By True Tah
October 11th 2008 @ 12:33am
Loading ...Mr Komphela, keep the Springbok emblem
The other day, the head of the South African sports portfolio, Butana Komphela, called for the Springbok to be culled as the emblem of the national rugby team. He argued that, among other things, “the Springbok divides us”, and that there can be “no negotiation” on its future.
To Mr Komphela, I would like to ask the following questions:
1. Bafana Bafana (the South African national futbol team) is currently ranked 86th in the FIFA world rankings. At the Beijing Olympics, South Africa managed a single silver medal, its worst ever performance. Why do you then propose to dispose of the only current winning emblem in South African sport, when your attention might be better spent on the other two matters?
2. Did you ask Madiba Mandela whether he felt divided when he donned a myrtle green jersey in 1995 before South Africa won their first World Cup?
3. Did you ask men like Chester Williams, Tendai Mtawirra, Jongi Nokwe, Bryan Habana, Conrad Jantjes and Brian Mujati whether they felt divided when they played rugby for South Africa in the Springbok jersey? Would they be regarded as arrogant as well?
4. Have you considered the loss of branding the South African rugby side would experience by culling the Springbok, and the subsequent reduction in corporate sponsorship?
5. Have you got any real interest in the game of rugby whatsoever or are wanting to see it die?
There are still plenty of issues within South African rugby, as there are within South African life generally, but there are plenty of people who are working to fix these problems.
I fail to see how forcing the national rugby union to change its symbol will do anything to solve these problems. If anything, they would make the situation worse, as funds would be diverted from being spent at the grassroots level.
The Springbok is a South African icon named after a uniquely Southern African animal, and one that can be shared by all South Africans.
Please do not condemn the future of South African rugby due to the mistakes of the past.
Like this article? Please spread the word about the Roar to your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(113)
Benjamin said | October 11th 2008 @ 5:46am | Report comment
I don’t believe that political capital should be gained from sport but the Springboks are meant to be representative of a transformed society. Is that the case with the current emblem? Ultimately the team play for the country and not the jersey. Even Mandela understood the Afrikaans significance of the jersey thus IMO it is necessary to create a new inclusive emblem.
van der Merwe said | October 11th 2008 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Tah, I appreciate the article, but please don’t spend your time trying to reason with people like this. This has nothing to do with the emblem dividing the country. Nothing whatsoever. It is rather about getting at the white Afrikaner where it hurts him most. Pure hatred.
Benjamin said | October 11th 2008 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Given that black South Africans used to support teams playing against the Springboks I think your response is rather juvenile.
van der Merwe said | October 11th 2008 @ 9:36am | Report comment
No emblem is going to change (the understandable) deep-seeded hatred. The only way that will ever happen is if the team is 100% black (but then I suppose that would be good for teams like Ireland, Georgia and Uruguay).
Joe FC said | October 11th 2008 @ 11:22am | Report comment
True Tah
Your views are not without merit and the Springbok emblem is certainly iconic but referring to the Sth African football team and the dozen or so non-white Springbok players in over 100 yrs does not help your cause. Maybe Mr Komphela is in part motivated by hatred but this would be no less than the decades of hatred directed towards their non-white fellow Sth Africans by some Afrikaners. This of course cannot justify continued enmity but it may go some way to explaining a sense of injustice due to unfulfilled reparation. Much more than French rugby Sth African rugby has a past enmeshed
in dark moments headlined by a shameful history of collaboration with institutionalised racism. Some Afrikaners seem unable or unwilling to come to terms with the consequences of their past. In our world symbols are important, they make present a reality we cannot see. A new flag and a new anthem may have to be complemented by a new image if Sth African rugby is to bury the ghosts of the past.
USRugbyFan said | October 11th 2008 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
Tell to that to all the black South Africans who were at the RWC victory parade in Jo’burg.
Norm said | October 11th 2008 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
fancy that… USRugbyFan jumps to the defence of Sth African rugby….tell us again about the history of race relations in the US of A…
kenneth mortimer said | October 11th 2008 @ 8:47pm | Report comment
Stupid, stupid man!!
Norm said | October 11th 2008 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
been looking in the mirror have you ken?
spiro zavos said | October 12th 2008 @ 12:11am | Report comment
The problem with these issues is that some people allow their arguments to degenerate into the personal abuse they claim to be opposed to. The facts about the Springboks emblem is that it goes back to the famous 1906 South African side that mounted a successful tour of the UK.
The Springboks over the decades became associated with and identiified with Afrikaner social, cultural and political dominance of South Africa. Danie Craven once insisted that a black would never play for the Springboks. But lived to see the Springboks brought back into world rugby with a team of all talents in the 1990s.
