ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by Bob Dube » Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:17:29


ANC Youth League threatens Cricket World Cup

January 10 2002 at 08:55PM

 By Fatima Schroeder and Kashiefa Ajam

The ANC Youth League has entered the cricket-quota fray, threatening
to "mobilise" against the 2003 World Cup tournament if the national
team remains "lily-white".

The Youth League said that the South African World Cup team should
have at least five black players, with three of them "African".

"Our support for this tournament, to be hosted by South Africa, lies
squarely on this and we will certainly mobilise South African youth
against any lily-white, Mickey Mouse team that purports to be
representing us at this tournament," the league said.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=13&art_id=ct2002011020551448C...

 
 
 

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by JLichte » Sun, 13 Jan 2002 03:44:19

Quote:

> ANC Youth League threatens Cricket World Cup

> January 10 2002 at 08:55PM

>  By Fatima Schroeder and Kashiefa Ajam

> The ANC Youth League has entered the cricket-quota fray, threatening
> to "mobilise" against the 2003 World Cup tournament if the national
> team remains "lily-white".

> The Youth League said that the South African World Cup team should
> have at least five black players, with three of them "African".

> "Our support for this tournament, to be hosted by South Africa, lies
> squarely on this and we will certainly mobilise South African youth
> against any lily-white, Mickey Mouse team that purports to be
> representing us at this tournament," the league said.

Fascinating. It seems that all that matters now is race.
God, I hope cricket in RSA dies out. Its the deserving fate of the
feeble minded and self-serving jackasses who run the show.
The clamour for quotas will only grow louder and louder, until its a
political hot potatoe that has to be acceded to at all costs.

 
 
 

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by Bob Dube » Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:08:44


Quote:
>Fascinating. It seems that all that matters now is race.
>God, I hope cricket in RSA dies out. Its the deserving fate of the
>feeble minded and self-serving jackasses who run the show.
>The clamour for quotas will only grow louder and louder, until its a
>political hot potatoe that has to be acceded to at all costs.

That statement also happens to be in contravention of the
constitution, possibly contradicts the freedom charter and effectively
says that Gibbs, Adams, Ontong, Williams and Henry are not black
enough.

Still, the ANCYL are very prone to making hot-headed statements and
then calming down a bit after uncle Thabo has spoken to them.

 
 
 

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by Guy Fawk » Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:50:02

And here was silly old me thinking that race classification was a
thing of the past. Hell, why not start developing black talent away
from the rest and call it "seperate development". If asked for a name
in Afrikaans it can be called, lets think of a snappy title now....
"apartheid"?



Quote:

>The ANC Youth League has entered the cricket-quota fray, threatening
>to "mobilise" against the 2003 World Cup tournament if the national
>team remains "lily-white".

>The Youth League said that the South African World Cup team should
>have at least five black players, with three of them "African".

>"Our support for this tournament, to be hosted by South Africa, lies
>squarely on this and we will certainly mobilise South African youth
>against any lily-white, Mickey Mouse team that purports to be
>representing us at this tournament," the league said.

 
 
 

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by Bob Dube » Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:09:08


Quote:

>And here was silly old me thinking that race classification was a
>thing of the past. Hell, why not start developing black talent away
>from the rest and call it "seperate development". If asked for a name
>in Afrikaans it can be called, lets think of a snappy title now....
>"apartheid"?

Funny how it's come full circle.

When the SACA picked two non-white cricketers in the squad to go to
Australia in 1971 the "non racial" SACBOC rejected the selection
because they wanted selection on merit only.

 
 
 

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by Moby » Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:38:10

Quote:



> >And here was silly old me thinking that race classification was a
> >thing of the past. Hell, why not start developing black talent away
> >from the rest and call it "seperate development". If asked for a name
> >in Afrikaans it can be called, lets think of a snappy title now....
> >"apartheid"?

> Funny how it's come full circle.

> When the SACA picked two non-white cricketers in the squad to go to
> Australia in 1971 the "non racial" SACBOC rejected the selection
> because they wanted selection on merit only.

And there's one thing that is continually ignored....

The original apartheid advantaged a group that started off from an equal
or better footing than an other group over that other group.

Affirmative action advantages a group that starts off on a lower level
than another group over that other group.  To complain about this because
it gives on group an advantage over another is a gross simplification.

