Rugby videos of tackles, tries, funny incidents and more: The Flour Bomb Test

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Flour Bomb Test - All Blacks vs Springboks 1981

The 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand will sadly be remembered most for the political turmoil off the field, culminating in a light airplane circling the pitch during the final match in Auckland. This was the Flour Bomb Test.

Political tension was at an all time high with South Africa’s Apartheid policies being opposed by fans and citizens of New Zealand. For many, the Springboks weren’t welcome, as riots and clashes with police became the norm throughout the tour.

It’s been said that South Africa being in New Zealand divided families, friendships, and the Nation. Some just wanted to see good rugby and leave politics out of it, while others were protesting against Apartheid.

It sparked the biggest civil disobedience campaign in New Zealand’s history, as the country sadly turned on each other with violence taking place whenever the Springboks played.

The third and final test would decide the series. Off-field events overshadowed the game itself once again, but the All Blacks won 25-22 thanks to an injury time penalty by Alan Hewson.

Outside of the ground all hell broke loose though. The streets surrounding Eden Park were host to fighting, as police were pelted with rocks and missiles. Some have since said that genuine protesters were joined by opportunists who simply wanted to fight the police.

Security at the ground was tight, so the battle was taken to the sky as Marx Jones and Grant Cole hired a Cessna aeroplane, and circled the stadium for the duration of the match. They dropped flares and flour bombs in an effort to stop the game.

The match continued, and it was ironically All Black prop Gary Knight who was felled by a flour bomb. Marx Jones spent 6 months in prison following the events of that fateful day.

Note: The first clip is a match/event summary. The second is of interviews in 2006 with All Black flyhalf from the day Doug Rollerson, as well as aeroplane pilot Marx Jones.

Good that the kiwi's stood up to apartheid

By Anonymous, at July 29, 2009 3:47 pm
Absolutly agree with wath the Kiwi's did. Apartheid's philosophy is the opposite of rugby.

By Anonymous, at July 29, 2009 4:07 pm
Always tricky when sport and politics collide - one thinks of cricket in Zimbabwe as another example.

I personally think the ABs were wrong to go ahead with the series. There are things more important than sport sometimes and international opposition to Apartheid was one of them.

As for the argument that the ABs could show the Boks what living in a racially united country was like, I don't think that really stands up. I can understand the ABs feeling narked at their players being hit by flour bombs, but I don't think they can claim a moral victory in having the Tests going ahead anyway.

I imagine some of the Saffers on this site might have something else to say on the issue - this is just my opinion.

By Ted, at July 29, 2009 4:50 pm
For many, it was purely about the rugby. The Boks just wanted to play, and themselves were young guys who lived under a government who made those choices, whether they could do something about it, or didnt care.

That said, the actions of the NZ protesters were NOT against the Springbok rugby team, but against the country they represented.

I think it's safe to say that nowadays every south african acknowledges the wrongs of the past, and has moved on.

Great footage though - learning from the past is important. I dont agree with the flour-bombers doing what he did, but they made their point, and the world took notice.

By Shaft, at July 29, 2009 5:37 pm
Beyond the obvious fact that apartheid was crap, i have to say i dont agree with the riot method... The ban of south africa from international sport was the right thing to do, what the guys from the plane did was dangerous, and the victims were the players who were only following orders.. and the people who only cared about rugby.

By Anonymous, at July 29, 2009 5:57 pm
I think nowadays if you took a light aircraft, flew it over a packed stadium about to play a massive test match and started lobbing things out the window you'd probably have a few seconds before disintegrated by some super advanced anti-aircraft missile.

By Andy, at July 29, 2009 5:58 pm
New Zealand and the rest of the world were wrong putting pressure and giving sanctions to SA.
Each nation should be free to do whatever it wants.

What if apartheid produced a great rugby? Should we stay in "Ice Age" rugby just because its not politically correct?

Nevermind SA champions of 2007WRC being an almost all white team and an all white Ireland achieving a Grand Slam in this years Six Nations...

By Hoogbyruligan, at July 29, 2009 8:11 pm
Hoobyruligan...are you serious?

That's like saying the Allies shouldn't have kicked Hitler's ass because it wasn't any of our business. I'm not sure the millions of men, women and children suffering under his ideologies would see it the same way.

I take you're against North Americans and the British & Irish soldiers in the Middle East? "Saddam Hussein only chemically exterminates people and their dogs by the hundreds of thousands...but its not our job to police the world; that's their problem." (not that I think the Middle East situation was dealt with well but please)

How ignorant.

It was Hitler or Hussein or in this case, the leaders of apartheid that are making these blatant infringements on human rights happen...its not 'THE COUNTRY' doing as they please, its a small group of twisted individuals. How absurd to suggest that the country (a lot of blacks) wanted apartheid.

Obviously the Holocaust and the apartheid are two very different things but they are both born from the same prejudice.

