Saru changes policy on Maori
3 Dec 2010
Saru has reversed its policy on the New Zealand Maori meaning fixtures between the Springboks and the Maori could take place in future.
Earlier this year, Saru president Regan Hoskins issued a formal apology to Maori players who were excluded from South African tours during apartheid. A number of Maori players became victims of the racist ideology of South Africa’s former government and were denied an opportunity to represent the All Blacks in South Africa.
This apology came after speculation of a Springboks vs NZ Maori match to mark the latter’s centenary. The match was originally scheduled as part of the Springbok warm-ups ahead of the 2009 British & Irish Lions tour but called off when Saru deemed the Maori a team selected along racial lines which conflicts with the South African constitution.
While the 2009 and 2010 opportunities have passed, there will be an opportunity for a match-up in the near future.
‘Saru held its last General Council meeting for the year on Friday in Newlands. The Council agreed to adopt the policy pertaining to the New Zealand Maori, which now paves the way for matches between South African teams and the Maoris,’ a statement read.
‘South Africa will play against any team which has the official blessing of its national governing body,’ added Hoskins.
Other outcomes of this meeting saw Gary Meyer of the KwaZulu-Natal Rugby Union elected as an Executive Council member. He replaces Francois Davids who resigned earlier this year.
Saru CEO Jurie Roux was also elected to accompany Hoskins as the Saru representatives to the IRB, while Dawie Groenewald is the new Saru representative to the Confederation of African Rugby.
243 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All
6 Dec 2010, 00:40 am
Killing is generally accepted as wrong, the exception is when something is suffering, then it is considered not only acceptable, but humane to end that suffering.
Killing is the outcome of murder and euthenasia (mercy killing), but they are not the same thing, and we distinguish between them from the intention underlying the killing. The intention underlying murder is cruelty, whereas that underlying euthenasia is mercy, hence no-one judges these things as equal albeit that the outcome is the same.
The analogy applies directly to racial exclusivity.
Racial exclusivity is generally accepted as wrong, the exception is where it is mutually accepted as a mark of respect for a minority group.
Racial exlusivity is the outcome of old SARU and the NZ Maori selection policies, but they are not the same thing, and we distinguish them from the intention underlying the racial exclusivity. The intent underlying the old SARU policy was forced exclusion of players from national selection to promulagate white supremacy, whereas the intent underlying the NZ Maori selection is voluntary exclusion from a non-national team as a sign of respect for a minority group.
There’s nothing to argue here, your logic is plain wrong, let alone your racial values.
6 Dec 2010, 01:26 am
Racial exclusivity is wrong, per se.
6 Dec 2010, 01:33 am
“….socio-economic groups regardless of colour, which due to economic reasons might inhabit certain neighbourhoods.”
No, it isn’t.
(Even among lower socio-economic groups where choices are severely limited, people generally still seek their own race among whom to live. All over the world. You’ll find very, very few down-and-out struggle-street whites in Harlem or the gangsta ‘Hoods of East LA.)
6 Dec 2010, 01:57 am
Killing is wrong, per se. But murder killing is different from a mercy killing.
Racial exclusibity is wrong, per se. But apartheid SARU exclusivity is different from NZ Maori exclusivity.
As for the socio-economic groups, i dunno about the hoods in donwtown LA, but in London you can go to brixton or islignton and you will see black, brown, yellow living cheek to jowel perfectly happily.
6 Dec 2010, 04:37 am
Racial exclusivity is like rape — whether it’s regular rape or “corrective” rape, it’s still rape and rape is wrong, per se.
(In Brixton, Toxteth and Croydon you’ll not find too many working-age whites living there. White flight has taken place. Only the white pensioners are trapped there — unable to flee. Islington is much more up-market than these three predominantly non-white areas and is predominantly white.)
6 Dec 2010, 05:11 am
While the team selection is racially based, there is no validation process to determine if the person selected is genuinely of Maori stock or just says they are.
So long as the player claims some sort of Maori ancestry, they qualify for selection.
Whether or not this makes a complete mockery of the historical significance of the Maori All Black concept is moot, bit I leave that issue for others to consider.