Further, so long as the system is used properly, it's not actually true.

If you look at it from a narrow point of view, you will see an unfair
advantage. ie:

Ontong is picked over Rudolph despite Rudolph having better stats.

But that's not the whole story.  A cricketer is not only the person they
become, but also the person they could have been.  Ontong is allowed a
certain flexibility because for the rest of his life before it, he didn't
get the same chances as Rudoplh.

In the ideal situation, both players have the same chance: FROM BIRTH to
get to the RSA national side.  It's not just the final selection.

Further, to give each player the same chance from birth, the entire system
(from juniors -ALL- the way up) has to be changed.  If it's not, the
change will happen more slowly than it could.  And there is NO reason why
non-white South Africans should have to put up waiting for any longer than
absolutely necessary: the evil that was done to them must be erased as
soon as possible and every possible chance RSA has to bring equality to
their nation should be taken.

It's not about redressing past wrongs... that would be wrong.  It's about
giving as many SOuth Africans alive today and into the future the greatest
possible chance of being equal.

Moby.

 
 
 

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by Bob Dube » Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:45:29



Quote:
>And there's one thing that is continually ignored....

>The original apartheid advantaged a group that started off from an equal
>or better footing than an other group over that other group.

>Affirmative action advantages a group that starts off on a lower level
>than another group over that other group.  To complain about this because
>it gives on group an advantage over another is a gross simplification.

I will willingly concede all of that.

You'll recall some figures that I posted a while back about the
provision of sports facilities in Pietermaritzburg in 1990. 30
something pitches (most of them turf) for white kids, one matting
wicket for coloreds and Indians, NOTHING for black kids.

It takes more than a couple of years and the repealing of legislation
to redress that kind of imbalance.

But demands like those from the ANCYL are the other extreme of the
pendulum. You can't legislate a certain quota of players into the
squad and have it done on anything approaching merit - even if merit
is defined as "long term potential".

If SA had to pick 3 "african" players right now they could have Ntini
and Ngam give a reasonable account of themselves, and maybe Tsolikele
as a keeper. But who else? If any of those three were injured you'd
HAVE to include a player who has no business being there purely
because he is "african".

And there's a chance that demands like the ANCYLs will open another
can of worms: precisely how african must a player be to be african?

 
 
 

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by JLichte » Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:38:24

Quote:



> >And there's one thing that is continually ignored....

> >The original apartheid advantaged a group that started off from an equal
> >or better footing than an other group over that other group.

> >Affirmative action advantages a group that starts off on a lower level
> >than another group over that other group.  To complain about this because
> >it gives on group an advantage over another is a gross simplification.

> I will willingly concede all of that.

> You'll recall some figures that I posted a while back about the
> provision of sports facilities in Pietermaritzburg in 1990. 30
> something pitches (most of them turf) for white kids, one matting
> wicket for coloreds and Indians, NOTHING for black kids.

> It takes more than a couple of years and the repealing of legislation
> to redress that kind of imbalance.

> But demands like those from the ANCYL are the other extreme of the
> pendulum. You can't legislate a certain quota of players into the
> squad and have it done on anything approaching merit - even if merit
> is defined as "long term potential".

> If SA had to pick 3 "african" players right now they could have Ntini
> and Ngam give a reasonable account of themselves, and maybe Tsolikele
> as a keeper. But who else? If any of those three were injured you'd
> HAVE to include a player who has no business being there purely
> because he is "african".

> And there's a chance that demands like the ANCYLs will open another
> can of worms: precisely how african must a player be to be african?

I agree with most of what Bob says, and little of what Moby says.
Moby just doesnt understand the difference between quotas and
affirmative action, and as much I have tried to explain it to him, he
just doesnt get it.

Quotas are racist, pure and simple.  Affirmative action is not and
never has been detached from merit, despite what Moby thinks.

Now, according to Moby's rationale, he cant account for other
disadvantaged groups.  What about the economically disadvantaged?
Should we tilt the scales for them? What about the religiously
persecuted? Ideologically persecuted?

