Quotas for Springboks by 2019?

ESPN wrote:Half of the Springboks' squad will have to be players of colour by 2019, according to transformation plans revealed in South African Sunday newspaper Rapport. In addition, 60% of that number will be required to be black African.
The plans will see a comprehensive overhaul of the current structure with the Springboks, Blitzboks, Junior Boks all affected, as well as teams in the Vodacom Cup, Currie Cup and Super Rugby tournaments. The target is for all representative teams to contain 50% players of colour within five years but Heyneke Meyer will be restricted as early as next year's World Cup by a requirement to select a side featuring at least five black players.Tendai Mtawarira was the only black African to start in their loss to Australia at the weekend.

According to the reports, the SARU executive council drew up the plans this year in the wake of heavy criticism from Sports Minister Fikile Mbalula and the Department of Sport over the lack of transformation in the make up of the Springboks' side.
Meyer will be encouraged to ensure there are at least seven players of colour in Springbok matchday squads, while SA Sevens' coach Neil Powell will be expected to carry out to a strict 40% non-white quota and Dawie Theron's Junior Boks have to contain at least 12 players of colour in his squad of 28 for the 2015 Junior World Championship in Portugal, four of whom must be black. The quotas will stretch to referees, coaches and administrators, too.

"It's a sustainable way to implement transformation in South African rugby," said Mervin Green, Saru's general manager for development. "Most of SARU's provinces have failed to yield results due to lack of proper talent identification and development programmes. The transformation plan will be monitored annually to identify barriers that have a negative impact on the implementation."

Read more at http://www.espnscrum.com/southafrica/rugby/story/240477.html#xlR6RVUthYd1XrdQ.99

I don't see how this isn't going to damage the Springboks in the short term, whilst the talent identification and player base of no-white rugby players is behind what the quotas demand. I don't see how South Africa isn't going to have to leave some of their better players out to accommodate quota picks, at least initially, and it'll probably lead to more players leaving for Europe if they feel they can't get a fair shake.

But on the more positive side it'll really force heavy investment in spreading the game far and wide across South Africa in the long term. Is it worth it if fans of opposing teams are licking their lips at playing a diminished South Africa in the short term? Time will tell.

I totally disagree with Quotas 100% its a disgrace.

Pick the best players. If they're white, black, coloured, yellow, green, blue...its irrelevant.
This is becoming racism the other way now...

Its the same with the police for example in the UK...with quotas for entrance. Unforutnatley in order to allow your quota's it has resulted in the stringent fitness and physical test levels being dropped alarmingly.

Im 6'1 and 16 st...and im proud to say that at 37 im still in very good shape...and im convinced that if i was ever in trouble that i needed to call the police there isnt many police that would turn up fitter stronger or a better fighter than me, And that is not a good thought! I expect a team of Arnies Terminators to turn up not Snow Whites 7 Dwarves!

I have no doubt that blacks are not weaker or such...The Beast, Habana etc have all enhanced the team. But these players will naturally come through due to their skills and ability...it shouldnt be forced.

It should also be noted that Football is the main sport for Black people in SA so do they actually want to play rugby!

I understand it is meant to promote the development of the game amongst non-white people, however I can't help get the feeling it is kind of taking things from one extreme to another (I'm really struggling to word it so it causes no offence).

Really can't see how a coach can do their job properly when selecting a team if they need to shoe horn a player into the side based purely on the ethnicity. It could lead to there being half the team being second, third or even fourth best in their position.

Its a terrible idea.

Whites dominate rugby because physically they are taller and stronger than Africans in SA... and this isn't because they have a better diet etc.

The average height of the Zulu is 5'4-5'6.
The average height of the Boere is 6'0.

Which one is better suited to rugby?

Boere to English South Africans are 60:40 in their split of White South Africans but lets look at the number of English South Africans from even the last match.

Boere

Bissie
Jannie
Eben
Victor
Coetzee
Louw
Vermuelen
Piernaar
Steyn
De Villiers
Serfontein
Le Roux

English

0

Boere dominate the sport because a) they see it as a religion and b) they are well suited for it physically.

Pieter De Villers the cape coloured coach in his last game picked 12 whites (10 Boere, 2 English), 3 coloureds and 0 africans in his last match. Its the same profile seen in most SA teams because thats what reflects the quality of the rugby amongst the races.

I hope the IRB takes a strong stance at this. They cannot surely endorse a program of social engineering ala the nazi's.
Fine, promote youth rugby to all races in SA but if they do this SA will never again win the rugby world cup or be competitive.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:I understand it is meant to promote the development of the game amongst non-white people, however I can't help get the feeling it is kind of taking things from one extreme to another (I'm really struggling to word it so it causes no offence).

Really can't see how a coach can do their job properly when selecting a team if they need to shoe horn a player into the side based purely on the ethnicity.  It could lead to there being half the team being second, third or even fourth best in their position.

Surely the IRB and the rest of the world must intervene and say look we're all for you promoting your players but you CANNOT, note CANNOT choose players for your national team by race. It goes against the very essence of the game. It was why SA was banned from sport for most of the 80s and its why they must be banned if it comes again in another form.

fa0019 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:I understand it is meant to promote the development of the game amongst non-white people, however I can't help get the feeling it is kind of taking things from one extreme to another (I'm really struggling to word it so it causes no offence).

Really can't see how a coach can do their job properly when selecting a team if they need to shoe horn a player into the side based purely on the ethnicity.  It could lead to there being half the team being second, third or even fourth best in their position.

Surely the IRB and the rest of the world must intervene and say look we're all for you promoting your players but you CANNOT, note CANNOT choose players for your national team by race. It goes against the very essence of the game. It was why SA was banned from sport for most of the 80s and its why they must be banned if it comes again in another form.