The argument that Nelson Mandela endorsed the Springboks emblem, after some debate about abolishing it, before the 1995 RWC final is a powerful endorsement for its continued use, I would think.
Politicians trying to undermine the Springboks emblem for the national rugby team are trying to make cheap, obvious and rainbow nation-defeating points.
Greg Bok Supporter said | October 12th 2008 @ 12:42am | Report comment
Being a Bok supporter and knowing Rugby is almost like religion in South Africa I would not like to see the Emblem go. But
I understand that names , Flags , countries , Jobs and this world is constantly changing. If they do create a new symbol so be it The South African flag changed and I have not any less support for my country. I do agree with transformation and having a neutralized Emblem would seem more fair for all races to support Rugby but then i feel a Quota system should not be implemented and also a fair method of selecting players should be allowed based on merit and not population ratio.
The Springbok emblem is a very well known brand that generates a good income for the development of the sport, a fairly large portion of people would not agree with the change and i believe it might not be good for the sport as a whole. This is not the best time as South Africa is lagging behind by a massive gap on investment for each and every player in the sport.
Benjamin said | October 12th 2008 @ 1:08am | Report comment
I think that endorsement is rather hollow Spiro, especially given that Mandela has publicly stated that his support of the Springboks was political and that he saw his alignment with the group as a compromise with the Afrikaans sector.
True Tah said | October 12th 2008 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Benjamin,
it would seem that the most logical choice would have been to change the symbol back in 1994/95, but they didn’t.
This is only an issue because the Springboks are one of the premier teams in world rugby, if they were losing, then we would not even be having this debate.
When men like Komphela have left this world, then calls to cull the Springbok will fade.
Joe FC,
the reason I brought up up Bafana Bafana is for two reasons. Firstly not too long ago, Mr Thabo Mbeki wanted to change the name of the team as well to something a bit more formal. Many African futbol teams are named after animals, the Eagles (Nigeria), the Indominatable Lions (Cameroon), the Black Impala (Angola) the Elephant (Ivory Coast) and the Barrea (Madagascar - Malagasy for Oxen). So maybe he was wanting to keep an African tradition, I can recall reading an article thata good choice would have been the Buffalo.
Also the fact is that they have a rather large futbol tournament there in a few years, and there is a chance the host nation may not make it past the group stages, although I for one really hope they make a good fist of it. Pareira the ex-Brazilian coach who was coaching Bafana Bafana quit, despite being paid a small fortune to do so.
Joe FC said | October 12th 2008 @ 11:31am | Report comment
I remember during the mid 1970s, as world wide anti apartheid protests were gaining momentum, being told by a work colleague that there were parts of South African land upon which no black man had ever traversed. Thus a statement, which quite possibly contained some literal element of truth, was being dishonestly and deliberately distorted to present a falsehood intended to undermine these protests and perpetuate a morally bankrupt system that valued humans purely on the colour of their skin. By all means we should be wary and suspicious of the intentions of politicians and it is highly likely that Mr Komphela has his own agenda. But his questionable integrity does not relieve the supporters of Springbok rugby from their obligation to give thoughtful, rational and dispassionate consideration to the troubled history of South African society and what that might mean for those who were excluded. We don’t like to admit it but each of us carries our prejudices.
sheek said | October 12th 2008 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Has anyone asked a springbok if he or she supports apartheid or otherwise?
My point is, it’s not the animal that’s the problem, but human prejudice. Of course, black South Africans see removing the springbok from the South African rugby shirt as the ultimate payback. But to what end? Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Perhaps this is one time when outsiders might make a difference. I don’t want the South African national rugby team to be known as anything else than the “Springboks”. The rest of the world should emphasize this point to Mr what’s-his-name.
I had no qualms with the SA cricket team being renamed “Proteas”, simply because we Australians attach a different emblem/mascot to each sport. But the springbok, as Spiro attested, is deeply tied up with SA rugby.
And true, Nelson Mandela endorsed this. Perhaps black South Africans need to take a leaf out of the Allies at the end of WW2, not to mention the wise, magnanimous Mandela himself. They saw the need to rebuild Germany & Japan as friendly, prosperous countries, which they achieved.
Retaining the springbok emblem, I believe, would do far more good than harm for all South Africans (at least those passionate about the sport). At least that’s my perspective as an outsider/neutral.
USRugbyFan said | October 12th 2008 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
Norm: Weak, bro. You can do better than that.
Dave said | October 12th 2008 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
What do the majority in Sth Africa think? If the majority were in favour of changing then so be it…surely traditionally white dominated sports such as Rugby should be looking for every opportunity to embrace the new country and as said previously symbolism is very important.