6 Dec 2010, 05:37 am
Today all players must have their ancestry verified as belonging to a tribe before selection in the team.
Although some question the system as to when does a person not belong to a race due to dilution of the bloodline – which can be debated long and hard with no conclusion.
The Maori Team are a squad of players who are proud of their Maori heritage (no matter how small or large that may be) and should be considered as invitation team that celebrates a culture.
6 Dec 2010, 06:50 am
@No7 : In exactly the same way that members of the white SA minority may wish to “celebrate” their culture…
But will SARU tolerate any such “celebration”?
If they tolerate Maori celebrating it, they logically cannot raise objections to white locals celebrating theirs.
That’s consistency. And consistency is something the rugby world is forever demanding more of.
Let’s see them practise what they preach, for once.
Better still, be consistent in opposing any and all racial exclusivity. Because racial exclusivity is a BAD thing.
6 Dec 2010, 07:36 am
The race card is used too willingly lately through out the world, and for the wrong reasons. And each that uses the race card misses the point. Each has a barrow to push and use race as some sort of God given right. Frankly, it is a smokescreen used by people over the ages, and to the detriment of others.
But something I do feel passionate about is Culture, no matter where it is. Even the Scots have a culture but no-one is declaring them a race of people today. (Once they were Picts.) Several years ago on business, I got roped into attending a band play-off for the Edinburgh Military Tattoo. Did not mind the bagpipes prior to going but three hours of that bagged horn. Is there only four notes to the thing!!! Drove me mad. Even today the bagpipes make me a little edgy. But as I listened to the noise, I thought of these kilted jocks marching into battle during WW2, obviously not a secret mission, and thought of John Campbell’s thin red line of Scots holding back the Russians from overrunning the Brits at the Crimea, and realised – its their culture and something that they’re rightly proud of and I’d be ignorant not to recognise it. Does one have to like a culture – of course not. But what is likeable is when a group of people are Proud of their Culture.
Unfortunately, some cultures are no longer in existence.
But what comes in recognising and embracing culture is tolerance and sensitivity and I hear what some are saying. Culture is in all of us, our language, phases we use, foods, mannerisms, use of tools, likes and dislikes, and we will only lose our culture when we don’t pass it on to our children.
There will be a day when ALL cultures in SA are celebrated but it will only happen with tolerance and sensitivity, and when some ghosts of the past are properly buried. Rome was not built in day. NZ took some time to come to grips with its unique culture. Aus is still chewing over how to deal with its unique circumstances. Must say, do enjoy seeing the Indigenous people showcase at some the Aus rugby games.
6 Dec 2010, 07:45 am
@No7 :
All very true, the point Tackles is making though is that this knife should be cutting both way (or more specific, a large number of ways) if you so please…but for some reason it does not.
Tolerance of others, it being based on race, gender, religion, culture or whatever is something we can all do better.
6 Dec 2010, 08:29 am
@Slartibartfast : Thanks for the heads up. Should have added – that at no time, lately or historically, has cultural tolerance progressed evenly. It has always been at a deliberate pace, with some getting a larger piece of pie at times, until satisfied and comfortable, will they allow another culture to progress with unique celebrations.
I was trying to make that point with Aus – only of late have they allowed the Indigenous flag, games, and formal occasions – not sure if it has yet reached State occasions .
It is definitely not an even process for all cultures concerned and would be foolhardy to think otherwise. It is mainly due to suspicions of the other culture, and progression is most possible when the suspicions are allayed.
6 Dec 2010, 08:42 am
Should have included – I dont agree with the uneven progression of cultural identity and celebrations, as it more often than not, creates its own conflicts within society, but merely to point out, that is how it occurs.
6 Dec 2010, 08:43 am
@No7 :
Again very true #7, the process does get slightly harder when certain people see the process as an opportunity for pay-back though.
In addition, allaying of fears is fine but I would think tolerance of others should still be high on the agenda. When you see ghosts in every shadow you should sit back and rethink your own strategy as in the process you may be breaking down more than you building.
