Comments on: Mr Komphela, keep the Springbok emblem

By: Hannes

Hannes — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:41:40 +0000

Please support all needed by doing this it will just spread more hatred lets all enjoy rugby for what it is and not just another political jesture. We are all SPRINGBOKS!!! and have to be proud of it.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:25:51 +0000

You can take your silly pantomime ire somewhere else. You may not feel like you need to explain yourself but you’ve done a good job putting yourself in a position. I think some of the comments you’ve made have been completely borderline. You haven’t made one realistic response, not even to the response of Sarfu. All you’ve done is trot out typical hyperbole. Which is no surprise. But don’t worry, I’m not from SA, I wouldn’t understand.. now where have I heard that before?

By: TembaVJ

TembaVJ — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:18:46 +0000

Benni Boy, I just don’t have the time to play with you today but ill stand by what I said and reiterate that you don’t know what you are talking about. You go and be the hero mate, you’re a big man for fighting so valiantly, the day you know someone that at gun point had to watch their wife get raped by 4 men, when all they stole in the end was a telly and some jewelry, then you will understand what hate in Africa is capable of. My name is Zulu and I speak the language and I know Africa. I have read the long walk to freedom and I have met Nelson Mandela, my copy of the book is signed just like the Queen of England’s copy. You cannot even if you tried understand all the aspects of a and viewpoints of a place like that, its far to complicated to learn from a book or to explain in posting on the roar. You may perceive my posting as something else because I did not have the space or time to fully explain myself but I don’t need to not to you. I know you will only use this to find further argument, extracting bits here and there to find fault but in the end you just don’t know what you are talking about and you will get a lot of people here very upset with this subject and your uninformed view, so I ask you now nicely please drop it mate, its not the type of subject you should ramble on about to prove your point which we all understood ages ago and which is irrelevant as South African (the government) has decided to keep the emblem, your point is noted but not what South Africa needs.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:45:53 +0000

Indeed, compared to the posts you and Temba have knocked out I must appear positively proto-fascist. Have a read over your posts before you level claims of intolerance.

By: Terry Kidd

Terry Kidd — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:31:16 +0000

Benjamin I grew up in outback communities where most of my play mates were aboriginal. My children grew up in the Pilbara where many of their play mates were from the Western Desert tribes or were of Malay or Philipino descent. As a result we all have a very healthy respect for peoples of all ethnic backgrounds so don’t you ever dare to insinuate that I come from a racist background, or am racist.

If anyone is intolerant on this website it is you who cannot seem to accept that other peoples’ opinions also deserve respect. Bugger off!!

By: Alan Nicolea

Alan Nicolea — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:11:31 +0000

Personally i would like to see the Springbok emblem stay. Being a Rugby fan, there is just something that i like about it that represents South Africa so well in Rugby. On the field they can play with plenty of speed and there is a certain elegance to the Springbok that tends to reflect on guys like Bryan Habana.

I would keep it. What would they replace it with if the emblem was gone? I would be a little sad to see it go.

I hope things work out well in the end for SA Rugby.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:29:21 +0000

Well that’s fair enough Tah but I don’t see that in his writing. I see something else. Aside from that I don’t think there has been any real attempt by the SA contributors to define a realistic position, non-hostile, calm and pragmatic. The conditions of Sarfu are set out even on their website and to me it’s a logical no brainer.

By: True Tah

True Tah — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:24:27 +0000

Benjamin,

I was referring to Temba’s overall posts and what he was saying…listen Im not going to get too specific because too many words would be wasted, but suffice to say, his overall argument is that the Springbok is something which white South Africans are prepared to give to the new South Africa and have in fact done, and all South Africans can share in the success of the Springboks.

Jibes like alleging that Temba grew up in an isolated white community are inflammatory and downright wrong, there are plenty of multiracial couples in South Africa, and I personally know several Afrikaaner couples who have adopted black kids from poverty stricken backgrounds, and I guess these kids will also potentially grow up to be rugby fans as well.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:50:42 +0000

Excuse me…

If you were to re-visit Temba’s and van der Merwe’s first responses to this post then you would note their true colours and their willingess for meaningful change. Furthermore if you were to ask any rugby fan around the world what the Springbok emblem represented then I imagine it wouln’t quite lie parallel the ideas of Sarfu.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:46:58 +0000

Terry
1. Temba actually said that being called a dutchman was the same as a black man being called a nigger.
2. It was Temba who raised the issue of how rugby was the last bulwark of Afrikaans tradition.