Completely agree. I am 100% against any sort of quota system for any reason and I hope the IRB (or whatever it is called now) steps in.

Sadly the talented white players will still play international rugby, just for England, France, NZ, Oz etc.

The problem with black economic empowerment is that you cannot enforce it in every aspect of industry and commerce.

Just look at the every day jobs in South Africa, those jobs where your remuneraton is dependant on performance, you find veryfew blacks.

the reason is simple, jobs that are commission based I not something that government can enforce BEE as these guys won't earn money.

SO apply the same t rugby, if players in South Africa were remunerated based on performance then government would not enforce the laws.

Sure give them the administrative jobs as this won't affect performance.

All SARU has to do is revamp the manner in which they remunerate players, measure them on performance.

How many tackles missed, workrate, line out performance etc.

THis might mean other teams like Namibia and Zimbabwe might benefit aswell.

Players who might naturally move across to the Boks side might not bother and stay with their ancestral side.

DOubt that, we have very few ZImbabweans and Namibians in our provinces, those that are in SA immigrated here before they started a career in rugby.

By memory we currently have one Namibian player in SA, but he represents his own country.

Well maybe a scenario was that a black guy was playing LH prop due to the quota...and you may miss out on someone like MtArriwara leading him to play for ZImbabwe

My apologies, we have three Namibians and one Zimbabwean playing rugby in SA.

In the old days when Namibia was part of SA and Zimbabwe was Rhodesia there were many more playing for the boks because both had far larger white populations who played rugby seriously/sent their kids to school in SA.

Thats why chaps like Skinstad, Montegomery, Krige, Teichmann are famed to have been born/brought up outside of in these nations.

These days its much different.

Touchy subject but obviously tries to get around inherant racism. Things like the Rooney rule in USA haveproved v successful but thats for coaches to give them a chance in interviews to impress. Perhaps something similar at a much lower level would get more black people into the sport and be more beneficial in the long run. Weakoning top level teams isnt the way to go for me.

Anyone actually believe this will happen? Sports Minister was demanding this happen in a few months. It probably didn't win any votes, but it appeased the more militant members of the party. Now the promise is 2019, which by some random inexplicable coincidence is when the next elections are due. What is the bet I'm reviving this thread again in 2019? three main problems here
1 - Rugby's transformation record is way better than, say crickets. With better results
2 - Black people just don't care enough about rugby. This is a double edged problem. It limits the talent pool, but more importantly, it means the government can make these blanket statements without worrying about anyone actually bothering to follow up.
3 - rugby simply generates too much in the coffers for them to risk anything. It's not even worth asking if the current government rate transformation higher than greenbacks

kingraf wrote:Anyone actually believe this will happen? Sports Minister was demanding this happen in a few months. It probably didn't win any votes, but it appeased the more militant members of the party. Now the promise is 2019, which by some random inexplicable coincidence is when the next elections are due. What is the bet I'm reviving this thread again in 2019? three main problems here
1 - Rugby's transformation record is way better than, say crickets. With better results
2 - Black people just don't care enough about rugby. This is a double edged problem. It limits the talent pool, but more importantly, it means the government can make these blanket statements without worrying about anyone actually bothering to follow up.
3 - rugby simply generates too much in the coffers for them to risk anything. It's not even worth asking if the current government rate transformation higher than greenbacks

One issue king

The boks are seen as the heartbeat of the boere. As successful as they are.... The ANC and the wider community want to close out what's left of the Afrikaner hold on SA society. It's not PC to say but it's the truth.

Cricket was always the englishmans game. It was a little different.

They may not get it with big strides... But they will get it through little steps. Every year something is given up.... When you look back 10 years and think what has been comprimised, had you seen the outcome at the beginning you would never have agreed.... That's the beauty/sham of little steps.

I have no doubt it will happen eventually.

It's not as simple as ANC evil, SARU good though. Let's not forget that the Old SARU was willing to go all the way to court to prevent the government from investigating what was limiting the progress of black rugby players. Rightly so, this has left lingering doubts as to just how much of an effort SARU have made re: transformation. Indeed some might say that this points to an effort to actually prevent African rugby players. Never black and white (no pun intended). Not sure what these little steps are if Im honest. I mean Border Bulldogs were sold, the squad kicked out, 85% of the squad is recruited, 98% white. Sure it's only Border, but I don't buy that the ANC is secretly fighting out boer rule in rugby if a franchise can be sold and the entire homegrown squad chucked away for a completely white team.

Its ridiculous but "positive" racism is trendy these days so they'll get away with it.

Yes let's stick with the alternative... Sporting boards possibly intentionally blocking off black talent. Social conditions stopping black talent from rising through... but that's okay, because its not really racism. SARU really have no moral high ground here. Its that simple.

kingraf wrote:Yes let's stick with the alternative... Sporting boards possibly intentionally blocking off black talent. Social conditions stopping black talent from rising through... but that's okay, because its not really racism. SARU  really have no moral high ground here. Its that simple.

Two different things. One is social and the other is sporting. In Ireland most of the players come from private rugby schools which are very few. So that automatically excludes large sections of the population. Should we bring in quotas too? That would be stupid. So its not just a South African thing. In England Black soccer players are overrepresented. Thats because soccer is a lower class game traditionally. Should there be quotas brought in to limit the number of Blacks there?

Unaware of politica l conditions in Sa currently BUT wasn't there supposed to be a quota
system imposed from 2008?.Which was why the exodus to NH and overseas based players
being available to play for Boks.
The inclusion of the Southern Kings in Super Rugby and expansion into Super 18 in 2018.
This is obviously a political football and selection due to factors of colour,race,age,size,
religion is wrong as opposed to ability.
Rugby is about a TEAM and there should be places therein for all racial characteristics
whether Boere,Anglo,Zulu whatever on ability not just size /weight.
Will we see all White Nations boycott the next Olympic Games in protest of Apartheid in
reverse as in the 1980`s con trick?IRB should stick by there rules and stamp on it.