My strongest memories of the Springboks are them continuing to play Rugby tests against a sea of opposition and protests where ever they went.
Perhaps it is time to move on and come up with a symbol that is not so devisive.
True Tah said | October 12th 2008 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
Dave
what name would you propose?
The Tokoloshi?
I remember seeing the interview Beast Mtawirra when he got selected to play for South Africa, he said it was an honour to wear the Springbok badge.
Also, to go with the change would you like the myrtle green jersey changing?
True Tah said | October 12th 2008 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
If the Springbok is offensive, then maybe the SA government should cull the millions of them grazing throughout the country???
Norm said | October 12th 2008 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
you’re right USRugbyFan..so how about this..what was your visceral reaction in 95 when O J was found not guilty… what percentage of the people who discussed that case and its aftermarth in your home were black? Don’t bother with a reply… I know the answer.
Dave said | October 12th 2008 @ 5:18pm | Report comment
TT
Have no idea but l’m sure many in SA do have some ideas. It is not the Springbok animal itself that is offensive as many have said already it is its representation of a sports team that was used by the Apartheid Govt to promote its own ideology of white supremecy. As l said in my last post the first l knew of Rugby’s existence was in the 1970s with all the protests against the Springboks. It has a two fold image and symbolism if you like…Rugby excellence for the white SA’s who follow the game but a legacy of all that was divise and wrong with the Apartheid era in SA for those that suffered under it. Do you continue with that symbol or look to be more inclusive with a symbol for all?
BTW One of the reasons Bafana Bafana is ranked 86th in the world is due to the legacy of Apartheid. SA lost decades of opportunity to devlop young footballers due to Apartheid, no infrastructure in place, no organisation, limited equipment and facilities…that is why SA football lags behind even many of its poorer African cousins. It will take decades to overcome such disadvantage.
True Tah said | October 12th 2008 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
Dave
Bafana Bafana won the African Nations Cup in 96.
What has happened since then?
Joe FC said | October 12th 2008 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
True Tah
you raised a very important issue and supported same with logic but your response to Dave suggests you’re letting emotion get the better of you and that will only weaken your cause. Sheek is right to say that two wrongs don’t make a right but that presupposes to change the Springbok emblem is wrong, which it may or may not be. Determining right and wrong requires more than nostaigically recalling 1906 origins and intimate ties to the minority perpetrators of an unjust system. Knowledge, intent and proportion are indispensable virtues in the judgement process required.
Midfielder said | October 12th 2008 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
TT
Brave article you wrote and well done IMO.
There are times when sport and politics are mixed and the way the Afrikaner and those that ran South African rugby in the 60 & 70’s …….. attempted to use sport as political weapon was wrong and you can never walk away from your history, perhaps the past is coming back to haunt them ……… I think cricket has attempted and with help from outside SA to come to grips to grips with its past history.
I have not seen union in SA attempt the same level of healing the past ……. however I am not that close to offer this as actual just want I have seen and my own perceptions.
But to TT’s point SARU cannot escape its past, nor can it ignore that by far the most popular football code in SA is football but again its Afrikaner rugby and black football a very difficult problem to solve …….. I think the seeds of this where sewn in the 60 & 70’s and it is up to SARU to mend the fence as in 25 to 35 years the SA black population will be much more control than it is today and during the continual transaction of power that is an evolution rather than a revolution Afrikaner influence will be very much reduced ……… and during this period if SARU wants to still be a force in world rugby as I see it SARU needs to do a lot more than it has to date …….. whether Mr Komphela suggestion is the way to go I have no idea …….. but it is worth thinking about.
I also see as not helpful the often over claimed media reports about SA sport and rugby being the main game …….. see Australian & NZ union media reports, …… this is where it gets a little difficult as in the rugby union world SA is a big force ………. But its what 2 million people maybe and therefore a small percentage of SA’s population, thus SARU claim to be a major sport must grate and be a reminder of the past to many in SA. But it is not in the interest of the Rugby Union media outside SA to say SA rugby is a minority sport in SA. In fact it is in their interest of rugby’s media outside SA to say it is a major sport in SA.
This means that the help cricket is getting from outside SA …….. is not being given to rugby by rugby bodies outside SA . But more rugby is much closer to the Afrikaner than cricket ever was so it is a very difficult issue and one rugby needs to be careful of otherwise the only looser can be SA rugby union IMO.
Dave said | October 12th 2008 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
TT
A little off topic but as you asked;
As we all know there are moments in history where things just fall into place at the right time.
