Racism in South African cricket

[Abdullah719]

Former South African cricketers Boeta Dippenaar and Pat Symcox have launched broadsides at Proteas fast bowler Lungi Ngidi for his stance on the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement.

Various sporting codes around the world have seen players engaged in gestures supporting the initiative, notably bending their knees before matches or wearing logos.

Ngidi, who was named SA's men's ODI and T20 Cricketer-of-the-Year at the annual CSA awards this past weekend, noted earlier this week that such action would be a collective decision, but one that needs to be taken "seriously".

"It's definitely something I believe we would be addressing as a team," Ngidi said.

"And if we're not, it's obviously something that I would bring up. It's something that we need to take seriously, like the rest of the world is doing. We need to make a stand."

In a Facebook post earlier this week, Rudi Steyn, himself a former Proteas batsman, posted that he agreed with Ngidi's stance that the national team should make a stand against racism.

However, the former Free State batsman added they have "lost my vote" if the issue of farm murders in South Africa does not receive equal coverage.

"I believe the Proteas should make a stand against racism, but if they stand up for 'black lives matter' while ignoring the way white farmers are daily being 'slaughtered' like animals, they have lost my vote," Steyn wrote, accompanied by an article of Ngidi urging SA cricketers to consider the Black Lives Matter stance.

Steyn's post generated a heated debate, with several former cricketers getting involved.

Dippenaar and Symcox made it clear that they were not in agreement with Ngidi.

Former opening batsman Dippenaar wrote: "I am afraid to say 'Black Lives Matter’ have become nothing more than leftist political movement. I would suggest that Lungi Ngidi listens a bit more to likes of Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Walter Williams and Milton Friedman.

"All lives matter. If you want me to stand shoulder to shoulder with you Lungi then stand shoulder to shoulder with me with regards to farm attacks."

Former off-spinner Symcox added: "What nonsense is this. He must take his own stand if he wishes. Stop trying to get Proteas involved in his belief. Besides the fact that right now Cricket South Africa should be closed down. A proper dog and pony show with cricket being dragged through the mud daily. Buy popcorn and watch.

"Now when Ngidi has his next meal perhaps he would rather consider supporting the farmers of South Africa who are under pressure right now. A cause worth supporting."

Other well-known former cricketers also added their voice.

Former Transvaal all-rounder Vince van der Bijl wrote: "Respect is allowing others to have their opinions. You are allowed yours. We do not have the space to state all the things that we talk about. And agree on. Saying one thing does not exclude other beliefs. We ache for so many things in this country. Hopefully we can help the healing as opposed to widen the divides."

Another former Transvaal all-rounder Hugh Page said: "In my opinion all lives matter!", with former Proteas all-rounder Brian McMillan adding: "Agreed Pagey. ...... All lives do matter. The sooner everyone acknowledges it the better ....".

https://www.news24.com/sport/cricke...ngidi-over-black-lives-matter-stance-20200709

 

[Shams123]

These loaded statements by ex players reflects the polarization and the prevalent racism south africa faces as a whole country. Situation seems very messy!

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/NgidiLungi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NgidiLungi</a> I am right behind you boy! <br><br>You said NOTHING wrong!<br><br>Black, white or brown... NO ONE should be treated with hatred, cruelty or differently based on their skin colour<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BlackLivesMatter?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BlackLivesMatter</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AllLivesMatter?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AllLivesMatter</a> ❤<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Peace?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Peace</a> ✌<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LungiNgidi?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LungiNgidi</a></p>— Tabraiz Shamsi (@shamsi90) <a href="https://twitter.com/shamsi90/status/1281172702225719297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I want 2 be clear on this! I support Lungi Ngidi's stance on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BLM?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BLM</a> I am disappointed with the unfortunate stance of some former Proteas cricketers on the matter. I also condemn farm murders in SA as well as women & children abuse. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AllLivesMattter?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AllLivesMattter</a> is possible if <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Blacklivesmatter?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Blacklivesmatter</a></p>— Alviro Petersen (@AlviroPetersen) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlviroPetersen/status/1281249912362020866?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Brutal murders of black people in America is wrong. Farm murders and farm attacks are wrong in South Africa. All lives Matter. But timing to adress both also matters. Not the time to settle political scores. My two cents.</p>— Leie_57 (@eddieleie) <a href="https://twitter.com/eddieleie/status/1281204538054148099?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="et" dir="ltr">I STAND WITH LUNGI NGIDI.&#55356;&#57342;</p>— Sibonelo Makhanya (@Sibzmakhanya) <a href="https://twitter.com/Sibzmakhanya/status/1281179194433638403?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Saj]

Not surprised at all that some former South African players are not in agreememt with Ngidi. Expect a divide along racial lines.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Get your facts straight Marais before you make a bigger **** of yourself. You have been riding that bandwagon for so long you have forgotten we all have a view. Respect that at least. <a href="https://t.co/JqiUdjPSII">https://t.co/JqiUdjPSII</a></p>— Pat Symcox (@PatSymcox77) <a href="https://twitter.com/PatSymcox77/status/1281030276559273986?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[MenInG]

Johannesburg (AFP) - A remark about Black Lives Matter in a Zoom press conference has made South Africa's one-day and Twenty20 international cricketer of the year Lungi Ngidi the centre of controversy echoing the country's uncomfortable recent past.

Bowler Ngidi, 24, said he believed his team-mates should make a stand ahead of the next time the squad meets.

"It's definitely something that we will discuss once we are together in person," said Ngidi over the weekend.

"We have spoken about it and everyone is well aware of what's going on. It's a difficult one because we are not together, so it's hard to discuss. But once we get back to playing that is definitely something we have to address as a team."

Ngidi pointed to South Africa's history of racial discrimination which included decades of segregation across all levels of society.

"It's something that we need to take very seriously and, like the rest of the world is doing, make a stand."

Ngidi followed up his remarks by retweeting an extract of former West Indian fast bowler Michael Holding's impassioned comments about racism in Sky television's build-up to the first Test between England and the West Indies on Wednesday.

Former Proteas Test players Pat Symcox and Boeta Dippenaar were among several users of social media who criticised Ngidi.

Both Symcox and Dippenaar raised the emotive issue of a recent spate of murders in which several farmers, mainly white, have been killed, sometimes in brutal circumstances.

"When Ngidi has his next meal perhaps he would rather consider supporting the farmers of South Africa who are under pressure right now. A cause worth supporting," tweeted Symcox.

Dippenaar said he believed Black Lives Matter had become a "leftist political movement."

He added: "All lives matter. If you want me to stand shoulder to shoulder with you Lungi then stand shoulder to shoulder with me with regards to farm attacks."

But Symcox praised Holding for his forthright comments on racism.

"I so like the fact that Michael Holding is prepared to and more importantly allowed to speak (about) what he believes in and what his opinion is."

Both Symcox and Dippenaar were castigated on social media, mainly by black South Africans.

Vince van der Bijl, a former fast bowler and ex-International Cricket Council umpiring chief, supported Ngidi.

"I stand alongside Lungi Ngidi in BLM," he wrote on Facebook.

"I really believe we as cricketers have it in us to help heal these great divides in privilege, race, religion and attitudes."

South Africa one-day spin bowler Tabraiz Shamsi also tweeted his support for Ngidi.

"I am right behind you," he said.

Cricket South Africa director of cricket Graeme Smith said the organisation was discussing "various ways of handling" the race issue but said no Black Lives Matter logo would be on the shirts for a lockdown-ending three-team match on July 18 because the kits had already been printed.

https://sports.yahoo.com/proteas-ngidi-black-lives-matter-controversy-143205906--spt.html

 

[MenInG]

Cricket South Africa statement on Black Lives Matter

Thursday, 09 July 2020

Cricket South Africa (CSA) stands in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement.

CSA was founded on the principles of non-racialism and inclusion at unity. The vision of CSA, to become a truly national sport of winners supported by the majority, finds resonance in the ethos of “Black Lives Matter”.

Our cricket development programmes have proven demonstrably that we strive to work towards the constitutional promise of a redress and equality for all.

The organization’s Acting CEO, Dr Jacques Faul, said:

“Black Lives Matter. It is as simple as that. As a national sporting body representing more than 56 million South Africans and with the privileged position of owning a platform as large as we do, it is of vital importance that we use our voice to educate and listen to others on topics involving all forms of discrimination.

“During our celebrations of Nelson Mandela International Day on 18 July, CSA will further spread the message of anti-racism through the BLM campaign while we also speak out against all forms of violence and in particular, the scourge that is Gender Based Violence and various other causes that are of importance to our society and the organization.”

 

[sweep_shot]

Cricket should be free from politics.

You want to raise issues, do that outside of cricket.

Also, BLM has little relevance in South Africa because blacks are majority there.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Its hardly surprising to be that Pat Symcox is a racist. Let's not forget that South Africa was an openly racist country until very recently. There was a reason they were banned from cricket. He of all people (and same goes for Dipenaar) should not be making pointed statements like these especially considering their country's atrocious history of systematic discrimination and subjugation of black South Africans.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Cricket should be free from politics.

You want to raise issues, do that outside of cricket.

Also, BLM has little relevance in South Africa because blacks are majority there.

I agree with you that cricket should be free of politics. But for you to say that BLM has little relevance in South Africa is frankly an ignorant statement for you to make because it comes at a complete rejection of history and current circumstances.

South Africa for the majority of its existence has been a colonized country. Even when it was ruled by South Africans the blacks were treated like colonized people. This history of subjugating the blacks who were always in majority is why South Africa today is the most unequal country in the world. A country where there is crippling poverty and rampant crime and where so many South Africans still live in slums. Its also worth noting that it is still the black South Africans who are the most disadvantaged and who make up this extremely poor lower class. The whites almost all come from affluent backgrounds.

So its not as simple as you put it. Its a history of hundreds of years of racism that might take another hundred years to fix.

