view. But it should be taken in that context, and you've certainly done your utmost to stifle mine.

Presumably your view should be taken in context as you don't have the knowledge of growing up in SA.

But I'm supporting the position of the government - which does

And so am I, but somehow you think your view is relevant but mine can't be because of the colour of my skin.

You guys are just fuelling the argument with a guy regurgutating the same Poopie all the time.

There is no reasoning with him, why do you enable him?

Pot Hale wrote:

Rowanbi wrote: I think you (and SA Gov) are being unrealistic in your expectations that SA will be completely integrated within 20 or 30 years of the end of apartheid.

Madiba and his government made a magnaminous gesture in 1995 by throwing their full weight behind the national team for the World Cup that year, in spite of the fact there was only one non-white player in the team. Most non-whites still despised the Springboks back then, and actually many still do. The rugby fraternity needed to repay that good faith by ensuring a rapid transition to full integration. But a generation later we see that this has not occurred, and that the game in the republic has conversely been dogged by controversies over race. Make no mistake that this is a failing on the part of the SARFU, not the government.

What is SARFU?

This: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/SARFU

Rowanbi wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Rubbish. It's obviously very difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where the South African government is coming from on this issue. You're not dealing with the legacy of the Apartheid system in your every day life. You don't have memories of that malignant era and did not once view the sport as a symbol of white rule, and neither did your parents and grandparents. You therefore cannot empathise with non-whites who continue to watch their national teams perform on the international stage with mostly white players. & you cannot empathise with a non-white who joins a team or club dominated by the privileged 9% minority; a legacy of the Apartheid era itself.

That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view. But it should be taken in that context, and you've certainly done your utmost to stifle mine.

Presumably your view should be taken in context as you don't have the knowledge of growing up in SA.

But I'm supporting the position of the government - which does

against the overwhelming will of the people (African, Coloured, Indian, White... all 4 communities, all 4 overwhelmingly reject it).

You just ignored that point Quentin. You don't think I should be listened to as I'm white.

fa0019 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Rubbish. It's obviously very difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where the South African government is coming from on this issue. You're not dealing with the legacy of the Apartheid system in your every day life. You don't have memories of that malignant era and did not once view the sport as a symbol of white rule, and neither did your parents and grandparents. You therefore cannot empathise with non-whites who continue to watch their national teams perform on the international stage with mostly white players. & you cannot empathise with a non-white who joins a team or club dominated by the privileged 9% minority; a legacy of the Apartheid era itself.

That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view. But it should be taken in that context, and you've certainly done your utmost to stifle mine.

Presumably your view should be taken in context as you don't have the knowledge of growing up in SA.

But I'm supporting the position of the government - which does

against the overwhelming will of the people (African, Coloured, Indian, White... all 4 communities, all 4 overwhelmingly reject it).

South Africa's a democracy. & like any democracy, the politicians are elected to make decisions. I happen to agree with this one, and so do others, judging by the articles I've posted. Also, I gravely doubt your statistics. Was that according to a national referendum, or just an excusive survey?

Rowanbi wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Rubbish. It's obviously very difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where the South African government is coming from on this issue. You're not dealing with the legacy of the Apartheid system in your every day life. You don't have memories of that malignant era and did not once view the sport as a symbol of white rule, and neither did your parents and grandparents. You therefore cannot empathise with non-whites who continue to watch their national teams perform on the international stage with mostly white players. & you cannot empathise with a non-white who joins a team or club dominated by the privileged 9% minority; a legacy of the Apartheid era itself.

That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view. But it should be taken in that context, and you've certainly done your utmost to stifle mine.

Presumably your view should be taken in context as you don't have the knowledge of growing up in SA.

But I'm supporting the position of the government - which does

against the overwhelming will of the people (African, Coloured, Indian, White... all 4 communities, all 4 overwhelmingly reject it).

South Africa's a democracy. & like any democracy, the politicians are elected to make decisions. I happen to agree with this one, and so do others, judging by the articles I've posted. Also, I gravely doubt your statistics. Was that according to a national referendum, or just an excusive survey?

gravely doubt my statistics?