1.In 1996 SA were the hosts of the tournament (Kenya having withdrawn)
2. Nigeria the strongest and most talented African team withdrew at the last moment and did not participate (depleted opposition)
3. SA happened to have a number of important players in the team who were based o/s such as Mark Williams top scorer in the tournament and Mark Fish strong defender
4. Wave of euphoria with home crowd and opportunity for the population to will them home
5. Stability and an excellent coach
They also made 2 WCs with that team but unfortunately the lack of organisation/infracstructure/facilities had to catch up at some stage and what results is what you see today.
SA should have a team challenging for the WC final itself if the footballing masses had been given the same opportunities their Rugby brothers were during the 20th century.
True Tah said | October 12th 2008 @ 6:52pm | Report comment
Joe FC,
I do have some ties with SA, have holidayed there in the past and am doing so again in a few months. In Australia we do are largely unaware of what goes on in Africa. I do get passionate about the issues discussed.
Dave,
thanks for the explanation re: ‘96, personally I hope the South African futbol team (they should change their name to the Blue Cranes, which is SA’s national bird IMO) go well in 2010, them doing well would do more for the South African people than any other team doing well would.
Midfielder,
SARU is doing a hell of a lot to integrate itself with the blacks of South Africa and actually the majority of South Africa’s rugby-playing population is not white. Im not sure if you watch many games of rugby telecast from South Africa, but the way the whole crowd chants “Beeeeast” whenever the big man makes a run or tackle suggests to me that maybe the situation has improved since the 60s/70s - I wasn’t around during the time, so I am unable to comment with any great accuracy.
I just cannot see how changing the name/emblem will benefit anything or anyone. I just find it galling that a politician with minimal interest in rugby is seemingly doing his best to kill the game, and IMO, whilst South Africa has not got the proudest past, this decision would only hurt those kids at grassroots level who want to emulate their rugby heroes.
Dave said | October 12th 2008 @ 7:03pm | Report comment
TT
I think you’re selling the power and persuasion of Rugby and the enjoment it gives to many short in SA by believing a name change will kill the game. In fact by becoming more all encompassing (as it appears to be trying to do)l would see Rugby prosper like never before in SA. Nevertheless it is an interesting conundrum and one l hope is rectified for the best interests of all.
Koala Bear said | October 12th 2008 @ 7:15pm | Report comment
Norm,
How lucky was I the other night walking into the CRSL car park.?. I was introduced to a visiting Zimbabwe government ministerial party now on the Gold Coast looking for foreign investors.. I think the leader said he’s name was Magabe or something like that. After an hour or so in a meeting with the lads; they convinced me that I should place the saving of the ALL STARS fighting fund into their banking system .. Anyways to cut to the chase; I have 6 x quadrupled the figure over night..
Norm tell Jimbo…. Pimbo and I are off to buy a new bus to park in the goal mouth at Suncorp. Wow what a lucky break; especially when Jimbo told Doris to throw those magic beans out the window… I would like to see that Qatari mob put a ball past Schwarzer with the “Double Decker Red London Bus” behind him… Pimbo and me are going to buy the bus for Wednesday night’s match, but we still need you to drive it up to Brizzie… 2010 here we come baby…
~~~~~
KB
Norm said | October 12th 2008 @ 7:28pm | Report comment
KB
I’m going to nominate you for that most prestigious title - ‘Treasurer of the Year”. Well done. jimbo did tell me that a lot of action happens in the CRSL car park at night.
True Tah said | October 12th 2008 @ 7:29pm | Report comment
Dave,
I hope you’re right, but one thing I have tried to steer away from is that SARU is not a government organisation and it owns the Springbok brand, and if the Springbok was culled, then I would presume that SARU may have some grounds to get some compensation from the SA government…personally this would gall me, as it is money that, IMO, could be better spent on other things then rugby, such as teachers, policemen and public transport.
Koala Bear said | October 12th 2008 @ 7:29pm | Report comment
Ken,
I think they were cheering the “Bafana Bafana” in Johannesburg…
~~~~~~
KB
van der Merwe said | October 12th 2008 @ 8:10pm | Report comment
“I think you’re selling the power and persuasion of Rugby and the enjoment it gives to many short in SA by believing a name change will kill the game. In fact by becoming more all encompassing (as it appears to be trying to do)l would see Rugby prosper like never before in SA.”
Ja, the name change will surely grow rugby in Soweto! Who needs an adequate ground to play on, or better yet a rugby ball when you have a new name!
dasilva said | October 12th 2008 @ 8:32pm | Report comment
Name is a name is a name. If majority of people are annoyed with it then change it even if that annoyance may be unjustified. I’m not much into keeping something for the sake of history. It may be purely symbolic gesture but if its stop mass amount of people that don’t support the team to start watching the game then do it.