Oh and lastly, every person disagreeing with you is not wrong but if you open may even teach you something.
6 Dec 2010, 08:50 am
Tackler needs to find another country to haunt if he feels the existence of a racially based team like the Maori carries the stigma of actual racism.
I was brought up in provincial NZ and the local sports clubs were all affiliated to some common association or other.
We had no problem with the likes of YMP – (Young Maori Players), Marist – Catholic’s or Mickey Doolans as the were nicked or the likes of the ethnic Indian community putting up hockey teams and playing in the local competitions.
Who the Fark is this Johnny come lately to pass judgement on our society, when that judgement is so scarred by his experience in a totally alien culture to what we have here in NZ.
6 Dec 2010, 08:58 am
@Brads :
Bud, wind your neck in… he is not passing judgement on NZ society, he is merely pointing out that selecting a team along racial lines is, by definition racist. It’s very simple really. If some folk think there is nothing wrong with that then fine they are entitled to an opinion, but what is then the difference between that and picking a NZ Pakeha team? And would that then be called a racist team?
6 Dec 2010, 09:07 am
@TheTackler : The Springbok team purported toi represent South Africa a nation state. it clearly didn’t.
The NZ Maori team purports to represent Maori an indigenous group with its own language and culture. It does. Its not a facade or a lie as the Springbok team.
Your issue with racial selection is that because of the racist history of some White colonists other of the worlds minority groups have to suffer and not be allowed to represent themselves with pride.
Maori and aborigine and other indigenous groups aint gonna stand for it. The issues are all yours. You cant have white racially selected teams. Tough. Its called karma. You can wear that not us. Its your racist past thats at fault not indigenous races.
If you want to contest the issue. We’ll see you on the park.
6 Dec 2010, 09:40 am
@whatever :
Passing judgement on NZ society is exactly what he is doing – but that judgement is tainted by his experience of racial selection in South Africa.
There is no Pakeha only club movement in NZ, outside of some loser fringe group with a handful of members. Why would there be.
Your argument is irrelevant because the basis of your alternative option does not exist. There is no open group of people in our society that could cobble together enough members to form a team of white only rugby players competitive enough to beat an average high school 1st 15 let alone any adult club team.
There is simply no foundation for such a alternative to be given credence.
If SARU or the RFU or any other national body prohibit their representative teams playing the Maori, that is their right. No one is forcing them to do so.
But condemning the existence of the Maori All Blacks because they are selected on a racial basis and therefore perpetuate racism as some theoretical extension of apartheid is taking righteous bigotry to the extreme.
6 Dec 2010, 09:49 am
I couldn’t care twopence whether Maori and Aborigines are or aren’t “going to stand for it” or not. The all-white Springboks under the old SARB also weren’t going to stand for it when other nations attempted to foist non-racialism on them.
The plantation owners in the American South also weren’t “going to stand for it” when the Yankee north tried to foist anti-slavery laws on them.
But, in the end, an immoral system WILL fall. And racial exclusivity IS immoral.
It’s immoral in SA and it’s immoral in NZ too.
The Kiwis are, like the good ol’ boys of Dixie, still in blissful denial of the beam in their own eye as the pick at the mote in the SA eye.
But it won’t help.
Non-racialism WILL prevail in the end. And it behoves all who celebrate non-racialism to eradicate every last vestige of it, wherever it exists. Even if that is in NZ.
6 Dec 2010, 09:53 am
@TheTackler :
When you get together with John Minto, do you suck each others Kock
6 Dec 2010, 09:54 am
Probably not, because John Minto is a complete tool
6 Dec 2010, 09:55 am
@Brads : The whole notion of “move out unless you accept each and every habit, practice and custom of the country you’ve adopted” is immature, to put it mildly.
Would you have given the same fatuous advice to Mahatma Gandhi when he moved to SA, found the racialism there deplorable and chose to speak out against it and to expose the immorality of it to a wider audience?
I don’t think so.
6 Dec 2010, 09:59 am
@Brads : Where do you draw the line then? What about an all black, slave descendant American basketball team? Or a blacks only soccer team here in SA? These may be almost all black by default, but can you imagine formalising that arrangement? Only in NZ, it seems.