The 2008 exodus had nothing to do with quotas. From 2004, with the the inclusion of Jacques van den Westhuyzen and Pery Montgomery, we took a more lax attitude to the overseas Boks. Having won the 2007 world cup, it was expected that we would go for a new start. Clean slate etc. Most players assumed they were surplus. As we all know, instead Bakkies and Víctor are still kicking the porch.

Where was this Honorable boycott in the 90s? Or did you think it normal that a rugby board would rather go to court than have a thorough investigation of the black player shortage? I'm sorry but if a district team where 80% of the region is black can be bought, and then basically fire the whole team to replace it with a completely white line up, is it even up for discussion that black players are STILL being set back unless otherwise forced in?

I could care less about the English football team. It's not the same situation, or even close. I'm not gonna rehash this again. But it's not a mere class thing when white South Africans make six times more than black South Africans. It's institutionalised racism. My dad is currently working with an IT company that has thirty employees, eight white 22 black. All similar qualifications. By some miracle the white Employees make up 73% of the salary expenditure. It's nothing like Ireland, or even close. It's not an accidental social problem. It's a design. One that keeps getting perpetuated.

I was referring to the 26 African Nations walkout of either a Olympics or Commonwealth
Games.Only one of which was democratically elected,leading to SA dropping out from
mid 80`s to 1992.
What is proposed is as wrong in my eyes as was apartheid in selection of sports teams
or indeed the use of sport as a propaganda tool.As was common in Germany under Hitler.
America/Russia or Eastern Bloc during the cold war.
No one can control where there born.there colour or religion of there parents when we
become of age we then have choices.

i know what you're referring to, what I'm asking is where was the IRB "sticking to their rules and putting a stamp on it" (your words) when SARU refused to allow any investigation? It's quite simple - if SARU were not actively impeding progress, an investigation would have been carried out, and maybe this ends differently, proper transformation starts a generation earlier for one. Instead they play cloaks and daggers, maintain all union presidents and Essential Dear John nearly every black player on the only majority black union we did have. But sure, they aren't doing anything wrong. All freaky coincidence, and the government is just being mean.

I'd love for one's ability to be the sole criteria for a team to be picked. But SARU have dragged their feet long and obstructed progress long enough for me to feel absolutely no pity for them. Black South Africans are still in the main by and large held back, and it's not because they lack ability.
The national average has 1 in two youth unemployed. White South Africans is one in ten. Black university graduates are three times more likely to be unemployed than white graduates. The stats are endless, but they all suggest one thing - being black in South Africa isn't some guarantee of a nice life.... and race is a still a massive help (white)/hindrance (black). It's ridiculous to believe such large disparities (sometimes occurring between two sets of people of differing races with the same Profile otherwise), are nothing more than social problems and nothing sinister in and of themself.

Back onto the rugby, I don't care about the colour of my national team, or teammates at the club. But I don't think there's anyone at SARU who if they were honest couldn't admit they've f.ucked up repeatedly with transformation.

kingraf wrote:1 - Rugby's transformation record is way better than, say crickets. With better results

Is it? Half of the team that took part in the triangular were non-white wasn't it, sometimes even more?

FerN wrote:

kingraf wrote:1 - Rugby's transformation record is way better than, say crickets. With better results

Is it?  Half of the team that took part in the triangular were non-white wasn't it, sometimes even more?

Yeah hard to believe that.

But then in cricket there are very few African blacks in the franchises or national team.

Whereas if you look at the currie Cup teams the numbers are different.

The Sharks as an example has 9 blacks that are contracted.

Hmm, maybe ja.  At some time the Currie Cup is going to filter through to the national level.  It looks like the foundation is there for rugby, but to make the jump from Currie Cup to Super Rugby should probably be the next step, not national yet in my opinion.

And if Sharks can contract 8 players that means that it must be filtering up, because they are not currently being forced to do that. It indicates that it probably just take time to filter up to the highest level.

It's been three years since an African played Test cricket for South Africa. In that time Kolisi, Oupa, and a few more black players have made their debuts. Not to mention guys like S'burra Sithole and Seabelo Senatla making genuine waves on the domestic scene. Mvovo having a career resurgence, Tera captaining the Sharks.

I agree, in my view there are a good number of Black African players coming through.

Especially when you start looking at the youngsters.

I think wat may have been an excuse used by Super Rugby coaces has been size more than anything.

But then when you look at our Sevens team, there is an excellent mix of all races, and they have shown that for certain positions the Boer is still best suited, but look at our backline, hardly a white player in sight and we are doing brilliantly even defensively with these so called "smaller" players.

The big upside is the skills these guys have.

Look at Senatla, brilliant player, Cecil Afrika, brilliant, Branco du Preez, Justin Geduld.

Now if you start looking at players such as Sithole, Oupa, Tera Mtembu, Trevor Nyakane, I still like Raymond Rhule, justneeds to work on his vision a bit.

SIya Kolisi shows great promise, but Coetzee needs to give him more game time, Lusaseni from the Lions is a decent player, but a bit short for an international lock.

I still believe Lionel Mapoe is a great player, he just needs a chance and we are short on midfielders.

HOward Mnisi shows promise.


I also like that guy Luiters from PE, he must be the cleanest and most accurate cleaner of a ruck ball in the Currie CUp.

What about the youngsters tat os coming through from the U20's there is a player, not sure what hisname is, he played in the backrow for SA, big, strong, and busy.

We have the players, I see Chester Williams has come out and said he wants to develop the young black talent.