Unless you are willing to read through all of the posts I think it is facile for you to comment.

van der Merwe, I have repeatedly said that I don’t wish to align myself with the genesis of the politics. I have made a specific point of saying that as a premise the development of a long emblem is long overdue, and whilst an emblem may destroy tradition you have to consider the specific tradition of this emblem. The previous SA flag represented tradition and where is that now?

Temba, it’s interesting that you wouldn’t qualify any of my specific points, specifically your comment about how the ’sins of our fathers’ have ruined white SA life. I don’t think you have any awareness of the implications of your statements. Nor do I drink wine. My age old wine comment was a good-natured sarcasm upon SA wine. Ultimately having read yours and Terry’s comments I think it’s obvious who grew up in an isolated white community and who grew up in multi-cultural South London.

Tah, I didn’t say that the black majority were rugby fans. I have noted that they are football fans and I also have said that as rugby is traditionally an Afrikaans game then nobody would be too peturbed if Sarfu had not attempted to translare transformation onto the sporting spectrum. Therefore whilst the black majority may not like rugby Sarfu was founded on the principle that it would do it’s upmost to support inclusivity thus it was always down to Sarfu to make rugby more appealing to the black majority regardless of they cared less.

Temba hasn’t made any points, apart from that rugby represents Afrikaans tradition. So what? Sarfu set out to revoke that. There has been no clear debate from the SA contributors, merely claims that it is intentional racism and anti-Afrikaans sentiment gone wild etc. This merely muddies the debate and thus there hasn’t been one. Temba has never said why the old flag was removed and the Springbok emblem was kept. He appears confused about the objectives of Mandela and it seems as if a guilt shift is trying to occur, and it’s all pretty rich for my taste.

“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?” - comments like this - completely irrelevant.

By: True Tah

True Tah — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 03:38:59 +0000

Benjamin,

the majority of rugby players in South Africa are not white, and who are you to say it is not for the black majority to embrace the Springbok…they are perfectly capable of making that decision for themelves.

I don’t know if you have been to South Africa or not, but the points raised on this board, in particular by Temba, are more convincing than yours, and it seems that he is not alone, with the comments made by the head of the UDM and likely that the ANC will follow suite, but whatever happens I don’t think the South African rugby community would be disenfranchised.

As I said earlier, you have an excellent rugby brain and your posts are always worth reading, but I think this blog has been flogged enough already.

By: TembaVJ

TembaVJ — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:50:31 +0000

VDM you are wasting your time, as you posted that its roughly 1-2 o’clock in the morning where Benny boy sits. His probably leaning back, cracking his knuckles and ready to fight on… after taking a sip of his Jacobs creek 08 Shiraz that he picked up from the local Tesco’s import section for 4 pounds. He is in the habit of making ridiculous statements and then spending his spare hours defending them, they very from post to post and often extremely contradictory. He knows a lot about rugby but uses this knowledge to find arguments with people far away, it makes him feel powerful without being threatened. He thinks reading the long walk to freedom gives him the insight and right to comment on this subject. This might sound familiar as his forefather though reading the bible gave them right to be far bigger oppressors the the Afrikaner. He wont back down no matter how wrong he is, he would switch tactic and find mistakes in your argument to discredit you and so to hide the faults in his own statements.
This is the sort of subject that he loves as he will always get an argument, I should of seen that earlier, have a laugh at Benny boy dont let this get you heated its what he wants. Ill bet all that I have he would not be so out spoken about it had he been in our direct company.

By: van der Merwe

van der Merwe — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:25:22 +0000

“Temba’s response is reactionaly knee-jerkism and frankly smacks of racist overtones”

Given that you are in agreement with Butana Komphela, the same person who continually pushes for racial quotas and threatened to remove all of the Springboks’ passports before they flew out to France if there weren’t enough “players of colour” in the squad, on changing the emblem that’s a pretty iffy statement to make.

“Players play for a country and not an emblem. Getting rid of an emblem destroys nothing.”

Except for history and tradition.