Not to mention, the quota system, unlike affirmative action, just
encourages racism.  If we accede to the ANC Youth leagues demands we
will not just discriminate against whites, as Moby seems to suggest we
should do (something, again, that affirmative action does not suggest
should happen), what about other disadvantaged groups.  What if the
eleven best cricketers in RSA are Indian? Do we still have to pick 3
African players, as the ANC Youth league suggests?  Well, I suppose
they would argue that the Indians were "less" disadvantaged than the
Africans under Apartheid, as were the coloureds, so we should have a
inverse quota scale.  Soon, we just have everything based on race: the
RSA team must have X amount of Africans, regardless, even if it keeps
out Whites, Indians, Coloureds, Asians, etc.  Thats just plain racist.

At least where MOby and I are finding common ground is in development
and transformation at the lower levels, because quite simply at that
point its easier to equalize opportunity so that the outcomes are
equal on merit.  If black kid A and white kid B both have appropriate
facilities at birth, both have equal opportunity to earn their spot on
merit.

As I have constantly said, Apartheid was around for 40+ years, and
racial segregation long before that. It wont be fixed in 10 years, and
it sure as hell wont be fixed by cosmetic transformation - stick 11
black faces in the team and it'll all be equal. Ludicrous!  Add to
that the fact that sport, unlike education or business, is not an easy
or even appropriate forum for affirmative action, never mind quotas,
and its just a plain bad idea to rush it.  While less qualified
candidates can and do succeed in academic and business environments,
sport is not a like creature.  You cant take an unqualified candidate
and make them an international level bowler.  You can take an
unqualified applicant and get them a adequate education, or make them
minimally or even optimally productive at work.

Add to all of this that RSA has a constitution expressly prohibiting
this kind of conduct, adopted by the majority that Moby suggests
quotas are designed to protect, and its becomes even more abhorrent.
Plus, lets not forget, the greatest measure of a constitutional
democracy is how it protects its minorities, not its majority.

Moby's "means justify the ends" approach is just the tyranny of the
liberal - its my approach, it must be right, no matter what.  Its why
Moby thinks that if the black majority adopt a constitution
prohibiting discriminatory practice, even with the "good intentions"
of equalizing the imbalances and rectifying the injustices of the
past, that black majority doesnt really understand what it needs.

At the end of the day you dont rectify injustice with injustice. All
you do is compound the past injustice.  While Ontong's case may appear
marginal, and arguments (albeit flimsy ones) can be made for Sonn's
position, a minor injustice is still an injustice, and naturally its
just a slippery slope from there.

Perhaps people like Moby, who agree with him, should pay closer
attention to the mindset of those enforcing these quotas.  How Sonn
already said there should be more quotas, not opportunities, in the
national team.  How the ANC Youth league not only demand quotas, but
subdivided quotas according to race.  How Abrahams, Ngoconde Balfour's
spokesman, spewed racial diatribes at the former players perfectly
rational and justifiable criticisms, accusing them of everything from
racial incitement to out and out racism.  Its informative how those
who favor quotas etc characterize everything in terms of race and
nothing else.  If that isnt a racist mindset, nothing is.  Its stupid
and naive to think whats going on is affirmative action.  The only
difference between this rhetoric and that of Apartheid, for those who
bother to read it up, is the target colour.

When the ANC Youth League issue statements that a "lily-white" team
are a "Mickey Mouse" group who do not represent South Africa, thats
indicative of a greater problem than redressing the balances of the
past.  Its indicitive of a "throw the whites out, put the blacks in"
mentality that trickles down the entire ladder.  Its persecution of a
minority only because they are a minority, the only difference being
this time its a white minority.  What happens in 50 years, or 100
years, when this attitude has permeated down the generations, and the
eleven best cricketers in RSA are all white, or all Indian, or all
coloured?  How long before this attitude extends beyond sport to
economics, beyond economics to education, beyond education to property
rights, to land ownership?

Its an approach that encourages the meritorious, whether white or
black or Indian or whatever, to leave, rather than risk losing what
they have.

Anyone who thinks redressing the injustices of the past should be done
with a bulldozer is simply stupid and insensitive.  South Africa needs
tolerance, patience, and nurturing through the rebuilding phase.  It
doesnt need intolerant rhetoric, hasty quota filling, and more than
this militant "its all ours now" approach.  In the long run, South
Africa will decline into decay, racism, ***shed, ignorance and
intolerance yet again.  Only this time, because its minorities
suffering, the world will shrug its shoulders and mumble the usual
platitudes about "third world" and "developing country" and "emerging
democracy."  About how its a constitutional democracy, like, oh,
Zimbabwe five years ago, and how external interference would be an
imposition on a sovereign.