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/most-black-south-africans-oppose-sport-quotas-survey-20160531

As posted earlier to a post which you probably didn't look at.

fa0019 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Rubbish. It's obviously very difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where the South African government is coming from on this issue. You're not dealing with the legacy of the Apartheid system in your every day life. You don't have memories of that malignant era and did not once view the sport as a symbol of white rule, and neither did your parents and grandparents. You therefore cannot empathise with non-whites who continue to watch their national teams perform on the international stage with mostly white players. & you cannot empathise with a non-white who joins a team or club dominated by the privileged 9% minority; a legacy of the Apartheid era itself.

That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view. But it should be taken in that context, and you've certainly done your utmost to stifle mine.

Presumably your view should be taken in context as you don't have the knowledge of growing up in SA.

But I'm supporting the position of the government - which does

against the overwhelming will of the people (African, Coloured, Indian, White... all 4 communities, all 4 overwhelmingly reject it).

South Africa's a democracy. & like any democracy, the politicians are elected to make decisions. I happen to agree with this one, and so do others, judging by the articles I've posted. Also, I gravely doubt your statistics. Was that according to a national referendum, or just an excusive survey?

gravely doubt my statistics?

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/most-black-south-africans-oppose-sport-quotas-survey-20160531

As posted earlier to a post which you probably didn't look at.

They polled a couple of thousand people and stuck that in the corporate media. Really

This thread reminds me of GreyGhost

Rowanbi wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Rubbish. It's obviously very difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where the South African government is coming from on this issue. You're not dealing with the legacy of the Apartheid system in your every day life. You don't have memories of that malignant era and did not once view the sport as a symbol of white rule, and neither did your parents and grandparents. You therefore cannot empathise with non-whites who continue to watch their national teams perform on the international stage with mostly white players. & you cannot empathise with a non-white who joins a team or club dominated by the privileged 9% minority; a legacy of the Apartheid era itself.

That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view. But it should be taken in that context, and you've certainly done your utmost to stifle mine.

Presumably your view should be taken in context as you don't have the knowledge of growing up in SA.

But I'm supporting the position of the government - which does

against the overwhelming will of the people (African, Coloured, Indian, White... all 4 communities, all 4 overwhelmingly reject it).

South Africa's a democracy. & like any democracy, the politicians are elected to make decisions. I happen to agree with this one, and so do others, judging by the articles I've posted. Also, I gravely doubt your statistics. Was that according to a national referendum, or just an excusive survey?

gravely doubt my statistics?

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/most-black-south-africans-oppose-sport-quotas-survey-20160531

As posted earlier to a post which you probably didn't look at.

They polled a couple of thousand people and stuck that in the corporate media. Really

It was a poll of over 2000 people... which is easily enough to be seen as valid within a few % points. Most media driven political polls are made up of no more than 1000 people. The pollster is the largest media outlet in SA.

Biltong wrote:You guys are just fuelling the argument with a guy regurgutating the same Poopie all the time.

There is no reasoning with him, why do you enable him?

I suspect some people find it amusing to test their reasoning against completely rigid, inflexible, circular arguments. If only to observe what mental gymnastics the author will pull off next to persuade themselves they're in the right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZlXdw8gML8

Rowanbi wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Rowanbi wrote: I think you (and SA Gov) are being unrealistic in your expectations that SA will be completely integrated within 20 or 30 years of the end of apartheid.

Madiba and his government made a magnaminous gesture in 1995 by throwing their full weight behind the national team for the World Cup that year, in spite of the fact there was only one non-white player in the team. Most non-whites still despised the Springboks back then, and actually many still do. The rugby fraternity needed to repay that good faith by ensuring a rapid transition to full integration. But a generation later we see that this has not occurred, and that the game in the republic has conversely been dogged by controversies over race. Make no mistake that this is a failing on the part of the SARFU, not the government.

What is SARFU?

This: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/SARFU

They changed the name 11 years ago to SARU.

Pot Hale wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Rowanbi wrote: I think you (and SA Gov) are being unrealistic in your expectations that SA will be completely integrated within 20 or 30 years of the end of apartheid.