 

[hitthestump]

Its hardly surprising to be that Pat Symcox is a racist. Let's not forget that South Africa was an openly racist country until very recently. There was a reason they were banned from cricket. He of all people (and same goes for Dipenaar) should not be making pointed statements like these especially considering their country's atrocious history of systematic discrimination and subjugation of black South Africans.

I'm sorry, but this really doesn't conclude that Pat Symcox is a racist. I agree that his statement is in very bad taste though and SA's need to be mindful of their history.

 

[Junaids]

I think that it's pretty much accepted in most of the advanced English-speaking world that "All Lives Matter" is a way of saying "Black Lives Really Don't Matter". But most of the people with that mindset cannot see its inherent racism and think they are not racist.

The attitudes of Boeta Dippenaar and Pat Symcox come as no surprise to those of us who have spent considerable time in South Africa.

Dippenaar was only 17 when Apartheid ended, but he is an Afrikaaner - they tended to be much more prejudiced than English-speaking whites - and he attended Hansie Cronje's Alma Mater - Grey College in Bloemfontein. I've been to Bloemfontein - it's a town where five times as many people speak Afrikaans and attitudes are still stuck very much in the "we built this country and now the savages are killing our farmers" line of thought.

Symcox is different. He's an English-speaking South African - although he grew up in Kimberley - and he has been a successful businessman in Natal, where the population is a mix of Zulus, Indians and English-speaking whites. But he is from an older generation: Dippenaar only experienced Apartheid until the age of 17, whereas Symcox chose to live under it until the age of 34, whereas many of his peers who were sickened by it moved to England or Australia or New Zealand.

So we are talking about people whose own origins and early upbringing have left them with views which remain mainstream for their social groups (Dippenaar as an Afrikaaner educated under Apartheid, and Symcox as an English-speaking South African who benefitted from Apartheid until the age of 34).

They almost certainly both view themselves as liberal and progressive - and compared with their parents' generation they are. But their views are rather sad consequences of their upbringing, just like if you speak to white Americans from the Deep South who were born before 1945 they tend to have quite shocking views too.

It's pointless to argue whether they are or are not racist. We just need to recognize that Dippenaar and Symcox are the past and that they need to be ignored.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

I think that it's pretty much accepted in most of the advanced English-speaking world that "All Lives Matter" is a way of saying "Black Lives Really Don't Matter". But most of the people with that mindset cannot see its inherent racism and think they are not racist.

The attitudes of Boeta Dippenaar and Pat Symcox come as no surprise to those of us who have spent considerable time in South Africa.

Dippenaar was only 17 when Apartheid ended, but he is an Afrikaaner - they tended to be much more prejudiced than English-speaking whites - and he attended Hansie Cronje's Alma Mater - Grey College in Bloemfontein. I've been to Bloemfontein - it's a town where five times as many people speak Afrikaans and attitudes are still stuck very much in the "we built this country and now the savages are killing our farmers" line of thought.

Symcox is different. He's an English-speaking South African - although he grew up in Kimberley - and he has been a successful businessman in Natal, where the population is a mix of Zulus, Indians and English-speaking whites. But he is from an older generation: Dippenaar only experienced Apartheid until the age of 17, whereas Symcox chose to live under it until the age of 34, whereas many of his peers who were sickened by it moved to England or Australia or New Zealand.

So we are talking about people whose own origins and early upbringing have left them with views which remain mainstream for their social groups (Dippenaar as an Afrikaaner educated under Apartheid, and Symcox as an English-speaking South African who benefitted from Apartheid until the age of 34).

They almost certainly both view themselves as liberal and progressive - and compared with their parents' generation they are. But their views are rather sad consequences of their upbringing, just like if you speak to white Americans from the Deep South who were born before 1945 they tend to have quite shocking views too.

It's pointless to argue whether they are or are not racist. We just need to recognize that Dippenaar and Symcox are the past and that they need to be ignored.

Like always, your post puts things into a reasonable prospective.

People's minds change slowly and steadily.

It's pointless to argue whether they are or are not racist.

I don't think they are racist at all. It's just, as you said, they should be ignored and they are simply part of a different generation.
But nah, they are not racist, like KKK or similar 'Murican thugs.

 

[Giannis]

We have quite a few white South African immigrants in my state and I swear they are some of the most racist Whites you will come across.

 

[aloo paratha]

Not supporting BLM, the movement, does not make you racist.

 

[Junaids]

We have quite a few white South African immigrants in my state and I swear they are some of the most racist Whites you will come across.

I tried in my earlier reply to explain that all white South Africans are not the same.

In general, they vary according to:

1. How many years they lived under Apartheid.

2. Whether they are Afrikaans or English speakers.

3. Whether they grew up in towns or in the country.

 

[Indiafan]

Cricket should be free from politics.

You want to raise issues, do that outside of cricket.

Also, BLM has little relevance in South Africa because blacks are majority there.

I wonder how low humanity has fallen when something as simple as asking for human rights is seen as politics. And this usually come from entitled people who are not affected. If it was something affecting your own family, you would be out on the street

Cricketers have raised money for charity for earth quake victims etc. This is basic human rights. And many of the cricketers themselves say they have felt discrimination while playing and this comes from that. Cricketers have huge influence which can be used for good

I think one needs to be really really really self centered to think this is political.

 

[Giannis]

Not supporting BLM, the movement, does not make you racist.

It in fact does.

 

[Last Monetarist]

It in fact does.

You're confusing opinion with fact there.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

I think that it's pretty much accepted in most of the advanced English-speaking world that "All Lives Matter" is a way of saying "Black Lives Really Don't Matter". But most of the people with that mindset cannot see its inherent racism and think they are not racist.

The attitudes of Boeta Dippenaar and Pat Symcox come as no surprise to those of us who have spent considerable time in South Africa.

Dippenaar was only 17 when Apartheid ended, but he is an Afrikaaner - they tended to be much more prejudiced than English-speaking whites - and he attended Hansie Cronje's Alma Mater - Grey College in Bloemfontein. I've been to Bloemfontein - it's a town where five times as many people speak Afrikaans and attitudes are still stuck very much in the "we built this country and now the savages are killing our farmers" line of thought.

Symcox is different. He's an English-speaking South African - although he grew up in Kimberley - and he has been a successful businessman in Natal, where the population is a mix of Zulus, Indians and English-speaking whites. But he is from an older generation: Dippenaar only experienced Apartheid until the age of 17, whereas Symcox chose to live under it until the age of 34, whereas many of his peers who were sickened by it moved to England or Australia or New Zealand.

So we are talking about people whose own origins and early upbringing have left them with views which remain mainstream for their social groups (Dippenaar as an Afrikaaner educated under Apartheid, and Symcox as an English-speaking South African who benefitted from Apartheid until the age of 34).

They almost certainly both view themselves as liberal and progressive - and compared with their parents' generation they are. But their views are rather sad consequences of their upbringing, just like if you speak to white Americans from the Deep South who were born before 1945 they tend to have quite shocking views too.

It's pointless to argue whether they are or are not racist. We just need to recognize that Dippenaar and Symcox are the past and that they need to be ignored.

Really well articulated.

 

[hashimafzal]

Cricket should be free from politics.

You want to raise issues, do that outside of cricket.

Also, BLM has little relevance in South Africa because blacks are majority there.

Cricket should be free from politics, but BLM is different from traditional politics. Racism and BLM in general is a human rights issue. If people want to come out against it then they are clearly racists.

 

[MenInG]

SACA SUPPORTS PLAYERS' RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Lundi Ngidi’s recent media posts stating that he would be in favour of supporting the Black Lives Matter cause have resulted in extensive social and mainstream media commentary. The South African Cricketers’ Association (SACA) today recorded their strong support for Lungi and his right to Freedom of Expression.

Individual Athlete Activism has challenged societal prejudices since Tommie Smith, Peter Norman, and John Carlos stood up for human rights and against racial oppression from the Olympic Podium in 1968. The International Olympic Committee earlier this year confirmed their regulations of suppressing the right of Olympic athletes to exercise their Freedom of Expression. This is evidence of how little change there has been within world sport, it denies athletes their basic right to express an opinion, and reinforces the institutional racism that exists in many sporting federations.

Andrew Breetzke, CEO of SACA commented; “Freedom of Expression is an enabling right that all South Africans support. We must, therefore, respect Lungi, as a sporting role model, when he exercises his Freedom of Expression on the important matter of racial discrimination. To subject him to unfair criticism is to undermine his right.

As SACA CEO I lead a diverse group of players and I stand with Lungi in my commitment to transformation, diversity, and to continue to work towards building a more inclusive game and society.”

Individual athlete activism leads to collective athlete activism, which can ultimately lead to institutional change. This is a phenomenon that is being experienced throughout the world following the growth of the Black Lives Matter movement.
“Many of our cricketers have spoken out on a number of issues, including lack of transformation, gender-based violence and child abuse – they are more than sportsmen and women, they have a right to support initiatives that represent their social interest. Sport continues to be a microcosm of society, yet it remains the most forceful tool we have to break the shackles and bondages of the past,” added Omphile Ramela, SACA President.

 

[Rajdeep]

Totally agree with Symcox and Dippenar. BLM is nothing but a leftist political agenda which is a menace to the society. This non-sense has no place in cricket field.

 

[Ahmed216]

Totally agree with Symcox and Dippenar. BLM is nothing but a leftist political agenda which is a menace to the society. This non-sense has no place in cricket field.

Political debates have to shift from merely being left right tussle. Painting everything as an issue between leftists and rightists is conciliatory.

 

[Ahmed216]

Concealing*^

 

[the Great Khan]

Not supporting BLM, the movement, does not make you racist.

so what does it make you then.

If you dont believe that Black lives Matter then you are a racist. Yes or No?

 

[MenInG]

Guys - lets stick to topic now.

 

[CricketCartoons]

so what does it make you then.

If you dont believe that Black lives Matter then you are a racist. Yes or No?

