South Africa & Quotas

[TT Boy]

Read Dickie Bird's autobiography and the way he tells it is that all the incentives in the world won't help - the coloured population simply prefers football

The Black Africans prefer football but the vast majority of coloureds love their cricket. You only have to look around the grounds in South African cricket and after the white folk they heavily populate the grounds. And where I lived in South Africa, most of the club sides were made up firmly of coloured cricketers who lived and breathed the game.

 

[Dasa]

Disagree...quotas are mere hypocrisy IMO

A lot more to it than "mere hypocrisy". When you have a country with a history like that of South Africa where the majority was so brutally repressed for such a long time, I think it's not necessarily a bad thing to introduce some sort of 'artificial' system to redress the balance. You have to remember that the general population of South Africa never had any opportunity to gain a foothold in society (whether it be in sport or elsewhere) and quotas/affirmative action/etc is an attempt to bring some sort of equality to the country.

IMO, if the cricket team of South Africa has to suffer in the short-term to bring long-term racial harmony and to introduce real equality to the country, it's a (more than) fair trade-off. Much of the opinion against quotas (in general, not necessarily here) seem to deal with the fact that they will result in a relatively poor performance for the cricket team.

I think people can sometimes forget that there's a lot more to life than cricket, and considering the issues South Africa faces I think the relative performance of the national cricket team should be a very low priority compared to the potential long-term benefits of some sort of a quota system. Whether the way the system we see currently is ideal is not something I can comment on. However, in my opinion something should definitely be in place.

 

[Beleg]

A lot more to it than "mere hypocrisy". When you have a country with a history like that of South Africa where the majority was so brutally repressed for such a long time, I think it's not necessarily a bad thing to introduce some sort of 'artificial' system to redress the balance.

It is a horrible thing to counter discrimination with discrimination. If South Africa believes itself to be a country where everybody has equal rights (read: no discrimination based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity) then introducing quota system pretty much rains down the equality parade.

All humans are equal but some humans are more equal than other humans.


How do you introduce 'racial harmony' (and I contend that as long as we continue thinking about human being in term of race, racial tension will always be there) by selective preferential treatment?

 

[Dasa]

It is a horrible thing to counter discrimination with discrimination. If South Africa believes itself to be a country where everybody has equal rights (read: no discrimination based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity) then introducing quota system pretty much rains down the equality parade.

I disagree. Don't you think the discrimination that has been entrenched in the country for so many years needs something to turn it around? I support what you call 'discrimination' because it gives people opportunities that they would not ordinarily get because of real discrimination.

All humans are equal but some humans are more equal than other humans.

No one is saying that.

How do you introduce 'racial harmony' (and I contend that as long as we continue thinking about human being in term of race, racial tension will always be there) by selective preferential treatment?

You're right about thinking in terms of race. However, that's an idealistic view that is not realistic. It's not necessarily selective preferential treatment - it's mandatory equal treatment more than anything else. Despite any idealistic notions of race you or I may hold, if you don't force people to stop discriminating (on the basis of race, ***uality, gender, anything) , people won't stop discriminating. Thus, in my opinion, quotas (or affirmative action) are necessary if only to give some sort of opportunity to those less advantaged. Otherwise, those who have been discriminated against continue to experience that same discrimination.

What would you suggest should be done (other than quotas) to prevent discrimination?

 

[Richard]

Read Dickie Bird's autobiography and the way he tells it is that all the incentives in the world won't help - the coloured population simply prefers football

Err, given my sig what on Earth makes you think I haven't read both Harold's autobios?

I'm perfectly well aware of the fact that some parts of the population (see TT_Boy's reply) prefer football.

 

[Richard]

I contend that as long as we continue thinking about human being in term of race, racial tension will always be there

A thought that has crossed my mind many times...

 

[Langeveldt]

What would you suggest should be done (other than quotas) to prevent discrimination?

Picking a cricket side based purely on ability?

 

[Richard]

No one is saying that.

I think what Beleg was meaning is that whether people are saying it or not, it's happening.

 

[Beleg]

You're right about thinking in terms of race. However, that's an idealistic view that is not realistic. It's not necessarily selective preferential treatment - it's mandatory equal treatment more than anything else. Despite any idealistic notions of race you or I may hold, if you don't force people to stop discriminating (on the basis of race, ***uality, gender, anything) , people won't stop discriminating. Thus, in my opinion, quotas (or affirmative action) are necessary if only to give some sort of opportunity to those less advantaged. Otherwise, those who have been discriminated against continue to experience that same discrimination.