Quite sickening, really.

The only thing more sickening is the pseudo-intellectuals who try hide
all this behind "the injustices of the past" and ignore real
principles of justice and true equality.

Sickening.

 
 
 

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by Guy Fawk » Fri, 18 Jan 2002 07:36:27



Quote:



>> >And here was silly old me thinking that race classification was a
>> >thing of the past. Hell, why not start developing black talent away
>> >from the rest and call it "seperate development". If asked for a name
>> >in Afrikaans it can be called, lets think of a snappy title now....
>> >"apartheid"?

>> Funny how it's come full circle.

>> When the SACA picked two non-white cricketers in the squad to go to
>> Australia in 1971 the "non racial" SACBOC rejected the selection
>> because they wanted selection on merit only.

>And there's one thing that is continually ignored....

>The original apartheid advantaged a group that started off from an equal
>or better footing than an other group over that other group.

>Affirmative action advantages a group that starts off on a lower level
>than another group over that other group.  To complain about this because
>it gives on group an advantage over another is a gross simplification.

>Further, so long as the system is used properly, it's not actually true.

>If you look at it from a narrow point of view, you will see an unfair
>advantage. ie:

>Ontong is picked over Rudolph despite Rudolph having better stats.

>But that's not the whole story.  A cricketer is not only the person they
>become, but also the person they could have been.  Ontong is allowed a
>certain flexibility because for the rest of his life before it, he didn't
>get the same chances as Rudoplh.

>In the ideal situation, both players have the same chance: FROM BIRTH to
>get to the RSA national side.  It's not just the final selection.

>Further, to give each player the same chance from birth, the entire system
>(from juniors -ALL- the way up) has to be changed.  If it's not, the
>change will happen more slowly than it could.  And there is NO reason why
>non-white South Africans should have to put up waiting for any longer than
>absolutely necessary: the evil that was done to them must be erased as
>soon as possible and every possible chance RSA has to bring equality to
>their nation should be taken.

>It's not about redressing past wrongs... that would be wrong.  It's about
>giving as many SOuth Africans alive today and into the future the greatest
>possible chance of being equal.

>Moby.

So, when does it end? When do people start getting picked on tehir
merits.
Rudolf is no more personally responsible for apartheid than you are
for the  extermination of the Aborigines. (Judging from your posting
address), which I understand was theoretically legal until 1967.
The people who made the laws are responsible, but unfortunatly most of
them are dead and to old to be of any use, except in a Nuremburg type
situation.
Please don't forget this : The white population of South Africa voted,
in a referendum, in 1993 if I remember correctly, for a majority
government. There was no military (or other) defeat. So there is no
case for retribution - and this is increasingly apparant that this is
what is being desired.
The same chance for selection may apply to lower levels of
competition, but at a national level, merit should be the only
consideration and other countries should not play a South African side
picked on racial grounds. That squares with what happened in the past.
Or is racism against white people OK?
 
 
 

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by Moby » Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:13:40

Quote:






> >> >And here was silly old me thinking that race classification was a
> >> >thing of the past. Hell, why not start developing black talent away
> >> >from the rest and call it "seperate development". If asked for a name
> >> >in Afrikaans it can be called, lets think of a snappy title now....
> >> >"apartheid"?

> >> Funny how it's come full circle.

> >> When the SACA picked two non-white cricketers in the squad to go to
> >> Australia in 1971 the "non racial" SACBOC rejected the selection
> >> because they wanted selection on merit only.

> >And there's one thing that is continually ignored....

> >The original apartheid advantaged a group that started off from an equal
> >or better footing than an other group over that other group.

> >Affirmative action advantages a group that starts off on a lower level
> >than another group over that other group.  To complain about this because
> >it gives on group an advantage over another is a gross simplification.

> >Further, so long as the system is used properly, it's not actually true.

> >If you look at it from a narrow point of view, you will see an unfair
> >advantage. ie:

> >Ontong is picked over Rudolph despite Rudolph having better stats.