Madiba and his government made a magnaminous gesture in 1995 by throwing their full weight behind the national team for the World Cup that year, in spite of the fact there was only one non-white player in the team. Most non-whites still despised the Springboks back then, and actually many still do. The rugby fraternity needed to repay that good faith by ensuring a rapid transition to full integration. But a generation later we see that this has not occurred, and that the game in the republic has conversely been dogged by controversies over race. Make no mistake that this is a failing on the part of the SARFU, not the government.

What is SARFU?

This: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/SARFU

They changed the name 11 years ago to SARU.

Just another example of Rowan being out of touch of things pertaining to rugby in South Africa, but he knows that the weathers nice.

You ignored again Quentin. We both hold the same view on the quotas (near enough) but you don't think my opinion is worth anything because I'm white; is that correct?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Just another example of Rowan being out of touch of things pertaining to rugby in South Africa, but he knows that the weathers nice.

.... we've been having South African weather ourselves this last week or so. We turned on the Experimental machine early to try her out on a full tank of juice (sponsored by Emirate Airlines). It's looking promising!!! There goes the South African argument on the weather into the bin.

SecretFly wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Just another example of Rowan being out of touch of things pertaining to rugby in South Africa, but he knows that the weathers nice.

.... we've been having South African weather ourselves this last week or so.  We turned on the Experimental machine early to try her out on a full tank of juice (sponsored by Emirate Airlines).  It's looking promising!!!  There goes the South African argument on the weather into the bin.

Err.....hate to point this out, but you'll need to test your machine in October/November and see if you can melt the icicles in the breakfast milk.

Biltong wrote:You guys are just fuelling the argument with a guy regurgutating the same Poopie all the time.

There is no reasoning with him, why do you enable him?

I am just waiting for the moment PhilBB joins one of these threads, although the resulting chain reaction could bring down the internet as we know it.

You're such a perfectionist Pot! It's usually pis-sing down with torrential rain this time of year, it's only a prototype, they're going to make it smaller and fit a Roll Royce engine in it instead of the now Fiat one.

We'll get there. Faith!

SecretFly wrote:You're such a perfectionist Pot!  It's usually pis-sing down with torrential rain this time of year, it's only a prototype, they're going to make it smaller and fit a Roll Royce engine in it instead of the now Fiat one.

We'll get there.  Faith!

Faith? Faith?!!

We're not having that bloody Paloma wan screeching for our bid, thank you very much. Just because you love everything that ITV does, including Cilla Black re-runs...(that black pantsuit did wonders for her, mind you)

Our bid will be serenaded as it's passed lovingly hand-to-hand, dandruffed in shamrock petals, from the doorstep of 6 Lansdowne Road to 7 Lansdowne Road by the dulcet tones of Foster & Allen, and an old accordion.

Biltong wrote:You guys are just fuelling the argument with a guy regurgutating the same Poopie all the time.

There is no reasoning with him, why do you enable him?

They do it, old chum, because they can't help themselves.  They feel this inner compulsion in the same way of watching a train wreck, the same way a girl in a bad romance stays with a guy who cheats continually, the same way a guy argues with his wife.  All losing propositions.  There is a psychological term for this I once learned but are too enfeebled to recall.  It is, as you suggest, ghostly.

These are good people caught in the Black Hole of utter madness, not of their doing.

Pot Hale wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Just another example of Rowan being out of touch of things pertaining to rugby in South Africa, but he knows that the weathers nice.

.... we've been having South African weather ourselves this last week or so.  We turned on the Experimental machine early to try her out on a full tank of juice (sponsored by Emirate Airlines).  It's looking promising!!!  There goes the South African argument on the weather into the bin.

Err.....hate to point this out, but you'll need to test your machine in October/November and see if you can melt the icicles in the breakfast milk.

Did you say melt the icicles in Breast milk? There are ways to do this, but you must be over 18 to watch the videos. it starts with a little rub and some wine and.............

doctor_grey wrote:

Biltong wrote:You guys are just fuelling the argument with a guy regurgutating the same Poopie all the time.

There is no reasoning with him, why do you enable him?

They do it, old chum, because they can't help themselves.  They feel this inner compulsion in the same way of watching a train wreck, the same way a girl in a bad romance stays with a guy who cheats continually, the same way a guy argues with his wife.  All losing propositions.  There is a psychological term for this I once learned but are too enfeebled to recall.  It is, as you suggest, ghostly.