In the context of south africa, it should be White lives matter. They are the ones in minority and being killed.

 

[Danyaalr01]

We have quite a few white South African immigrants in my state and I swear they are some of the most racist Whites you will come across.

I've observed that in NZ the white South Africans who came here in the 90s tend to be a lot more racist than the ones that have come since then.

My last cricket coach was fresh from South Africa last year and was a really nice person. But then there was this other coach I know who came here a while ago and he was well known to be racist to coloured people.

 

[sweep_shot]

Well, South Africa have two options. They can go West Indies way or they can go another way.

If they focus too much on non-cricket matters, they can turn into another West Indies.

We all have seen what quota system has done to South Africa cricket and Zimbabwe cricket.

Having said that, racism issue needs to be addressed. All racism need to be addressed.

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The fact that some past players have an issue with <a href="https://twitter.com/NgidiLungi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NgidiLungi</a> stance on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/blacklivesmatter?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#blacklivesmatter</a> movement is actually the reason why we are still here today saying black lives matter. Smfh &#55357;&#56865;&#55357;&#56865;&#55357;&#56865;<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/standupbrother?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#standupbrother</a> we here with u &#55356;&#57343;&#55356;&#57343;&#55356;&#57343;&#55356;&#57343;&#55356;&#57343;</p>— Daren Sammy (@darensammy88) <a href="https://twitter.com/darensammy88/status/1281347596062265354?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[aloo paratha]

so what does it make you then.

If you dont believe that Black lives Matter then you are a racist. Yes or No?

I quite clearly stated, that not supporting BLM, the movement does not make you racist. Black lives matter the movement is very different from black lives matter the statement. BLM the movement, is very political, they have a history of using the donations they get to fund democratic politicians. Also they are focused on the wrong things, and clearly have an agenda. 9 unarmed black men were killed by the police in all of 2019. More black people will be shot, stabbed etc on a weekend in Chicago, likely by another black person, but it seems that those black lives don't matter. Why do black lives only seem to matter when a white person takes them?

Yes, I believe if you don't think black lives matter, you are racist. But that's not what Dippenaar is doing, he's criticising BLM, the movement.

 

[aloo paratha]

It in fact does.

Refer to my post above replying to the Great Khan.

 

[Abdullah719]

Boeta Dippenaar stands by views on Black Lives Matter: 'All lives matter'

Former Proteas batsman Boeta Dippenaar stands by his highly-publicised criticism of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) organisation this week, arguing that it is a movement rooted in Marxism and that "all lives matter".

Dippenaar and former Proteas spinner Pat Symcox drew significant criticism on social media on Thursday for their Facebook responses to an article in which current Proteas speedster, Lungi Ngidi, expressed the need for the Proteas to collectively show solidarity with BLM on the issue of racism.

"I am afraid to say 'Black Lives Matter’ have become nothing more than leftist political movement. I would suggest that Lungi Ngidi listens a bit more to likes of Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Walter Williams and Milton Friedman," Dippenaar wrote in a comments thread on the Facebook page of another former Protea in Rudi Steyn.

"All lives matter. If you want me to stand shoulder to shoulder with you Lungi then stand shoulder to shoulder with me with regards to farm attacks."

Speaking to Sport24 on Friday morning, Dippenaar was unmoved on his views.

"The idea was certainly not for it to end up going the way it did ... but I stand by my view," he said.

"I don't think people take the trouble to do their research and the reading. I think the intentions around Black Lives Matter were probably noble in the beginning, but the views of its founding members are fundamentally Marxist. I encourage everyone to read more about them."

Speaking directly on his message to Ngidi, Dippenaar said he would gladly apologise if he had misunderstood the 24-year-old.

"From what I could tell from the article I read, Lungi was leading a discussion to get the Proteas collectively to support Black Lives Matter as an organisation, and if I misunderstood that, I will happily apologise," he said.

"What does it (BLM) really stand for? I posted my views and made it clear that, in my opinion, all lives matter."

When asked if there was a need for a movement to highlight the plights facing black people both in the United States and globally, Dippenaar pointed to statistics out of the USA that suggested white people, relative to population size, were more likely to be killed by police.

"In South Africa during that time, we had the Collins Khosa case. Where was BLM then?" Dippenaar also posed.

Dippenaar, through his commentary work post-retirement, has met Ngidi and says he is a "lovely oke".

Dippenaar does not believe, though, that Cricket South Africa (CSA) or the Proteas should support BLM as a collective.

"It's a Marxist system that seeks to break down the very system of family that we are built on."

When asked if there were any positive aspects to the BLM movement, Dippenaar responded: "Yes. The fact that they highlight the importance of lives. All lives should matter."

CSA's acting chief executive officer, Jacques Faul, on Thursday evening confirmed the organisation stands in solidarity with the movement.

In a press release sent to the media on Thursday evening, CSA stressed that the organisation was founded on the principles of non-racialism and inclusion.

"Black Lives Matter. It is as simple as that," said Faul.

"As a national sporting body representing more than 56 million South Africans and with the privileged position of owning a platform as large as we do, it is of vital importance that we use our voice to educate and listen to others on topics involving all forms of discrimination."

Sport24 also contacted Symcox on Friday morning, who opted against an interview.

https://www.news24.com/sport/Cricke...-black-lives-matter-all-lives-matter-20200710

 

[aloo paratha]

I wonder how low humanity has fallen when something as simple as asking for human rights is seen as politics.

What human rights are black people lacking in the Western world? As far as I know, all are equal in front of the law.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">'Rooted in Marxism' - this comment is vexatious and serves to exacerbate this matter. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Alllivesmatter?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Alllivesmatter</a> is possible if <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BLACK_LIVES_MATTER?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BLACK_LIVES_MATTER</a> !! <a href="https://t.co/KZVUeW2wki">https://t.co/KZVUeW2wki</a></p>— Alviro Petersen (@AlviroPetersen) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlviroPetersen/status/1281671692323041290?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Black player drinks too much on a flight, it’s all over the media. White player urinates over the balcony of a team hotel, with several onlookers, it’s swept under the carpet. It’s not my intention to attach names and tarnish people’s reputations. We just want EQUALITY!</p>— Ashwell Prince (@ashyp_5) <a href="https://twitter.com/ashyp_5/status/1281594178703634438?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[sweep_shot]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">'Rooted in Marxism' - this comment is vexatious and serves to exacerbate this matter. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Alllivesmatter?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Alllivesmatter</a> is possible if <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BLACK_LIVES_MATTER?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BLACK_LIVES_MATTER</a> !! <a href="https://t.co/KZVUeW2wki">https://t.co/KZVUeW2wki</a></p>— Alviro Petersen (@AlviroPetersen) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlviroPetersen/status/1281671692323041290?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I follow BLM since its early days. This group started in 2013.

BLM had a noble beginning but it has been infiltrated by groups with agendas. There are different groups within BLM.

I hope black people will receive social justice. I also hope Marxists will not become powerful thanks to this group.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I played with wonderful players & good men, but there were some 'bad' ones. I stood against systematic racism when I played and was victimized for it. I have stories to tell, but dont worry RACIST, I won't call you out, yet! You thought I would fall, but I still stand!</p>— Alviro Petersen (@AlviroPetersen) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlviroPetersen/status/1281264757992042497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I think that it's pretty much accepted in most of the advanced English-speaking world that "All Lives Matter" is a way of saying "Black Lives Really Don't Matter". But most of the people with that mindset cannot see its inherent racism and think they are not racist.

The attitudes of Boeta Dippenaar and Pat Symcox come as no surprise to those of us who have spent considerable time in South Africa.

Dippenaar was only 17 when Apartheid ended, but he is an Afrikaaner - they tended to be much more prejudiced than English-speaking whites - and he attended Hansie Cronje's Alma Mater - Grey College in Bloemfontein. I've been to Bloemfontein - it's a town where five times as many people speak Afrikaans and attitudes are still stuck very much in the "we built this country and now the savages are killing our farmers" line of thought.

Symcox is different. He's an English-speaking South African - although he grew up in Kimberley - and he has been a successful businessman in Natal, where the population is a mix of Zulus, Indians and English-speaking whites. But he is from an older generation: Dippenaar only experienced Apartheid until the age of 17, whereas Symcox chose to live under it until the age of 34, whereas many of his peers who were sickened by it moved to England or Australia or New Zealand.

So we are talking about people whose own origins and early upbringing have left them with views which remain mainstream for their social groups (Dippenaar as an Afrikaaner educated under Apartheid, and Symcox as an English-speaking South African who benefitted from Apartheid until the age of 34).

They almost certainly both view themselves as liberal and progressive - and compared with their parents' generation they are. But their views are rather sad consequences of their upbringing, just like if you speak to white Americans from the Deep South who were born before 1945 they tend to have quite shocking views too.

It's pointless to argue whether they are or are not racist. We just need to recognize that Dippenaar and Symcox are the past and that they need to be ignored.

Your wealth of information is always a pleasure to read.

That is, when you are not busy trolling the Indians, deliberately.

A very informative post.

Should be read by everyone.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Dippenaar and Pat Symcox have every right to their opinions. Not sure why everyone has to publicly support or even acknowledge this movement. That doesn't make them racist.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

I think that it's pretty much accepted in most of the advanced English-speaking world that "All Lives Matter" is a way of saying "Black Lives Really Don't Matter". But most of the people with that mindset cannot see its inherent racism and think they are not racist.

The attitudes of Boeta Dippenaar and Pat Symcox come as no surprise to those of us who have spent considerable time in South Africa.

Dippenaar was only 17 when Apartheid ended, but he is an Afrikaaner - they tended to be much more prejudiced than English-speaking whites - and he attended Hansie Cronje's Alma Mater - Grey College in Bloemfontein. I've been to Bloemfontein - it's a town where five times as many people speak Afrikaans and attitudes are still stuck very much in the "we built this country and now the savages are killing our farmers" line of thought.