> >But that's not the whole story.  A cricketer is not only the person they
> >become, but also the person they could have been.  Ontong is allowed a
> >certain flexibility because for the rest of his life before it, he didn't
> >get the same chances as Rudoplh.

> >In the ideal situation, both players have the same chance: FROM BIRTH to
> >get to the RSA national side.  It's not just the final selection.

> >Further, to give each player the same chance from birth, the entire system
> >(from juniors -ALL- the way up) has to be changed.  If it's not, the
> >change will happen more slowly than it could.  And there is NO reason why
> >non-white South Africans should have to put up waiting for any longer than
> >absolutely necessary: the evil that was done to them must be erased as
> >soon as possible and every possible chance RSA has to bring equality to
> >their nation should be taken.

> >It's not about redressing past wrongs... that would be wrong.  It's about
> >giving as many SOuth Africans alive today and into the future the greatest
> >possible chance of being equal.
> So, when does it end? When do people start getting picked on tehir
> merits.

Ignoring the "picked on their merits bit" as an attempt to hijack the
point, it will end when there is an equal chance for players of all
colours to paly for South Africa.  -I- think this will be marked when
there are at least 4 non-white players who can be picked on their merit in
the side.  At the moment there's one and a half for tests and two for the
ODIous stuff

Quote:
> Rudolf is no more personally responsible for apartheid than you are
> for the  extermination of the Aborigines.

Rudolph is unfortunate.  He certainly has a lot of reasons to be annoyed
at what his ancestors did.

Quote:
> (Judging from your posting
> address), which I understand was theoretically legal until 1967.

You understand wrong.

Quote:
> The people who made the laws are responsible, but unfortunatly most of
> them are dead and to old to be of any use, except in a Nuremburg type
> situation.
> Please don't forget this : The white population of South Africa voted,
> in a referendum, in 1993 if I remember correctly, for a majority
> government. There was no military (or other) defeat. So there is no
> case for retribution - and this is increasingly apparant that this is
> what is being desired.

This is not about retribution, this is about fixing a system that is not
working.

Quote:
> The same chance for selection may apply to lower levels of
> competition, but at a national level, merit should be the only
> consideration and other countries should not play a South African side
> picked on racial grounds.

And do you think this will make the process faster or slower?  On what
grounds can you justify making the process slower?

Quote:
> That squares with what happened in the past.

Do you think that the current system offers players of all races the same
chance to compete at all levels *FROM BIRTH*?

Quote:
> Or is racism against white people OK?

It's only racism against white people if you assume that whites and
non-whites are starting from the same point.  They aren't.

If non-whites -are- being unfairly benefitted, why are there only x number
in the side at the moment?

Moby.

 
 
 

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by Bob Dube » Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:41:55



Quote:
>Ignoring the "picked on their merits bit" as an attempt to hijack the
>point, it will end when there is an equal chance for players of all
>colours to paly for South Africa.  -I- think this will be marked when
>there are at least 4 non-white players who can be picked on their merit in
>the side.  

No. You can't legislate or mandate equality of outcome. You CAN
mandate equality of opportunity.

And this is where the UCB, the ANCYL and other organisations go wrong,
they conclude that because they are working hard to give all persons
an equal chance to play cricket then a "representative" side MUST
emerge. That's not a given.

There are all kinds of problems to be overcome and the UCB can only do
so much. They can take the horse to water, but it's up to the horse to
start drinking.

A mate of mine is a professional coach employed at one of the best
cricketing schools in Johannesburg. Every season he gets presented
with 4 or 5 young black kids who have been identified as promising
players and have been given sponsorship to attend a school with a good
cricketing culture, good pitches, good coaches etc.

This is not a situation unique to a particular school. The school is
not going out and poaching players in the townships. The development
program finds these kids and arranges for them to learn the game in a
conducive environment.

But something's not going to plan.

Age-limit school teams at provincial and national level have quotas.
So a Gauteng U13 team must have a stipulated number of "disadvantaged"
players. These quotas have been in place for some time. The selectors
argue that the selections are on merit, that in each case the
non-white players picked are pretty much as good as their white
counterparts and have equally good long term potential.

If that was the case then of the 5 non-white players picked at u13
level one season you'd expect to see 3 or 4 of the SAME players in the
u14 team NEXT season, you'd expect to see 2 at least make it all the
way through to Nuffield week.