I think the question is If changing the name will actually increase interest or acceptance of the team in the long term OR will changing the name won’t do much in increasing support but alienate existing supporters of rugby Or bit of both.
I’m not a socialogist of South Africa so I leave that for them to decide. However I don’t believe keeping a name for the sake of history is a good thing if it’s a stumbling block for support in the country. The issue should be viewed in a dispassionate way for the people who are running rugby (will it increase support/acceptance or not)
van der Merwe
I think people say the name is only one stumbling block of mass support not the sole stumbling block. Obviously developing a sport needs to be a lot more then a name change. However a name change is an easy thing to change and solve without spending a lot of money unlike improving infrastructure in undevelop areas. If people can remove one stumbling block without much effort or cost then do it.
dasilva said | October 12th 2008 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
The whole point of maintaining history is that it brings pride into population or supporters. Once the name/emblem fails to do that and actually produce a negative symbol or produce feeling of shame then it defeats the whole purpose of protecting the history.
Now I’m not saying the Springbox name is loved or not in south africa as I’m not south african and I wouldn’t know. However if the accusations are correct then an emblem change is a must.
Norm said | October 12th 2008 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
thats right van der Merwe…the Afrikaner government knew what to provide Soweto…circa 1976
USRugbyFan said | October 13th 2008 @ 5:31am | Report comment
Norm: I was pretty young at the time but I remember thinking he was guilty, considering there was quite a lot of evidence against him. Also, I don’t understand where this holier than thou attitude is coming from concerning SA and the US. It’s not like Australia has never had problems with it’s minorities or anything.
True Tah said | October 13th 2008 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Norm,
I think what van der Merwe was getting at was that the focus should be on getting clubs in places like Soweto proper facilities, and that this would make more of a difference than changing the name of the team.
I thought your post was in poor taste.
Norm said | October 13th 2008 @ 7:59am | Report comment
right again USRugbyFan we Australians are far fron perfect when it comes to racial matters..its just that I didn’t say “Tell to that to all the black South Africans who were at the RWC victory parade in Jo’burg” …what about the black South Africans who weren’t celebrating.
TT - you’re entitled to your opinion & you might be correct but I consider van der Merwe’s comments to lack understanding & empathy - ‘The only way that will ever happen is if the team is 100% black (but then I suppose that would be good for teams like Ireland, Georgia and Uruguay).”
USRugbyFan said | October 13th 2008 @ 8:09am | Report comment
I was trying to make a point that the Springbok emblem is hardly divisive in this day and age. There are young Afrikaner boys who love Habana and the Beast, and I’m sure there are young black boys who admire Fourie du Preez and John Smit. Although I’m sure that there are many blacks who still harbor bad memories of the apartheid days. For example, during the Cape Town test many of the Colored community came out in support of the All Blacks. So while there is still a lot of work to be done in regards to unifying SA rugby, I think Khompela is overreaching with his comments.
dasilva said | October 13th 2008 @ 8:21am | Report comment
To be honest I still find this transformation process in South Africa uneasy.
I have no problems with changing emblems especially if the emblem represents division in society (symbolism with emblems is everything) but there attempts in forcing more racial representative in their national team I find a bit disturbing.
I may not know much about rugby but I do know the controversy in Cricket with South africa and the quota system etc. It seems to cause more problems then actually solve things. The black players who are selected are wondering if they were in the team because of their skin colour or due to ability and this put alot of pressure on black players to perform and to prove they are not just token black players. Ntini was a vocal opponent of the quota system which is now abandon (or perhaps rebranded)
I always believe that in a sporting team there is no reason why the team should be representative of the population. Often in certain sports the ethnic minority group are overrepresented in respect to population due to difference in cultural likes and dislikes or socio-economics factors. The french football team are overrepresented from the African ethnicity. The Soccerroos often are overrepresented from the more European background but it is not a problem (or shouldn’t be a problem.)
The difference of South Africa is that the under representative of blacks was strongly cause by discrimination in the past. So I can understand why they may try to forcibly restore the balance. Perhaps they shouldn’t try to force it and let the race balance restore itself naturally over a long period of time or perhaps having large proportion of white players in the rugby team is simply the natural balance of thing like the way 2/3 of the french 1st XI football team are black. There’s one thing in trying to restore the balance by trying to encourage more africans to play the game. It is another to have to minimally pick certain amount of blacks in a team.