If SARU sets up an academy that will be the best way to develop tese youngsters.

BUt don't force it. When they are ready they will step up.

To be fair for a young black South African looking at their options are in terms of sport - would they pick rugby?

Which black player would want to be put into a rugby team based on a quota? It will only cause animosity.

Quotas are wrong but black sportsman should be encouraged to take up rugby and not be intimidated.

Seeing a successful black sportsman might encourage others to take up the sport.

Blacks in South Africa should look across to other countries for inspiration.

Thierry Dusautoir

Maggie Alphonsi

Maro Itoje

as just a few examples of current successful black players.

Quite difficult to choose rugby really. Majority of the country doesn't have access to Pay TV, so they'll only watch rugby two or three times a year, vs Soccer the entire year, or cricket the whole summer. Then add in the fact that the majority of black schools don't have rugby, and exposure is obviously a huge problem.

I think there is one aspect we must not ignore.

The new generation that is starting to come through now in "privileged" is a different demographic than 10 or 15 years ago.

Now if you consider firstly the population demographics of Whites and coloureds who has tradionally been more involved in Rugby and cricket, and then add the "new generation privileged" black community.

Then Purely guessing I would say there is a demographic split that in numbers at least is similar.

SO if you follow my reasoning to say there are approximately between 8-10% of each ethnic group that will have intertwined their cultures then it would suggest that the sporting demographic naturally will split a third each way in the next few years.

Purely because these numbers are starting to show at Craven week etc.

So in theory the rugby culture doesn't need to be forced, it will naturally progress as each of these cultures intertwine and mix on social, school, university etc levels.

The biggest stumbling block in my opinion is the reluctance of the "old school" administrators and coaches that needs to change their mindset.

We see the same problem in the fact that SA playing style has not evolved and our coaches are still hanging on to old ideas.

It is therefor imperative in my view that as much as the ANC is trying to force this and the old school administrators of rugby and other sports are hampering the progress, both are wrong.

TO strike the balance in my view, the transformation should happen behind the scenes, get the administrators and coaches to transform, in playing style, development opportunities etc.

And the transformation on the ground will naturally happen, providing us around 30% of our population that is involved in rugby.

The rest of the population are in my view, socio economic issues which has to do with a lot more than rugby.

Here you are talking about basic facilities, housing, jobs, healthcare, schools, utilities etc.

kingraf wrote:I could care less about the English football team. It's not the same situation, or even close. I'm not gonna rehash this again. But it's not a mere class thing when white South Africans make six times more than black South Africans. It's institutionalised racism. My dad is currently working with an IT company  that has thirty employees, eight white 22 black. All similar qualifications. By some miracle the white Employees make up 73% of the salary expenditure. It's nothing like Ireland, or even close. It's not an accidental social problem. It's a design. One that keeps getting perpetuated.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about South Africa to comment with any great insight, but I'm genuinely shocked to read about this company, how can that still go on in this day and age

beshocked wrote:To be fair for a young black South African looking at their options are in terms of sport - would they pick rugby?

Which black player would want to be put into a rugby team based on a quota? It will only cause animosity.

Quotas are wrong but black sportsman should be encouraged to take up rugby and not be intimidated.

Seeing a successful black sportsman might encourage others to take up the sport.

Blacks in South Africa should look across to other countries for inspiration.

Thierry Dusautoir

Maggie Alphonsi

Maro Itoje

as just a few examples of current successful black players.

Africa is a big continent. Its like saying Chinese people should take inspiration from Sachin Tendulkar. Africans aren't this one huge brotherhood... west africans aren't very well liked in SA and we've seen many race riots over the last few years due to indigenous south africans being unhappy with africans from other nations coming into the country and undercutting their livelihood.

Those chaps you mention... they are all west african. All athletic, sprint-power people who are well suited to rugby, if Nigeria ever got into rugby we'd all be bang in trouble, not just because of their suitability but also because there is 200MM of them. I played London Nigerian many times during my tenure in London. Not the best skilled but those guys were all athletic, all super fast.

It may come to a shock to some but indigenous South Africans generally are not built that way. They come from the great lakes of central eastern Africa genetically. They are short, better suited to middle-long distance and very few are considered tall.

To be a modern test rugby player even scrumhalves are now heading beyond 6ft....see mike phillips, ruan pienaar, fourie du preez for details. It makes Africans less likely to make it because physically they can't make the grade at the highest level. Then when you factor in poverty and HIV in becomes an even greater challenge.

BamBam wrote:

kingraf wrote:I could care less about the English football team. It's not the same situation, or even close. I'm not gonna rehash this again. But it's not a mere class thing when white South Africans make six times more than black South Africans. It's institutionalised racism. My dad is currently working with an IT company  that has thirty employees, eight white 22 black. All similar qualifications. By some miracle the white Employees make up 73% of the salary expenditure. It's nothing like Ireland, or even close. It's not an accidental social problem. It's a design. One that keeps getting perpetuated.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about South Africa to comment with any great insight, but I'm genuinely shocked to read about this company, how can that still go on in this day and age

Kingraf, I don't want to accuse you of spreading misinformation.

However the information you provide there is not sufficient to explain the disparity in salaries.

I work with corporate and private businesses every day and can tell you that what you are showing there is certainly not the standard.

Id I look at my clients who own their own businesses (Black and white business owners) then the salary discrepancy you illustrate is not evident with my clients.

I regularly have access to their payrolls, and can tell you categorically that it isn't the case.

MOst of them have tiers at which different job descriptions are remunerated and everyone is on the same scale (bar a slight difference for longer serving employees) if they have the same job category.