6 Dec 2010, 10:17 am
@TheTackler :
What a poor, poor example to give.
You bring up Gandi as an example to reinforce your bigotry over NZ society, but cast him in the very environment where you formed your opinions.
Gandi, to the best of my knowledge, never visited NZ and I am pretty confident had he done so he would not have launched a crusade on human right over the attitudes he found in the country.
Sure, back 70-80 years ago, by todays standards, New Zealand was a racist society, and we were also a very conservative country.
But taken in context, everyone over the age of 21 had the vote, including women. NZ Women as you know got the vote first in world in the late 1900′s. Maori men got that same right signing the Treaty of Waitangi 50 years earlier.
6 Dec 2010, 10:30 am
Sorry, bigotry is what you have when you SUPPORT racial exclusivity, not when — like Gandhi in SA — you OPPOSE it.
Bigotry isn’t wiped out by only getting a vote.
Get a firmer grip about what bigotry is by simply looking in your own mirror.
6 Dec 2010, 10:31 am
@katman :
You are like Tackler.
You are tainting your outlook on the obnoxious racial regeime that ran SA for 50+ years and probably outright controlled the country a lot longer. But that regime has been gone for 20 years, surely it is time to move on.
Question, do you have a problem with religion. Probably.
I don’t.
I have no problem with Marist clubs or Anglican School old boys forming sports teams.
History tells you that long before race hit the top of the hit parade, religion was the number one desciminator for centuries and still is in a lot of countries.
That does not faze me in accepting a local religion based club as worthy to compete against non sectarian or other religious, racial or even sexually orientated teams.
6 Dec 2010, 10:36 am
The world is not black and white. Blanket generalisations and broadly construed terms are used to distort actual meanings and justify arguments.
The outcome of euthenasia and murder is killing, but they are not the same.
The outcome of pornography and art is nudity, but they are not the same.
The outcome of motor racing and a traffic fine is speeding, but they are not the same.
The outcome of whoring and making lurv is rooting, but they are not the same.
The outcome of peaceful protest and incitement to harm is free speech, but they are not the same.
The outcome of old SARU and NZ Maori selection policy is racial exclusivity, but they are not the same.
In each case, despite the outcome being roughly the same, everyone knows they are not the same and what makes them differ is the underlying intent.
6 Dec 2010, 10:43 am
@TheTackler :
Where did I say the vote was the silver bullet to cure the cancer of anything.
You brought up Gandi’s travels in South Africa. I suggested that had he travelled to NZ instead he would not have had that epiphany experience because the two societies were so different.
Both countries, politically, were dominated by people with a colonial heritage, but there the comparison stops.
6 Dec 2010, 10:48 am
@cab : Okay, in the case of the Maori team, what exactly is that intent? To pay tribute to a proud history of Maori rugby? To honour a rugby tradition that has made this community strong and proud and given their kids hope and dreams?
Because if that’s the case, one could easily justify an all white team by rural boere on the SA platteland. It’s their proud tradition, it symbolises their kids’ hopes and dreams, it’s often what united them and gave them an identity. But do you think this will fly with the IRB, or anyone else?
6 Dec 2010, 10:52 am
The intent may be personal, but the moral judgement thereof is made by the collective.
We all know the intent behind euthenasia is mercy, whereas that behind murder is malice.
We all know the intent behind apartheid SARU policy was forced exlusion from national selection to foster white supremacy, whereas that behind the NZ Maori is voluntary exclusion from a non-national team to foster respect for a minority.
6 Dec 2010, 10:59 am
@Brads : Gandhi objected to racial exclusivity and other exclusivities wherever he found them, be it in SA or the castes in his native India. You wouldn’t think of saying to Gandhi “just accept the way the South Africans do things or else go back home to India”.
The world applauds Gandhi’s speaking out against the racial exclusivity he found in his adopted land.
So, if I point out the racial exclusivity existing in NZ — and there is absolutely no doubt at all that the NZ Maori rugby team is racially-exclusive — I’m doing exactly what Gandhi did: speaking out against an immoral tradition of long standing.
