New South African Race Quota

First topic message reminder :

article Link : http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2014/04/07/hard-line-taken-on-white-sport

Looks like the current 50/50 quota of black and white players has been increased to 60% black, 40% white for the 'Boks, effective immediately.

As somebody who doesn't follow southern rugby to the same extent as northern, I have no idea if this will make a genuine difference? Will it effect the team?

Is it a positive move, or reverse discrimination?

Almost 7% of the Uk population is ethnicly Asian.  By the SA government's argument, UK rugby is racist and we should bring in a quota because nowhere near 7% of the rugby population are Asian.

Yes, that is a slightly ridiculous example, but it is ridiculous because the sport is not popular with Asians.  If you look at cricket I would guess that over 7% of people playing in the UK are of an Asian background because they tend to like the sport.

Or we could take basketball in the USA.  The majority (though obviously not all) of participants are Black, yet the predominant race in the country is white.  Should they have quotas?  No, of course not, the sport is popular with black people for cultural reasons.

Back to South Africa - rugby is popular amongst the white minority, so it is unsurprising that the team has more white people than black people in it.  The football team is majority black isn't it?  Is that not because black people in South Africa tend to prefer football? Are white people proportionately represented in the football team/  If not, should they have a quota?

The best players in a sport from that country should represent their country.  End of story.  Race is not a factor.

If you are concerned that people from a certain background have barriers to participation then work to remove those barriers, otherwise you are just going to generate resentment.

The Saint wrote: But basically, it showed many Boer's now unemployed and struggling to survive. They had lost out to black South Africans because of their colour.  

Poverty remains a race issue and how have the Boer's lost out?
What they have, in a very small way, is start to lose their privleaged position.

See http://www.ecineq.org/milano/WP/ECINEQ2011-224.pdf for a proper analysis

The Saint wrote:
It also showed that black South Africans working in the professional and public service sectors had increased dramatically in the last decade or so.

As opposed to what?
If the change had been anything other than dramatic, given the incredibly low basis, would be hard to believe.
Doesn't alter the fact that if you want to live comfortably in South Africa you are far better off being born white

geoff998rugby wrote:

The Saint wrote: But basically, it showed many Boer's now unemployed and struggling to survive. They had lost out to black South Africans because of their colour.

Poverty remains a race issue and how have the Boer's lost out?
What they have, in a very small way, is start to lose their privleaged position.

See http://www.ecineq.org/milano/WP/ECINEQ2011-224.pdf for a proper analysis

The Saint wrote:
It also showed that black South Africans working in the professional and public service sectors had increased dramatically in the last decade or so.

As opposed to what?
If the change had been anything other than dramatic, given the incredibly low basis, would be hard to believe.
Doesn't alter the fact that if you want to live comfortably in South Africa you are far better off being born white

I think I explained that. Go and look for the video so you can be educated.

Opposed to what kingraf is saying. Isn't this obvious . Since the end of apartheid era this is the reality. Boers in fear of their livelihoods and their lives (look it up) leave SA. No, you just have to be born into a wealthy family, doesn't matter what colour they are. Take the blinkers off.

The Saint wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

The Saint wrote: But basically, it showed many Boer's now unemployed and struggling to survive. They had lost out to black South Africans because of their colour.  

Poverty remains a race issue and how have the Boer's lost out?
What they have, in a very small way, is start to lose their privleaged position.

See http://www.ecineq.org/milano/WP/ECINEQ2011-224.pdf for a proper analysis

The Saint wrote:
It also showed that black South Africans working in the professional and public service sectors had increased dramatically in the last decade or so.

As opposed to what?
If the change had been anything other than dramatic, given the incredibly low basis, would be hard to believe.
Doesn't alter the fact that if you want to live comfortably in South Africa you are far better off being born white

I think I explained that. Go and look for the video so you can be educated.