BamBam wrote:

kingraf wrote:I could care less about the English football team. It's not the same situation, or even close. I'm not gonna rehash this again. But it's not a mere class thing when white South Africans make six times more than black South Africans. It's institutionalised racism. My dad is currently working with an IT company  that has thirty employees, eight white 22 black. All similar qualifications. By some miracle the white Employees make up 73% of the salary expenditure. It's nothing like Ireland, or even close. It's not an accidental social problem. It's a design. One that keeps getting perpetuated.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about South Africa to comment with any great insight, but I'm genuinely shocked to read about this company, how can that still go on in this day and age

It does and continues to. There was an article on it in the local Sunday Times. It's throughout the entire private sector. Quite overt as well... Job classifieds saying "Non EE/AA" may as well type out "Slegs Blanke".

Biltong wrote:

BamBam wrote:

kingraf wrote:I could care less about the English football team. It's not the same situation, or even close. I'm not gonna rehash this again. But it's not a mere class thing when white South Africans make six times more than black South Africans. It's institutionalised racism. My dad is currently working with an IT company  that has thirty employees, eight white 22 black. All similar qualifications. By some miracle the white Employees make up 73% of the salary expenditure. It's nothing like Ireland, or even close. It's not an accidental social problem. It's a design. One that keeps getting perpetuated.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about South Africa to comment with any great insight, but I'm genuinely shocked to read about this company, how can that still go on in this day and age

Kingraf, I don't want to accuse you of spreading misinformation.

However the information you provide there is not sufficient to explain the disparity in salaries.

I work with corporate and private businesses every day and can tell you that what you are showing there is certainly not the standard.

Id I look at my clients who own their own businesses (Black and white business owners) then the salary discrepancy you illustrate is not evident with my clients.

I regularly have access to their payrolls, and can tell you categorically that it isn't the case.

MOst of them have tiers at which different job descriptions are remunerated and everyone is on the same scale (bar a slight difference for longer serving employees) if they have the same job category.

I'm not spreading any misinformation. The Sunday Times ran an article on this exact thing not even two months ago. I'll find a link for you.

BamBam wrote:

kingraf wrote:I could care less about the English football team. It's not the same situation, or even close. I'm not gonna rehash this again. But it's not a mere class thing when white South Africans make six times more than black South Africans. It's institutionalised racism. My dad is currently working with an IT company  that has thirty employees, eight white 22 black. All similar qualifications. By some miracle the white Employees make up 73% of the salary expenditure. It's nothing like Ireland, or even close. It's not an accidental social problem. It's a design. One that keeps getting perpetuated.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about South Africa to comment with any great insight, but I'm genuinely shocked to read about this company, how can that still go on in this day and age

I don't think its as clean cut as that. I could also give the example of my wife's firm... one of the biggest FS firms in SA. Non-white graduates are paid more than white graduates on the official scheme. They are paid a retainer allowance to make sure they don't move to another firm. You see the problem is... due to a number of reasons, at the high end there are very few non-white candidates to choose from mainly due to poverty and knowledge of how to get to the top education wise... that means the top people are shopped from other firms all the time, so the only way to keep them is to pay them a retainer fee. Its all a bit hush hush but its there.

That and they get promoted well above their station because again at the very top there is a great need to fill quotas, want to secure a new contract... the first thing that is checked is their quota. If its at or above expectations you are in line, if not... sorry come back when its at approved levels.
Funny story we once had to get a cake for a birthday. We were told by HR that we could no longer buy our cake from our usual bakery anymore because they (a sole shop family bakery with a great rep.) were not quota compliant. They weren't on the approved list so we had to go somewhere else. Its that bad.

Even if you are well suited you will get the promotion aged 28 say rather than 30. Its actually quite difficult for some of these people as they really struggle... and anyone would black,white, green, red the lot. I feel sorry for the top class individuals on merit as even then they don't get the respect they deserve. It doesn't matter if they crossed every T and dotted every I.

Yes white people earn more than africans... but they have higher rates of education proportionally so go figure. However say you have 2 university kids. 1 white boy and 1 african boy. Same exactly the same qualifications. Due to the quotas the number of white people in business is already above rates so his hiring is a non starter.

Its difficult for the youths of today because they are paying for the crimes of their forefathers... not even their parents these days but their grandparents and their great grandparents. You may have staight A's, a first class degree from the top university in SA but if you are the wrong colour then too bad. It was the reverse for Africans generations ago but we're blaming the wrong people here.

SA should be retaining their best in rugby, in life..... rugby mirrors a lot of real life in SA. Chaps who would have stayed years ago leave for big $$$ signs or for basic opportunities. It takes years to re-address the balance but simply switching the lords of the manor with the serfs so to speak is not the way to do it. Education is the key, education sets people free but when you see that the UN has ranked SA 140th out of 144 countries for education you begin to understand that is why they have to make such bold racial laws to re-address the balance. They can't achieve their society goals legitimately, so they intervene.... and it has gross negative impacts for the whole of society... black and white.

It's not only South Africa, Fantastic article I read a few days ago about a man who went from unemployed to having his pick of jobs by just dropping the letter "s" from his name stateside

http://www.businessinsider.com/job-seeker-changed-his-name-2014-9

The problem is it doesn't realistically work out that way.
- national Youth Unemployment is still 50%. White Youth unemployment is 10%.

In the old Politics section I posted a link on how in a country with 25% unemployment white South Africans manage to have better employment rates than Great Britain.

There are no easy solutions. But there is no easy finger pointing. Just happy nobody's gone and quoted that idiot Justin Theroux yet.

fa0019 wrote:

beshocked wrote:To be fair for a young black South African looking at their options are in terms of sport - would they pick rugby?

Which black player would want to be put into a rugby team based on a quota? It will only cause animosity.

Quotas are wrong but black sportsman should be encouraged to take up rugby and not be intimidated.