True Tah said | October 13th 2008 @ 8:34am | Report comment
daSilva,
there is a lot of opposition to the quota system from within South African rugby player ranks, and that includes those guys who would benefit, because it goes against the grain of sport. I am not a fan of quotas, and I think that talk of quotas will become extinct in the very near future.
This years Boks were all there on merit, and there were a number of black guys in the squad. It may not be representative of South African society yet, but the right steps are being made. One example is Jongi Nokwe, he is about 28, and this year finally cracked the Bok team, whilst arguably it was due to Bryan Habana being injured, he made the most of his opportunity, scoring 4 tries against the Wallabies. Nokwe had a good season for the Cheetahs, scoring a lot of tries, in a very well beaten side.
The real transformation needs to be done at a lower level, and this involves getting some facilities so young kids in Soweto have the opportunity. There have been plenty of young black guys making underage Springbok sides for several years, but for whatever reason they do not carry through to the top level.
Terry Kidd said | October 13th 2008 @ 8:38am | Report comment
I would think the solution is fairly simple …. the emblem ‘belongs’ to those who actively support rugby in SA, by that I mean the players and volunteer administrators at club level in all age groups, amatuer or professional. If they vote to keep the Springbok as the national emblem, then so be it. If they vote for change then let it happen. Either its their choice, no one elses.
van der Merwe said | October 13th 2008 @ 9:06am | Report comment
“This years Boks were all there on merit”
Except for Luke Watson.
Joe FC said | October 13th 2008 @ 9:57am | Report comment
I disagree Terry, the issue and the solution are anything but simple, which is why the topic is likely to cause considerable angst. The discussions on this thread illustrate that the consequences of our actions spread far beyond our immediate concerns.
True Tah said | October 13th 2008 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Joe FC,
I think Terry’s solution is perhaps the easiest one available, because at the end of the day it gives the main stakeholders (i.e. fans and players) say over the matter.
It is far from a simple issue, but I would not like to leave the decision in the hands of someone who have no interest in rugby whatsoever, such as Mr Khompela.
If the majority of South Africa’s population are not interested in rugby which is probably likely (although I believe the interest would be higher than the 2million or so which Midfielder states - there is an interesting article written by John Nauright which examines the history of rugby amongst the coloured people although its probably 10 years old), then why should they have an equal say over those who have an emotional stakeholder and a far more interest?
dasilva said | October 13th 2008 @ 10:18am | Report comment
I would agree with True Tah and Terry. If the voting was done and they choose to keep the emblem then that is there choice.
If that causes alienation and shut the door to many black supporters then that’s the consequences they have to live with and the same if they decided to change it.
mudskipper said | October 13th 2008 @ 10:29am | Report comment
“Sons pay for the sins of their fathers”…it would seem…it would be a shame to no longer see the Springbok emblem take the field…But its up the South Africans to determine their own future…Lets hope it is decided by wise men such as Mandela and not opportunists generating straw men to throw into the public domain, only to create further division without improving the national for all…Total deconstruction of society doesn’t build a stronger future…
Joe FC said | October 13th 2008 @ 11:40am | Report comment
True Tah
while it is a decision about a sporting team it is a decision that affects an entire nation and thus the defination of stakeholder is very broad.
mudskipper
“Sons pay for the sins of their fathers”…not just sons.
TembaVJ said | October 13th 2008 @ 11:58am | Report comment
This is a subject very few here would understand, if you have not lived in SA it would be impossible for you to understand the passion attached to the emblem. Possibly the last little bit of light keeping the hopes up of people living in South African conditions. Its is no joke, crime, health, poverty and a corrupt government is the price the new generation of white South Africans are paying for their fathers sins.
This attempt is not to unify but to destroy one of the last positive things that remains in the life’s of those whites living in South Africa now, not the generations before. Its easy to say “just changed it” but what would that change take away from people already paying a heavy price living there?
Image a group of aboriginals demanding O’Neil change the wallaby name to some native name, it would be a laugh. In SA the previous generation and the one before that did no more wrong then the Americans or the Australians in the past. The racist disease is rife in many countries still today. South Africa is not unique.
My point is, this is not a step in the right direction or one of rebuilding together but a step toward getting revenge. There are many black players not only in the national team but the provincial teams who all wish to be part of the Springboks.
I could go on about this for pages and some might still not get the point but trust me, this is not a positive move, not for black or white it will only create more divide. If you ask me Rugby is the only thing that has cause some unity in that country, why mess with it?
First Black coach, first team to field 9 players of color earlier this year, things are transforming, no need to change the emblem.