These are good people caught in the Black Hole of utter madness, not of their doing.

Well said doc.

Rowanbi wrote:Rubbish. It's obviously very difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where the South African government is coming from on this issue. You're not dealing with the legacy of the Apartheid system in your every day life. You don't have memories of that malignant era and did not once view the sport as a symbol of white rule, and neither did your parents and grandparents. You therefore cannot empathise with non-whites who continue to watch their national teams perform on the international stage with mostly white players. & you cannot empathise with a non-white who joins a team or club dominated by the privileged 9% minority; a legacy of the Apartheid era itself.

That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view. But it should be taken in that context, and you've certainly done your utmost to stifle mine.

Ha! The irony...all these accusations of 'not having to deal with the legacy of Apartheid' coming from someone who doesn't live in SA, and directed at those who do...That sounds like Western privilege to me...are you lecturing all the poor Africans about what we should think? Do westerners know better?...Yebo Baas!

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Rubbish. It's obviously very difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where the South African government is coming from on this issue. You're not dealing with the legacy of the Apartheid system in your every day life. You don't have memories of that malignant era and did not once view the sport as a symbol of white rule, and neither did your parents and grandparents. You therefore cannot empathise with non-whites who continue to watch their national teams perform on the international stage with mostly white players. & you cannot empathise with a non-white who joins a team or club dominated by the privileged 9% minority; a legacy of the Apartheid era itself.

That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view. But it should be taken in that context, and you've certainly done your utmost to stifle mine.

Ha! The irony...all these accusations of 'not having to deal with the legacy of Apartheid' coming from someone who doesn't live in SA, and directed at those who do...That sounds like Western privilege to me...are you lecturing all the poor Africans about what we should think? Do westerners know better?...Yebo Baas!

I'm supporting the government's stance. South African is a democratic society. Politcians are elected to make decisions. Frankly, I don't think anyone here has really tried to put themselves in the non-white majority's shoes on this issue, & probably they never could...

Still no answer, or apology.

Rowanbi wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Rubbish. It's obviously very difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where the South African government is coming from on this issue. You're not dealing with the legacy of the Apartheid system in your every day life. You don't have memories of that malignant era and did not once view the sport as a symbol of white rule, and neither did your parents and grandparents. You therefore cannot empathise with non-whites who continue to watch their national teams perform on the international stage with mostly white players. & you cannot empathise with a non-white who joins a team or club dominated by the privileged 9% minority; a legacy of the Apartheid era itself.

That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view. But it should be taken in that context, and you've certainly done your utmost to stifle mine.

Ha! The irony...all these accusations of 'not having to deal with the legacy of Apartheid' coming from someone who doesn't live in SA, and directed at those who do...That sounds like Western privilege to me...are you lecturing all the poor Africans about what we should think? Do westerners know better?...Yebo Baas!

I'm supporting the government's stance. South African is a democratic society. Politcians are elected to make decisions. Frankly, I don't think anyone here has really tried to put themselves in the non-white majority's shoes on this issue, & probably they never could...

It isn't a requirement to agree with the ruling party in a democracy, or the elected Governments decisions. Forcing a 50/50 Black/White quota isn't a democratic act, unless the voting majority have specifically voted in favour of such an act. In fact, forcing the 50/50 split can be interpreted as not only undemocratic but also racist.

Munchkin wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Rubbish. It's obviously very difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where the South African government is coming from on this issue. You're not dealing with the legacy of the Apartheid system in your every day life. You don't have memories of that malignant era and did not once view the sport as a symbol of white rule, and neither did your parents and grandparents. You therefore cannot empathise with non-whites who continue to watch their national teams perform on the international stage with mostly white players. & you cannot empathise with a non-white who joins a team or club dominated by the privileged 9% minority; a legacy of the Apartheid era itself.

That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view. But it should be taken in that context, and you've certainly done your utmost to stifle mine.

Ha! The irony...all these accusations of 'not having to deal with the legacy of Apartheid' coming from someone who doesn't live in SA, and directed at those who do...That sounds like Western privilege to me...are you lecturing all the poor Africans about what we should think? Do westerners know better?...Yebo Baas!