But you don't. You get 5 non-white players in the u13s one year. Next
year you get a completely different 5 in the u14s, and in turn none of
them make it to the U15s.

In many cases these youngsters give up the game completely. It's not
that they don't get SELECTED at u14 level, it's that they're not even
playing.

There are huge problems to overcome and they can't be overcome easily.

In many cases the non-white kids (especially black kids) do not enjoy
any support within their families. The dad or uncle or whoever they
live with is always down the shebeen at weekends and can't be bothered
to catch a taxi into Jo'burg to watch the kid play cricket. This when
the school provides grub and lunch time drinks for parents of ALL
players and pays taxi fare for children and parents who have to travel
from townships. Even in the case of black kids from the nearby
flatlands parents don't support their kids at all.

Maybe it's a class thing, maybe the black parents don't feel
comfortable amongs their white counterparts. Well... some of these
kids arrive in very posh cars in the morning, and there are poor white
parents too. But surely a dad should have enough pride in his kid to
want to watch him play?

I'm not suggesting that black parents don't care about their kids,
just that they don't much care about cricket. My mate coaches soccer
in the winter and he says that a lot of black parents that won't watch
their kid playing cricket - even for a session - will turn up for a
soccer match.

There ARE good young non-white players coming through the ranks on
absolute merit. The SA team to the U19 world cup is led by Hashin Amla
- and most school coaches who have seen him at u15, u17 etc reckon
he's a very good player and expect him to play for the Proteas in the
next couple of years.

But these players do not come through fast enough and in sufficient
numbers to satisfy the UCB's and the government's desire to have sides
that are representative of the make up of SAn society. The UCB and the
provinces are working hard to ensure equality of opportunity, but when
that doesn't provide the result they want they start legislating
equality of outcome instead. And that's bogus.

I agree that the UCB has a duty to make cricket and coaching and good
facilities available to all SAns and to market the game and to broaden
it's base, but there's only so much that they can do - and everybody
needs to accept that. Right now it seems that they are trying to force
a situation that isn't happening naturally and perhaps never will
happen naturally.

 
 
 

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by Guy Fawk » Sat, 19 Jan 2002 06:39:36



Quote:
>Ignoring the "picked on their merits bit" as an attempt to hijack the
>point, it will end when there is an equal chance for players of all
>colours to paly for South Africa.  -I- think this will be marked when
>there are at least 4 non-white players who can be picked on their merit in
>the side.  At the moment there's one and a half for tests and two for the
>ODIous stuff

Now that seems to me to be an arbitrary figure plucked out of nowhere.
Where do you get it from? Why 4? Why not as many as are good enough.

By the way have you considered that the black population in South
Africa is largely disinterested in cricket. Yes, there are
enthusiasts, but the phyiscally able and sporty mostly choose football
(or soccer as they'd call it) and the numbers interested in cricket
are very small. And then as another poster points out, there is apathy
from parents and also the small point that the little interest that
there is has largely been as a result of a drive since the early 90s
to try and get black people interested in the game. The Asian and
coloured communities are different, but they are also numerically
smaller than the minority white population.

Quote:

>Rudolph is unfortunate.  He certainly has a lot of reasons to be annoyed
>at what his ancestors did.

Sins of the father visited on the son, What crap. It's this befuddled
group thinking that gave the world apartheid and now gives us quotas.
People are individuals first and foremost.

Quote:

>> (Judging from your posting
>> address), which I understand was theoretically legal until 1967.

>You understand wrong.

Which -  your posting address or the history?

Quote:
>This is not about retribution, this is about fixing a system that is not
>working.

In what way is this not working? South Africa has a good cricket team
and I would imagine it to be in the interests of it's opponents to
weaken the side by fair means of foul.

Quote:
>And do you think this will make the process faster or slower?  On what
>grounds can you justify making the process slower?

There should be no process - selection should be on merit & merit
alone.

Quote:

>Do you think that the current system offers players of all races the same
>chance to compete at all levels *FROM BIRTH*?

Does any country? Here in the UK there are loads of poor kids from
disadvantaged backgrounds. I don't see too many of them in the England
team.