TembaVJ said | October 13th 2008 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Changing the springbok name is a racist idea and fueled by hatred towards whites. Do they have the right to hate me as a white South African, even thought I had nothing to do with their past?
stuff happens said | October 13th 2008 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
The new South Africa remains a young country in transition.Questions like these are for the South African people; everyone else’s opinion is irrelevant including mine.I know that symbols can be important and opinions about them are often highly emotional - so good luck to you all.
dasilva said | October 13th 2008 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
It’s not really about whether it is right or wrong for the black of south africa can tell the rugby union to change the emblem. In my opinion they should just forgive and forget (easy said then done mind you) and use the same emblem that represent oppression in the past and make it your own. Turn it into a positive symbol.
Reality is people are not going to forgive and forget. Do you want to be right? or do you want to try and do what you can to get acceptance from the majority of community. The difference with Australia and South Africa is that in Australia the aborigenes sadly are in the mass minority. This may sound cruel but if the aborigenes are unhappy with the symbol then a very few minority of the population will be annoyed by it and therefore will not effect the success of the game to a great deal. In africa they are the majority. You may think there is nothing wrong with the symbol and emblem and by keeping it. I certainly don’t think there is anything wrong with it. Nevertheless for rugby has to win the hearts and minds of the majority for it to stay afloat. You can be stubborn and be right and keep the emblem or you can keep the majority happy. As fairly or unfairly the symbol is divisive. IMO you got the pick the right battles to fight and this doesn’t seem to be one of them from my impressions.
Of course my argument is relying on the assumption that majority of population don’t like the name. Is that true or not. Is there a survey about that?
Redb said | October 13th 2008 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
dasilva,
mass minority? - err.. an oxymoron if i ever read one.
Redb
dasilva said | October 13th 2008 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
sorry Redb english language isn’t my strongest skill
Redb said | October 13th 2008 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
no worries dasilva, oxymorons aren’t that common on here, so worth celebrating a beauty.
Redb
B Johnson said | October 13th 2008 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
Benjamin
The SA soccer team plays with the official SAFA emblem on the one side and the King Protea on the other. The Boks also display the Protea. The ANC national spokesperson came out the very next day and said that it did not want to see the emblem dissappear without proper consultation which includes rugby followers. This is clearly a ruse to shift attention away from a diabolocal Bafana Bafana and Olypic effort.
B Johnson said | October 13th 2008 @ 8:11pm | Report comment
TT
Good article
Everybody else, please do not confuse Komphela with official ANC sentiment. He is Don Quiote(forgive the spelling) fighting windmills.
Benjamin said | October 13th 2008 @ 8:15pm | Report comment
B Johnson, perhaps. I’m not going to say that you’re wrong because I don’t live in SA, but then those who do or once did - Temba, cannot comment on the efficiency or speed of transformation because the key point is whether the majority of Black South Africans feel suitably aligned to the Springbok emblem or cause. Does the huge black population feel like the Springbok jersey represents them? Surely that is the key point and therefore all take of racism and hatred is overtly reactionary. Why would white South Africans feel such isolation? If they do so, as Temba suggests, then that merely confirms that transformation is not occurring within SA society. Players play for a country, not an emblem.
Terry Kidd said | October 14th 2008 @ 6:18am | Report comment
Maybe so Benjamin, but if Oz changed the name of our rugby team I may play for Australia but I would always think of myself as a Wallaby. Its like the Baggy Green for Australian cricketers, the emblem holds a lot of significance.
Benjamin said | October 14th 2008 @ 6:55am | Report comment
Yes, but whom does it hold signifance for? That is the key point.
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 7:12am | Report comment
Benjamin,
the Springbok should hold significance for all South Africans, and it is something that white South Africans can share with everybody. If the Springbok goes, does that mean the myrtle green jersey goes with it?
If a guy like Beast (whos from Zimbabwe) comes out and says its an honour to be picked for the Springboks, then thats good enough for me.
Then just night I read that Luke Watson wanted to vomit on the Bok jersey and whinged that Dutchmen were running South African rugby and blames them for Schalk Burger taking his spot- obviously the Springbokt jersey means nothing for him, and I hope we never see this idiot again, and anyway Schalla is a much better player than Watson ever was. If Afrikaaners are “Dutchmen” effectively that means a fair chunk of Australians are Pommies.
B Johnson
Whilst I share Tutu’s issues about SA effectively becoming a one-party state, I dont believe the ANC would be foolish enough to listen to Komphela.