Seeing a successful black sportsman might encourage others to take up the sport.

Blacks in South Africa should look across to other countries for inspiration.

Thierry Dusautoir

Maggie Alphonsi

Maro Itoje

as just a few examples of current successful black players.

Africa is a big continent. Its like saying Chinese people should take inspiration from Sachin Tendulkar. Africans aren't this one huge brotherhood... west africans aren't very well liked in SA and we've seen many race riots over the last few years due to indigenous south africans being unhappy with africans from other nations coming into the country and undercutting their livelihood.

Those chaps you mention... they are all west african. All athletic, sprint-power people who are well suited to rugby, if Nigeria ever got into rugby we'd all be bang in trouble, not just because of their suitability but also because there is 200MM of them. I played London Nigerian many times during my tenure in London. Not the best skilled but those guys were all athletic, all super fast.

It may come to a shock to some but indigenous South Africans generally are not built that way. They come from the great lakes of central eastern Africa genetically. They are short, better suited to middle-long distance and very few are considered tall.

To be a modern test rugby player even scrumhalves are now heading beyond 6ft....see mike phillips, ruan pienaar, fourie du preez for details. It makes Africans less likely to make it because physically they can't make the grade at the highest level. Then when you factor in poverty and HIV in becomes an even greater challenge.

Sachin Tendulkar is a bad example because he's never had a different skin colour to his fellow colleagues. I mention those 3 players because they've taken part in predominantly white sides.

I didn't know there was a significant difference between South Africans and West Africans in terms of the genetic make up. It's not just West Africans - the Kenyans have a decent 7s team these days too.

Genetics can only get a player so far when it comes to the top level of XVs in rugby union - technique still counts for a lot - whether it's defensive positioning, tackling technique, kicking, being proficient in the breakdown,scrum and lineout etc. Rugby union is a technically complicated game. It's partly why the much simpler game of football is far more popular.

beshocked wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

beshocked wrote:To be fair for a young black South African looking at their options are in terms of sport - would they pick rugby?

Which black player would want to be put into a rugby team based on a quota? It will only cause animosity.

Quotas are wrong but black sportsman should be encouraged to take up rugby and not be intimidated.

Seeing a successful black sportsman might encourage others to take up the sport.

Blacks in South Africa should look across to other countries for inspiration.

Thierry Dusautoir

Maggie Alphonsi

Maro Itoje

as just a few examples of current successful black players.

Africa is a big continent. Its like saying Chinese people should take inspiration from Sachin Tendulkar. Africans aren't this one huge brotherhood... west africans aren't very well liked in SA and we've seen many race riots over the last few years due to indigenous south africans being unhappy with africans from other nations coming into the country and undercutting their livelihood.

Those chaps you mention... they are all west african. All athletic, sprint-power people who are well suited to rugby, if Nigeria ever got into rugby we'd all be bang in trouble, not just because of their suitability but also because there is 200MM of them. I played London Nigerian many times during my tenure in London. Not the best skilled but those guys were all athletic, all super fast.

It may come to a shock to some but indigenous South Africans generally are not built that way. They come from the great lakes of central eastern Africa genetically. They are short, better suited to middle-long distance and very few are considered tall.

To be a modern test rugby player even scrumhalves are now heading beyond 6ft....see mike phillips, ruan pienaar, fourie du preez for details. It makes Africans less likely to make it because physically they can't make the grade at the highest level. Then when you factor in poverty and HIV in becomes an even greater challenge.

Sachin Tendulkar is a bad example because he's never had a different skin colour to his fellow colleagues. I mention those 3 players because they've taken part in predominantly white sides.

I didn't know there was a significant difference between South Africans and West Africans in terms of the genetic make up. It's not just West Africans - the Kenyans have a decent 7s team these days too.

Genetics can only get a player so far when it comes to the top level of XVs in rugby union - technique still counts for a lot - whether it's defensive positioning, tackling technique, kicking, being proficient in the breakdown,scrum and lineout etc. Rugby union is a technically complicated game. It's partly why the much simpler game of football is far more popular.

Yes there are pretty stark differences. Can pick the West African from afar. He's the one who looks like there's a two litre bottle stuffed into his pants

kingraf wrote:The problem is it doesn't realistically work out that way.
- national Youth Unemployment is still 50%. White Youth unemployment is 10%.

In the old Politics section I posted a link on how in a country with 25% unemployment white South Africans manage to have better employment rates than Great Britain.

There are no easy solutions. But there is no easy finger pointing. Just happy nobody's gone and quoted that idiot Justin Theroux yet.

Its too obtuse to look at figures like that King

Youth unemployment you say is 50% and whites only 10%... so what are the education rates of those groups? What makes someone able to get hired?

Did they pass matric?
Do they have a degree? If so what degree?
Do they live in an area close to where they want to work?
Do they have afforable methods of transport?

To get a job say in the UK it helps to have family or friends in the industry. Perhaps the kid secured an internship via help, perhaps they can talk of the industry well, perhaps they knew the most applicable degree and modules to take to make them more employable. Its the little things which count just as much as the big things. Thats why white people still are able to bat above their weight. Its like the upper middle class in the UK.

its not racism.

You are looking at things at a too basic level (please don't see it as an insult... but assuming you still are in SA) it takes living in a normal democracy like Europe etc to understand the differences between what we see here in SA and what is normal conditions in a merit talks society.

However everyone knows white people and especially white male youths today, especially those at the bottom of the pile have a very slippery road to getting onto the career ladder.... for people of similar education standards. Lots of rich white males in SA I agree, but they are all in their 40s+ now.

beshocked wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

beshocked wrote:To be fair for a young black South African looking at their options are in terms of sport - would they pick rugby?

Which black player would want to be put into a rugby team based on a quota? It will only cause animosity.