Opposed to what kingraf is saying. Isn't this obvious . Since the end of apartheid era this is the reality. Boers in fear of their livelihoods and their lives (look it up) leave SA. No, you just have to be born into a wealthy family, doesn't matter what colour they are. Take the blinkers off.

My point is for their to be anything other than a big increase in Black people working in professional services, would be incredible.
It is a non story.
Boers leaving SA yes - don't appropriate reasons to all though.
Have a very good mate here in my office now who fits the bill. He didn't leave for economic reason or in fear of his livelihood - is he in the list?

No blinkers - the facts are obvious white people still have an over whelmingly privleage position in SA compared to black people.
Even a blind man can see that

Geoff I'm sorry if I don't see where you're coming from. I've been reading this term 'reverse racism' on here. Racism is just racism. If giving out the term reverse racism is considered a cultural norm then there-in lies the problem, because the term insinuates there is a ruling class based on race. How is it even a racial issue when whites as well as blacks are struggling to survive?
Not sure why your SA mate left, as you haven't specified. Must have had a good reason to want to leave somewhere like SA.

People all over the world are born into a privileged position, some are not. I don't think it really has anything to do with your skin colour.

But Geoff the same can be said of any country, if you are born into a certain class/money you are much more likely to prosper. I'm sure in 80 years time there won't be huge inequality in SA and people living in poor conditions and bad education, with most of the power and money held by a small percentage, yeah right. Is it only wrong if that reason is race??? I have to say this thread has been really interesting and even though I completely disagree with your arguments Taylerman and Kingraf you made some points that I hadn't considered and nearly convinced me. As it is though to me its just racism/discrimination.
As a side note how long does a families history need to go back in a country to be considered from there?

Guys, let's just tread carefully please, we are venturing into politics now.

It is what it is, correction of the past is a necessity, and I have no qualms about that, I became self employed when it was evident that I had to think about my future, I am not a wealthy man, but live a comfortable life, as many of my clients do as well, not many of us grew up privileged, in the days when my mother brought up three kids by herself, there was inequality in the work place for women as well, my mother worked on half the salary the men did who carried the same title as she did.

So we struggled as a family, but the whites in SA like to make excuses as well, if you can't find work, then do something for yourself, I often see white people at robots begging, I had a young chap who on a regular basis came to beg at my office and one day I told him I wouldn't give him a cent unless his parents accompanied him, he told me that's OK then as they sit and drink all day so the only way he and his sister can survive is for him to go begging himself.

These stories are amongst many people in SA, no matter their background.

Things are bad in SA for those who have no education and no work, there is no doubt about that, but there is good as well, like in any society.

Per-capita or not is missing the point. Are there quotas in England for lads who didn't attend public schools to help redress the imbalance towards less privileged kids?

This is a valid point (although the English class divide is nowhere near the inequalities that are faced in S Africa) what would have happened if the British Government had imposed this 40/60 quota for Private/State educated players on the English, Scottish and Welsh Unions way back in the 70’s or 80’s?

The Welsh and Scots probably would have been ok, but the English national side, which at the time seemingly depended heavily on the private schools output would have gone into free fall and would have had more wooden spoons than Ikea’s kitchen department.

Probably at the time there were enough plebs of a reasonable standard to put together a competitive side and really what needed to be done was not impose quotas but to scrutinise the selection policy, put the Old Farts under a microscope and challenge their assumptions of who was ‘fit’ to wear the red rose.

However what did happen, was that over the years the sport was promoted at grass roots through various means and the moving away from a fixtures list into a league system broke open the Old Boys Club that had permeated the administration of the RFU. The current crop of English internationals are now mainly state educated oiks – with tattoos and accents to prove it.

I totally understand why the SA Government wants a team that represents the population, but imposing quotas is not the way to do it. Start funding the sport at schools and have a long hard look at the SARFU ‘Old Farts’ and Blazers and make sure that the best players are selected. It might take another ten years but it will be sustainable and permanent, enforced quotas might kill the sport in SA forever.