Quote:
>It's only racism against white people if you assume that whites and
>non-whites are starting from the same point.  They aren't.
>If non-whites -are- being unfairly benefitted, why are there only x number
>in the side at the moment?

The suggestion is racist. The selection of Ontong over Rudolf was
racist. Looking at a side,counting pigmented on faces is inherently
racist. Racism is classifying a person and treating them as a
stereotype rather than an individual.

In the old dark days of apartheid, the plea was for people to forget
colour and see the person behind the face. That plea is equally valid
today.

 
 
 

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by Aki Stavro » Sun, 20 Jan 2002 03:08:51

Let me just correct something here. In 1993 white South Africans only voted
to retain apartheid by "inviting" Asian and Cloured people to join them, but
excluding Blacks from mainstream society. Sure there was no military defeat,
and also unfortunately no m***defeat, simply economic bankruptcy. Hence
the change. Let's not forget that.

Having said that, I agree that any type of racial gerrymandering of
international sports team is simply unacceptable, for it allows comparisons
to be made one a one to one players system. However, South African cricket
had to move faster in terms of change. It is a simple reality of numbers,
and a quota up-front is necessary to ensure there is no "forced"
interventions. Son, is a brash man not known for his finesse, but he is as
passionate about the Proteas as the next South African fan and his decision
to act could not have been an easy one, especially for the youngster
concerned. Don't forget, it was such pressures that have prematurely
curtailed Adam's career. This was a cricketer who could have been another
Shane Warne, and yet we hardly see him. The same pressures almost undid
Gibbs.

It is time to accept that the face of cricket will change, and we must make
sure that our support for each and every South African cricket is the same,
no matter whom it is.

Aki


Quote:





> >> >And here was silly old me thinking that race classification was a
> >> >thing of the past. Hell, why not start developing black talent away
> >> >from the rest and call it "seperate development". If asked for a name
> >> >in Afrikaans it can be called, lets think of a snappy title now....
> >> >"apartheid"?

> >> Funny how it's come full circle.

> >> When the SACA picked two non-white cricketers in the squad to go to
> >> Australia in 1971 the "non racial" SACBOC rejected the selection
> >> because they wanted selection on merit only.

> >And there's one thing that is continually ignored....

> >The original apartheid advantaged a group that started off from an equal
> >or better footing than an other group over that other group.

> >Affirmative action advantages a group that starts off on a lower level
> >than another group over that other group.  To complain about this because
> >it gives on group an advantage over another is a gross simplification.

> >Further, so long as the system is used properly, it's not actually true.

> >If you look at it from a narrow point of view, you will see an unfair
> >advantage. ie:

> >Ontong is picked over Rudolph despite Rudolph having better stats.

> >But that's not the whole story.  A cricketer is not only the person they
> >become, but also the person they could have been.  Ontong is allowed a
> >certain flexibility because for the rest of his life before it, he didn't
> >get the same chances as Rudoplh.

> >In the ideal situation, both players have the same chance: FROM BIRTH to
> >get to the RSA national side.  It's not just the final selection.

> >Further, to give each player the same chance from birth, the entire
system
> >(from juniors -ALL- the way up) has to be changed.  If it's not, the
> >change will happen more slowly than it could.  And there is NO reason why
> >non-white South Africans should have to put up waiting for any longer
than
> >absolutely necessary: the evil that was done to them must be erased as
> >soon as possible and every possible chance RSA has to bring equality to
> >their nation should be taken.

> >It's not about redressing past wrongs... that would be wrong.  It's about
> >giving as many SOuth Africans alive today and into the future the
greatest
> >possible chance of being equal.

> >Moby.

> So, when does it end? When do people start getting picked on tehir
> merits.
> Rudolf is no more personally responsible for apartheid than you are
> for the  extermination of the Aborigines. (Judging from your posting
> address), which I understand was theoretically legal until 1967.
> The people who made the laws are responsible, but unfortunatly most of
> them are dead and to old to be of any use, except in a Nuremburg type
> situation.
> Please don't forget this : The white population of South Africa voted,
> in a referendum, in 1993 if I remember correctly, for a majority
> government. There was no military (or other) defeat. So there is no
> case for retribution - and this is increasingly apparant that this is
> what is being desired.
> The same chance for selection may apply to lower levels of
> competition, but at a national level, merit should be the only
> consideration and other countries should not play a South African side
> picked on racial grounds. That squares with what happened in the past.
> Or is racism against white people OK?

