I am beginning to think that maybe just getting rid of the Springbok emblem is the way to go. Defeatist? I am not so sure.
Like many things that involve politics, you can argue as much as you want with the system but ultimately “the system” will get its way. When the “system” introduces an idea into the public space, “the system” has generally already made up its mind. Read, “Let’s just talk about the Scorpions…”, “Perhaps Zuma would make a better President…” and “May I suggest honorable members that we pretend AIDS does not exist…oh look a potato, that will help…”.
At the heart of the matter the Springboks will always be the Springboks. The Kiwis play with a leaf emblem (you thought the Protea was a touch feminine?), yet we never hear Bladen exalting the Tries of the Silver Ferns! We rarely here cries of “go the Red Roses” at Twickenham and I sincerely doubt we will here “Go Proteas Go!” The Boks will always be the Boks regardless of what they wear. As Naas Botha pointed out – he never played for the jersey, he played for his country. Just as the national soccer side will forever be Bafana Bafana, so will our Rugby side be, colloquially, the Springbok.
This is not an article that pushes to end the springbok emblem but rather a suggestion. If the powers at be want it gone, it will pretty much happen. We have learnt this. Idiotic suggestions that Bafana Bafana should then carry at least 8 white members in its side, shows ignorance. Whites are a minority in this country – a just important part of the population as any other but still a minority. Cries of “We made this place what it is” also should fall on deaf ears and rightly so. Look what we made and look at what we did…just look.
Most whites stand around and tut-tut at the Springbok emblem being challenged. For years along with many other team sports in SA, whites were the only ones allowed to play. Damn right there will be people a little aggrieved.
Objectively the commercial brand of the Springbok does carry weight – but only because we have a winning team with 2 World Cups under their belts. Trust me , were we a side that lost continuously, it wouldn’t matter what the side was called. Commercially it would be a non-entity. No disrespect to soccer but let’s be honest, when you lose game after game, who cares what you’re called…we don’t even want to know you.
We have a strong player base of all colors in this country – just look at Craven week and our under-21 teams. Then ask yourself where these players go? Why do we see younger brothers of older players coming up through the ranks continuously. Yes they are damn good but they also know people, coaches, mangers and those in administration. Like any business it’s not what you know…
There is a very strong argument for players been lost in the system when they do not have the backing, the ear or the family footing within what is generally regarded as an old boys club in Rugby.
I am not saying that the system is or isn’t built on nepotism and protectionism. I am just saying that we need to look objectively at the facts and remove as much of the emotion as possible from both sides – who cares what Danie Craven said – he is not running things anymore and with al ldue respect in this case he was wrong. Perhaps in the next World Cup it will see the Red Roses up against the Silver Ferns in the semis…the Protea’s up against whatever the Wallabies national flora is, but if we are there and we are winning this argument will be long forgotten.
No comments:
Post a Comment