I'm supporting the government's stance. South African is a democratic society. Politcians are elected to make decisions. Frankly, I don't think anyone here has really tried to put themselves in the non-white majority's shoes on this issue, & probably they never could...

It isn't a requirement to support the ruling party in a democracy, or the elected Governments decisions. Forcing a 50/50 Black/White quota isn't a democratic act, unless the voting majority have specifically voted in favour of such an act. In fact, forcing the 50/50 split can be interpreted as not only undemocratic but also racist.

Classic denialism, employing the old Apartheid era tactic with counter-accusations of racism into the bargain. Nobody is suggesting it is a requirement to support the government's decisions. What I have suggested is that it might be difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where they are coming from. That's very different. The government is entitled to impose whatever measures it deems necessary to encourage integration where it is lacking - and most particularly in areas of society which were steadfastly opposed to integration during the Apartheid era. Your hostile reaction to this provides a very good example of just why it is necessary to force such measures through.

Answer and apology please.

Rowanbi wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Rubbish. It's obviously very difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where the South African government is coming from on this issue. You're not dealing with the legacy of the Apartheid system in your every day life. You don't have memories of that malignant era and did not once view the sport as a symbol of white rule, and neither did your parents and grandparents. You therefore cannot empathise with non-whites who continue to watch their national teams perform on the international stage with mostly white players. & you cannot empathise with a non-white who joins a team or club dominated by the privileged 9% minority; a legacy of the Apartheid era itself.

That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view. But it should be taken in that context, and you've certainly done your utmost to stifle mine.

Ha! The irony...all these accusations of 'not having to deal with the legacy of Apartheid' coming from someone who doesn't live in SA, and directed at those who do...That sounds like Western privilege to me...are you lecturing all the poor Africans about what we should think? Do westerners know better?...Yebo Baas!

I'm supporting the government's stance. South African is a democratic society. Politcians are elected to make decisions. Frankly, I don't think anyone here has really tried to put themselves in the non-white majority's shoes on this issue, & probably they never could...

It isn't a requirement to support the ruling party in a democracy, or the elected Governments decisions. Forcing a 50/50 Black/White quota isn't a democratic act, unless the voting majority have specifically voted in favour of such an act. In fact, forcing the 50/50 split can be interpreted as not only undemocratic but also racist.

Classic denialism, employing the old Apartheid era tactic with counter-accusations of racism into the bargain. Nobody is suggesting it is a requirement to support the government's decisions. What I have suggested is that it might be difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where they are coming from. That's very different. The government is entitled to impose whatever measures it deems necessary to encourage integration where it is lacking - and most particularly in areas of society which were steadfastly opposed to integration during the Apartheid era. Your hostile reaction to this provides a very good example of just why it is necessary to force such measures through.

This is classic conformism. The government has created a problem themselves and now they are providing the solution to the problem. You said yourself the ANC were in with the "white elite" but yet here they somehow have the best interests of the people? You do know that it wasn't only black countries that suffered under British rule? You should research some Irish history and see the horrors that occurred over here. I'm sorry to tell you that this "elite" isn't just made up of white people. Put back your victim and racist mentality and do some proper research on the way the world is run.

Rowanbi wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Rubbish. It's obviously very difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where the South African government is coming from on this issue. You're not dealing with the legacy of the Apartheid system in your every day life. You don't have memories of that malignant era and did not once view the sport as a symbol of white rule, and neither did your parents and grandparents. You therefore cannot empathise with non-whites who continue to watch their national teams perform on the international stage with mostly white players. & you cannot empathise with a non-white who joins a team or club dominated by the privileged 9% minority; a legacy of the Apartheid era itself.

That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view. But it should be taken in that context, and you've certainly done your utmost to stifle mine.

Ha! The irony...all these accusations of 'not having to deal with the legacy of Apartheid' coming from someone who doesn't live in SA, and directed at those who do...That sounds like Western privilege to me...are you lecturing all the poor Africans about what we should think? Do westerners know better?...Yebo Baas!

I'm supporting the government's stance. South African is a democratic society. Politcians are elected to make decisions. Frankly, I don't think anyone here has really tried to put themselves in the non-white majority's shoes on this issue, & probably they never could...