400, 000 white South Africans, or eight percent live in poverty.... Remarkably (not), your link failed to highlight this figure would still be a a fifth the national portion. More humorously, this is the fourth time I've seen this number spouted out, and every time - a verifiable link isn't produced. Rather it's a ballpark figure Afriforum tends to suck out - sometimes they use 200, 000... sometimes 400, 000, other times 600, 000... Aren't they just the paragon of statistical virtue. I'm not saying it isn't true - just amusing how violently it oscillates from the Stats SA figures.

Moreover it's cute how these guys visit a white informal settlement of 400... Probably drove past the 70, 000-strong black Bekkersdal informal settlement on the way...

Sorry Bill. Its just hard to discuss without politics as its seems intertwined. To be fair there's not a huge amount of info in that article and I don't know the players in SA decision making but it seems more like a something just thought of as opposed to a planned and detailed move. Is this actually likely to happen do you think? Kingraff didn't seem to think so if I read him correctly.

Sorry mate, lost you a bit there, , is what likely to happen?

This new quota?

You first have to ask yourself how they will enforce it.

When you consider sponsors, broadcasters, partners etc. I don't see how an overnight change is likely.

By memory there was a call for representation to increase at Vodacom Cup level in the beginning of the year, so I am assuming that is already in play.

I don't really follow how many of each demographic represent the teams in SA as I don't worry about that kind of thing to be honest.

I am sure something will happen, but I cannot tell you to what degree.

OK. Yeah thought that when it says would need to discuss it with private sponsors etc. I would have thought that the springboks are actually the most represented top team by players born in their country. No idea if that's true maybe Ireland?

My point is a simple one - your colour because of inheritance of wealth is still the biggest factor is your standing in SA.

To be clear I am completely and utterly against quotas.
The way to bring greater equality is to build up from the bottom up not impose artifcial quotas from the top. That is about winning an election.

My mate? - simply love of a good woman.
At least that is what she tells me   

It just politics in an election time.

 Like Argentina just make a fuss about the Falkland's and people forget about a lot of things.

This is the man who has recently said that the opposition party to the ANC use witchcraft to control voters and that they must use their shamen to rid themselves of this disease.

They will only go so far.

Quite simply their aren't enough players of quality amongst ACI players to compete.

Block sponsorship???  There will be NO sponsorship if this is implemented and I think the IRB would probably get involved too. No one wants to sponsor losers and thats simply what the boks will become if they become a 60% African team.

I think they would struggle to beat Scotland, in fact I think Scotland would smash a bok team with 8 African players (not including Coloured chaps like Habana, Kirchner, Pietersen, De Jongh, Aplon, Jantjies etc)... so you're literally left with Mvovo, Beast and after that its a sheer face in terms of drop in talent.

The thing is it would kill sport in the country and fans would walk away. The ANC aren't complete idiots.
We've seen a host of coloured players come through in the last 20 years, we simply haven't seen the same in African players, its not racial,  they have the numbers, they're simply not good enough compared.

I would like to think if this was implemented then the IRB would block SA from competition.... I would however think that they would prove to be gutless as ever.

fa0019 wrote:
The thing is it would kill sport in the country and fans would walk away. The ANC aren't complete idiots.
We've seen a host of coloured players come through in the last 20 years, we simply haven't seen the same in African players, its not racial,  they have the numbers, they're simply not good enough compared.

Perhaps therefore what really needs to happen is to examine the reason they arent good enough and fix that then. In other words put the investment into programmes that ensure that the African players are good enough in 20 years time etc.

The reason they aren't good enough is simple enough - resources. Talented Coloured players have the fortune of being able to be scooped up in by Afrikaans schools, which are still the biggest producers of Boks. How many coloured players have been produced from English schools? Don't think It's much more than black players.

Kingraf, do most coloureds not speak Afrikaans as a home language?

From my experiences I would say that is my belief, they share many commonalities with Afrikaners.

Strong in their christianity, love rugby and cricket, and overall reminds me of most Afrikaners.

