Hard line taken on 'white' sport by the blacks

drunkmonkey

Good auld racism just when you thought it ok to be white now South Africa want at least 60% of players to be black in sports like rugby.
It's as if the government there is fostering racism. Everyone should have the opportunity to play sports, if the majority are the same colour what about it as long as everybody had a chance.

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

Anyway AH, how do you suggest we get Eammon civil rights Gilmore to respond?

Dravokivich

Well, we need a new outside centre. Might work out in our favour.

D1stant

Years pass, and the pigs start to resemble humans, as they walk upright, carry whips, and wear clothes. The Seven Commandments are abridged to a single phrase: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

turnikett1

Pretty sure this is called "positive action" as in being racist in a nice way. I think it's stupid to be honest, if black lads don't want to play rugby in South Africa then don't force the team to have a watered down version of it for the sake of public nicities!

I could be completely wrong though. Maybe it is a good thing. I do not know.

Hande hoche!

I'm sure they will add some White and Indian players to the football team...

Valetta

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Good auld racism just when you thought it ok to be white now South Africa want at least 60% of players to be black in sports like rugby.
It's as if the government there is fostering racism. Everyone should have the opportunity to play sports, if the majority are the same colour what about it as long as everybody had a chance.

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

Anyway AH, how do you suggest we get Eammon civil rights Gilmore to respond?

Sure we want quotas for women in politics.

Not that I agree with either, but I don't see any difference and don't see it as racism.

Freddie Dodge

In most injust situations, when the pendulum swings, it rarely stops in the middle.

My OHs father had to close his computer repair business there because he couldn't employ more than 50% black people in his business or pay the approx €25k pa fine.

He was the only employee.

The ANC need to be out of power there after 20 years. They have become corrupt.

If this is true, it'll ruin one of the greatest rugby teams in the world.

Guy:Incognito

Valetta wrote: »

Sure we want quotas for women in politics.

Not that I agree with either, but I don't see any difference and don't see it as racism.

What if your good enough but they have no "white" places left in the squad?

Wossack

be interesting to see how this goes for them, in something as quantifiable as sport

"The blacks"? Jesse Jackson must have lobbied hard for that.

Wonder if Lenny Henry will make a trip over and a Sport Relief piece?

FTA69

Surely if you wanted a sustainable situation whereby more blacks play rugby then the logical thing would be to fund the development of the sport in black areas where it traditionally didn't have a presence? You can't simply decide to take a hatchet to national teams across the board in the hope it will encourage black participation at a grassroots level. To be honest this is the sort of sh*t that's going to do nothing but promote and exacerbate division in South Africa, it's a far cry from the ANC's original call of creating an inclusive society.

Absoluvely

Valetta wrote: »

Sure we want quotas for women in politics.

Not that I agree with either, but I don't see any difference and don't see it as racism.

Implementing racial quotas in the rugby team would require legally racially classifying people in order to determine their legal rights. It's racism.

It's the same with sexual quotas in politics. You're determining an individual's eligibility for a position based on that individual's sex. It's sexism.

What I want to know is how they're going to classify people as white or black. Is there going to be someone employed as a "sorter" to sort people into the categories based on how they look? Are they going to use fancy equipment to measure the average optical reflectivity of the individual's skin?

Expect a lot of Springboks wearing fake tan at next year's World Cup.

y0ssar1an22

I think its all bull$hit. If your good enough you get selected, **** the color of your skin. This goes for all walks of life and also applies to gender.

Regarding the quotas for women in Irish politics....what about being democratically elected? Does that not matter any more? Seems like in the endeavour for equality we might move further from democracy and closer to something else.

upstairs for coffee

Would there anything to be said for positive discrimination or affirmative action...

Guy:Incognito

Absoluvely wrote: »

Implementing racial quotas in the rugby team would require legally racially classifying people in order to determine their legal rights. It's racism.

It's the same with sexual quotas in politics. You're determining an individual's eligibility for a position based on that individual's sex. It's sexism.