What would you suggest should be done (other than quotas) to prevent discrimination?

Preventing racism itself is an idealistic view, seeing as racism is so inherent in our current societial set-up. In my experience, you cannot stamp out racism by active policing or thought control.

No one is saying that.

An explicit statement doesn't need to be made. The implicit thought process is very clear - by installing quotas, you are dividing the society into you vs. them. If I lived in South Africa and lost out on a place because of quota system, I would be pretty darned angry. And that anger would definitely colour and effect my dealings with blacks etc, leading to righteous resentment on my part. This is not how you smooth out relations. In that sense, you aren't decreasing racial tension, you are enhancing it. Positive discrimination is still discrimination, and people realize that and bear a grudge.

Racial quotas are just that, racism. The thought process of 'they sufferred so now it's our turn to get reimbursed, even if its the expense of those who weren't even alive when there was active discrimination against the coloured/blacks' is pathetic.

If one belives racial quotes are practical, then they should also accept that stamping out racism and classism is also an impractical and idealistic notion.

 

[pasag]

Yeah I agree somewhat with Dasa and Fuller earlier in this thread. Putting aside the SA system which seems to be a poorly executed example, addressing past racism and crimes is something that should be very much used in society.

Given that sometimes it doesn't work, in theory I have no problem with it and support it fully. People go on about slogans of reverse racism, stuff which is simplistic to say the least but as Dasa mentioned, an opportunity should be given to those less advantaged. Obviously others shouldn't be disadvantaged and that's the main problem with the current SA system.

My main point is this - crimes committed in the past still continue to have a huge impact now. therefore, they have to be addressed by us now. To just ignore it and say, well everyone is equal- starting from...now, is not on, seeing as the victims aren't equal, they're miles behind. Again, the action taken to rectify crimes shouldn't include disadvantaging others in an ideal world. But everything in 'our' power should be done to try and help those affected get back to an equal playing field and only then we can do away with the affirmative action. But to say everyone is equal from now, plainly isn't true because there are some very far behind.

Again the SA system seems like a poorly executed example of addressing past misdeeds, the quota system seems like an easy way out, as opposed to putting in the hard yards to get back to an equal playing field.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, I agree. IMO some kind of system is needed, such as a scholarship program that takes black youth and puts them into good cricketing schools. Like the Kallis foundation. That IMO, is a better way to help the disadvantaged.


PS. Gelman, get on MSN for a minute.

 

[GIMH]

A lot more to it than "mere hypocrisy". When you have a country with a history like that of South Africa where the majority was so brutally repressed for such a long time, I think it's not necessarily a bad thing to introduce some sort of 'artificial' system to redress the balance. You have to remember that the general population of South Africa never had any opportunity to gain a foothold in society (whether it be in sport or elsewhere) and quotas/affirmative action/etc is an attempt to bring some sort of equality to the country.

IMO, if the cricket team of South Africa has to suffer in the short-term to bring long-term racial harmony and to introduce real equality to the country, it's a (more than) fair trade-off. Much of the opinion against quotas (in general, not necessarily here) seem to deal with the fact that they will result in a relatively poor performance for the cricket team.

I think people can sometimes forget that there's a lot more to life than cricket, and considering the issues South Africa faces I think the relative performance of the national cricket team should be a very low priority compared to the potential long-term benefits of some sort of a quota system. Whether the way the system we see currently is ideal is not something I can comment on. However, in my opinion something should definitely be in place.

I think you make some fair points. I don't necessarily agree with what you're saying, but you've put a good case forward eloquently, and I can appreciate that.

It's fair to say that my POV mainly comes from a general view of society ie I don't believe any form of employment should be decided on quotas, rather than looking at it from SA's historical perspective. In this country, it is diabolical, IMO, that certain quotas have to be introduced in certain institutions, but I suppose it is more understandable in a country like South Africa. Whether that makes it right, I'm still not convinced, but I can see where you're coming from.

Anyway, I'll stop rambling...

 

[Beleg]

My main point is this - crimes committed in the past still continue to have a huge impact now.

Undeniably.

therefore, they have to be addressed by us now.

Definitely.

To just ignore it and say, well everyone is equal- starting from...now, is not on, seeing as the victims aren't equal, they're miles behind. Again, the action taken to rectify crimes shouldn't include disadvantaging others in an ideal world. But everything in 'our' power should be done to try and help those affected get back to an equal playing field and only then we can do away with the affirmative action.

