Friday, October 01, 2010

Molehill Reveals A Mountain



It never ceases to amaze me how MSM articles on the web attract so much attention in the comments section! In this case, we hear that the Springbok will be demoted from being displayed on the chest of the national team shirt in the next RWB, and be relegated to the sleeve.

Witness the backlash!

Several hundred comments, most of which are angry outbursts and racially slanted rants against the country in general.

Some comments are calling for people to stop over reacting and remember that the "bokkie" is not being removed, it is merely making way for the protea, which after all, has always been SA's national flower, and still has a place of pride in the team.

"You can still call them Bokke man! LOL" is the refrain...

But I think the reaction is indicative of something more serious. Much like an iceberg hides it's bulk under water, the comments in this article (and many others, take Timesonline as another example) seem to me to be a symptom of raging against the machine of "transformation"

The relegation of the "bokkie" is another slap in the face of the white man. Another attack on his identity. Another attempt (as if the daily crime and grime is not sacrifice enough) to wipe out the very last icon of his past and even his very existence as a white man.

Another thing these comments reveal, is that quite patently, most whites living in SA are NOT reconciled to "transformation" Why should they be? They want to preserve their unique identity, they want their own place in the sun. They want things to settle down, people of all races to move on, and get with the programme. Culturally separate, but equal...

Instead, these relentless, incremental changes seem to be marching on to some unseen "common dumb denominator" in a hazy future, with nobody in leadership having any clear vision whatsoever of how it will end.

Banks and corporate sponsors are kowtowing to the ANC adding fuel to the fire. The blind leading the blind.

Between 1995 and 2010, something has gone terribly wrong with SA, and we can all sense it. The Rugby saga is one element, amongst many, of that fact.

No Springbok on chest at RWC

Pretoria - The Springbok emblem will not be on the chest of the Springbok jersey at the World Cup in New Zealand next year.

Springbok supporters are in for a shock on Friday when the South African Rugby Union (SARU) introduces a supporters' shirt in anticipation of the World Cup, which will kick off in New Zealand in less than a year.

Government guidelines determine that the official South African sports emblem - the protea - be placed on the left side of the chest on national sports jerseys.

This rule had already forced SA Rugby to move the Springbok from the left of the chest to the right side.

According to guidelines from the International Rugby Board (IRB), its World Cup logo must be placed on the right side of the chest on all teams' jerseys during the tournament.

In the Springboks' case, this means there will be no space on the front of the jersey for the most famous badge in world rugby.

Negotiations in this regard between the IRB, the government and SA Rugby have apparently ended in a stalemate, which leaves SARU with no choice but to move the Springbok to the sleeve of the World Cup jersey.

This might be everything but a popular choice, but SA Rugby doesn't have much of a choice in this case.

The IRB's policy also determines that no jersey sponsor's name may appear on the jerseys, which means Absa - who in all likelihood will take over as sponsor from Sasol next year - will not be able to exercise that right during the World Cup.

The Springbok emblem and its placement on the jersey has long been an emotional issue, and it's mainly thanks to former president Nelson Mandela that the emblem has stayed on the jersey.

16 Opinion(s):

Krokodil said...

From the word go, there has been a slow but sure incremental dumping of the Springbok emblem and, yes, a continual skop in the balle for the Dutchmen.

Most SAns of all colours etc. are OK with the Springbok jersey and emblem but the mean-spirited jerks of the ANC are not.

If there is one major cultural-bonding glue between Afrikaners of ALL persuasions (for your info especially, Ron), it is rugby and the Springbok legacy. By Afrikaner I refer, of course, to whites, as that is how it has been understood by almost EVERYONE in SA for the last three generations at least.

I've reached the point of no longer bothering to wring my hands or get too stressed about these matters - us whiteys are the (increasingly smaller) minority in SA and what will be, will be. As for the bring-it-on-gang, yawnnn, go back to the klippies and coke; you'll do bugger all.

It would really be nice if the Boks were a dominant force in world rugby, so as to feed our moral indignation but, sadly, they are anything but.

Still, Soutie or otherwise, I'm a SPRINGBOK supporter - and don't give a sangoma's putrid muti for the arseholes of the ANC.

Anonymous said...

Transformation is the buzz word, but what transformation really means, is that qualified people that worked hard to achieve what they did, have to give away what they created and step aside, all in the name of transformation.

This to appease a people that are unable to help themselves. A people that have never been able to help themselves. That even shouldered responsibility for their children's educations onto the whites.

Transformation means to change everything from, white into black, based on the assumption that everything that was white was stolen, yet 97% of whites own no farmland and 99.9% of whites own no mines. These whites achieved what they did, by studying hard and becomin doctors, lawyers, engineers etc.

To become any one of these things takes hard work and this is the hurdle that blacks cannot cross. Most blacks cannot even finish high school.