By: TembaVJ

TembaVJ — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:07:53 +0000

I am done with this… The ANC have spoken the emblem stays, so says the government and they represent the people who voted them into office. You lose, you are wrong, the people of Africa have spoken not some sad sole banging blogs at 1 in the morning with people on the other side of the planet.

By: Terry Kidd

Terry Kidd — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:00:13 +0000

Benjamin I have followed your posts and your logic is flawed ….. the terms nigger and dutchman have no relevence to each other in this context because the circumstances are not comensurate. You are the person who raised points about race in this thread … most other posters spoke about the traditional and historic aspects, or the marketing aspects, of the Springbok emblem. Most non-SA posters also said it was a decision for SA people to make, no one elses.

“poor, poor white man, rugby is all we have got’ argument is coming out, and it prevents appropriate debate and only serves to further politicise the issue.” …. Benjamin you raised this issue and its you who is doing the politicising. We understand your opinion, give it a rest please.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:54:46 +0000

Erm.. Temba, I suggest you read his autobigraphy and note the passages whereby he states that rugby was his purposeful common ground with the Afrikaans and that he centralised its significance in order to further avoid black riots and violence.

No Terry, Sarfu made a sweeping assumption.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:52:44 +0000

Terry, please follow through the logic of my above post to confirm the necessity for change.

I don’t wade in and comment. That sounds rather cynical. Instead I offered an opinion. Were I to come out guns blazing suggesting institutionalised racism then you might have point. I feel like I should rabbit on because the ‘poor, poor white man, rugby is all we have got’ argument is coming out, and it prevents appropriate debate and only serves to further politicise the issue.

You go and call a black man a nigger and ask him if he feels it is comensurate with calling a SA a dutchman. Were I black I would have been offended by that claim.

By: Terry Kidd

Terry Kidd — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:52:42 +0000

“Therefore it is not for the black majority to embrace the Springbok emblem,” …… if a black or coloured person wishes to play rugby why not? You make a sweeping assumption there Benjamin.

By: TembaVJ

TembaVJ — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:51:31 +0000

The intent behind the calling an Afrikaner in South Africa a Dutchmen is derogatory hence it has the same purpose, you would understand this had you been more knowledgeable on this subject which you are clearly not qualified to comment on. Springbok is to rugby as Nike is to shoe, rugby was a political weapon not the name of the team. Mandela’s idea was to unify and make it a symbol for all one of hope. This is a man who walked out after 24 years in robin island looked back and said “my hate stays on that island”. Suggesting he was manipulating anything shows how ignorant you really are.

I really don’t think you should be commenting on this anymore as you don’t know what you are talking about, your opinion is simple in meaning (not wrong) but not practicle in a country like SA.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:49:09 +0000

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.

Tah, I was referring to this and its’ impliactions. Are you saying that Temba is quoting someone?

My understanding is that the Springbok emblem has much political baggage. Rugby is mainly a white sport - which I have no contention with - however Sarfu CHOSE to make rugby inclusive and to strive to extend it into the black majority. Therefore it is not for the black majority to embrace the Springbok emblem, it is the role of Sarfu to embrace the black population. Thus given the removal of the old SA flag in 1994 it only seems logical that the Springbok emblem - so long the visual reference point to racial apartheid - should have gone the same way. Had Sarfu not made such a committment then they would not be in this position but various people chose rugby as a focal point, perhaps even a gimmick, to reflect social transformation, and now they need to follow that up. I think there should be a nationwide vote, but that time is gone now.

By: Terry Kidd

Terry Kidd — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:43:57 +0000

“I don’t think that is disputable” and “It isn’t fair to suggest otherwise.” ….. a trifle opinionated and why isn’t it fair? Benjamin you are free to voice opinions on this site, but the quid pro quo is to respect the opinions of others.

“that as I am not SA I will not be able to comment on the majority of scenarios,” … but benjamin you do wade in and comment.

Lastly, we understand your position …. change the emblem as a means of breaking from the past and unifying behind a new future. Is that your opinion in a nutshell? If so, fine. Then leave it at that, don’t rabbit on and on.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:29:43 +0000

Temba, I’m not looking for an argument with you, but I didn’t think your tone was appropriate. I also understand, and have said that as I am not SA I will not be able to comment on the majority of scenarios, however - I agree with the position that SA should have a new emblem for their rugby team. IMO the Springbok emblem was manipulated by both the old Governments and Mandela, thus it has too much baggage. I can’t comment on the motivations of some calling for change but I think that aside from politics the premise is sound. Sarfu chose to travel the route of inclusivity years ago and I think a new emblem would reflect this. I don’t think that is disputable.