Symcox is different. He's an English-speaking South African - although he grew up in Kimberley - and he has been a successful businessman in Natal, where the population is a mix of Zulus, Indians and English-speaking whites. But he is from an older generation: Dippenaar only experienced Apartheid until the age of 17, whereas Symcox chose to live under it until the age of 34, whereas many of his peers who were sickened by it moved to England or Australia or New Zealand.

So we are talking about people whose own origins and early upbringing have left them with views which remain mainstream for their social groups (Dippenaar as an Afrikaaner educated under Apartheid, and Symcox as an English-speaking South African who benefitted from Apartheid until the age of 34).

They almost certainly both view themselves as liberal and progressive - and compared with their parents' generation they are. But their views are rather sad consequences of their upbringing, just like if you speak to white Americans from the Deep South who were born before 1945 they tend to have quite shocking views too.

It's pointless to argue whether they are or are not racist. We just need to recognize that Dippenaar and Symcox are the past and that they need to be ignored.

POTW Contender.
Posts like these won't be a rarity if you stop sensationalizing.

 

[Hasan123]

I'm sure South Africa will show some solidarity for the BLM when they next play.

 

[Giannis]

Dippenaar and Pat Symcox have every right to their opinions. Not sure why everyone has to publicly support or even acknowledge this movement. That doesn't make them racist.

and every one has the right to call them out and counter their opinions, it's a two way street.

 

[Junaids]

Dippenaar’s follow-up comments tell a very clear story.

White South Africans did benefit from Apartheid, but they were brainwashed from an early age by the single TV channel’s constant propaganda. To them, they were good Christians and racial equality was Communism, and therefore evil.

Mike Procter was born in the 1940’s, and was an ATG all-rounder. And he himself has written - as has Shaun Pollock’s dad - about how he was sickened when he first visited England and saw white people in menial jobs and non-white people going to work in a suit and tie. Both men are now ashamed of the racist attitudes they had been groomed to hold.

The propaganda mainly painted racial equality as a form of Communism. This worked well for the Apartheid government, which side-stepped sanctions by persuading the US government that it was its ally in Southern Africa against Communism.

Ultimately this led to the border war in Angola, and to South Africa’s military defeat by Cuba at the Calueque Dam. With Cuba having finally established air superiority it was clear that South Africa could no longer defend itself against invasion and that Apartheid had to be dismantled. If De Klerk hadn’t agreed to abandon Apartheid, Cuba would have torn through South West Africa (now Namibia) and would have quickly advanced to Cape Town.

You can see from Dippenaar’s comments that for decades his parents feared a Marxist takeover of South Africa if the whites ever lost power, and that he shares their world view.

Anybody who watched Michael Holding talk about Black Lives Matter just before the current Test knows that for cricketers it is about dignity, safety, equal opportunity and respect.

Unfortunately for significant numbers of Afrikaaners like Dippenaar that means Communism, Terrorism and Evil.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

and every one has the right to call them out and counter their opinions, it's a two way street.

I never said they dont. Just pointing out it's not racist to be unsupportive of movements like blm

 

[Junaids]

I never said they dont. Just pointing out it's not racist to be unsupportive of movements like blm

I think there is confusion as to what Black Lives Matter actually is.

There may be a core militant group with a political agenda.

But when you see Mike Atherton on Sky Sports with a BLM badge, or Michael Holding talking with intense emotion, you are watching something else: Black Lives Matter as an IDEA, an IDEAL.

And I think it is racist to oppose that idea, which literally is no more and no less than the idea that black lives do matter.

 

[Giannis]

I never said they dont. Just pointing out it's not racist to be unsupportive of movements like blm

By definition it is.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I think there is confusion as to what Black Lives Matter actually is.

There may be a core militant group with a political agenda.

But when you see Mike Atherton on Sky Sports with a BLM badge, or Michael Holding talking with intense emotion, you are watching something else: Black Lives Matter as an IDEA, an IDEAL.

And I think it is racist to oppose that idea, which literally is no more and no less than the idea that black lives do matter.

Fair enough . But if all cricketers or sportsmen in a team are comfortable in bowing down etc. , I have no problem. However, if a few of them do have an issue with it, it will unnecessarily destroy whatever unity is left in SA cricket. Especially at a time when they are aggressively pursuing transformation targets.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

By definition it is.

Only If you are a person who believes in absolutes.

 

[topspin]

If you are opposed to the BLM movement then you obviously don't agree with equality for black people, so you would be a racist in my view.

 

[Bewal Express]

If you are opposed to the BLM movement then you obviously don't agree with equality for black people, so you would be a racist in my view.

I am opposed to the BLM because of its narrow politically motivated focus and I am for equality for black people and I don't consider myself to be racist.

 

[topspin]

I am opposed to the BLM because of its narrow politically motivated focus and I am for equality for black people and I don't consider myself to be racist.

Equality for black people isn't a political movement. From my experience, I have found most Pakistanis to be racist towards black people, so this attitude isn't at all surprising.

 

[Bewal Express]

Equality for black people isn't a political movement. From my experience, I have found most Pakistanis to be racist towards black people, so this attitude isn't at all surprising.

And who is arguing against equility for black people. But this is political movement that is using crimes committed by the Police but ignoring the horrific black on black violence in the black community. This is just rubbish to give the black celebratory elite more bargaining power. The real victims of discrimination are not the ones that will gain anything, infact the black community will lose more if the Police pull back. I want to see real efforts to improve schools and apprenticeships that help black kids overcome historical discrimination.

 

[topspin]

And who is arguing against equility for black people. But this is political movement that is using crimes committed by the Police but ignoring the horrific black on black violence in the black community. This is just rubbish to give the black celebratory elite more bargaining power. The real victims of discrimination are not the ones that will gain anything, infact the black community will lose more if the Police pull back. I want to see real efforts to improve schools and apprenticeships that help black kids overcome historical discrimination.

The black on black violence is indeed horrific but does that justify all the police brutality that has gone on against them?

I'm not gonna go as far as saying that police departments in the US should be defunded but there needs to be an overhaul with the policing system there. The fact that you are more concerned about the police "pulling back" shows to me you don't genuinely care about equality for the black race in the US.

 

[Bewal Express]

The black on black violence is indeed horrific but does that justify all the police brutality that has gone on against them?

I'm not gonna go as far as saying that police departments in the US should be defunded but there needs to be an overhaul with the policing system there. The fact that you are more concerned about the police "pulling back" shows to me you don't genuinely care about equality for the black race in the US.

No it doesn't but we must keep it in perspective. If you look at the stats, Police violence is rare and statistically insignificant( although not unimportant) when the bigger issue of violence against black people is considered.
If the Police pull back, more black people will die, already some places like Chicago are like war zones. It depends on what you mean by reform, if reform means more training, then that is great, if it means less Police in black areas, then it means more black people die. How does that make black lives matter. Those fake tears for black people will not save a single black life. What will save black lives is better education and opportunities.

 

[Buffet]

No it doesn't but we must keep it in perspective. If you look at the stats, Police violence is rare and statistically insignificant( although not unimportant) when the bigger issue of violence against black people is considered.
If the Police pull back, more black people will die, already some places like Chicago are like war zones. It depends on what you mean by reform, if reform means more training, then that is great, if it means less Police in black areas, then it means more black people die. How does that make black lives matter. Those fake tears for black people will not save a single black life. What will save black lives is better education and opportunities.

Growing up in very high crime rate creates tons of problem for teens. Police pulling back will simply make the situation worse. Police training should be made better. They should not be given army surplus, but pulling them out has done more harm to black community. It's been proven in past.

Many people don't know that Blacks in America are 4.78X as likely as whites to injure a cop with gun/knife, 4.43X to kill a cop. Since violance is very high , other side of data is also high. More blacks, adjusted for population, are getting killed and arrested by cops.

It's not just about police acting poorly. There is surely problem there, but bigger problem is poverty in AA community creating poor situations. Pulling out cops won't solve anything here.

 

[Junaids]

No it doesn't but we must keep it in perspective. If you look at the stats, Police violence is rare and statistically insignificant( although not unimportant) when the bigger issue of violence against black people is considered.
If the Police pull back, more black people will die, already some places like Chicago are like war zones. It depends on what you mean by reform, if reform means more training, then that is great, if it means less Police in black areas, then it means more black people die. How does that make black lives matter. Those fake tears for black people will not save a single black life. What will save black lives is better education and opportunities.

I think you need to discount the Trump political posturing about a wave of black crime and war zones and return to a few basic principles.

Hardly any Democrat voters in the USA (or black people in South Africa) who support the ideal that Black Lives Matter actually want to defund the Police. Boeta Dippenaar only sees his own community, and seems totally ignorant of the reality that Black South Africans are ten times more likely to suffer violent crime than white farmers.

We probably all agree that violent crime by black Americans and black South Africans is fuelled by poverty and a lack of opportunities. A subset of young black South Africans see whites retaining their ill-gotten gains and decide to unilaterally redistribute that ill-gotten wealth.

The problem is that while we all agree on the need for education and development, attitudes to policing vary wildly. The USA is the only English-speaking country where the word conservative (with a small C) is considered acceptable. Even Conservatives like me in the UK self-identify as liberal and progressive, and consider conservative social values to be backward and destructive.

Cricketers are a notoriously conservative group of people - hence the Australian and English cricket tours of Apartheid-era South Africa. Boeta Dippenaar's comments in this thread illustrate this: to him the life of a white farmer is worth the lives of dozens of black township residents.

Most of us in the UK and New Zealand, and to a lesser extent Australia, view Policing as a service, which needs to have the support of the community to which it is a servant. If the Police service loses the trust and support of the community that it serves it loses its legitimacy and its ability to operate safely.

In countries with armed police - i.e. not the UK or New Zealand - the Police tends to attract the most conservative young men into signing up. People who view themselves as the guardians of the community rather than as servants of that community. Such people require incredible amounts of training and oversight to function safely because they are always going to be too quick to draw their weapons when they could diffuse situations.