What I want to know is how they're going to classify people as white or black. Is there going to be someone employed as a "sorter" to sort people into the categories based on how they look? Are they going to use fancy equipment to measure the average optical reflectivity of the individual's skin?

Expect a lot of Springboks wearing fake take at next year's World Cup.

https://www.dulux.co.uk/colours/ ?

Absoluvely

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

https://www.dulux.co.uk/colours/ ?

Dulux don't seem to do much in the line of browns. The racists.

Absoluvely

I would also like to point out that racial and sexual quotas are examples of apartheid.

Minister of Sport Fikile Mbalula wants to go back to the good old days of racial apartheid in South Africa.

osarusan

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

I think its all bull$hit. If your good enough you get selected, **** the color of your skin. This goes for all walks of life and also applies to gender.

The problem is not the selection in many cases. It is the liklihood of the system in place favouring one group over another.

In South Africa, a higher proportion of white children will go to fee-paying schools than black children. These schools will come with better rugby facilities and coaches than free schools. By aligning rugby with wealth in this way, it makes it unlikely that poorer children will be exposed to the same quality of practice and training, and consequently won't be as good. It is much the same with cricket in South Africa.

so a coach can say that he will pick his best team, no matter what colour they are. That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the underlying problem.

BraziliaNZ

60% bleedin' northsiders in the Irish rugby team please (Clontarf, Howth etc don't count)

gramar

It sounds like they've been advised by someone from the BBC comedy panel committee.

I'd say black South Africans who are supposed to benefit from this sort of measure are embarrassed by it.

KungPao

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

https://www.dulux.co.uk/colours/ ?

It think it was a valid point by the poster. I've heard that in Brazil there are places reserved/grants available for Negros doing college courses. There there are many shades from the whitest of white to the blackest of black, but some people who would generally describe themselves as "white" or mixed, suddenly become "black" to qualify.

Although in SA I don't think there are many mixed race people?

Dravokivich

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

60% bleedin' northsiders in the Irish rugby team please (Clontarf, Howth etc don't count)

What about Norn Iron?

turnikett1

KungPao wrote: »

Although in SA I don't think there are many mixed race people?

According to Wiki, 10% of South Africans are "coloured" ie mixed

Guy:Incognito

Dravokivich wrote: »

What about Norn Iron?

Its north of the liffey.

BraziliaNZ

Dravokivich wrote: »

What about Norn Iron?

I forgot they existed

Guy:Incognito

osarusan wrote: »

The problem is not the selection in many cases. It is the liklihood of the system in place favouring one group over another.

In South Africa, a higher proportion of white children will go to fee-paying schools than black children. These schools will come with better rugby facilities and coaches than free schools. By aligning rugby with wealth in this way, it makes it unlikely that poorer children will be exposed to the same quality of practice and training, and consequently won't be as good. It is much the same with cricket in South Africa.

so a coach can say that he will pick his best team, no matter what colour they are. That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the underlying problem.

The policy is not just about rugby but private schools can charge what they like. Such is life. The government is free to fund Rugby better in state schools if it wants to give poorer people access and in turn have them in the national team.

upstairs for coffee

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Would there anything to be said for positive discrimination or affirmative action...

Positive discrimination? As in fighting racism with "good" racism

looksee

osarusan wrote: »

The problem is not the selection in many cases. It is the liklihood of the system in place favouring one group over another.

In South Africa, a higher proportion of white children will go to fee-paying schools than black children. These schools will come with better rugby facilities and coaches than free schools. By aligning rugby with wealth in this way, it makes it unlikely that poorer children will be exposed to the same quality of practice and training, and consequently won't be as good. It is much the same with cricket in South Africa.

so a coach can say that he will pick his best team, no matter what colour they are. That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the underlying problem.

So, as has already been said, the government provides more training facilities for young black people to get them interested in the sport, rather than starting at the top.

As for who is 'black' or 'coloured', my understanding is that if you were mostly white with a tiny percentage of black ancestry you were considered black/coloured. If you were mostly black with a tiny percentage of white ancestry, you were also considered black/coloured. And the whole business of being 'coloured' is a minefield of opinion and potential for giving and taking offence.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

The problem is not the selection in many cases. It is the liklihood of the system in place favouring one group over another.