Benjamin said | October 14th 2008 @ 7:39am | Report comment
Tah, it’s easy for you and me to comment on this and what the jersey SHOULD mean to all South Africans but then we haven’t experienced what the black majority have, and frankly when a Zimbabwean says it is an honour to play for SA (and of course he isn’t going to suggest otherwise) I do not think that his opinion is representative of that black majority. The SA emblem was used as for political means by the Afrikaans sector, lest we forget that it was Danie Craven who said that a black would never play for SA and thus a WC win is not going to change that. I’m a little surprised that this debate has not arisen sooner.
I’m not going to comment upon the Watson issue until the full story has come out.
OldManEmu said | October 14th 2008 @ 8:38am | Report comment
True Tah, how prescient of you to commence this thread given now the comments that emerge as being attrbutable to Luke Watson - I’d heard little of him (not in the habit of taking too much notice of mediocre South African flankers) so anyone else who has not previously done so check out his history, or more relevantly that of his father - cant help but think that maybe his comments were delivered in the context of a very friendly audience and might not in fact be reflective of either his real views nor fact.
But to the point of the thread and reaching to the heart of the comments attributed to Luke Watson I will make these three observations which are made frm considerable distance and so must be taken with a grain of salt. Firstly, when a Test is played at J’Burg or Pretoria there are very few blacks in the crowd. Secondly, again in J’Burg and Pretoria, when the South African national anthemn is sung there is a noticable and resounding increase in volume and gusto when the anthemn gets to the Afrikaans part, the old Die Stem. Thirdly I vividly recall seeing Baakies Botha on the bench of a recent Test, celebrating a great try by a team mate and he was slapping and hugging a (white) team mate and then he turned to yahoo with the team mate next closest to him and well……the celebration died down a bit. This is on the Fox sports coverage of the J’Burg test this year, so check it out if you could be bothered.
These three things could all be random matters of no collective meaning, or they could be reflective of a maintainence of the dominating attitude of Afrikaaners in SA Rugby. I do not know, I have never ever been to South Africa. It would be great to get some black South African Rugby fans persepctive on this.
True Tah, just to pull you up on one matter - it is my understanding that Afrikaans commonly call themselves Dutchmen - see for example Francios Piennar’s interviews in the documentary about Rugby World Corporation.
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 8:46am | Report comment
OldManEmu,
I have to correct you re: the Dutchmen tag, Afrikaaners do not like being referred to as Dutchmen, especially by foreigners. I dont know what Pienaars comments were in relation to, but having been there fairly recently, it does not go down too well.
They have been in South Africa far longer than Europeans have been in Australia, therefore many Australians are Pommies as much as Afrikaaners are Dutchmen.
van der Merwe said | October 14th 2008 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Ja, I’m sure. And next you’re going to tell us that Mandela’s opinion means nothing as well.
Note: 2007 not 1995.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO4LrocEcKE
“I’m not going to comment upon the Watson issue until the full story has come out.”
What full story man?? The thing was tape recorded! No case of curved ball journalism there! I guarantee you he will soon quit rugby. Imagine the boos! The guy will implode!
TembaVJ said | October 14th 2008 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Benjamin, you seem to worry a lot about the history of the country and not what is happening right now. It was not me that upheld apartheid, it was not my friends or brothers and sister. Rugby today has come along way from the days of Craven, its changing in SA. The sport RUGBY was a political weapon of that era, so maybe we should just ban Rugby in South Africa? O that’s right its the only sport that’s prospering in SA. Everyone from the president down to the 2nd player in the team is black. Minister of sport, president of SARU, coach… All black please don’t comment on something you know nothing about.
They have come to a decision and its to keep the emblem and name, seems not all the blokes up there are as hate filled as Komphela. If his reason are to unify them maybe but its not, him and guys like Cheeky Watson are hate filled loser bent on making the next generation of “Dutchman” pay for the sins of their fathers. This is not fair in a modern society.
You cant fill a team with a bunch of black players that don’t know what they are doing, transformation is a slow process that starts from grassroots. Young black boys wont play the game if there are no heroes to look up to. There will be no heroes if the team fails win. Guys like Habana and Beast are icons to white and black alike. You only have to listen to the crowd when beast touches the ball. These guys have set the ball in motion for the next generation of rugby players just like Chester Williams did in 95. Its slow moving but it is moving.
TembaVJ said | October 14th 2008 @ 9:13am | Report comment
OLDMANEMU, just because rappers call them selves N*gg*ers does not mean you get to call them that. If you were to call myself or van der Merwe here a Dutchman it would be a racist remark.
OldManEmu said | October 14th 2008 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Noted, thanks TembaVJ, definiteley not in the habit of being racist.
Do you have any comment about why the J’Burg crowd fires up when the Afrikaaners version of the anthemn comes on but the other language parts are much more subdued. This is a serious question.