Quotas are wrong but black sportsman should be encouraged to take up rugby and not be intimidated.

Seeing a successful black sportsman might encourage others to take up the sport.

Blacks in South Africa should look across to other countries for inspiration.

Thierry Dusautoir

Maggie Alphonsi

Maro Itoje

as just a few examples of current successful black players.

Africa is a big continent. Its like saying Chinese people should take inspiration from Sachin Tendulkar. Africans aren't this one huge brotherhood... west africans aren't very well liked in SA and we've seen many race riots over the last few years due to indigenous south africans being unhappy with africans from other nations coming into the country and undercutting their livelihood.

Those chaps you mention... they are all west african. All athletic, sprint-power people who are well suited to rugby, if Nigeria ever got into rugby we'd all be bang in trouble, not just because of their suitability but also because there is 200MM of them. I played London Nigerian many times during my tenure in London. Not the best skilled but those guys were all athletic, all super fast.

It may come to a shock to some but indigenous South Africans generally are not built that way. They come from the great lakes of central eastern Africa genetically. They are short, better suited to middle-long distance and very few are considered tall.

To be a modern test rugby player even scrumhalves are now heading beyond 6ft....see mike phillips, ruan pienaar, fourie du preez for details. It makes Africans less likely to make it because physically they can't make the grade at the highest level. Then when you factor in poverty and HIV in becomes an even greater challenge.

Sachin Tendulkar is a bad example because he's never had a different skin colour to his fellow colleagues. I mention those 3 players because they've taken part in predominantly white sides.

I didn't know there was a significant difference between South Africans and West Africans in terms of the genetic make up. It's not just West Africans - the Kenyans have a decent 7s team these days too.

Genetics can only get a player so far when it comes to the top level of XVs in rugby union - technique still counts for a lot - whether it's defensive positioning, tackling technique, kicking, being proficient in the breakdown,scrum and lineout etc. Rugby union is a technically complicated game. It's partly why the much simpler game of football is far more popular.

Ah so because they have the same colour of skin they can relate to each other right! So assuming you are white european (only given that its a predominately European forum and whites make up 90% of Europe).... say you're english, you will relate to say Gorgodze of Georgia more than say Stefan Armitage because of the colour of their skins???

Genetically African people are the most diverse on the planet. Don't let something as basic as the colour of ones skin fool you. different groups are as close as chalk and cheese.

You may find it surprising but genetically you have more in common (again assuming your background for which I apologise) with someone from China, India, indigenous Mayans from Mexico than a Kenyan is to a Nigerian. Have a look into if you like.

I've already posted the stats with university graduates where White grads are three times more likely to be employed (and the figure skyrockets when we talk private sector employment). Part of it is because white South Africans have had the opportunities to build family businesses which black South Africans never got until twenty years ago. Even Indians were allowed little shops during the latter years of apartheid. I met up with a mate of mine's father a few weeks ago. He was telling me about his son continuing with cricket (21 years old now) and if he fails this year, he would come join the family business. Black athletes don't have that safety net, yet I don't think I know too many white guys 19-21 still giving it a final go that couldn't say something similar.

kingraf wrote:I've already posted the stats with university graduates where White grads are three times more likely to be employed (and the figure skyrockets when we talk private sector employment). Part of it is because  white South Africans have had the opportunities to build family businesses which black South Africans never got until twenty years ago. Even Indians were allowed little shops during the latter years of apartheid. I met up with a mate of mine's father a few weeks ago. He was telling me about his son continuing with cricket (21 years old now) and if he fails this year, he would come join the family business. Black athletes don't have that safety net, yet I don't think I know too many white guys 19-21 still giving it a final go that couldn't say something similar.

A bit of a shock horror but many of those family businesses weren't built simply off the back of the oppression of Africans. SA was the 18th biggest economy in the world in the 60s, they had pioneers of business, technology, medicine. They invested in education, literacy which I'm afraid to say was simply non-existant amongst indigenous africans prior to western intervention. See Mandela... he was a son of a tribal elder yet even he was educated for free by whites in the methodist church as much because he was a youth of great talent and potential.

Businesses didn't exist because western society as we see it didn't exist.

Education, literacy and numercial skills have been at the forefront of European advancement for hundreds of years. That is why they have these businesses to fall back on.

Quick question - Africans in South Africa... do they have any worse conditions than say those in neighbouring countries not impacted by apartheid? So not Namibians or Zimbabweans. Take those from Zambia or Botswana for instance? The answer is no, in fact whilst overall education is probably worse in SA, the opportunities are greater in SA which is why so many flock to SA.

and why? because SA had western businesses, western infrastructure and a business environment ready to exploit modern global business. Once sanctions were lifted they could run whereas those around them were still jogging.

One thing we should never expect anyone in the world to ever apologise for is to educate their children to the best of their ability and give them the greatest chance in life. Take the Chinese/Indians in the UK. They see education as paramount and their childrens grades reflect this, way above other groups. They send their kids to private school if they can, sometimes when they can't afford to, choosing to live in relative squaller if it means giving their kids the best they can afford.

Is it racist for them to do better than other ethnic groups? No, its hard work and most people say well done.

If that's what happened than it would be fair enough... but it isnt. Teaching one Nelson Mandela doesn't balance teaching an entire race for a life of manual labour. Being the eighteenth largest economy in the world sounds great... But how much of it has to do with a different world then? Hard to see us keeping new Asian money off no matter what, while the small matter of SA being effectively bankrupt in the early 90s also changed dynamics.

I don't mind my mate getting the easy out in life... that wasn't my point. My point is realistically, there is no way that's happening for black kids..

fa0019 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

beshocked wrote:To be fair for a young black South African looking at their options are in terms of sport - would they pick rugby?