By bigox, at July 29, 2009 8:33 pm
@Bigox lol m8 sorry but your are the moron you cant compare a world war with what happen in SA Dumb ass Hitler was invading other countries and doing genocide Jesus go crawl back underneath that rock you came from please neanderthal.

Here is people dont know about SA history and that is almost 90% of white people were against apartheid it was the government that the screwed us.

By Anonymous, at July 29, 2009 9:11 pm
I´m serious.

I´m saying mono-racial rugby has its qualities and has shown success lots of times in the past.
Mono-racial sports has its qualities and has shown success lots of times in the past. You talk about Hitler but do not talk about Germanys great success in 1936 Olympic games.
And most of its people were not suffering, quite the opposite, cheering the new government. That’s a good example of mono-racial experience. I´m sure there are bad ones, but we should not get rid of all because of the bad ones. Hussain´s country was not mono-racial.
Also in nowadays Ireland we don´t see lots of suffering and they are almost mono-racial.

Talking about suffering let’s bring it to multi-racial nations. Are these multi-racial nations suffering-free? They have less people suffering than mono-racial nations? How do we measure that?

Don’t call me ignorant.
The fact is: there are successful mono-racial and multi-racial experiences.
And the spirit of rugby for me is to be loyal to the truth, even politically incorrect truths.

By Hoogbyruligan, at July 29, 2009 9:28 pm
I find your views interesting and would like to know when your next book burning will be, Adolf

By Anonymous, at July 29, 2009 9:39 pm
that new zealand prop.that got knocked by the flower bomb..knight something,,can we get some footage of him getting knocked out by gert smal wen the cavaliers came to sa
please RD.GREAT VID btw

By Alain Weyers, at July 29, 2009 9:51 pm
Hoogbyruligan, an all-white Ireland team winning the six nations? What else are they going to be? Half Maori, half Asian?

By Kearney for tests, at July 29, 2009 10:12 pm
They are white NOW. But their government do not have racial policies like the apartheid era in SA.
So I think they will not be entirely white in just a few years, as we are living in the same system that pressured and gave sanctions to SA years ago. Multi-cultural and multi-racial is the law now.

By Hoogbyruligan, at July 29, 2009 11:47 pm
Hoogbyruligan

You are the most uneducated pile of shit to walk this earth. End of.

By Anonymous, at July 30, 2009 12:43 am
Rugby Hooligan you're a moron. But so is Bigox.

By Anonymous, at July 30, 2009 1:41 am
Hoogbyruligan I will be sure to send you an invite to the next white power conferance, where we can discuss mono-racial sports and how the Zionists control the world's banks. Then we can can go to a book burning, it'll be great.
Alternativley you can crawl back under the rock you came out from under, and rejoin the rest of your inbred, ignorant, racsist friends.
Wow, I guess I overestimated the maturity of people on this site.
I guess there are still racist idiots in rugby.
In regard to the video, protesting was right, morally. To suggest that rugby is more important than opposing apartheid is so morally detached and twisted, it defies description. The kiwis never should have played this game, pretty much every other rugby playing country had already banned the Boks.
The guy in the light plane went a bit too far, he shouldn't be dropping sacks of flour on people's heads from a great height.
But his intentions were noble.

By Jon, at July 30, 2009 1:52 am
Wow. Hoobyruligan. Presumably bored and posting because of the lack of rugby on at the mo?

If u are serious however, then Wow it is.

Where to start? As u seem to be getting the pasting you deserve, I'll just stick to one of your many ridiculousities (there, you made me invent a word, such is your own ....riduculosity)

Ireland as:
grand slam winners and a place without suffering due to its new mono-racialism. Or something.

The Irish rugby team is made up of players from both sides of the border. It is not even one country legally, though is an island with 2 traditions and some shared identity.

Stephen Ferris from the Lions tour, for example, is from Northern Ireland, which is technically a different jurisdiction.

Rugby in Ireland is in fact a great example of 2 groups _coming together_ being creative and seeing the good in each other.

There is peace in northern Ireland now alright (where 99% of the trouble was) but the leap of logic into using this to somehow make _any_ of your off-the-wall oddball presumptions is beyond even my own overstimulated imagination. (I mean, Northern Ireland still has the two same groups it always had, b4 and after the Grand Slam...oh my God I'm actually trying to take you seriously, and it's just impossible!

Wow.

By mise, at July 30, 2009 3:28 am
"The fact is: there are successful mono-racial and multi-racial experiences.
And the spirit of rugby for me is to be loyal to the truth, even politically incorrect truths."

Thats where I stand.

If you think that its all right to change other nations by pressure, sanctions and war, it must be the Allied/Anglo blood in you.

There are lots of blacks SA´s that think life under apartheid was better than now. But the "allied" policy was never ask, just interfere.

The Irish problem (above) the same thing, it was the beginning of the intervention policies.

Germany, Iraq, etc... and now Iran?

How about asking first? Maybe Apartheid, Hussein, One religion Ireland, 1930´s Germany, were better options than todays allied government. With less suffering and all.

Ok, this will go nowhere. It´s not the place to discuss these things.