Blacks remain uneducated, yet they want the high paying jobs. These blacks are hazardous to a modern economy as they never even have the slightest clue as to what they are doing.

It is like having a baboon drive a train. It will end in a crash and some of us can already see the coming disaster.

The baboons however remain in denial.

A4

Exzanian said...

@krokodil
he-he-he, well said...

Piet the pirate said...

Rugby, since Mandela donned the springbok jersy when we won the world cup the first time, has been used as a political ball by the ANC, with the sole intention of humiliating the white man.
Fuck them and fuck rugby as well.
I would´nt go and watch a bok game today if you gave me tickets and a free meal voucher. I really have no interest in the game any longer, not since it´s been used as a weapon against us.
I´m thrilled to hear they have removed the bok emblem from the jersey. At least now the memory of the real boks of the past will live forever.
That is one thing the ANC can never, ever take from us.

Anonymous said...

Rightly or wrongly the Springbok emblem is a symbol of apartheid. The majority of us do not identify with it. It has to go. Be thankful it was tolerated for as long as it was. We cannot continue to allow our African identity to be sacrificed to the sensibilities of a minority. By 2015 it will be gone forever, the national team will be 60 to 70 percent black AND it will be a winning team!

Piet the pirate said...

Anonymous said...2 October 2010 23:01
Rightly or wrongly the Springbok emblem is a symbol of apartheid. The majority of us do not identify with it. It has to go. Be thankful it was tolerated for as long as it was. We cannot continue to allow our African identity to be sacrificed to the sensibilities of a minority. By 2015 it will be gone forever, the national team will be 60 to 70 percent black AND it will be a winning team!

Ha ha ha.
That is probably the most racist shit I´ve ever read.
Fuck off you piece of shit.
Like everything that belonged to the whites that the blacks have tried to hijack, it will end up being a disaster. The "new Boks" will end up like Banana Banana, a total failure.

Viking said...

"We cannot continue to allow our African identity to be sacrificed to the sensibilities of a minority"

Holy shit!
If anyone said that (equivalent) in any European country they'd be publicly crucified!

It's called "pluralism", fella. Where no identity is sacrificed for the sake of another. Incidentally, nothing says sacrifice your identity like one-size-fits-all cultural mush.

"the Springbok emblem is a symbol of apartheid"

How? to whom? Funny how having a big car and a big house and lots of money aren't "symbols of apartheid" but a sports emblem is.

Krokodil said...

Damnit! I hate it when people disagree with me. Especially when I'm right!

Anyway, a few more pearls of great wisdom from myself.

anon 2:54, you are possibly a WUM (under the anon moniker I've done it myself - hee hee) but, then again, just maybe you are a starry-eyed individual expressing your true, if deluded, opinions.

If so (you being serious and all) I must make a few observations on what you have commented.

Firstly, when EVER under apartheid did the Boks claim to be the symbol of apartheid? They never did, of course. Rather, it is a self-fulfilling PROPAGANDA slogan by the ANC who claimed it as such.

Secondly, not only does rugby in SA pre-date Afrikaner nationilism, it predates Afrikaners altogether! Rugby began (in SA) as a rooinek sport, but was soon enthusiactaly adopted by the Dutchies - for the very simple reason that they are tough buggers.

Thirdly, the Bok emblem predates apartheid by about 45 years - or haven't you been doing your homework?

Fourthly, the most discriminated section of the populace during the period of intense Afrikaner nationalism (in tandem with the apartheid years) re: selection to the Boks were, of course, English-speaking whites, and not our duskier brethren.

Fifthly, why should a majority of the population, because they are a majority, extinguish the cultutal identity and aspirations of a smaller, unique group of the population?

Sixthly, the black players you refer to are almost all coloured. Apart from the "Beast" and Sephaka, I cannot think of any Blackies who've really cut the mustard at intl level (at the 15 man game). When convenient, the powers that be refer to all non-whites as blacks and, when convenient, er, refer only to blacks, natives, the supposedly indigenous etc. as blacks.

Mostly , though, I would say this: it is the realm and province of third world countries and banana republics where the GOVERNMENT decides what a sporting team of the country can call themselves and what colours and emblems they can wear. Question: did the apartheid rulers make any ruling on the names, symbols of SA's various sporting bodies? I don't think so - but edumacate me if I'm wrong.

As for the proposed "succesful Black rugby team", bear in mind, most rugby supporters in SA are still Boere, and commercial interests are a simple reality in any sport (which is part of the entertainment industry).

Islandshark said...

"By 2015 70% black and winning" - like the joke which is the almost all-black South African soccer team?

Like Piet rightly commented - a total failure. Which explains the hatred for the predominantly white man's sport from the ranks of the communist bastards. And also the hatred towards those people of colour who have reached the elite level of rugby through effort and talent.