Like I said earlier, why should an eighteen year old white male be punished for the 'alleged' crimes of his forefathers? Are you trying to stamp out racism, bring about equality or just compensate a generation which wasn't even oppersed (technically) to start with. Choose one.

But to say everyone is equal from now, plainly isn't true because there are some very far behind.

And why does that merit quota system? If they are far behind, then help them get on the same level without ****ing over the current generation in the meanterm.

Affirmative action is the bane of equality and good relations.

 

[Langeveldt]

Agreed, I was seven when Mandela left Robben Island, and have been educated in my entirity post apartheid.. Yet i'd still get discriminated against while being selected for a cricket team for something which went on before I was born?

 

[pasag]

Undeniably.



Definitely.



Like I said earlier, why should an eighteen year old white male be punished for the 'alleged' crimes of his forefathers? Are you trying to stamp out racism, bring about equality or just compensate a generation which wasn't even oppersed (technically) to start with. Choose one.



And why does that merit quota system? If they are far behind, then help them get on the same level without ****ing over the current generation in the meanterm.

Affirmative action is the bane of equality and good relations.

Beleg, you seem to have missed the points where I said the quota system isn't a good system and that actions should be taken to rectify past misdeeds that don't disadvantage others.

Again, there is nothing wrong with affirmative action imo when it is done in a correct way. I don't see why helping people can ever be the bane of equality and good relations.

And again I can't help but think, you glanced over some areas of my post and then said the exact same thing.

 

[Beleg]

I did miss your final paragraph, for that my appologies.


Helping someone at the expense of someone else is the bane of equality and good relationships.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Affirmative action undeniably has a role in assiting traditionally marginalised groups to gain a foothold in areas where they otherwise wouldn't have many opportunities. Things like university placements and job opportunities for disenfranchised groups play a crucial role in integrating people with few opportunities into the community and ensuring they have a reasonable chance to succeed.

I don't see the desperate need for them in cricket though. By its very nature sport offers a range of opportunities to people who otherwise have few chances to get ahead in life, and it is afterall just a game. I'd be much more concerned about whether or not "coloured" people in South Africa can become doctors or lawyers than whether or not they represent the nation in cricket, and I'd say opportunities to suceed in those fields are much rarer than in professional sport as well. Certainly that is the case with aboriginals in Australia. There are plenty of aboriginal AFL stars, but you'd be hard pressed to find an aboriginal CEO.

 

[silentstriker]

wasn't even oppersed (technically) to start with. Choose one.

I have to take issue with this statement. The money largely lies with the white population, even now (for their population size, the whites control a disproportionate amount of money). The fact that, on average, a black youth will have an upbringing with less monetary resources available is a disadvantage, and that is a result of the policies of the past.

No, they are not being directly discriminated against, but the effects of decades of oppression do not go away so easily.

Your point about an eighteen year old white boy being discriminated against even though he himself did nothing wrong is very valid, and it should be possible to redress the imbalances of the past without harming the current youth. Some sort of 'affirmative action' is necessary to change the situation.

It is important for the white youth realize that even though they are not 'at fault' for imbalances of the past, they still benefit from them by the very virtue of controlling more money, having access to better education, etc.

With that said, Pasag is spot on. There should be better ways to make amends without creating quotas for people who do not deserve it. Selection for teams should always be on merit but it may not be a good idea to do as the Kallis foundation does and choose an approach of scholarship route.

Basically, give the disadvantaged youth access to the white schools and infrastructure that has been proven to produce fine cricketers. That infrastructure already works, and that way everyone has an equal opportunity. In the end, that should be your goal. Not forced selection, but an equal opportunity to be selected. The last step should always be merit.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I think people can sometimes forget that there's a lot more to life than cricket

But isn't it entirely reasonable that on a cricket forum, cricket is always going to be the foremost consideration? The quota/target system is certainly part of a much larger issue, but of course it's natural for us to focus on its impact on the game.

If we are going to debate this in CC, then the focus has to be primarily on cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

You know, this artificial system of "nationalism" is screwing over so many Australian cricketers. Cricket at the highest level should be just that, the best players playing cricket. Its a travesty that clearly inferior players from Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, England, etc. are getting a chance to play at the highest level while superior Australian cricketers are missing out. Something should be ****ing done about it.

Not remotely the same.