From: hist1261@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.sport.rugby
Subject: Re: All Blacks vs South Africa
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:37:28 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <dekock.714136294@shannon>, dekock@shannon.ee.wits.ac.za (Nick de Kock) writes:
> In <1992Aug17.012451.28460@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au> s8923098@macnab.mqcs.mq.oz.au (Josef WIDJAJA) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Aug17.091928.10124@waikato.ac.nz> higham@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>>|Interesting to see in that South African newspaper report nothing about the
>>|disgraceful 1 minute silence planned for the start of the test in memory of the
>>|deaths in the republic and for future peace. I found it extremely sad and
>>|distasteful that large sections of the crowd ignored the silence and sang some
>>|Boer anthem instead. For christs sake. And there is no excuse that the size of
>>|the crowd precluded such an observance taking place, I've seen much bigger
>>|stadiums than Ellis park stay quiet (Wembley stadium for example). What a slap
>>|in the face for Nelson Mandela sitting in the stands, a continuation of a long
>>|tradition of total insensitivity and racism to the majority of South Africas
>>|people. 
> 
> It may have been a slap in the face for Mr Mandela but wherever he was -
> he was NOT at Ellis Park. He was supposed to have attended but did not.
> The ANC was represented by Mr Steve Tshwete - the ANC's 'troubleshooter'
> for sports related issues (he was instrumental in their acceptance
> of SA's attendance at the cricket world cup)
> 
> I feel a bit ambiguous over the whole affair myself - I must admit I
> did feel acutely embarrased when elements of the crowd of +- 80000 pointedly
> ignored the 'moment of silence' and sang 'Die Stem' (which - unrepresentative
> or not - is the official national anthem of South Africa not 'some
> Boer anthem'). Insensitivity? Of course. But what can you do? The average 
> rugby supporter in SA is not the most sensitive guy. Average Australians and
> New Zealanders aren't renowned for their sensitivity either. 
>>...etc...
> 
>>Yeah. I didn't know there was a one minute silence until I read the paper
>>this morning. I thought it was strange that the crowd started singing
>>before the national anthems were played, and I also thought that playing
>>the S.A national anthem was quite offensive since it represents
>>opression of the Black South Africans. I am beginning to have doubts that
>>the 1995 World Cup will be played in South Africa.
>> 
> Playing the national anthem was NOT an decision of the South African
> Rugby Board. The decision was taken  by Louis Luyt - head of the Transvaal
> Rugby Union - on the spur of the moment. According to him there was an 
> agreement earlier between him and Eddie Tonks (the NZ rugby boss) that
> neither of the anthems would be played (and the Haka would not be performed).
> This was supposedly a compromise so that no-one would feel slighted.
> Mr Luyt said that Mr Tonks reneged on the agreement at the last moment and
> decided that the NZ anthem would be played. In his bullish manner Mr Luyt
> then decided to play 'Die Stem' AFTER the silence had been observed.
> 
> My personal feeling is that 'Die Stem' should not have been played. But
> I take great exception to the ANC's dictatorial manner. Who are they
> to dictate how people should express themselves? Contrary to the image
> they present to the outside world the National Executive Committee of
> the ANC does not represent anyone other than an elite clique of ANC
> members who elected it. Their support has (understandably) never been
> tested by popular vote. 
> 
> Also -the ANC has double standards. At a soccer international held in
> Harare, between SA and Zimbabwe on Sunday a similar 'silence' was requested.
> If the newspaper reports are to be believed a large proportion of that
> crowd ignored the request too. Also - the ANC flag was presented as though
> it was the official South African flag and Nkosi Sikilel' i Afrika was
> played as though it was the National Anthem. None of these things have been
> agreed upon by the majority of South Africans. 
> 
> So why didn't  the ANC take exception to that? Because it suits them.
> If this had happened in America everyone would be pushing the 5th 
> Amendment. It wouldn't have helped - everyone knows that freedom of
> speech in South Africa only applies to the ANC.
> 
> And lastly the Wallabies test will go ahead - and I'm betting the Aussies
> will get thumped. I bet they wish the ANC would tell them to go home.
> 
> (Donning flameproof suit now ;-) )
> -- 
> Nick de Kock, High Voltage Group        | Internet dekock@odie.ee.wits.ac.za    
> Electrical Engineering, Wits University |                 or
> Johannesburg, South Africa              |      dekock@shannon.ee.wits.ac.za
> ....Another Churchill quote pending...........
> 

Yes, a quite reasonable argument.  I find it somewhat disquieting that certain
New Zealanders - particularly certain New Zealanders from Waikato University -
have adopted such a holier-than-thou attitude toward this singing of the anthem
business.  The arrogance with which some people presume to preach to others
defies belief.  How dare we, thousands of miles from the incident and largely
ignorant of the complex social and political forces at work in South Africa,
come to such a definitive conclusion so quickly.

I can of course hear the cries already of "he's a racist, he's a racist", but
nevertheless I would go further and suggest the arrogance with which the ANC
has used rugby as a political football over the last few weeks is
reprehensible.  The only thing worse is the Australian Foreign Ministry's
willingness to follow each and every utterance from that political movement
as though it were the word of God.  As worthy as is the fight against
discrimination and for political equality, surely the ANC at the end of the
day is a political party, much like that other black group we mysteriously
hear so little of in the New Zealand media.  To blindly follow the dictates
of one party is hardly "democratic".

Was there any TANGIBLE damage done because the minute's silence was not
observed?  Would the observance have brought back the thousands who have
died, on both sides, due to township violence?  Perhaps such a
political gesture was inappropriate in such a sporting context in the first
place - particularly when it cut directly across traditions (and not wholly
apartheid traditions either) which have been established in International
Rugby for most of this century.

Richard.


Newsgroups: rec.sport.rugby