Perhaps that is the reason why they are mostly in Afrikaans schools.

Must have not clarified my position, looking at it, I see that I didnt expand. Yes Biltong, coloured are in the main Afrikaans. This of course means they can transfer to Rugby mad Afrikaans schools, without putting their education at risk learning in a foreign language.

In practical terms - even if you took the best 23 black players and put them into a township school - all that would happen is that they'd lay waste to the other underprivileged schools, and maybe play an English festival here, before coming unstuck against the first proper test they have in the Beeld trophy

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
The thing is it would kill sport in the country and fans would walk away. The ANC aren't complete idiots.
We've seen a host of coloured players come through in the last 20 years, we simply haven't seen the same in African players, its not racial,  they have the numbers, they're simply not good enough compared.

Perhaps therefore what really needs to happen is to examine the reason they arent good enough and fix that then. In other words put the investment into programmes that ensure that the African players are good enough in 20 years time etc.

A couple of reasons for this guns.

Firstly AIDS.

Its massive in SA and heavily weighted against the young and Africans. Due to the old race laws preventing marriages between groups there is still little intermarriage and why Coloureds and Whites haven't suffered as much where infection rates mirror those in NW Europe. That means that SA is losing a lot of talent even before they have picked up a rugby ball.

Still have only 33% on HIV medication and figures are growing at record levels again as those on drugs are living longer.... but also infecting more and more people. Its loco.

Genetics.

From my own experience Africans are not ideal to the sport.

Coloureds are the quickest players, dominating the backline places. Africans in SA are genetically east african people, they are excellent long distance runners but struggle in sprint power sports such as rugby where acceleration is king.... its why many of the top sprinters in SA are themselves white or coloured... whereas Africans dominate middle-long distance in athletics.

Forwards wise, who can compete with boere who are literally a few notches bigger than even their English counterparts???  Boere only make up 60% of white South Africans but I reckon Boere to English in pro rugby is probably between 8 and 10 to 1.
SA Africans aren't particularly tall and due to poverty are well below their optimal height had they got all the nutritional value throughout their youth.

School wise I don't think its such a big deal. Schools are pretty transparent.... they want to win and they will recruit the best kids no matter who they are.
Coloured youth players probably find the transition to a boarding school easier as they will speak at least English or Afrikaans, the best rugby schools teams being mainly all Afrikaans.

Personally I don't think Africans are well suited to the game... not to a point where they will ever dominate. We already have some players such as Kolisi who is a fantastic player (but will never be world class) and Mvovo who is a genuine rare African speedster but we're just not seeing the returns. Its not racial... why do Samoans/Tongans dominate in NZ rugby today.... genetically they are simply bigger, stronger, faster.

With time numbers will improve but Coloureds are far less in numbers, are just as poor and bat well, well above Africans in pro numbers both in quality and quantity.... its not poverty which is holding these players back.

fa - black South Africans don't originate from East Africa. They are bantusans from Central Africa. East Africa is also not really a genetic group, given Ethiopians being in the main Jews who moved 2000 years ago (hence their rather unique skin), Somalis being Muslims who moved, and Mozambicans and Angolans having had their blood mixed with Portuguese conquerors.

Also, South Africa's fastest male sprinters at the moment are black, which isn't saying much, as we suck at sprints, but poor Anaso Jobodwana was the first male in 40 years to complete the 100m 200m double at the University games... while Simon Magakwe actually had a qualifying time for the Olympics... In 2012, 3 of the top five sprinters in the national championships were black.

Also coloured aren't just as poor as black people - the average coloured family makes almost 50% more

kingraf wrote:The reason they aren't good enough is simple enough - resources.  Talented Coloured players have the fortune of being able to be scooped up in by Afrikaans schools, which are still the biggest producers of Boks. How many coloured players have been produced from English schools? Don't think It's much more than black players.

Are you so sure????