To me, what is required is not defunding of the Police but restructuring of it, with it losing much of its autonomy and functioning under strict rules, particularly about drawing weapons.

Boeta Dippenaar laments the deaths of white farmers yet is incapable of seeing that the South African Police keeps them safer than black township residents. And he is incapable of seeing that the South African Police retains the support of the vast majority of township residents because it is no longer white-dominated and because it reflects their wishes and expectations.

The ANC has made many mistakes in South Africa and exhibits the problems of any party that retains power for too long. But they have done an amazing job in transforming a country in which 26 years ago 90% of lives did not matter.

 

[Junaids]

Growing up in very high crime rate creates tons of problem for teens. Police pulling back will simply make the situation worse. Police training should be made better. They should not be given army surplus, but pulling them out has done more harm to black community. It's been proven in past.

Many people don't know that Blacks in America are 4.78X as likely as whites to injure a cop with gun/knife, 4.43X to kill a cop. Since violance is very high , other side of data is also high. More blacks, adjusted for population, are getting killed and arrested by cops.

It's not just about police acting poorly. There is surely problem there, but bigger problem is poverty in AA community creating poor situations. Pulling out cops won't solve anything here.

Less than 5% of Democrat voters support defunding the Police. It's just a political act of Deadcatting by a government which doesn't want people to talk about its failures with Coronavirus, unemployment and the economy.

Defunding the Police is stupid. In places like St Louis and Chicago they need to copy South African cricket - strict racial quotas at every level of the Police from the bottom to the top. When you think of incidents like the George Floyd killing, it might well have gone differently if 2 of the 4 policemen were black, their commissioner was black, and Police disciplinary hearings weren't held hostage by an entirely white and far-right Police union.

I do have issues with South African cricket quotas, but they have actually worked remarkably well if you think about it.

 

[sweep_shot]

I do have issues with South African cricket quotas, but they have actually worked remarkably well if you think about it.

How? South Africa team lost so many players to kolpak deals (which is one of the consequences of quota system).

South Africa team is now in a mess with massive decline in performance.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Dippenaar’s follow-up comments tell a very clear story.

White South Africans did benefit from Apartheid, but they were brainwashed from an early age by the single TV channel’s constant propaganda. To them, they were good Christians and racial equality was Communism, and therefore evil.

Mike Procter was born in the 1940’s, and was an ATG all-rounder. And he himself has written - as has Shaun Pollock’s dad - about how he was sickened when he first visited England and saw white people in menial jobs and non-white people going to work in a suit and tie. Both men are now ashamed of the racist attitudes they had been groomed to hold.

The propaganda mainly painted racial equality as a form of Communism. This worked well for the Apartheid government, which side-stepped sanctions by persuading the US government that it was its ally in Southern Africa against Communism.

Ultimately this led to the border war in Angola, and to South Africa’s military defeat by Cuba at the Calueque Dam. With Cuba having finally established air superiority it was clear that South Africa could no longer defend itself against invasion and that Apartheid had to be dismantled. If De Klerk hadn’t agreed to abandon Apartheid, Cuba would have torn through South West Africa (now Namibia) and would have quickly advanced to Cape Town.

You can see from Dippenaar’s comments that for decades his parents feared a Marxist takeover of South Africa if the whites ever lost power, and that he shares their world view.

Anybody who watched Michael Holding talk about Black Lives Matter just before the current Test knows that for cricketers it is about dignity, safety, equal opportunity and respect.

Unfortunately for significant numbers of Afrikaaners like Dippenaar that means Communism, Terrorism and Evil.

What a load of rubbish. You live in a fantasy world. Cuba didn't defeat SA. They never would have since we had atomic weapons, and the assistance CIA, and Israel. I honestly don't know where you read that hogwash.

Please stop talking about my country as if you know anything about it.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

I quote here: "The battle was the largest engagement of the Angolan conflict and the biggest conventional battle on the African continent since World War II. UNITA and its South African allies defeated a major FAPLA offensive towards Mavinga, preserving the former's control of southern Angola. They proceeded to launch a bloody but inconclusive counteroffensive on FAPLA defensive positions around the Tumpo River east of Cuito Cuanavale."

"The battle was tactically inconclusive, but both sides declared victory. FAPLA and its Cuban allies declared victory because they were able to hold their defenses around Cuito Cuanavale. UNITA and its South African allies declared victory because the initial FAPLA offensive had been shattered and the participating enemy brigades had suffered immense losses which could not be easily replaced."

Please tell me where Cuba defeated us? This was all achieved while having less combat troops than Soviet Union "advisors" on the field. Never mind that we were in the process of a "military intervention" in the Angolan Civil War. Not fighting in South Africa. How exactly where they "quickly advanced to Cape Town"? You honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

The black on black violence is indeed horrific but does that justify all the police brutality that has gone on against them?

I'm not gonna go as far as saying that police departments in the US should be defunded but there needs to be an overhaul with the policing system there. The fact that you are more concerned about the police "pulling back" shows to me you don't genuinely care about equality for the black race in the US.

The American police need stricter recruitment requirements and FAR more training. We tried the demilitarization of the police in SA, but it failed. Perhaps they might get it right. It certainly is a worthy consideration as well.

 

[Junaids]

What a load of rubbish. You live in a fantasy world. Cuba didn't defeat SA. They never would have since we had atomic weapons, and the assistance CIA, and Israel. I honestly don't know where you read that hogwash.

Please stop talking about my country as if you know anything about it.

I have already told you: the Calueque Dam.

South Africa had spent a fortune on the war in Southern Angola as a means of keeping American patronage by burnishing their anti-Communist credentials. That was far more useful than nuclear weapons that they could not use for obvious reasons.

But in the 1980’s the world was changing: the Gleneagles Agreement had led to sanctions and the loss of sporting contact - including cricket - had made white South Africans realise that even with their nuclear weapons they could not retain Apartheid indefinitely.

The arrival of the Cubans changed everything. Up to 1987, the South Africans’ superior training and air superiority had let them occupy southern Angola against Angolan troops and their Russian advisors.

But in 1988 at Cuito Cuanavale suddenly they could not defeat the Cubans, and deadlock ensued.

And then suddenly it all fell apart at the Calueque Dam. South Africa had for almost a decade spent more money constructing it to irrigate South West Africa and power the Ruacana Power Station than they had spent on health and education combined for the 90% of their population which was black and coloured.

But while America had covertly broken sanctions to deliver small arms to South Africa, the South African Air Force was still stuck flying 1950’s aircraft. Even America couldn’t send them a new Air Force in defiance of the UN Arms Embargo. And now the Cubans had sent advanced MiG-23’s to Angola.

South Africa’s air superiority was over. The MiG’s wrecked the Calueque Dam. Not only could South Africa no longer provide air cover for its troops occupying southern Angola, they could no longer defend South West Africa. They could no longer even defend the Cape!

Turmoil ensued. South West Africa was quickly given independence as Namibia. The South African media was not allowed to report the Calueque disaster, and it was only because Tiny Rowland (who had major African investments) owned The Observer in London that Cuba’s newfound air superiority - and their threat to bomb Cape Town if South Africa did not withdrew from Angola and South West Africa - was reported at all.

Suddenly the White South African public had to be placated. Withdrawal from Angola was one thing, but now South West Africa was going to be surrendered. And Cuba made it crystal clear that they also had to release Nelson Mandela, whom the public had been told for the last 30 years was a terrorist.

The final rebel tour, led by Mike Gatting, was planned in mid-1989 as a purely political act intended to distract (white) public attention from imminent Namibian independence and black majority rule in early 1990. At that stage PW Botha was still the President and when the English rebels were named during the Ashes there was still a belief that Apartheid could be retained and Mandela could remain imprisoned.

But Cuba kept its foot on South Africa’s throat, and refused to remove its MiG’s unless Mandela was released and South Africa committed to ending Apartheid. Within weeks of the Rebel Tour being announced, FW De Klerk replaced Botha and it became obvious that Apartheid was finished and that Mandela would have to be released. And the Gatting tour hadn’t even started yet.

So the Gatting tour degenerated into a farce, and by the time it began in January there were unprecedented protests at the grounds. The First Test was held immediately prior to Mandela’s sudden release, and a bomb explosion led to the Second Test at Cape Town having to be cancelled and replaced by ODIs in Afrikaaner strongholds (and Durban, where the Collaborator Inkatha movement rather than the ANC held sway).

I have seriously considered writing an article about how Gatting’s Rebel Tour was first required and then wrecked by Cuba’s assertion of air superiority, which ended Apartheid.

I’m no fan of Cuba. What their Air Force achieved in destroying Apartheid to me is simply a historical fact.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

I think that it's pretty much accepted in most of the advanced English-speaking world that "All Lives Matter" is a way of saying "Black Lives Really Don't Matter". But most of the people with that mindset cannot see its inherent racism and think they are not racist.

The attitudes of Boeta Dippenaar and Pat Symcox come as no surprise to those of us who have spent considerable time in South Africa.

Dippenaar was only 17 when Apartheid ended, but he is an Afrikaaner - they tended to be much more prejudiced than English-speaking whites - and he attended Hansie Cronje's Alma Mater - Grey College in Bloemfontein. I've been to Bloemfontein - it's a town where five times as many people speak Afrikaans and attitudes are still stuck very much in the "we built this country and now the savages are killing our farmers" line of thought.

Symcox is different. He's an English-speaking South African - although he grew up in Kimberley - and he has been a successful businessman in Natal, where the population is a mix of Zulus, Indians and English-speaking whites. But he is from an older generation: Dippenaar only experienced Apartheid until the age of 17, whereas Symcox chose to live under it until the age of 34, whereas many of his peers who were sickened by it moved to England or Australia or New Zealand.