Suddenly "The Beast" wasn't African enough because he was born in Zimbabwe. And like the rest of his Zimbabwean countrymen, he mocked the extremely hard-working South African born mud hut dwellers by crossing the border and taking their jobs. Even though their own ANC bafoons hand out IDs and passports to the immigrants from north of the Limpopo. The same Home Office dept handing out passports to terrorists to the extent that the little green book is a guarantee to get special attention from immigration control in any civilised country.

Funny how their own brothers can't be black enough when it suits them. And they call the whites racist for noting the difference between opposite sides of the spectrum, all the while they are able to distinguish 300 shades of black.

Oh yeah, I forgot. All them shades were living in peace and harmony until the white man came (the second time around).

Barney the Dinosaur said...

I'm deeply saddened to hear the latest news regarding the Springbok emblem.

Certainly, my friends from the Jurassic period, or whatever, will think much the same.

Still, if it MUST go, couldn't it be replaced by something that everyone would be able to embrace? I'm thinking of, say, a pinky/purply creature with big feet, a tail and an inane grin surrounding perfect white gnashers.

Furthermore, in the interests of non-partisanship, I would change the national anthem of SA to something like: "I love you, you love me" etc. etc.

Just a thought, that's all...

Dachshund said...

Look on the bright side. Eventually there won't be any sports news and the weather report will follow straight after the main news on the daily propaganda show called SABC.

Anonymous said...

@Viking 3 October 2010 05:08
Pluralism indeed! Currently rugby in SA is dominated by whites yet demographically they make up less than 10 percent of the population. So what is your point about Europe?

Krokodil 3 October 2010 10:36
I said rightly or wrongly. You cannot deny that the Springbok is a white symbol. You also cannot deny that it's roots are white. Blacks simply do not relate to it! As for the sport, you can have it a club level, but at national level it must be representative of the nation. It is now up to the rugby bosses to turn the ship around, by mentoring blacks and investing in their development in time for 2015. I do not mean to be provocative, you know it is the truth. Thank you. N'ta

Krokodil said...

anon 00:00 I'm more than prepared to debate this and other issues with you ... but not right now.

Some people are wedded to their keyboards and can scribble away (type away) for hours. I'm not one of them - unless I'm in the mood I really can't be bothered.

Grab yourself a handle I can recognise - it really helps (and you'll still be anonymous) - so that I have some vague idea who I'm dealing with.

Only one point I will address: you say I know your argument is true. No, I do not. The falseness of your argument is plain (to me, at least) and inexplicable - one of the reasons why I can't be bothered to engage in lengthy debate at this time.

But, as I say, let's discuss this and anything else on your mind at a later date. Again, though, give yourself a handle (anything will do - I'm not really a reptile or related to PW Botha, all said and done).

Dachshund said...

Certainly not winning! Have a look at the International Rugby Board's ranking by country.

http://www.irb.com/rankings/full.html

The first mention of any African country is Uganda ranked 44th followed by Ivory Coast at 45. Zimbabwe ranks at 51, Cameroon at 79, Botswana at 80, the nimble feeted Jamaicans at 85 and Nigeria at 91.

Clearly not a sport that Africans excel at, or even want to play at all. This is the tyranny of political correctness: even if you're not interested in a particular sport, have no talent for it, and really couldn't care less about it, YOU WILL BE FORCED TO PLAY THAT SPORT IF THE DEMOGRAPHICS DEMAND IT. And when you inevitably lose, you can say something really lame like, "Oh well, we tried." Why? Why do you have to try? Who says you should play at all other than to win?

I wonder if the Fins, who come in last at 95, would be pleased if, in a sudden reversal of racial politics, international pressure was exerted upon them to show more demonstrable enthusiasm for rugby, because it's a "white" game, so they have to play it even though you freeze your balls off in Finland.

I sometimes wonder if the cult of PC hasn't taken over from religion. Like religion, PC-ness has quasi religious overtones, something is declared the "right" thing to do, even if it's total nonsense on a level with worshipping statues made of stone. If you dare to criticise the "right" and "virtuous" thing to do, you are immediately classified as something far worse than the anti-Christ, you are a "racist", a shit stirrer.

Everything must be given for free to the poor and the weak. So whose teaching does that remind you of? Hell, you don't even have to go to Sunday school, you are IN Sunday school every day of your life, it's all thought out for you.

Dachshund said...

Correction: Jamaica is not an African country of course, but you get the drift.

Laager said...

Take a look at the parallel developments taking place in the world of swimming.

A country with a 5,000Km coastline where the average black citizen has not gone much more than knee deep into the ocean.

Now they are jockeying to take over the administration of this sport as well

How sad that they think if you show up at a competition wearing the blazer, badge and tie that they will be actually recognised as talented and experienced sportsmen.

Sad. Sad. Sad.

Losers all.