It isn't a requirement to support the ruling party in a democracy, or the elected Governments decisions. Forcing a 50/50 Black/White quota isn't a democratic act, unless the voting majority have specifically voted in favour of such an act. In fact, forcing the 50/50 split can be interpreted as not only undemocratic but also racist.

Classic denialism, employing the old Apartheid era tactic with counter-accusations of racism into the bargain. Nobody is suggesting it is a requirement to support the government's decisions. What I have suggested is that it might be difficult for those with a white privileged upbringing to understand where they are coming from. That's very different. The government is entitled to impose whatever measures it deems necessary to encourage integration where it is lacking - and most particularly in areas of society which were steadfastly opposed integration during the Apartheid era. Your hostile reaction to this provides a very good example of just why it is necessary to force such measures through.

I'm not in denial of anything, and there was no hint of denial in my response to you. I would think your accusation of 'denial' is nothing less than ad hominem - Classic deflection.

You suggested/implied that you supported the Governments decision as the Government is democratically elected, or maybe you just wanted to highlight that South Africa is a democracy because it makes you feel better...

Why should it be difficult for a white person to understand the rulings of Government dominated by those that happen to be black? That in itself seems to be a rather racist thing to say. Should we exclude all black people from passing comment/opinions on white people because, being black, they couldn't possibly understand such matters?
There is no equality in your thinking. You think in terms of colour, not equality. Equal opportunities should be to all, regardless of colour, religion or gender.

I am not hostile. Again, this is nothing but mere deflection from you. Very obvious attempt at attacking the person, rather than the substance of the argument. Something which you have clearly failed to do.

I stand by my claims.

Too much of the shoot-the-messenger approach going on here. This looks very much like a denialist Apartheid era mentality, complete with unbridled hostility toward the non-white government and counter-accusation of racism. This is what the South African government is up against, and that is why it has become necessary for them to enforce quotas which were not respected under leniency.

Rowanbi wrote:Too much of the shoot-the-messenger approach going on here. This looks very much like a denialist Apartheid era mentality, complete with unbridled hostility toward the non-white government and counter-accusation of racism. This is what the South African government is up against, and that is why it has become necessary for them to enforce quotas which were not respected under leniency.

Playing the victim card isn't an intelligent response. We're all grown ups here.

Except I was someone who actually sees some benefit in quotas. Apparently cos I'm white that doesn't count in your eyes Quentin and angers you so much you feel the need to take stuff out of context like a dodgy failed journalist.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Except I was someone who actually sees some benefit in quotas. Apparently cos I'm white that doesn't count in your eyes Quentin and angers you so much you feel the need to take stuff out of context like a dodgy failed journalist.

Oh dear. Hopefully this thread has shown you that quotas are anything but beneficial.

Munchkin wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Too much of the shoot-the-messenger approach going on here. This looks very much like a denialist Apartheid era mentality, complete with unbridled hostility toward the non-white government and counter-accusation of racism. This is what the South African government is up against, and that is why it has become necessary for them to enforce quotas which were not respected under leniency.

Playing the victim card isn't an intelligent response. We're all grown ups here.

Rubbish, you're playing the victim card yourselves, and your juvenile hostility toward the South African government and its reforms smack of Apartheid era denialism, while your counter-accusations are as grotesque and moronic. This is exactly what needs to be weeded out of rugby. The fact that the game in South Africa remains dominated by the 9% white minority fully a generation after the end of Apatheid clearly indicates to anyone with an IQ of more than 80 that integration has not been entirely successful. You cannot relate to just how offensive this might appear to the non-white majority, and particularly those who recall the Apartheid era and total exclusion of non-whites, due to your privileged white upbringing. You think it's just fine for them to continue watching their national sports teams performing on the world stage with predominantly white teams and pass this off as the result of 'physical superiority.' You have no clue as to just how much resentment remains toward a sport that was once the symbol of white rule by those who were for so long the victims of that oppression. And there has been nothing in this debate to suggest that you are even trying to see things from their point of view.

Rowanbi wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Too much of the shoot-the-messenger approach going on here. This looks very much like a denialist Apartheid era mentality, complete with unbridled hostility toward the non-white government and counter-accusation of racism. This is what the South African government is up against, and that is why it has become necessary for them to enforce quotas which were not respected under leniency.