So we are talking about people whose own origins and early upbringing have left them with views which remain mainstream for their social groups (Dippenaar as an Afrikaaner educated under Apartheid, and Symcox as an English-speaking South African who benefitted from Apartheid until the age of 34).

They almost certainly both view themselves as liberal and progressive - and compared with their parents' generation they are. But their views are rather sad consequences of their upbringing, just like if you speak to white Americans from the Deep South who were born before 1945 they tend to have quite shocking views too.

It's pointless to argue whether they are or are not racist. We just need to recognize that Dippenaar and Symcox are the past and that they need to be ignored.

You defile the legacy of the Afrikaner. We are not bloodthirsty, genocidal maniacs, or Nazis. In fact, we fought the Nazis. The best Allied pilot, and ace, was a South African. Look it up. We do not view ourselves separate from Africa. We are African, whether you like it or not. In fact here is a quote from Zuma himself: "Of all the white groups that are in South Africa, it is only the Afrikaners that are truly South Africans in the true sense of the word."

The Afrikaner is not here to colonize, they fought and defeated the British colonisers (first Anglo-Boer war). The British colonisers came back though. After suffering defeat, after defeat, at the hands of the Afrikaner, they saw it was impossible to defeat them in the conventional sense. The British decided to put the Afrikaner women and children in concentration camps, burn down all the homes and farms, and starve everyone to death. Yet, here you are, with such a legacy trying to lecture the world about the legacy of the Afrikaner. You insult us, and our history.

Since the dawn of the Afrikaner, we severed our ties from Europe. The first Vryburgers rejected the Dutch government and then packed up and left the Cape when the British took over, eventually picking up arms against them. We named our new ‘tribe’ and our language after the continent we love and had come to call home. We entered into both battles and agreements with the natives of this southern part of the continent. Yet, here you, and Europe is again, forcing their rubbish on us, labelling us "white". We are African, it's time you accept it.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

I have already told you: the Calueque Dam.

South Africa had spent a fortune on the war in Southern Angola as a means of keeping American patronage by burnishing their anti-Communist credentials. That was far more useful than nuclear weapons that they could not use for obvious reasons.

But in the 1980’s the world was changing: the Gleneagles Agreement had led to sanctions and the loss of sporting contact - including cricket - had made white South Africans realise that even with their nuclear weapons they could not retain Apartheid indefinitely.

The arrival of the Cubans changed everything. Up to 1987, the South Africans’ superior training and air superiority had let them occupy southern Angola against Angolan troops and their Russian advisors.

But in 1988 at Cuito Cuanavale suddenly they could not defeat the Cubans, and deadlock ensued.

And then suddenly it all fell apart at the Calueque Dam. South Africa had for almost a decade spent more money constructing it to irrigate South West Africa and power the Ruacana Power Station than they had spent on health and education combined for the 90% of their population which was black and coloured.

But while America had covertly broken sanctions to deliver small arms to South Africa, the South African Air Force was still stuck flying 1950’s aircraft. Even America couldn’t send them a new Air Force in defiance of the UN Arms Embargo. And now the Cubans had sent advanced MiG-23’s to Angola.

South Africa’s air superiority was over. The MiG’s wrecked the Calueque Dam. Not only could South Africa no longer provide air cover for its troops occupying southern Angola, they could no longer defend South West Africa. They could no longer even defend the Cape!

Turmoil ensued. South West Africa was quickly given independence as Namibia. The South African media was not allowed to report the Calueque disaster, and it was only because Tiny Rowland (who had major African investments) owned The Observer in London that Cuba’s newfound air superiority - and their threat to bomb Cape Town if South Africa did not withdrew from Angola and South West Africa - was reported at all.

Suddenly the White South African public had to be placated. Withdrawal from Angola was one thing, but now South West Africa was going to be surrendered. And Cuba made it crystal clear that they also had to release Nelson Mandela, whom the public had been told for the last 30 years was a terrorist.

The final rebel tour, led by Mike Gatting, was planned in mid-1989 as a purely political act intended to distract (white) public attention from imminent Namibian independence and black majority rule in early 1990. At that stage PW Botha was still the President and when the English rebels were named during the Ashes there was still a belief that Apartheid could be retained and Mandela could remain imprisoned.

But Cuba kept its foot on South Africa’s throat, and refused to remove its MiG’s unless Mandela was released and South Africa committed to ending Apartheid. Within weeks of the Rebel Tour being announced, FW De Klerk replaced Botha and it became obvious that Apartheid was finished and that Mandela would have to be released. And the Gatting tour hadn’t even started yet.

So the Gatting tour degenerated into a farce, and by the time it began in January there were unprecedented protests at the grounds. The First Test was held immediately prior to Mandela’s sudden release, and a bomb explosion led to the Second Test at Cape Town having to be cancelled and replaced by ODIs in Afrikaaner strongholds (and Durban, where the Collaborator Inkatha movement rather than the ANC held sway).

I have seriously considered writing an article about how Gatting’s Rebel Tour was first required and then wrecked by Cuba’s assertion of air superiority, which ended Apartheid.

I’m no fan of Cuba. What their Air Force achieved in destroying Apartheid to me is simply a historical fact.

Introspection, international sanctions, and most importantly, A REFERENDUM ended apartheid, not the Cuban airforce )

"A referendum on ending apartheid was held in South Africa on 17 March 1992. The referendum was limited to white South African voters,[1][2] who were asked whether or not they supported the negotiated reforms begun by State President F. W. de Klerk two years earlier, in which he proposed to end the apartheid system that had been implemented since 1948. The result of the election was a large victory for the "yes" side, which ultimately resulted in apartheid being lifted. Universal suffrage was introduced two years later."

You truly do live in a fantasy world.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

Do you know how South Africa came in "possession" of South-West Africa? It was madated by the League of Nations, and the mandate of the British-ruled Union of South Africa following Germany’s defeat in World War I.

There is no historical claim or loss. It is, once again, Europe dishing out what is not theirs and the locals are left to clean up the mess.

 

[TestMatch]

It's the same old story.

Go back to feudal times, and you can find the same arguments and whataboutisms now hurled at BLM hurled at those demanding the end of monarchy or the end of the Enclosure Movement which robbed commoners of land. Those who fought for worker rights, women's rights, the vote, gay rights, the end of miscegenation and segregation laws, trans rights, child rights, environmental regulations etc etc are similarly always tagged as "radicals", "extreme", "Marxist", "commies", "leftists" or "idealists" bent on "destroying the way things are".

The rhetorical toolbox of power, and those who seek to conserve it, is always the same. Because that's what conservatism has historically always done; attempted to preserve the power and exclusivity of a minority. And in its defense of privilege and/or hierarchies of exploitation, its clung to everything from divine rights to theocracy to monarchy to slavery to race realism. And it's consistently wrong.

The irony is, conservatism has also always been the cause of the symptoms it decries. It brings over slaves and cheap labor and then moans about the darkies. It exalts the All Knowing Invisible Hand of the Market then moans about the weakening of religion. It cries about the death of white cultures, but relies on a brand of ultra deregulated globalization that dissolves all borders. It creates a work culture, then moans about the collapse of family life. It uses women to lower wages, then cries about the loss of "traditional gender roles". It bends over backwards for megacorporations, then wonders why village life or family stores shut down. It creates poverty, then moans about crime. It creates a global debt ponzi beholden to consumerism, then berates people for their permissiveness. It deregulates environmental laws and jails conservationists, then wonders why the forests are on fire. It sleeps with its slaves, then cries about the end of white purity. It rabidly exploits minority groups, then cries when they start fishing for rights. It worships a economic system whose grow-or-die imperative demands a forever expanding consumer base - and growth in general to avoid collapse - then bashes immigrants.

And we have enough neurological studies to show that a large chunk of your society is predisposed to instinctively defend power. They instinctively defended kings. They instinctively defended theocracies. They instinctively defended their religions. They instinctively defended countless intolerances. Today, the chief instinct is to defend capitalism and its footsoldiers - police are the first line of defense in the guaranteeing of the system's property rights (and unconsciously boost the idea that markets are meritocratic, and so all crime is the punishable choice of free individuals) - on the economic front, and old school ideas of sex and gender on the cultural front.

In the future, they'll be fighting against cyborg civil rights, immigration from Alpha Centauri and clinging to outmoded ideas about hard free will. They will always outnumber you. And they will almost always be wrong.

 

[TestMatch]

You defile the legacy of the Afrikaner. We are not bloodthirsty, genocidal maniacs...[...]...The Afrikaner is not here to colonize, they fought and defeated the British colonisers.

The "Afrikaner" is literally there because of colonialism, slavery and massive Dutch slave and corporate networks, and even the genocide of tribes. Whatever "small", "Christian" and "benign" intentions and motivations the original settlers had, quickly spun out of control, long before other European Empires came along.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

It's the same old story.

Go back to feudal times, and you can find the same arguments and whataboutisms now hurled at BLM hurled at those demanding the end of monarchy or the end of the Enclosure Movement which robbed commoners of land. Those who fought for worker rights, women's rights, the vote, gay rights, the end of miscegenation and segregation laws, trans rights, child rights, environmental regulations etc etc are similarly always tagged as "radicals", "extreme", "Marxist", "commies", "leftists" or "idealists" bent on "destroying the way things are".

The rhetorical toolbox of power, and those who seek to conserve it, is always the same. Because that's what conservatism has historically always done; attempted to preserve the power and exclusivity of a minority. And in its defense of privilege and/or hierarchies of exploitation, its clung to everything from divine rights to theocracy to monarchy to slavery to race realism. And it's consistently wrong.