Just one final question:
Do you have any objection with the NZ Maoris prerequisite? "the player is to be of at least one-sixteenth (i.e. one great-great-grandparent) Maori descent"

By Hoogbyruligan, at July 30, 2009 4:27 am
Yeah maybe, or maybe you're just a racist desperatley trying to justify your prejudiced views anyway that you can.
Maybe you would like to try empathising with the many black people murdered or oppressed with no rights and a patronising white majority in South Africa telling them they're actually better off not having representation, human rights or access to basic justice, during the apartheid era.
The implications of what you are sayign is that Mandella should have stayed in jail and just apreciated what he had been given frm his benevloent apartheid opressors.
You're a racist apologist mate, and your views are disgusting.

By jon, at July 30, 2009 5:35 am
Goodness me, Hoogby, I'm still not sure if you're serious. I was trying to be diplomatic before, but wow, I wasn't expecting that.

Essentially you're saying the opposite to me, that there is NOTHING more important than rugby and any system of government, no matter how unfair, prejudiced or totalitarian that produces a good rugby side is therefore ok.

As for your other huge, sweeping generalisations about very complex political and historical events, I don't know where to start and, yes, you are probably right, this is not the place to discuss them. I'm not sure what place is appropriate to discuss them, but not here.

Incidentally, if there are any black South Africans using this site that would like to back up Hoogby and tell us what a great time they had under Apartheid, do let us know.

By Ted, at July 30, 2009 8:08 am
Firstly. The Holocaust and the Iraqi genocide were extreme examples to illustrate the absurdity of suggesting that countries should be free to do as they want without interference with other countries. It was not a comparison of atrocities.

The first anonymous who called me a moron went onto further prove my point by saying, "All these whites in SA didn't approve of apartheid either". OKAY...my point was that rugbyhooligan's position that we shouldn't interfere with what other countries want is assuming that the racism of apartheid is what they wanted. So if the blacks didn't want apartheid AND a lot of the whites didn't want apartheid...then it becomes more clear to me that apartheid WAS NOT a decision of 'the country' but rather a small group of individuals. And to say that that small group of individuals can do as they please without us interfering is ludicrous.

-

Hoogby ruligan: You're saying the mono-racial sporting (or otherwise) endeavors have been, from time to time, positive. I wouldn't disagree that there has been good things that have happened, as you're keen to point out with your legitimate examples.

However (here I come with some slightly off topic examples so for those who can't draw similarities then turn your energy towards thinking this time instead of petty insults)...in the United States, there is the Westboro Baptist Church run by Pastor Fred Phelps. Its members protest fallen soldiers funerals with signs thanking their God for righteous judgements; "Thank God for IEDs", "Thank God for 911". They also run the website, 'godhatesfags.com' and run protests against "fags" with more colourful signs and so on. The irrationally bigoted Fred Phelps also helped blacks get equal rights in their town or whatever it is. Does this make him and his institution ethical, moral and 'okay'? Hitler saved Germany's economy (before effing it up again). The KKK, Militant Muslims and other diabolical institutions have saved lives...does this make them okay?

Once again, the point is not to suggest the Hitler is similar to the apartheid...I'm saying simply:

Evil institutions that do good things are still evil institutions and are not exempt from criticism in the form of refusing to tour or otherwise.

By bigox, at July 30, 2009 8:19 am
Wawaweewa!! Hoogbyruligan, your political views seem to clash with the very thing that's great about rugby. People like you aren't welcome in the rugby community.

By Anonymous, at July 30, 2009 11:00 am
Interesting video.

Shame about the racist ranting.

By Anonymous, at July 30, 2009 12:06 pm
Two comments. To call the Broederbond a white supremacist movement is inaccurate. It was created to fight British domination of Afrikaners. PW Botha, the last hardline president that defended grand apartheid (as opposed to peti-apartheid) was not a member.

And it was the Broederbond that gangend up against him and ushered in the reformist De Klerk.

Secondly, currently the number of deaths in detention in South Africa exceed, on a yearly basis that during the height of apartheid.

Black foreigners are regularly harassed and even murdered by black South Africans.

But the world pays no - or a lot less - attention to that.

Why??

By Wessel, at July 30, 2009 12:44 pm
Jesus people. This is a rugby site. Not a frickin Political Science forum.

The posts above are hilarious.
A "little" knowledge is dangerous
eh.

By Anonymous, at July 30, 2009 12:50 pm
Because although it is terrible, it is minor compared to the hundreds of other issues that need to be dealt with around the world.

By Anonymous, at July 30, 2009 12:57 pm
When they abolished slavery in the United States, the amount of lynchings went up. That doesn't mean that slavery was good it just means that abolishing it did not solve all of the race-related problems in America. Slavery was abolished in 1865, a hundred years later the Civil Rights movement was still going on.

Following the abolition of Apartheid in SA, there are still race-related problems and an increase in crime. What a surprise. Does that mean that Apartheid was good? Of course not, it just means that SA has a way to go yet before a fair racial balance is found.

