I stumbled across this forum and felt compelled to respond with some of my own thoughts on the matter.
With regards to Luke Watson being 'selected', there are many people (on various sites I've visited and some here) saying that he deserved to be there and therefore it's good that Hoskins has stepped in. I'm sorry but the ends does not always justify the means. If they felt that the selectors and the coach were not up to the job they could have fired them. To ride roughshot over their decisions because "they know best" is a terrible precedent to set, and fundamentally why so many people are not happy about it.
With regards, to Luke Watson 'being black', the interesting thing this throws up is that we now have clear evidence that affirmative action policies are being pushed and promoted by a number of non-white leaders who simply see black = disadvantaged.
But maybe this will open a debate on what constitutes disadvantaged and therefore who should be getting support. You see, Rasool said something which although debatable, is how we should be thinking about AA:
"Given where he comes from, and where his father deliberately chose to play his rugby, on the dusty, pot-holed fields of the Eastern Cape's townships, Luke comes from a historically disadvantaged community," Rasool said.
But where he showed that his thinking is archaic and dangerous to South Africa’s chances of a multiracial, fair and equal society, he then adds:
"Jake White shouldn't be looking at Watson as a white player. If there are white flanks of equal ability, then Luke should get the nod because of his family's history."
That is where he brought colour into it and colour should have nothing to do with it. He assumes that all whites were/are advantaged. It’s like assuming all blacks were/are disadvantaged. It doesn't wash with me.
We will never move past racial lines in our country if policies are adopted that directly use race to classify things.
And lastly, it saddens me but doesn't surprise me that so many non-white people assume every white South African is either an open racist, or a closet racist. For example, I openly question AA because I believe it's implementation in SA is not the correct way to go about solving our problems. I'm not for one second suggesting that the horrors of Apartheid and it's lasting affect don't need to be dealt with, I am simply questioning the vehichle we are using to do so. But more often then not I am seen, at best, as insensitive to the enduring effects of generations of racism or, at worst, a racist seeking to preserve my own privilege.
As I said I am not surprised that there is mistrust for the white man, but I can assure you that there are many young white South Africans that long for an equal society that openly seeks to redress the imbalances caused by Apartheid. But that does not mean we will keep quiet when we see errors being made in pursuit if this and I find it offensive that I am judged simply on the colour of my skin when I voice such disagreement. Are the people who judge me any better than the Apartheid leaders of old who judged every black man by the colour of his skin?
PS. Sorry for the long post. I've just had to get it off my chest, and taking a closer look at this site, maybe an ADSL broadband site was not the place for it. Alas, I feel better for venting.