Which black player would want to be put into a rugby team based on a quota? It will only cause animosity.

Quotas are wrong but black sportsman should be encouraged to take up rugby and not be intimidated.

Seeing a successful black sportsman might encourage others to take up the sport.

Blacks in South Africa should look across to other countries for inspiration.

Thierry Dusautoir

Maggie Alphonsi

Maro Itoje

as just a few examples of current successful black players.

Africa is a big continent. Its like saying Chinese people should take inspiration from Sachin Tendulkar. Africans aren't this one huge brotherhood... west africans aren't very well liked in SA and we've seen many race riots over the last few years due to indigenous south africans being unhappy with africans from other nations coming into the country and undercutting their livelihood.

Those chaps you mention... they are all west african. All athletic, sprint-power people who are well suited to rugby, if Nigeria ever got into rugby we'd all be bang in trouble, not just because of their suitability but also because there is 200MM of them. I played London Nigerian many times during my tenure in London. Not the best skilled but those guys were all athletic, all super fast.

It may come to a shock to some but indigenous South Africans generally are not built that way. They come from the great lakes of central eastern Africa genetically. They are short, better suited to middle-long distance and very few are considered tall.

To be a modern test rugby player even scrumhalves are now heading beyond 6ft....see mike phillips, ruan pienaar, fourie du preez for details. It makes Africans less likely to make it because physically they can't make the grade at the highest level. Then when you factor in poverty and HIV in becomes an even greater challenge.

Sachin Tendulkar is a bad example because he's never had a different skin colour to his fellow colleagues. I mention those 3 players because they've taken part in predominantly white sides.

I didn't know there was a significant difference between South Africans and West Africans in terms of the genetic make up. It's not just West Africans - the Kenyans have a decent 7s team these days too.

Genetics can only get a player so far when it comes to the top level of XVs in rugby union - technique still counts for a lot - whether it's defensive positioning, tackling technique, kicking, being proficient in the breakdown,scrum and lineout etc. Rugby union is a technically complicated game. It's partly why the much simpler game of football is far more popular.

Ah so because they have the same colour of skin they can relate to each other right! So assuming you are white european (only given that its a predominately European forum and whites make up 90% of Europe).... say you're english, you will relate to say Gorgodze of Georgia more than say Stefan Armitage because of the colour of their skins???

Genetically African people are the most diverse on the planet. Don't let something as basic as the colour of ones skin fool you. different groups are as close as chalk and cheese.

You may find it surprising but genetically you have more in common (again assuming your background for which I apologise) with someone from China, India, indigenous Mayans from Mexico than a Kenyan is to a Nigerian. Have a look into if you like.

Being different in skin colour to their team mates is a way they can relate to each other yes. It's a black person playing into a predominantly white team. Showing that skin colour is not barrier for success and it shouldn't be. Yes there's the whole cultural aspect too - I would say the black players I mentioned are wholely embraced as part of the team and country - of course they should too. I am not sure the same would happen in South Africa.

kingraf wrote:If that's what happened than it would be fair enough... but it isnt.   Teaching one Nelson Mandela doesn't balance teaching an entire race for a life of manual labour. Being the eighteenth largest economy in the world sounds great... But how much of it has to do with a different world then? Hard to see us keeping new Asian money off no matter what, while the small matter of SA being effectively bankrupt in the early 90s also changed dynamics.

I don't mind my mate getting the easy out in life... that wasn't my point. My point is realistically, there is no way that's happening for black kids..

The SA economy was bankrupted in the 80s/90s because it could not trade, it could not buy goods, it could not develop their own goods which relied on parts from other nations. They couldn't even get loans from the international markets anymore.

Look apartheid was bad. No one denies that. But it was less of the westerners putting the africans down but rather stopping them from rising up if that makes sense.
Westerners didn't take them out of education because there was no education in the first place... its that they didn't intergrate them en masse into their own education system so to speak. Its a slight but important difference.

In the end its all about education as I said before. You can't just gift people knowledge. It has to be earnt by the state, the family, the individual. The problem we have is that people think you should be given things simply for being alive. I'm a citizen, give me a house, give me a job, give my kids education.
There is no responsibility on the self to take ownership of their own lives. If someone fails, its never their fault. Its because they were poor, or they had a bad teacher or they had something else. Perhaps its true, it may very well be but should that mean you stop trying?

I didn't grow up in SA or live under apartheid so I can't speak of my own experience of it. Nevertheless I wasn't privileged growing up but I wasn't destitute either yet you roll with the punches, you don't just chop off your nose to spite your face. We have 1 life on earth, thats it. Are you going to allow others to get you down because you weren't born with a silver spoon in your mouth?

If people think poverty is just a south african problem then guess again. We see it in all walks of life, every country, every society, every continent. Of those I know who have come from the squatter camps those who have made a success out of it did not do so because they were given a lift.. it was because they fought or their parents etc fought to make sure that they didn't lead the live that their forebearers did, that they didn't struggle as they did.

"I'm a citizen give my child an education"... well that's actually how it worked unless you were black. You seem to think I have a chip on my shoulder or something... I don't. I live a happy life. Got a pretty sweet paying job in media. Beautiful (Afrikaans) girlfriend who I genuinely can't see myself not marrying eventually, a lovely Fiesta... We still have the family home in Madrid, the farm in Limpopo. I'll probably inherit them all as the eldest. I'm good.

Never once said something about poverty being a uniquely South African thing. Been to the entire SADC region. Was nearly robbed at gunpoint in Malawi... Only reason they didn't take anything is because my fan belt broke and there was no way they could take it. Been to Ethiopia as well, twice. I've seen poverty. I'm quite chuffed with my lot. I don't need to be in a position of misfortune to realise things aren't right.