I may also not understand the connotations of being called a dutchman but it’s genesis does not compare with calling a black man a nigger. It isn’t fair to suggest otherwise.

By: TembaVJ

TembaVJ — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:26:31 +0000

Anyways good article TT, sensitive subject. I’m glad the ANC decided to back the springbok, I think this proves now to people like Benjamin that it is a symbol for all of South Africa if they choose to embrace it, its a rocky road and will take time to iron out the problems but in the end it would be a symbol of change not a changed symbol. The few people driven by hate have failed hopefully for the last time.

By: True Tah

True Tah — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:02:08 +0000

Benjamin,

I really enjoy your articles and postings, but Temba was quoting an announcement made by someone relevant, and quite frankly the logic can’t be argued with.

Basically what was implied, was that if you want to get rid of the Springbok, you may as well change our whole system of government, our legal system, the parliamentary buildings, etc, because the current government still uses the same buildings that their aparthied-era predecessors did, the same basic political structure, etc.

I agree with TK, Im an Australian, but with a fine appreciation and love of South Africa, its people, animals and sport. It is not up to me nor should they listen to me either, but I can’t see the logic in changing the symbol. I would like to see Bafana Bafana doing welll as well….well they have two years to lift their game.

I don’t know much about the “sins of the father”, Im not going to go into this, because it is not about the Springboks or rugby.

It got a bit off topic here, but I was trying to illustrate something what Temba was talking about, and as this is my first article Ive posted here, Im impressed that so many posters had many excellent points to share with us, and I know its a sensitive subject, also surprised it got as many posters as it did.

By: TembaVJ

TembaVJ — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:54:33 +0000

Benjamin, your looking for an argument now and I am not in the mood, I tried to explain the position of a lot of people, its hard to get all this crammed into such a little space. I don’t think I am wrong but I do see the why you would have it changed and I would agree but I know the intent behind it is driven by hate, so its not something you want in a politically fragile country like SA. (see Holomisa’s comments)

You can bang on about it (as we all know you can) but this time your argument is wrong and you ignorance on this subject shines through. Calling someone a “Dutchman” in SA is a derogatory term and this is fact. I don’t expect you to understand and I don’t think you ever will but I suspect you are about to ramble on looking for your daily dose of argument.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:24:08 +0000

You haven’t actually referred to which statements Temba made nor have you managed to state which of mine were trite. I think it’s clear that you don’t have an understanding of the political ramifications and you have avoided some key questions and points that I have laid out. Congratulations.

“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.”

Given that the past 3 Presidents have been black I think Temba’s comment requires little qualification.

By: Terry Kidd

Terry Kidd — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:06:47 +0000

“Temba’s response is reactionaly knee-jerkism and frankly smacks of racist overtones” ….. Sorry Benjamin but Temba’s comments were nothing of the sort. In saying this its my opinion that you are guilty of “reactionaly knee-jerkism ” … to use your own words.

I’ll reiterate my support for Temba’s position and statements. I’ll also reiterate my own position …. I would like the Springbok emblem to remain but as an Australian it is not my decision to make. The decision belongs solely to South Africans who support Rugby.

…. and that is my last word on this thread.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:59:16 +0000

The establishment of a non-racial, non-political and democratic rugby community, both on and off the field to ensure the levelling of the playing fields at all levels. This is one of 3 core doctrines that Sarfu is founded upon. Is this the case? All this ’sins of our fathers’ is nonsensical smoke screen. All Temba has done has is highlight the fact that massive isolation still exists.

“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?”

The SA rugby team is meant to reflect the transformation of a progressive society. If the SA flag was changed in 1994 then why not the Springbok emblem. Temba’s response is reactionaly knee-jerkism and frankly smacks of racist overtones - 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. , specifically . Players play for a country and not an emblem. Getting rid of an emblem destroys nothing.

By: Terry Kidd

Terry Kidd — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:54:21 +0000

Thanks Benjamin, your last comment confirmed my thoughts and saved me the time of explaining.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:50:32 +0000

Oh really,would you care to say why? I find Temba’s points completely irrelevant. The history of SA has nothing to do with anything.