In South Africa, a higher proportion of white children will go to fee-paying schools than black children. These schools will come with better rugby facilities and coaches than free schools. By aligning rugby with wealth in this way, it makes it unlikely that poorer children will be exposed to the same quality of practice and training, and consequently won't be as good. It is much the same with cricket in South Africa.

so a coach can say that he will pick his best team, no matter what colour they are. That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the underlying problem.

Then That's an issue with the schools not senior rugby should we only pick a certain number of player from black rock college, Christians, prez etc because they have better facility's than other schools

rubadub

Valetta wrote: »

Sure we want quotas for women in politics.

Lots don't want this, just like they would not want a law introduced forcing hospital to have say 40% of nurses being male, or forcing creches to have male quotas.

I wonder if the Jamaican relay team would consider a white quota.

osarusan

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The government is free to fund Rugby better in state schools if it wants to give poorer people access and in turn have them in the national team.

looksee wrote: »

So, as has already been said, the government provides more training facilities for young black people to get them interested in the sport, rather than starting at the top.

Madelyn Juicy Victory wrote: »

Then That's an issue with the schools not senior rugby

Agree with all of this. They are going about it wrong.

I just mean that, 'f**k that, pick the best players regardless of colour' isn't a solution.

Absoluvely

osarusan wrote: »

Agree with all of this. They are going about it wrong.

I just mean that, 'f**k that, pick the best players regardless of colour' isn't a solution.

There is no team-picking policy that will cure the statistical inequalities of health/wealth/education between races in South Africa.

There's still no reason to have race-based selections though so selecting the best players is the logical method.

KungPao

I think the whole team should be black.

Absoluvely

KungPao wrote: »

I think the whole team should be black.

You're thinking of New Zealand

drunkmonkey

KungPao wrote: »

I think the whole team should be black.

Zebo or Mr T. Black?

Nodin

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Good auld racism just when you thought it ok to be white now South Africa want at least 60% of players to be black in sports like rugby.
It's as if the government there is fostering racism. Everyone should have the opportunity to play sports, if the majority are the same colour what about it as long as everybody had a chance.
.............

Rugby is notoriously associated with conservative Afrikaaner attitudes. If you bothered your arse to read the article.

"This is according to resolutions taken by the Department of Sport following a meeting between Minister of Sport Fikile Mbalula and the provincial MECs for sport on Saturday. They discussed a report, released last week, on the status of transformation in the most popular sports , rugby, cricket, netball, athletics and football.
Mbalula said the group decided to increase the 50/50 quota system to 60% representation after noting a "lack of willingness in implementing transformation, especially the enforcement of quotas".
Failure to implement the new quotas would result in withdrawal of any form of funding and support to federations and sport bodies, he said.
"[We will] withdraw the national colours of any federation that is hell-bent on the current set-up and status quo."
Mbalula said his department would block sponsorship of any sports association that was hostile to transformation. Bidding for and hosting sports events would become illegal without government approval."

Context is a great man. Now one might debate whether his approach is the correct one, but its certainly not the simplistic crap you trotted out in the OP.

seagull

If you ask the black players, they are amongst the loudest opponents of this. They don't want to be considered to be in the side as a token. They want to be seen as being there because they've earned their place.

keeponhurling

How about the quota in Ireland, a certain % of the national team must have been to national school, and those from fee-paying schools need to be capped.

It makes the Irish rugby team more representative of the overall population.

greenheart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JknOan-HoSA

BBC 3 documentary about white slums in South Africa

elefant

Only 40% of you are allowed be white on this team.

I don't know the realities everyday South Africa, but regardless this sounds like a horribly backwards step to be taking.

Karl Stein

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

If your good enough you get selected, **** the color of your skin. This goes for all walks of life and also applies to gender.

So institutional racism and sexism is a myth?

Is this where you live?

Lol.

LeinsterDub

keeponhurling wrote: »

How about the quota in Ireland, a certain 5 of the national team must have been to national school, and those from fee-paying schools need to be capped.