Wessel the implication of your question is that you think Apartheid had positive implications for SA. Well, it did - if you were white. But no matter what followed it, the policy of racial segregation is unjust. No amount of black crime can justify the policies of Apartheid.

By Ted, at July 30, 2009 12:58 pm
Well said Ted

By Anonymous, at July 30, 2009 1:04 pm
Time for a new video i think or it's going to be world war three

By Anonymous, at July 30, 2009 1:05 pm
I always find it amusing how easy people get wound up by politics and apartheid is always the main topic of discussion. Nobody talk about the wrongs of other country’s like Australia / Aborigines, New Zealand / Maoris, America / blacks, England / Indians, Pakistani’s, blacks…. (Most of the racist acts were similar to what happened in SA, people weren’t allowed to use the same restaurants, kids were taken away from their family’s, people were made to work as slaves and even shipped from Africa!!) But all that is ever talked about is South Africa and Apartheid and the only reason is because the “system” was called Apartheid while the rest of the world was no different.

Then people are quick to justify the use of force and wars to remove the Saddam Hussein’s of this world yet no mention is being made of Zimbabwe who through his dictatorship is killing more people (indirectly, through starvation).

Makes me sick

So how about talking about rugby and find another site to go and debate fucking politics!

By Jot, at July 30, 2009 1:25 pm
So basically you're saying that South Africa is a worse place than it was before, and you think it can only be due to the end of apartheid.

And the best conclusion you can come up with is that the sanctions were wrong and we should bring apartheid back?

Nice try Hoogbyruligan, troll somewhere else.

By Jeremy, at July 30, 2009 1:32 pm
Jot, last time my mate Dan got so blinding drunk he fell asleep with his face on the toilet bowl after vomiting into it for 5 minutes.

He thinks we laugh at him for his mistake the time and gets quite upset, but the truth is:
1. We don't, he just makes a fuss of the few times we do and keep it weighing on his own mind.
2. He deserves it.

In other words: man you up you wuss.

By Anonymous, at July 30, 2009 1:41 pm
I agree with Wessels on this one i am from SA and to people that arnt from SA cant really say anything unless you lived throw that era if you didnt then you are just saying what you or your parents have seen in media, and they arnt factual all the time especially at war times or apartheid times the reason is they wernt allowed to report on what was happening in SA at that time, so they had to rely on what other people said.

TBH RD take this politic stuff off please as this is in the past and and this video is all politics and not rugby Thanks.

By Anonymous, at July 30, 2009 1:53 pm
Ted reads my mind :"Wessel the implication of your question is that you think Apartheid had positive implications for SA. Well, it did - if you were white. But no matter what followed it, the policy of racial segregation is unjust. No amount of black crime can justify the policies of Apartheid."

I fought against apartheid.

But what is happening in South Africa can not be justified in any way. And what worries me is that the world is not paying attention like it used. the country still needs the pressure as in these videos above.

The editor of the Mail & Guardian - the main independent paper that was to play such a big roll in exposing apartheid hit squads, editor recently wrote:

"In real terms household incomes have come down. Our Gini coefficient, the measure of the wealth gap, is now the highest in the world, an ignominious honour that we spend far too little time understanding and fighting.

Our children are less bright in the freedom years, our schools possibly worse than they were under the dead hand of Bantustan administrators. Our public hospitals are so bad that not a single provincial minister of health uses them."

By Wessel, at July 30, 2009 2:28 pm
PS: Clcik on my name and go to my blog, you'll notice there's a very interesting pic of two days ago. Enough said.

By Wessel, at July 30, 2009 2:38 pm
Fair enough Wessel, a good point made. I don't know enough about current standards of living in SA to make any comment. We seem to agree that whatever came after Apartheid, that doesn't make Apartheid any better.

As to why the current regime doesn't get as much news coverage, I think it's probably because a country being badly run is not as good a story as a country with formalised racial segregation. The sad fact is that

a) the media is only interested in painting the world in very broad brush-strokes of good and evil; the unthinking view is 'If Apartheid was bad then whatever ousted it must be good'

b) SA joins a long list of countries (including the UK) where those in charge are short-changing the people, whatever their colour. It's too common a thing, sadly, to make a good news story

By Ted, at July 30, 2009 2:47 pm
Jot, what a load bollox. Not can't even be bothered to respond to that, you don't seem intelligent enough to discuss this.

By Anonymous, at July 30, 2009 5:01 pm
Apartheid is very different from slavery.

The policy of racial segregation is not unjust. We may have had some bad experiences under it, but in theory its one of the most just policies. Each to its own.

But lets go back to the toppic:
Do you agree with rugby and sports being used to change other countries policy? Using rugby(sports and all) to blackmail and extort other counries?
I think its even a child-like behavior...

No one answered my last question about NZ Maoris, but I got another one for you:
Mono-racial rugby has not made any contribution to the game?
C´mon you cant have so much white guilt in you...