Coloured players who came through major English schools

Habana - King Edwards
Nizaam Carr - Bishops
Sergeal Petersen - Grey PE

Coloured players who came through major afrikaans schools

Gunthro Steenkamp - Paarl boys (could even say its a mix Afrikaans/English school)
Ashley Johnson - Paarl Gim

Coloured players who came through normal schools

Juan De Jongh
Gio Aplon
JP Pietersen
Ricky Januarie
Elton Jantjies
Cheslin Kolbe
Ashwin Willemse
Adi Jacobs
Breyton Paulse

the stats show that most coloured players came through tiny schools and only a few were products of the major schools (Afrikaans or English). I'm sure I missed a few out but probably not to knock the trend.

kingraf wrote:fa - black South Africans don't originate from East Africa. They are bantusans from Central Africa. East Africa is also not really a genetic group, given Ethiopians being in the main Jews who moved 2000  years ago (hence their rather unique skin), Somalis being Muslims who moved, and Mozambicans and Angolans having had their blood mixed with Portuguese conquerors.

Also, South Africa's fastest male sprinters at the moment are black, which isn't saying much, as we suck at sprints, but poor Anaso Jobodwana was the first male in 40 years to complete the 100m 200m double at the University games... while Simon Magakwe actually had a qualifying time for the Olympics... In 2012, 3 of the top five sprinters in the national championships were black.

East Africa as in the lakes.... Rwanda etc. Came down in 1400s. Sure not Ethiopia but they are from that genetic pool rather than West Africa who are famed for their sprint power.

kingraf wrote:Also coloured aren't just as poor as black people - the average coloured family makes almost 50% more

If you look at the players shown to have come from townships... their are easily more from Cape Coloured townships then black townships. Guys like Willemse were from as poor as areas as you can find in SA.

If you look at most of the major black players over the last few years

Chilliboy - pretoria boys
Kolisi - Grey PE
Beast - Boarding school Zim
Chavanga - Boarding school Zim
Mujati - Boarding school Zim

Mvovo, Ndugane's went to high schools etc but most of them were private school educated. Can't say the same for Coloured players.

Poverty is not the issue.

Bantusans are from Central Africa mate

Seems you're the one who didn't do the research... looking at your data... wait Sergeal Peterson and Nizaam Carr aren't even Boks!!

anyway
de Jongh - poached by Hugenote - an Afrikaans school
Jantjies - poached by Hoerskool Florida, who poached his little brother for good measure.

Cheslin isn't even a bok!! but - Afrikaans school.
JP - Afrikaans school

Off your list... I count
Ricky Januarie
Adi Jacobs
Juan de Jongh
as coloureds who came through English schools - are you really telling me that you can't name three black players from English schools?

I don't know how you count Grey PE as a private school - but Hugenote and Florida aren't.

Read up Siya Kolisi's life story, if you don't think he's from a poor area, or Tybillika's...

Ok if you call that Central Africa then sure but so is Kenya and Tanzania.

Always a grey area which is classed which isn't as it's not like in uk where you either pay or not. But are you telling me you can name more than 5 African boks without going through Wikipedia and finding those players that got 10 mins vs Italy in 2002???

Off the top of my head

Ndugane
Ndugane
Mvovo
Nokwi
Beast
Mujati
Chilli boy
Kolisi
Chavanga
Floors

Of course I've missed some but any majors?

I think I am phrasing the matter of Bantusans wrong - they come from central/west Africa. Through migration, some moved to East Africa, others Southern Africa. Some East African nomads moved to Southern Africa, which I suppose makes them East Africans, but these East Africans are really just Central/West Africans, who went the long way round. It's a wonderfully complicated matter,
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_peoples

Tbh - you did a better job than me, but I really only care about Die Leeus and avoiding relegation, did forget Lawrence Sephaka though.. The point I was making, which again I think stands, is that statistically, I don't think English schools have produced that much more bok coloureds than black...

On your point I agree but that's probably due to coloured players being mainly Afrikaans speakers and therefore more likely to go to Afrikaans schools you would have thought?