It makes the Irish rugby team more representative of the overall population.

Of course you'll fully support that 5 of the county teams players went to fee-paying schools.

Push Pop

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Good auld racism just when you thought it ok to be white now South Africa want at least 60% of players to be black in sports like rugby.
It's as if the government there is fostering racism. Everyone should have the opportunity to play sports, if the majority are the same colour what about it as long as everybody had a chance.

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

Anyway AH, how do you suggest we get Eammon civil rights Gilmore to respond?

I wonder how the All Blacks will feel. I suppose with a watered down team, we have a chance to beat them even without the mighty BOD.

suicide_circus

OP, it's spelt b-l-i-c-k

Too Tough To Die

60% non white, not black exactly. Good rule imo.

J_E

Any sort of forced quota is never going to work and just isn't a real solution to an issue. Look at the trouble the female quota on panels in the UK caused. It's an artificial solution that just creates all sorts of problems of its own.

D1stant

Mod

This thread failed to make the quota of 4 posts from Lesbian disabled dwarfs, and must be locked now

Sorry about that

crockholm

Nodin wrote: »

Rugby is notoriously associated with conservative Afrikaaner attitudes. If you bothered your arse to read the article.

"This is according to resolutions taken by the Department of Sport following a meeting between Minister of Sport Fikile Mbalula and the provincial MECs for sport on Saturday. They discussed a report, released last week, on the status of transformation in the most popular sports , rugby, cricket, netball, athletics and football.
Mbalula said the group decided to increase the 50/50 quota system to 60% representation after noting a "lack of willingness in implementing transformation, especially the enforcement of quotas".
Failure to implement the new quotas would result in withdrawal of any form of funding and support to federations and sport bodies, he said.
"[We will] withdraw the national colours of any federation that is hell-bent on the current set-up and status quo."
Mbalula said his department would block sponsorship of any sports association that was hostile to transformation. Bidding for and hosting sports events would become illegal without government approval."

Context is a great man. Now one might debate whether his approach is the correct one, but its certainly not the simplistic crap you trotted out in the OP.

Noddy ol bean your first sentence is Epic in it's dopiness. Was it a memo from a joint SF/ANC love in that decided that rugby is somehow twinned with notorious conservative afrikaaners?

And even if it were,is being conservative and afrikaaner some kind of crime or something to be ashamed of ? (actually,thats probably on the to do list of the ANC)

This is just the ANC flexing their muscles and reassuring their dumbsh1t ignorant supporters that whitey will be kept in check and given a timely reminder as to who runs the show.

Rugby has similar anomolies with regards whom plays the game in other countries too-
In Ireland (Rep.) the elite players largely come from fee paying schools,but if a player is good enough,they will play for Ireland.
In Ulster it is largely a Unionist affiliated population that plays it,though with an increasing amount of nationalists.

In England it's played in the South predominantly (ditto for france).

If they want more black lads on the team,they can pay for the facilities at black schools and maybe spend less on mr.Zuma's compound, but I guess it's just easier to kick a minority Group instead.

Guy:Incognito

Push Pop wrote: »

I wonder how the All Blacks will feel. I suppose with a watered down team, we have a chance to beat them even without the mighty BOD.

They'll probably be ok with it, unless South Africa annexes New Zealand and forces the rule on them too.

strobe

osarusan wrote: »

The problem is not the selection in many cases. It is the liklihood of the system in place favouring one group over another.

In South Africa, a higher proportion of white children will go to fee-paying schools than black children. These schools will come with better rugby facilities and coaches than free schools. By aligning rugby with wealth in this way, it makes it unlikely that poorer children will be exposed to the same quality of practice and training, and consequently won't be as good. It is much the same with cricket in South Africa.

so a coach can say that he will pick his best team, no matter what colour they are. That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the underlying problem.

Then the quota should be based on how poor you are, not how black you are. Not that I think that should be done either.

seagull

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

60% non white, not black exactly. Good rule imo.

So you'd be fine with a rule that 40% of the SA soccer team should be white?