By Hoogbyruligan, at July 30, 2009 6:09 pm
No, Hoogby, Apartheid is not very different from slavery. They are two branches of the same tree and if you can't see that then you are even more blind than you first appeared. It's got nothing to do with white guilt, it's about morality, pure and simple.

I can't believe you are defending the principle of separate but equal either. That was exactly the same principle as Martin Luther King fought against in America, because, of course, wherever there was racial segregation there was no equality at all. If you are defending separate but equal then you are allying yourself with those who have committed some of the worst human rights abuses in the last sixty years.

You want to talk about rugby, fine. No, nobody gets worked up about the NZ Maoris. Why? Because in NZ white and Maori live in relative harmony, because in NZ they never had racial segregation. Thus the Maoris are not a symbol of an injust government, simply an attempt by the Maoris to continue their own culture. If the NZ team was racially segregated you might have a point, but they aren't and so you don't.

Do I agree with countries putting pressure on regimes that they fundamentally disagree with? Yes I do. There's nothing childlike about it, in fact it's very grown up, it's called having a conscience.

Tbh I don't know why I'm arguing with you, I know I won't change the racial conspiracy theory you seem to have been indoctrinated with. I just couldn't let you get away with talking such nonsense on this forum.

By Ted, at July 30, 2009 6:23 pm
Aparheid was wrong, but at the same time if it werent for apartheid then South Africa would have been a shit hole like the rest of Africa...

By Jaques, at July 30, 2009 6:48 pm
So you have a conscience when things are ok and you think you could do better, but when you try change it for the better and end up making it worse, you dont have a conscience anymore?

There are more people suffering now in Iraq, in SA...But no more conscience...

Maybe the other name for "your conscience" is mass media. You are probaly thinking today that the people in Iran are suffering horrible atrocities.
And of course that someone must save them...

Only accepting Maoris descent is a segregational policy.
And you agree theres room for only Maori Rugby. Whats the problem with only White Rugby? Within the same borders.
A white team "to continue their own culture". SA apartheid was part of their culture.

Theres nothing bad, wrong, horrendous and imoral in "separate but equal" theory. We are indoctrinated to think any experience under it was terrifying. When infact this experience might have been better than these modern multi-racial ones.

By Hoogbyruligan, at July 30, 2009 11:29 pm
Moderator can you delete the clearly thinly veiled racism off this board? I'm thinking Hoogbyruligan, he's either trying to wind people up, or just a blatant racist. It's morally disgusting and it's going to cause a massive row on this board/wesbite.

By Chris G, at July 31, 2009 12:34 am
'these multi racial societies'

like the place that is the blend of almost all cultures, the USA.

The most successful country in the world, and the most powerful.

Plenty of problems yes, plenty of tough times in moving away from slavery, but still now far better a place for it.

Not perfect, but the top dog without a doubt.

Sometimes its about respect for people's potential, not just short term suffering. Take this example:

When northern ireland was at its most peaceful, it systematically oppressed its own minority (c.1920s-1960s) that was a peaceful enough time in northern ireland too.

The difference now is that _both_ groups in northern ireland have respect. That's why this current peace in northern Ireland is far better. And far more likely to last.

Yes, the changeover was tough, and still is at times, but it is _unquestionably_ going in the right direction.

(I live in Ireland btw and have worked cross border, also studied politics as a post grad while living in belfast during what turned out to be the end of the first ceasefire in 98, so I'm not blowing smoke out of my ass on this)

Of course the white culture in SA needs to get to express itself and its history: it could even, in time, include white only cultural expression at the formal level (I'm sure that happens on an informal level anyway all the time)

NZ does manage the balance reasonably well, can't see how the NZ example can be seen as anything else

Re the relative scale of the targets of international boycott; well, that's a big one, and this is supposed to be a rugby discussion thread!

But hey its the off season up here in the NH, so...! 'quickly':
We are all fairly powerless, in terms of what happens on a large scale around the world. Occasionally, a place we have some connection with, a place was can have influence over, as it has over us, steps outside the realms of acceptable behavior. In that context, and in a context where a targeted boycott by a large number is already occurring, it makes sense to agitate.
In other words, you choose your battles, and aim for achievable targets. That's what SA was, and that's in part why it changed as a society.

Thou it will sound both microscopic and ridiculously grandiose in equal measure, I genuinely wish it well in its progress towards _inter_cultural nationhood.

By mise, at July 31, 2009 12:43 am
Just out of interest Hoogbyruligan, do you consider yourself a racist? Something that annoys me more than your views, is that you will never know how wrong you are. You'll probably go to your grave thinking you were in the right, and we're all pawns of the mass media, when actually you're suffering from indoctrination, or possibly a pathological disorder - and you see, that disorder or indoctrination is the very reason you will never know you have the disorder/indoctrination.

By Chris G, at July 31, 2009 12:48 am
I don't think you know how serious the Apartheid was. It wasn't just banning the black people in South Africa from coming into certain areas, they killed thousands of children.