Get used to it. There’s nothing as doomed as an idea whose time has passed. And racial exclusivity is such an idea.
But, if SARU wish to resuscitate such an idea by indulging the NZ Maori team, they cannot escape the hypocrisy of not affording SA’s own racial minority the same indulgence.
6 Dec 2010, 11:00 am
@cab : Intention is irrelevant. Only the outcome counts.
6 Dec 2010, 11:03 am
@cab : The formation of NZ Maori is certainly not VOLUNTARY exclusion. It’s a formal QUALIFICATION for selection that you MUST have some Maori ancestry. There are no exemptions, exceptions or options — it’s mandatory, not voluntary.
6 Dec 2010, 11:08 am
@cab : Racial exclusion IS black and white. Crystal clear. Unless you have traceable evidence of the blood of some Maori ancestor, you are 100% excluded from playing for NZ Maori. It’s like an on/off switch.
Ditto for the old pre-81 Springboks: you had to be classified white. No such classification? You’re excluded.
6 Dec 2010, 11:11 am
@katman :
Again, imo it all depends on the intent underlying the policy.
If SA as a whole today, freely decided that the Boere should have their own non-national team as a mark of respect for a minority group, then that would be fine. The chances of that happening are virtually zero though because of their oppressive past.
However, as you you know NZ do not have the same history and stigma and as such maori and pakeha alike vountary accept such a team as a mark of respect for a minority groups contribution to the country.
In short, the intent behind old SARU policy was disrespectful, rather than the respectful intent underlying the NZ Maori policy. We know the SARU intent was disrespectful because it was an oppressive forced exclusion, whereas we know the NZ Maori intent is respectful because it is an accepted voluntarily exclusion.
6 Dec 2010, 11:14 am
@TheTackler :
If only the outcome counted, you would be prosecuted for a murder sentence if you accidentally killed someone in a motor accidence, as opposed to manslaughter. The putting down of an animal that is suffering would be equated with murder, since by your definition only the outcome, i.e. killing counts.
Absolute nonsense. Your logic is totally faulty.
6 Dec 2010, 11:20 am
@TheTackler :
132, Again you are distorting the situation, purposefully imo.
I am not saying that the qualification for selection is voluntary, instead I am saying that the underlying intent behind the NZ Maori as a system of exlcusion is one that is voluntarily accepted by all the people of NZ as a mark of respect. This is completely different to an exlcusion policy whose underlying intent is to promulgate white supremacy and was not at all voluntarily accepted by all the people of SA.
The difference is stark and clear.
6 Dec 2010, 11:32 am
I’m not distorting a thing.I’m making words mean exactly what they ought to mean. Exclusion on the grounds of not being of the required race to play for NZ Maori is NOT voluntary. It’s mandatory.
Voluntary and mandatory are polar opposites, like black and white.
6 Dec 2010, 11:34 am
@cab : you are wasting your time with Tackler
6 Dec 2010, 11:38 am
Racial exclusion isn’t ever “accidental”. It’s always wilful and deliberate.
So there simply aren’t any of the nuances attached to causing someone’s death, such as by design, by accident, under compulsion in war etc.
Racial exclusion is like armed robbery. You cannot possibly do it by accident.
It’s black-and-white, simple and clear.
6 Dec 2010, 11:41 am
@Transformation : You’re certainly wasting your time trying to turn an incontestable fact into a contestable opinion. It just cannot be done.
Racial exclusion in the NZ Maori team is a fact, not an opinion.
6 Dec 2010, 11:41 am
The NZ Maori exclusion is not voluntarily, but the underlying policy is.
Most kiwis accept the exclusion policy, voluntarily and respectfully.
In SA, neither the exlusion nor the policy were voluntarily accepted.
Most saffas never accepted the exclusion policy, it was forced and disrespectful.
6 Dec 2010, 11:43 am
I cant actually make it any clearer, you are being willfully ignorant.
They are’nt facts at all, merely distortions in your mind.