 
 
 

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by Guy Fawk » Sun, 20 Jan 2002 05:33:23

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:08:51 -0000, "Aki Stavrou"

Quote:

>Let me just correct something here. In 1993 white South Africans only voted
>to retain apartheid by "inviting" Asian and Cloured people to join them, but
>excluding Blacks from mainstream society. Sure there was no military defeat,
>and also unfortunately no m***defeat, simply economic bankruptcy. Hence
>the change. Let's not forget that.

You seem to be confusing the 1984 referendum with the 1993 referendum.
Your statement is correct for the '84 referendum, not for the '93 one.
I voted in both and still have the stamps in my SA identity book to
prove it. If you like, I will go and find web references that "prove"
the point if you like, but must I really (sigh).
As for economic bancrupcy, well that may have well followed down the
line - please don't make me sound like an apologist for the apartheid
regime. I got teargassed at Wits University on occasion by their over
enthusiastic police, so I don't particularly have fond memories of
them.

(By the way your logic is a little awry here - if the referendum in
'93 was as you say then how come SA got a majority (black) government
the following year? I do have some books on the subject I can
reccommend if you're genuinly interested. :-) Go and read the Truth
and reconcilliation commission website.)

Quote:

>Having said that, I agree that any type of racial gerrymandering of
>international sports team is simply unacceptable, for it allows comparisons
>to be made one a one to one players system. However, South African cricket
>had to move faster in terms of change. It is a simple reality of numbers,
>and a quota up-front is necessary to ensure there is no "forced"
>interventions. Son, is a brash man not known for his finesse, but he is as
>passionate about the Proteas as the next South African fan and his decision
>to act could not have been an easy one, especially for the youngster
>concerned. Don't forget, it was such pressures that have prematurely
>curtailed Adam's career. This was a cricketer who could have been another
>Shane Warne, and yet we hardly see him. The same pressures almost undid
>Gibbs.

>It is time to accept that the face of cricket will change, and we must make
>sure that our support for each and every South African cricket is the same,
>no matter whom it is.

>Aki

Absolutly, once the man is in the team, he deserves everybody's
support, not just those who agree with his selection. I have friends
and family who are so bigoted that if a person of colour is selected
to a team, they assume it was not on merit and one simply can't
convince them otherwise. Part of my opposition to this quota system is
to take the wind of these people's sails.

Regards

 
 
 

ANC Youth League wants quota for SA 2003 World Cup squad

Post by Moby » Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:06:15

Quote:



> >Ignoring the "picked on their merits bit" as an attempt to hijack the
> >point, it will end when there is an equal chance for players of all
> >colours to paly for South Africa.  -I- think this will be marked when
> >there are at least 4 non-white players who can be picked on their merit in
> >the side.  At the moment there's one and a half for tests and two for the
> >ODIous stuff

> Now that seems to me to be an arbitrary figure plucked out of nowhere.
> Where do you get it from? Why 4? Why not as many as are good enough.

Hold on... you're the ond who demanded I name the time it would stop.
"When it's fair again" wasn't enough for you.  Now I suggest a point and
you don't want that either.

Quote:
> By the way have you considered that the black population in South
> Africa is largely disinterested in cricket.

Can't think why.

Quote:
> >Rudolph is unfortunate.  He certainly has a lot of reasons to be annoyed
> >at what his ancestors did.

> Sins of the father visited on the son, What crap.

Yes, it is a load of ***that you've portrayed it in this way.

Quote:
> It's this befuddled
> group thinking that gave the world apartheid and now gives us quotas.
> People are individuals first and foremost.

Yers.. it's just that some people are more individual that others.

Quote:
> >> (Judging from your posting
> >> address), which I understand was theoretically legal until 1967.

> >You understand wrong.

> Which -  your posting address or the history?

History.

Quote:
> >This is not about retribution, this is about fixing a system that is not
> >working.

> In what way is this not working? South Africa has a good cricket team
> and I would imagine it to be in the interests of it's opponents to
> weaken the side by fair means of foul.

If your sole aim is to have a good cricket team, and racial equality can
go get ***ed, I guess it is working.

<snip>

Moby.