You know what, i'm not even going to bother. It is going to be like talking to a wall. If you want to live in a fairy tale, then fine, but before you do, go speak to someone who lived under apartheid like I have.

A human should only be judged by their actions, not their genetics.

By Les Bleus, at July 31, 2009 1:11 am
Hoogbyruligan you're repeating yourself.

Hoogbyruligan: "But apartheid was the only reason SA was better than before, I want to go back to the 80's, apartheid has both good and bad qualities, and Iraq!"

Apartheid is the not the single solution to SA's problems, never will.

Apartheid does have good and bad, just like everything else. Hoogbyruligan might be a law-abiding citizen, but that doesn't mean people turn a blind-eye to your trollings.

Iraq is poorly relevant. All the obvious events in the world and Iraq's the best you got? Maybe you should try China and Tibet.

You don't like to hear people saying mean things about apartheid? Tough. It's the 21st century, you need to get out more.

By Anonymous, at July 31, 2009 2:45 am
Answering someone up there:
I do not consider myself a racist.
I want mono-racial, segregational and multi-racial societies preserved, as all of them have made great contributions to world sport and many other things. I want things to be put into new perspectives under a variety of regimes.

Related to South Africa stepping
"outside the realms of acceptable behavior"
Who decides that Mise? Whats an acceptable behavior nowadays?

And to all people talking about suffering: the end of apartheid had an huge impact on lowering suffering? Is SA making progress in that? Do you see a more peaceful
future?
Or if you dont, are you going to blame it on whites?

By Hoogbyruligan, at July 31, 2009 3:32 am
"But apartheid was the only reason SA was better than before, I want to go back to the 80's, apartheid has both good and bad qualities, and Iraq!"

Another user said that, not me.

By Hoogbyruligan, at July 31, 2009 3:37 am
At the end of the day, what you're implying is that Mandella was an idiot and should have stayed happy without representation, without access to justice, without any access to opportunity, without education, proper health care, otr even the right to basic human dignity.
Apartheid was not just segregation, it was oppression.
Would you happy be happy to give up your human rights in order to have a more stable country for the white minority?
How about acknowledging the many crimes commited by white people against black in the name of supression which went undocumented, unreported and unpunished?
How about acknowledging that you were part of the white minority that benefitied from apartheid, and that skews your view of the subject. That of course you'd prefer apartheid, because now you've lost your privledged position and have to acknowledge the grinding brutal poverty suffered by the black majority. In fact that suffering now overlaps your own experience, you are no longer sheltered from it. With this sudden forced reality check, no doubt you yearn for a return to a time when the balck people were kept firmly in their place.

By jon, at July 31, 2009 4:55 am
Ah haha,

Hoogbyruligan loves the idea of 'separate but equal' thing is, its always separate but never equal.

Whats even more hilarious is (that assuming Hoogbyruligan is Afrikaans) he possibly does not realise the large amount of black and Khoisan blood in his veins.

Its hard not to notice the amount of hardcore Afrikaners with what can only be called 'tanned' appearances. What to do with your brothers and sisters Hoogbyruligan? Reclassify them coloured?

Finally, to all my fellow Safricans telling others not to judge unless they live in this country, well you're wrong. For the most part they've got it 100% right. I don't need to live in Egypt to be able to make a moral judgement on female circumcision.

By Andy - Stinky, at July 31, 2009 9:51 am
Finally to everyone pondering if Hoogbyruligan is typical of most Saffers.

Unfortunately his attitude is shared by a large minority in this country, mostly Afrikaans, mostly working class - you see them at stadiums, staggering drunk and abusive.

The weird thing is; I have so much more in common with my well educated black friends than I ever will with Hoogbyruligan. Yet supposedly he and I are of the same cloth?

By Andy - Stinky, at July 31, 2009 10:02 am
Whine, whine, whine about countries putting their noses in other people's affairs.

I'm sorry but the end of apartheid happened because of the will of South Africans yourselves. You guys had the choice of staying your course, but you caved in to peer pressure.

Complain about the sanctions all you want, but too bad what you have now is a direct result of your own actions.

By Anonymous, at July 31, 2009 10:42 am
Les Bleus said...
"I don't think you know how serious the Apartheid was. It wasn't just banning the black people in South Africa from coming into certain areas, they killed thousands of children."

According to the TRC approx 25,000 died in political violence from 1948 to 1994. (Killings perpetrated by all sides but the majority attributed to the government).

This figures is almost definitely too low. It probably should be more like 34,000.

Many more were tortured or assaulted.

Yet if violence is your measure then apartheid is relatively low down the international scale of horrors.

60,000 Kenyans died in a relatively short period in their war for independence from Britain, and the Algerian struggle for independence from France was as bad. And these numbers are not even close to Rwanda or the Congo today.

The real harm was psychological.

The reason its become so iconic is that it reminds the west of their disgraceful behaviour only a couple of decades before, something many westerners are now rightly ashamed of.

This also explains why now, when in SA inequality is worse and deaths in police custody exceed those during apartheid the west is relatively quiet. It's not black SA they care for, its there own self image.