6 Dec 2010, 11:54 am
Sorry,there’s nothing “ignorant” at all about insisting that words mean what they are supposed to mean. Something mandatory is NOT something voluntary. A recent Herald Digipoll revealed that over 40% of NZ respondents felt that a racially-exclusive NZ Maori team is unacceptable in the modern age, so there isn’t the unanimity you imagine there to be.
Just because most people “accept” an immoral practice doesn’t suddenly make it moral — the abolition of slavery, the caning in schools, or the hanging of murderers happened AGAINST the will of the majority, but it was nevertheless done because it was immoral.
The tide is on its way out on racial exclusivity too. Clinging to it against the flow is futile. It WILL — and MUST — go.
6 Dec 2010, 12:02 pm
And, in the unlikely event of racial exclusivity NOT dying out, then the table is clearly being laid for the return of racially-exclusive teams in SA too, because that hard and noble principle of strict non-racialism will have been fatally undermined. The road to Hell, the old saying goes, is paved with good intentions.
6 Dec 2010, 12:12 pm
The Maori Team – it stands on its own two feet (has identity) without denigration of another culture, and plays a showcase game that was developed in little ole England. The British Empire that mainstreamed the colonial oppression of minorities. Seems ironic but it’s true – one culture is embracing another culture, but which is which? Got it now – it’s multi-cultural.
6 Dec 2010, 12:32 pm
I totally agree that words should be given their appropriate meaning. This is exactly the problem, which is the purposefully inappropriate use of the umbrella term ‘racial exclusivity’ to blur or equate the NZ Maori and SARU Apartheid selection policies.
This is incorrect, they are completely different things. In the same way as the word ‘killing’ would be inappropriately used to describe the completely different acts of euthenasia (mercy killing) and murder (malice killing).
6 Dec 2010, 13:15 pm
@cab : Yep, hear you loud and clear. It was over 40 years after signing a treaty between two sovereign nations, before the Maori got their rugby team under way, and about another 30 years before it was officially sanctioned. Whew!!! That’s a long time between drinks. So being two sovereign nations signing up to a treaty of rights actually leads to comparing NZ to SA, similar to comparing apples with pears.
Btw they also have exclusive rights to harvesting food on the Mutton Bird Islands.
A tribe (name escapes me) in Alaska has the right to hunt two whales each year using traditional methods for their village of 400 people. Hunting season with harpoon and sealskin boats although motor powered, is a tourist attraction and brings in significant income. I don’t have any difficulty with cultural highlights whatsoever.
Now if I played the race card and demanded my rights I’d have to head to Libya, storm into Col Gaddafi’s tent, throw some dried fruits about, and request royalties to the oilfield that lies under the ground where my ancestors had been goat herding several hundred years ago. But I think his nurse or bodyguards would sort me out, well before then.
6 Dec 2010, 20:14 pm
@cab : If you have a rugby team which mandatorily excludes anyone who does not have any racial-genetic heritage, it is without question a “racially-exclusive” team.
NZ Maori is such a team.
The term “racially-exclusive” applies perfectly. And this exclusion is mandatory, not voluntary.
Again, let words have their full, proper meaning: mandatory versus voluntary. Non-racial versus exclusive.
You can’t fudge or weasel away words.
NZ Maori is racially-exclusive.
6 Dec 2010, 22:07 pm
I am not contesting that the selection criteria is racially exclusive.
I am saying that the intent underlying the selection criteria makes the NZ Maori completely different from old SARU. Specifically, the intent behind the racial exclusivity of the NZ Maori is voluntarily and respectful, whereas that behind Aparhteid SARU was forced and disrespectful.
6 Dec 2010, 22:15 pm
@cab : I think the comparison is not necessarily with the old SARU Boks, but with whatever might arise given the precedent set. Who’s to say a new white SA team, all voluntary and respectful and in honour of a proud rugby tradition, won’t be formed to play in exhibition matches? Or, for that matter, a blacks only SA team (which many people would welcome, although I reckon that would turn black rugby into a roadside curio). And given these two possibilities, who’se to say the one is more noble or acceptable than the other. You can see where this is going.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.