I agree, but I use the example because English schools that play rugby, well seriously, probably have similar numbers for rugby playing A & C's. It's not a scientific study, just what I picked up playing and watching school rugby.

A bit off topic, but fa0019 - why do you think Kolisi will never be world class?  He has huge potential and I would have to disagree with that.

Kolisi is a class player, the problem for him as much as any other loose forward is the incredible deoth we have in the backrow.

It is all about combinations on the day and if you consider the fact that he is a regular on the bench he isn't doing badly at all.

First choice currently

Louw
Alberts
Vermeulen

It's all a matter of chemistry and requirements I suppose. I'd say Kolisi is the superior athlete to the current loosies, but they add something extra on the line out, and general set play. Plus they double up as emergency locks.

Picking a more explosive, athletic, running loose trio Kolisi gets a look. But that's not winning you a WC

kingraf wrote:It's all a matter of chemistry and requirements I suppose. I'd say Kolisi is the superior athlete to the current loosies, but they add something extra on the line out, and general set play. Plus they double up as emergency locks.

Picking a more explosive, athletic, running loose trio Kolisi gets a look. But that's not winning you a WC

He looks the part but with the other 3 surely a good position to be in with a sub like that, particularly with the need for more mobile loosies over the full 80 minutes. Probably the best back 3 (and sub) in the world at the mo...

Rory_Gallagher wrote:A bit off topic, but fa0019 - why do you think Kolisi will never be world class?  He has huge potential and I would have to disagree with that.

The problem for Kolisi is that he's a lot like Robshaw. He lacks the height and ball carrying potential for a 6.... his graft work is not the same calibre of Louw, Pocock etc.

His big strength is a) his pace and b) his tackling ability (probably the best in super rugby for me in terms of tackles completed.. further improved by the fact he's our primary tackler of 1st phase at the stormers....i.e. he takes down the big 12s, the big 6s and still misses hardly a tackle a game).

He's a good sub but I think in a blend of talent which backrows need to be defence is often not a priority... unless you can get someone else who can fetch and carry combined.

I would say he's a lot like Joe Worsley, Dan Lydiate, Chris Robshaw.

Kolisi in my view is the perfect foil for ALberts who In reality is a 60 minute player, nobody can take the hits and make the hits he does for 80 minutes, so you use Alberts to soften up the opponents and then you have kolisi who still doesn't stand back in defence, but his pace and linking ability can open a game up nicely in the last quarter.

I'm against quotas and any form of racism.
I also note how whites are whites but can't be African while blacks are African and not blacks - even those in America who have a lot of white in them.
A great way to keep people separated is to keep using terms this way.
Still no Chinese All Blacks but at least we Chinese in New Zealand are allowed to be Kiwis now days.

I agree Ngan, problem is quotas specifically includes or excludes various races, so how do you sidestep the issue in a discussion like this?

Doesn't NZ invariably have race quotas via age grade weight restrictions? Or is it in AUS?

Due to the polynesians being 100kg aged 12-13 right?

I feel like now would be a good time to point out that Afrikaner literally translates as African.... and that's not a term that's been changed, whether in legislature, or colloquially.

the white tribe Kingraf. Zuma himself says so and they do have an indigenous mentality to the land unlike the English... well from my own experiences anyhow.

I'd say that's about right - English are really just bloody capitalists.... in the nicest way

I'd be happy if SARU gave scholarships out to kids each year on racial lines to promote the best kids for the top rugby schools.

But I would say its important to promote African and Coloured players outside of 11, 14 & 15.  PDV was heavily misquoted when he said he knew of 70 ACI players good enough to play for the boks.... what everyone forgot to add was that he then said.... "but most play wing and you can only have 2 wings on the pitch at any one time"

I agree, I'm a bit surprised there aren't more ACI scrummies. You'd think, (completely generalizing) there'd be greater numbers in a spot that requires some nifty kicking skills and a low centre of gravity