Andy - Stinky said... "
Finally to everyone pondering if Hoogbyruligan is typical of most Saffers.

Unfortunately his attitude is shared by a large minority in this country, mostly Afrikaans, mostly working class - you see them at stadiums, staggering drunk and abusive."

This makes sense of course when you compare with old Rhodesia, which was as racist and deadly as these Afrikaners.

The reason is simple. They did not have a white working class buffer.

English white South Africa have been relatively wealthy, living in huge mansions far removed from those working class whites that worked as policemen, nurses, teachers and the civil service. And then they went on holidays to the motherland - if they had not immigrated. And generally they looked down on Afrikaners or immigrated.

It is a very convenient excuse. And often the veneer of civility is very shallow.

By Wessel, at July 31, 2009 5:52 pm
Did someone compare Ireland and SA's rugby teams based on ethnicity ? Ireland has a population of around 5 million, with possibly a bit over a hundred thousand people who are Black, Asian or otherwise. What a ridiculous thing to say

By ThirdCentre, at July 31, 2009 8:40 pm
Wow. How ironic, that on a website of a game that is unique in that it celebrates the inclusion of all walks of life, without condition, be the place to find comments straight out of a Klansman's / Aparteid-esque playbook.

I differ with a few here in that, I would NOT take down his comments, if I was a moderator.

I would leave them for everyone to see what an idiot Hoogbyruligan is.

By EARugbyFan, at August 01, 2009 1:45 am
I'm also South African, and can categorically state that many of us are firmly against all racial segregation as practiced under Apartheid.

There is still a remnant of bitter, dispossessed people in SA, on both sides of the spectrum. And as Wessel correctly points out, the real conflict was at the working class level.

Many well-educated, liberal whites were relatively distant from the realities of racial hatred and many are involved in charity work, education etc.

It is, however, a much more complicated picture than many grasp. There is now a murderously negligent government in power and things are not better for all.

By Robert, at August 01, 2009 12:48 pm
Hoogby, you claim you arent a rascist but have said:

"I want mono-racial and segregational societies preserved"

You also said stupid things like:

"Nevermind SA champions of 2007WRC being an almost all white team" - There were at least 8 none white players in the squad, that I can remember, out of a 30 man squad.

"Are these multi-racial nations suffering-free?" - No, of course not. Find me a civilisation or government policy in the world that has been "suffering-free".

"There are lots of blacks SA´s that think life under apartheid was better than now. But the "allied" policy was never ask, just interfere."

And I cannot be bothered to copy anymore. Your views are morally wrong and disgusting, you need to think about what you say before you say it. I mean, implying that black people in south africa preferred apartheid, to now?.. come on..

By Phil3, at August 02, 2009 5:39 am
Hoogby, you claim you arent a rascist but have said:

"I want mono-racial and segregational societies preserved"

You also said stupid things like:

"Nevermind SA champions of 2007WRC being an almost all white team" - There were at least 8 none white players in the squad, that I can remember, out of a 30 man squad.

"Are these multi-racial nations suffering-free?" - No, of course not. Find me a civilisation or government policy in the world that has been "suffering-free".

"There are lots of blacks SA´s that think life under apartheid was better than now. But the "allied" policy was never ask, just interfere."

And I cannot be bothered to copy anymore. Your views are morally wrong and disgusting, you need to think about what you say before you say it. I mean, implying that black people in south africa preferred apartheid, to now?.. come on..

By Phil3, at August 02, 2009 5:39 am
Don't ever post on RD, but here's my 2 cents:

I'm a 34yr old white south african living in Johannesburg.
Forget about that RugbyHooligan fella i really think he is winding you all up.

The sporting demonstrations and sanctions against apartheid were totally justified and did help change South Africa. If i were a Kiwi during that time i would be there demonstrating as well. Denying the best person for the job based on his skin colour is wrong, end of story.

What I think is happenning here is that separate issue's are becoming mixed up.
To illustrate, consider this: I live in a middle class (mostly white) neighborhood called Randburg. I grew up here. A few weeks ago a friend of my mum's got boiled to death in her lounge. Some guys broke into her house, tied her up, and tortured her for hours because she had no cash. She died in hospital a week later.
Now i'm being totally straight forward with you, this sh!t happens All the time. Can any of you guys who live in Oz, NZ, Europe even comprehend what its like driving through bullets? Or having your brother call you up saying he has armed thieves in the house? Its not just that we have crime, i know i know, crime happens everywhere. Its just the level of cruelty and total disregard for human life here is.. well..

So i'll stop rambling.
Apartheid was bad. But i think alot of the debate on this post is being generated by people who have never ever been to africa.
Put on your backpack, come to Johannesburg, and travel up to Zimbabwe and back. (PS: Hiring a Land Rover and staying in Hotels doesn't count, trust me thats not africa)
Then write a post.
It won't be what you think it will.

By Andre', at August 03, 2009 2:34 pm
Guys,

I don'T know what Hoogbyruligans motivation is (and I thus don't want to defend them) but your accusations against him show a blindness which is typical for politcal correctness.