The irony is, conservatism has also always been the cause of the symptoms it decries. It brings over slaves and cheap labor and then moans about the darkies. It exalts the All Knowing Invisible Hand of the Market then moans about the weakening of religion. It cries about the death of white cultures, but relies on a brand of ultra deregulated globalization that dissolves all borders. It creates a work culture, then moans about the collapse of family life. It uses women to lower wages, then cries about the loss of "traditional gender roles". It bends over backwards for megacorporations, then wonders why village life or family stores shut down. It creates poverty, then moans about crime. It creates a global debt ponzi beholden to consumerism, then berates people for their permissiveness. It deregulates environmental laws and jails conservationists, then wonders why the forests are on fire. It sleeps with its slaves, then cries about the end of white purity. It rabidly exploits minority groups, then cries when they start fishing for rights. It worships a economic system whose grow-or-die imperative demands a forever expanding consumer base - and growth in general to avoid collapse - then bashes immigrants.

And we have enough neurological studies to show that a large chunk of your society is predisposed to instinctively defend power. They instinctively defended kings. They instinctively defended theocracies. They instinctively defended their religions. They instinctively defended countless intolerances. Today, the chief instinct is to defend capitalism and its footsoldiers - police are the first line of defense in the guaranteeing of the system's property rights (and unconsciously boost the idea that markets are meritocratic, and so all crime is the punishable choice of free individuals) - on the economic front, and old school ideas of sex and gender on the cultural front.

In the future, they'll be fighting against cyborg civil rights, immigration from Alpha Centauri and clinging to outmoded ideas about hard free will. They will always outnumber you. And they will almost always be wrong.

Modern globalisation is the result of international liberalism, not "conservatism". I have to add you have a very shallow understanding of liberalism. Conservatives are by their very origin rooted in classical liberalism.

Globalisation, as we know it, and the idea that representative democracy is the only valid form of regime, was designed to promote world peace following WW2 and the Cold War. The subscribers of international liberalism argued that it promotes world peace on 3 levels:

Democracy Reduces Military Conflict
Economic Interdependence Reduces Military Conflict
International institutions Reduce Military Conflict

That's it. They simply wanted peace. A grand idea. Today we see the results of this "globalisation" is in fact a horrible consumer "samification". Though your anger is justified, it should not be focused on conservatives.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

The "Afrikaner" is literally there because of colonialism, slavery and massive Dutch slave and corporate networks, and even the genocide of tribes. Whatever "small", "Christian" and "benign" intentions and motivations the original settlers had, quickly spun out of control, long before other European Empires came along.

What a sweeping generalisation and that's not what I had written, or intended, but that's exactly why you wrote the second part. The Afrikaner is not here to exploit and take back to Europe or expand the powers of Europe. Labelling the Afrikaner as a coloniser is ridiculous.

 

[Junaids]

You defile the legacy of the Afrikaner. We are not bloodthirsty, genocidal maniacs, or Nazis. In fact, we fought the Nazis. The best Allied pilot, and ace, was a South African. Look it up. We do not view ourselves separate from Africa. We are African, whether you like it or not. In fact here is a quote from Zuma himself: "Of all the white groups that are in South Africa, it is only the Afrikaners that are truly South Africans in the true sense of the word."

The Afrikaner is not here to colonize, they fought and defeated the British colonisers (first Anglo-Boer war). The British colonisers came back though. After suffering defeat, after defeat, at the hands of the Afrikaner, they saw it was impossible to defeat them in the conventional sense. The British decided to put the Afrikaner women and children in concentration camps, burn down all the homes and farms, and starve everyone to death. Yet, here you are, with such a legacy trying to lecture the world about the legacy of the Afrikaner. You insult us, and our history.

Since the dawn of the Afrikaner, we severed our ties from Europe. The first Vryburgers rejected the Dutch government and then packed up and left the Cape when the British took over, eventually picking up arms against them. We named our new ‘tribe’ and our language after the continent we love and had come to call home. We entered into both battles and agreements with the natives of this southern part of the continent. Yet, here you, and Europe is again, forcing their rubbish on us, labelling us "white". We are African, it's time you accept it.

I don’t doubt that Afrikaaners are African.

My original post simply pointed out the values which are widely held by youngish Afrikaners like Dippenaar and older English speakers like Symcox.

I feel sorry for everyone in South Africa. You are all victims of a terrible past.

Lastly, you know as well as I do that the ‘92 referendum only took place because the outside world had effectively changed to the point that Apartheid was over.

The transitions from Reagan to Bush and from Thatcher to Major had robbed Apartheid South Africa of their international shields. And after Calueque they knew that they couldn’t defend themselves against the Cuban Air Force.

1989-92 was actually a really complex period, because the system of censorship and propaganda meant that the white South African public knew barely anything about the loss of air superiority and still believed that the ANC were terrorists. There was a significant danger that No would win until De Klerk came up with the Power Sharing fairy tale.

And again cricket was central to the referendum. The referendum took place during the 1992 World Cup - the first official international cricket competition for South Africa - and they had just qualified for the semi-final. It led to a sense that reintegration with the international community was not such a scary idea, even if it meant that blacks would get the vote.

 

[TestMatch]

Modern globalisation is the result of international liberalism, not "conservatism". I have to add you have a very shallow understanding of liberalism. Conservatives are by their very origin rooted in classical liberalism.

Conservatism predates classical liberalism by hundreds of years. Anthropologists would go back even further.

Regardless, your statement is a common maneuver modern conservatives are forced to make, for obvious reasons ("I'm a classic liberal, not a conservative! I'm not a bad guy!"). Meanwhile, the "classical liberals" they pretend to idolize were in favor of propositions they're vehemently ideological opposed to (many were Georgists, and Paine and other Founders saw property regimes as being inherentlyexclusionary and so supported birthright policies which paid citizens compensation for their being usurped from land).

Beyond this, "market liberalism", "globalization" and other "laissez faire" policies are conservative in the sense that they stem from a "classically liberal" faith in markets, rather than the old power blocks as embodied by the monarchs and the old aristocracy, and a misguided association of property and trade with "freedom" rather than exclusion, exploitation and class hierarchies.

19th century liberalism, or classical liberalism, then becomes modern conservatism's economic fantasy of itself, just as the 1950s, with its pre civil rights white picket fences, becomes its nostalgic socio-cultural fantasy; the way things should be. The Again in Make Us Great Again.

Globalisation, as we know it, and the idea that representative democracy is the only valid form of regime, was designed to promote world peace following WW2 and the Cold War.

Globalization exited well before WW2. The modern conservative's obsession with the EU, post war trade deals and such (most written up with help by coal monopolies decades ago) arise because such policies now begin to affect whites and first worlders. It's an entirely phony sort of concern, in which conservatives try to distance themselves from themselves. It's how you end up with "Build the Wall!" and "Brexit!" slogans sold to the poor via billionaires.

The Afrikaner is not here to exploit and take back to Europe or expand the powers of Europe. Labelling the Afrikaner as a coloniser is ridiculous.

Afrikaners are colonizers. They literally started out as an outpost for a government-directed megacorporation built upon slavery. Quickly they expanded and began killing neighboring tribes. They massacred and starved the Khoikhoi, the Xhosa and the San, and other tribes, often enslaving them, or bringing in slaves from elsewhere to build up their own slave economy.

But of course their identity has always denied this, whilst simultaneously emphasizing their status, also, as victims, be it at the hands of colonizers in the past, or "emancipated Africans" today. A bit like how Hollywood westerns always have "victimized" cowboys circled and outnumbered by hordes of wailing Indians.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Conservatism predates classical liberalism by hundreds of years. Anthropologists would go back even further.

Regardless, your statement is a common maneuver modern conservatives are forced to make, for obvious reasons ("I'm a classic liberal, not a conservative! I'm not a bad guy!"). Meanwhile, the "classical liberals" they pretend to idolize were in favor of propositions they're vehemently ideological opposed to (many were Georgists, and Paine and other Founders saw property regimes as being inherentlyexclusionary and so supported birthright policies which paid citizens compensation for their being usurped from land).

Beyond this, "market liberalism", "globalization" and other "laissez faire" policies are conservative in the sense that they stem from a "classically liberal" faith in markets, rather than the old power blocks as embodied by the monarchs and the old aristocracy, and a misguided association of property and trade with "freedom" rather than exclusion, exploitation and class hierarchies.

19th century liberalism, or classical liberalism, then becomes modern conservatism's economic fantasy of itself, just as the 1950s, with its pre civil rights white picket fences, becomes its nostalgic socio-cultural fantasy; the way things should be. The Again in Make Us Great Again.




Globalization exited well before WW2. The modern conservative's obsession with the EU, post war trade deals and such (most written up with help by coal monopolies decades ago) arise because such policies now begin to affect whites and first worlders. It's an entirely phony sort of concern, in which conservatives try to distance themselves from themselves. It's how you end up with "Build the Wall!" and "Brexit!" slogans sold to the poor via billionaires.



Afrikaners are colonizers. They literally started out as an outpost for a government-directed megacorporation built upon slavery. Quickly they expanded and began killing neighboring tribes. They massacred and starved the Khoikhoi, the Xhosa and the San, and other tribes, often enslaving them, or bringing in slaves from elsewhere to build up their own slave economy.

But of course their identity has always denied this, whilst simultaneously emphasizing their status, also, as victims, be it at the hands of colonizers in the past, or "emancipated Africans" today. A bit like how Hollywood westerns always have "victimized" cowboys circled and outnumbered by hordes of wailing Indians.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm a conservative, or whatever connotations you hold to that term.

I specifically said, (globalisation) as we know it.

Not every trade post was dedicated to slavery. You seem to overemphasize slavery, and seem to attribute slavery as an exclusively white practice. My original forefather in South Africa started as a literal servant, I can assure you he was no slaver. Again, as I said above the Afrikaner rejected the Dutch government.

You have no clue about the complexities of The Great Trek and Mfecane. To even attempt to address your accusation of some imaginary genocide, massive slave trade, and bloodthirst is futile.

The Voortrekkers were actually attacked by the Zulu army and, get this, by what they believe was the hand of God, won without suffering a casualty:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blood_River

They promised that the day will be honoured by their descendants. Good luck convincing us of your imaginary genocides. Again, I have to note there were no "slaves" involved. Hmm...