Playing the victim card isn't an intelligent response. We're all grown ups here.

Rubbish, you're playing the victim card yourselves, and your juvenile hostility toward the South African government and its reforms smack of Apartheid era denialism, while your counter-accusations are as grotesque and moronic. This is exactly what needs to be weeded out of rugby. The fact that the game in South Africa remains dominated by the 9% white minority fully a generation after the end of Apatheid clearly indicates to anyone with an IQ of more than 80 that integration has not been entirely successful. You cannot relate to just how offensive this might appear to the non-white majority, and particularly those who recall the Apartheid era and total exclusion of non-whites, due to your privileged white upbringing. You think it's just fine for them to continue watching their national sports teams performing on the world stage with predominantly white teams and pass this off as the result of 'physical superiority.' You have no clue as to just how much resentment remains toward a sport that was once the symbol of white rule by those who were for so long the victims of that oppression. And there has been nothing in this debate to suggest that you are even trying to see things from their point of view.

I'm not sure why you keep referring to me as though I was personally involved in Apartheid South Africa. I have never lived there, but maybe you think that all whites are inherently racist, and all come from a privileged backgrounds. Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder.

You keep drifting off on an emotional appeal. Try being rational. It's more adult, and more productive.

Once again, your juvenile hostility toward the South African government and its reforms smack of Apartheid era denialism, while your counter-accusations are as grotesque and moronic. This is exactly what needs to be weeded out of rugby. The fact that the game in South Africa remains dominated by the 9% white minority fully a generation after the end of Apatheid clearly indicates to anyone with an IQ of more than 80 that integration has not been entirely successful. You cannot relate to just how offensive this might appear to the non-white majority, and particularly those who recall the Apartheid era and total exclusion of non-whites, due to your privileged white upbringing. You think it's just fine for them to continue watching their national sports teams performing on the world stage with predominantly white teams and pass this off as the result of 'physical superiority.' You have no clue as to just how much resentment remains toward a sport that was once the symbol of white rule by those who were for so long the victims of that oppression. And there has been nothing in this debate to suggest that you are even trying to see things from their point of view.

I haven't read all this guys comments, but is he for real?

Says a lot without actually saying much. Anger issues methinks

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Except I was someone who actually sees some benefit in quotas. Apparently cos I'm white that doesn't count in your eyes Quentin and angers you so much you feel the need to take stuff out of context like a dodgy failed journalist.

Oh dear. Hopefully this thread has shown you that quotas are anything but beneficial.

Ha, not really. I just feel the situation does need to be given a little push. Being on the same side as Quentin does make me uncomfortable though!

Is this thread worth maintaining 15 pages in?

I'm happy to go with the consensus here but we get a lot of reports generated from this thread and I'm not sure we're really getting anywhere anymore in terms of the discussion.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Is this thread worth maintaining 15 pages in?

I'm happy to go with the consensus here but we get a lot of reports generated from this thread and I'm not sure we're really getting anywhere anymore in terms of the discussion.

Have you been sleeping on the job RDW? We are actually up to page 35, Part 1 (you will find on page two of the International section).

If one of the South African boys says pull it down then pull it down, but the rest of us are treating it more like a trip to the zoo and spending too much time looking in at the monkey enclosure.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Is this thread worth maintaining 15 pages in?

I'm happy to go with the consensus here but we get a lot of reports generated from this thread and I'm not sure we're really getting anywhere anymore in terms of the discussion.

 Have you been sleeping on the job RDW? We are actually up to page 35, Part 1 (you will find on page two of the International section).

If one of the South African boys says pull it down then pull it down, but the rest of us are treating it more like a trip to the zoo and spending too much time looking in at the monkey enclosure.

I'd say enough is enough. All this thread is doing is feeding the troll.

So supporting the quota system and attempts to speed up integration within South African rugby is now considered "trolling" - even though integration within South Africa is a topical and relevant issue given it is preventing the SARFU from bidding for the 2023 World Cup. This is merely a further extension of the denialism and puerile counter-accusations which have kept this thread going for however many pages. Why the hostility and juvenile animosity? Why not try to see things from the perspective of the South African government and its majority non-white population? It's you and your tightly-knit little cabal who can't let it go.