First of all: Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

Wanting to be sperated from another race is thus not racism but segregation/apartheid. Now I agree that Segregaionist will in most cases also be racists - but that does not mean it is the same.

Secondly: TED you get it wrong twice.
a)Apartheid is not slavery. Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. Apartheid is the (forceful) separation of races. Now, again, these two priciples might correlate in a political system but there is no causal link between them.

b) Segregation is, no matter what the supreme court or Martin L. King said, not inherently unequal. Even thou I will admit that in the US races were treated differently.
But again there is a difference between correlation and causality.
You can have the same treatment of boys and girls even if they are not educated in the same school. The same goes, even if you don't like it for Whites and Negros.

It is important not to put judgement into everything. I personally think that the Supreme Court was right to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson, because there was probably no other way to ensure that Negros got the same treatment as everyone else - sometimes logic has to be twisted to achieve greater good. nevertheless it is important of being aware of the twist.

PUOW

By Precise Use of Words, at August 03, 2009 6:30 pm
Apartheid was not just segregation. It was opression and denial of human rights.
Black South Africans lacked access to opportunity, representation, basic justice, human rights, civil services like health care, social welfare and the provision of infrastructure, education and freedom of movement and expression.
What South Africa faces now is also terrible.
It all basically stems from a grinding brutal poverty suffered by the majority of the population.
Poverty breeds crime, it's a truth that's as perrenial as the grass.
The solution under apartheid was to keep the black people completely under the thumb, isolate them from the financially secure, privledged white upper and middle classes and brutalise them if they revolted or opposed this forced situation (this segregation as you prefer to call it).
Now the lines are far more blurred.
The poverty is still there, if not worse now, and the shite popualtion is longer opposed to it, or in a position to brutally suppress the poor black majority from where most of the crime stems.
What you should acknowledge though, is that this brutal criminality and poverty has always been a feature of life for the black majority, in the townships and elsewhere. Now it overlaps the white experience, and with the economic situation, seems only to be getting worse.
I'm under no illusions about South Africa, in fact some of the things I saw there made me want to weep.
But the solution is not to go back to the days of racial oppression.
The solution is economic opportunity and education for the majority. How to provide that is obviously the million dollar question.
Please don't think I'm being trite and trivialisng the situation or the terrible things that you describe, it's just what I believe on the issue.
And I disagree with your definition of racism. It takes many forms, but essentially it's discrimination based on the color of a persons skin, rather than the content of their character.
Segregation is just another form of discrimination.
When you tell a person he can't get on a particular bus or drink from a particular fountain because he was born a certain color, you are being a rascist.
There's no way around that.

By Jon, at August 05, 2009 8:26 am
Jon says: "Apartheid was not just segregation. It was opression and denial of human rights."

This is undeniably true.

Jon goes on to say "It all basically stems from a grinding brutal poverty suffered by the majority of the population.
Poverty breeds crime, it's a truth that's as perrenial as the grass."

This IS true but simplistic when trying to explain crime - particularly in SA.

India is grindingly poor in parts but has no comparable crime levels. Malawi's poor is much worse off than South Africa's poor but they don't have the same levels of crime.

And how about this fact. Not only poverty, but the income gap between white and black South Africans were falling the whole of the 20th century, but in particular the 70's and 80's.

And so have black South Africa's life expectancy and infant mortality rates risen consistently over that period. (Which was incidentally higher than the average for Africa).

All of these needles now point in the opposite direction.

In particularly inequality has risen dramatically, although its not solely race based now which is one plus.

It is a supreme irony of history that the services such as health and policing were better in apartheid SA, particularly in black areas.

So Jon, your analysis does not follow. If anything inequality is an even bigger correlation to crime than poverty. But both these are now higher and going up, after apartheid.

And crime in for example Nairobi Kenya, is very similar to that in Johannesburg - and they never had apartheid.

During apartheid the Nationalists always told us about "die swart gevaar". The chaos that will ensue majority (and therefore) black rule.

These days, when things go wrong in SA, like the xenophobic killings of black foreigners or the avoidable deaths of babies in the public hospitals the government says - like you - its apartheid's fault. Which is right? Can both be right? Perhaps.

But to continually pin the blame on the past helps South Africans avoid responsibility for the future.

I fear for the future of South Africa.

By Wessel, at August 05, 2009 4:29 pm
I don't think Apartheid is the reason there is crime, poverty and suffering in South Africa.
Obviously it is a very complicated situation and there are many and varied reasons why South Africa is in the situation it is now.
My point was that Apartheid is not the answer, and never was.
A quarter of SA's population is unemployed, giving people jobs would be a start in terms of reducing crime.
Improving the living conditions of people in the townships would also help.
Man, there's hundreds of things that could be done, some easier, some hard that could improve the situation. But Apartheid is not one of them. Racial oppression is not going to make crime go away in SA.

By Jon, at August 06, 2009 12:33 am