 

[TestMatch]

I specifically said, (globalisation) as we know it.

Which was my point. Contemporary conservatives bemoan "globalization" ("globalization as we know it"), because those previously affected by globalization were of no concern.

Not every trade post was dedicated to slavery. You seem to overemphasize slavery, and seem to attribute slavery as an exclusively white practice.

The largest slave trading corporation of the era financed a settlement in South Africa. Within seven years it had grown large enough to start killing the local nomadic tribes who used the land for seasonal grazing. Soon it was enslaving them. Then it began importing slaves from Dutch colonies further north. A century on from the moment of first settlement in the 1650s, these nomadic tribes were wiped out, forced into indentured work, or starvation due to their animals dying of foreign diseases, or due to being pushed from fertile lands. Records put the number of slaves at this point at just under 17,000 (total settlement population approx 32,000). This, to you, somehow does not constitute the act of colonizers. Why? Because the "Afrikaner rejected the Dutch government". That's like saying the United States is not a colonialist project because they "rejected the British" and/or because the first European settlers in the United States didn't initially think of themselves as "American".

You have no clue about the complexities of The Great Trek and Mfecane. To even attempt to address your accusation of some imaginary genocide, massive slave trade, and bloodthirst is futile.

It's revealing that you constantly cite events in the 1800s. Afrikaner history must continually ignore the previous 200 years.

Good luck convincing us of your imaginary genocides. Again, I have to note there were no "slaves" involved. Hmm...

The Dutch killed nobody! They had no slaves! The land belonged to nobody! The tribes had no legal claims! And they weren't using the land right anyway! And besides, everyone at the time was doing it! We're not colonizers! We're not engaging in murder and slavery denialism, you're just imagining things! No, what I'm doing is totally different to what everyone else did! And my rationalizations are totally different!

/sarcasm

 

[Monsee]

I'm sorry, but this really doesn't conclude that Pat Symcox is a racist. I agree that his statement is in very bad taste though and SA's need to be mindful of their history.

If you have not read on his past, how can you argue either way?

He has always come out as so full of himself as far as I recall!

 

[Junaids]

If you have not read on his past, how can you argue either way?

He has always come out as so full of himself as far as I recall!

I'd refer you back to what I wrote earlier.

Symcox is reasonably progressive by the standards of a man who was content to live under and benefit from Apartheid until the age of 34, while many of his peers were emigrating to less monstrous countries.

People like him generally consider themselves to be self-made and special, and other people to be feckless or lazy because they haven't matched his business success. There is very rarely any recognition that black South Africans his age tended to have a mother who worked away from home as a maid, had no education to speak of, made none of his connections and did not have the capital that he had from cricket to get himself set up in business.

These people over-estimate their own ability and fail to recognize that the black 90% of South Africans never had the privilege to grow up safe, well-fed, with two parents at home, with a good education, with good health care etc etc.

And so they make crass assumptions and crass comments. Like Pat Symcox

 

[Junaids]

If you have not read on his past, how can you argue either way?

He has always come out as so full of himself as far as I recall!

With Boeta Dippenaar and Pat Symcox there is a terrible bias which comes from living in comfortable suburban white South African society.

They become very aware of the (unacceptable) killings of white farmers.

Now, take a step back here. Whites are 8% of the population but control 72% of the private farmland, while blacks are 81% of the population but control 4% of the farmland. In other words, white farm ownership is 180,000% higher than is just and fair.

On average 62 white farmers are murdered each year. Meanwhile 20,000 black people are murdered each year. And 1 million black women are raped each year.

To people like Boeta Dippenaar and Pat Symcox, their "All Lives Matter" creed is a way of saying that 62 white lives are worth 20,000 black lives.

NOBODY should be getting murdered. But frankly, there needs to be a much higher priority in stopping 20,000 blacks from getting murdered each year (plus a black woman being raped on average every 30 seconds) than on protecting 62 white farmers who are unfairly overprivileged to begin with.

But Dippenaar and Symcox of course identify with the 62 white farmers who are killed each year. And they feel no such affinity for the 20,000 black people who get murdered or the 1 million black women who are raped each year.

And sadly this disconnect is probably the single biggest danger to South African cricket and to the ongoing position of white people in South Africa.

I have read the comments of [MENTION=134334]Ozymandiasza[/MENTION] . I do actually agree that Afrikaaners and English-speaking South Africans know no other home and belong there.

The problem is, the same was true of the 30% of the Algerian population which was white French. The same was true of the Portuguese who made Lourenco Marques the most modern city in the southern hemisphere before Mozambique independence drove them out and reduced it to the Third World dump which is Maputo.

And I remember when Zimbabwe had a strong team of mainly white cricketers, rather than the hopeless players that they have now.

The risk is that when a white cricketer like Dippenaar or Symcox makes a crass comment equating 62 white lives to 20,000 black ones they just polarize the whole situation. They need to shut up, and enjoy their privilege quietly and discreetly, because if they don't they alternative is Algeria, where the whites suddenly found themselves literally given a choice between ""the suitcase or the coffin".

I don't want that. I don't support that. But I know my history. And the only thing protecting the white South Africans from the fate of the white Algerians is the patience and support of black South Africans.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Which was my point. Contemporary conservatives bemoan "globalization" ("globalization as we know it"), because those previously affected by globalization were of no concern.



The largest slave trading corporation of the era financed a settlement in South Africa. Within seven years it had grown large enough to start killing the local nomadic tribes who used the land for seasonal grazing. Soon it was enslaving them. Then it began importing slaves from Dutch colonies further north. A century on from the moment of first settlement in the 1650s, these nomadic tribes were wiped out, forced into indentured work, or starvation due to their animals dying of foreign diseases, or due to being pushed from fertile lands. Records put the number of slaves at this point at just under 17,000 (total settlement population approx 32,000). This, to you, somehow does not constitute the act of colonizers. Why? Because the "Afrikaner rejected the Dutch government". That's like saying the United States is not a colonialist project because they "rejected the British" and/or because the first European settlers in the United States didn't initially think of themselves as "American".



It's revealing that you constantly cite events in the 1800s. Afrikaner history must continually ignore the previous 200 years.



The Dutch killed nobody! They had no slaves! The land belonged to nobody! The tribes had no legal claims! And they weren't using the land right anyway! And besides, everyone at the time was doing it! We're not colonizers! We're not engaging in murder and slavery denialism, you're just imagining things! No, what I'm doing is totally different to what everyone else did! And my rationalizations are totally different!

/sarcasm

Again with the conservative conspiracy tripe. You seem to be attributing a whole rational argument to some conspiracy theory you just thought up. Funny thing is, my argument is actually founded in a modern textbook regarding international relations, yours was thumb sucked. Colonization is NOT modern globalisation. If you want to argue like that the expansion of Christendom and Islam is also globalisation and part of the "evil conservative agenda". Read a book, please.

You seem to attribute the actions of the VOC, the Dutch and British, to the Afrikaner. As if they are all one people. You cannot see they are separate people even after explaining it over and over. This is quite revealing of your bigoted attitude in refusing to acknowledge the Afrikaner as a African.

You seem to think the 1800s are somehow not part of Afrikaner history, yet they are some of the most important formative years. I demonstrated the lack of slaves, yet you insist on them. You have demonstrated to know nothing of my continent or its people, applying the genocidal history of the United States to South Africa.

Wow, a whole paragraph of sarcasm! I'm sure it's just an indication of your weak mind and lack of rational arguments.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

With Boeta Dippenaar and Pat Symcox there is a terrible bias which comes from living in comfortable suburban white South African society.

They become very aware of the (unacceptable) killings of white farmers.

Now, take a step back here. Whites are 8% of the population but control 72% of the private farmland, while blacks are 81% of the population but control 4% of the farmland. In other words, white farm ownership is 180,000% higher than is just and fair.

On average 62 white farmers are murdered each year. Meanwhile 20,000 black people are murdered each year. And 1 million black women are raped each year.

To people like Boeta Dippenaar and Pat Symcox, their "All Lives Matter" creed is a way of saying that 62 white lives are worth 20,000 black lives.

NOBODY should be getting murdered. But frankly, there needs to be a much higher priority in stopping 20,000 blacks from getting murdered each year (plus a black woman being raped on average every 30 seconds) than on protecting 62 white farmers who are unfairly overprivileged to begin with.

But Dippenaar and Symcox of course identify with the 62 white farmers who are killed each year. And they feel no such affinity for the 20,000 black people who get murdered or the 1 million black women who are raped each year.

And sadly this disconnect is probably the single biggest danger to South African cricket and to the ongoing position of white people in South Africa.

I have read the comments of [MENTION=134334]Ozymandiasza[/MENTION] . I do actually agree that Afrikaaners and English-speaking South Africans know no other home and belong there.

The problem is, the same was true of the 30% of the Algerian population which was white French. The same was true of the Portuguese who made Lourenco Marques the most modern city in the southern hemisphere before Mozambique independence drove them out and reduced it to the Third World dump which is Maputo.

And I remember when Zimbabwe had a strong team of mainly white cricketers, rather than the hopeless players that they have now.

The risk is that when a white cricketer like Dippenaar or Symcox makes a crass comment equating 62 white lives to 20,000 black ones they just polarize the whole situation. They need to shut up, and enjoy their privilege quietly and discreetly, because if they don't they alternative is Algeria, where the whites suddenly found themselves literally given a choice between ""the suitcase or the coffin".

I don't want that. I don't support that. But I know my history. And the only thing protecting the white South Africans from the fate of the white Algerians is the patience and support of black South Africans.

Don't do that, make as if you or anyone else have a say in who belongs in SA. You don't.

"South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white" that's an actual quote from the freedom charter.

If you think 4 million whites and 4 million coloureds (who are also mainly Afrikaans) are simply here by the graces of black South Africans, you are mistaken. South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white.