South Africans in general, black and white, appear to have an allergic reaction to change. While we all recognise and acknowledge the need to transform public institutions in whatever form to be reflective of the society they represent, we are quick to oppose attempts to move towards that particular ideal. The ushering of democracy necessitated that we rid ourselves of painful reminders of the past and all material things that continued to represent the brutality that apartheid represented.
The eradication of relics of apartheid is unfairly seen as an affront on the heritage of certain sections of our society, which is determined to preserve all that is offensive to the majority of this country. Perhaps historians would bemoan the lack of preservation of certain vestiges of apartheid; that future generations may be denied the opportunity to learn and observe something of our painful past. History books preserve a lot of that which some would want us to continue to honour by allowing them a place in the sun.
It was necessary that unpopular changes be affected in order that the country can move forward. The presence of statues of apartheid thugs at the Union Buildings would have offended those that sacrificed their lives in the struggle for liberation of our people; and those whose brothers and sisters, father and mothers, gave their lives in order that we are free today. To continue to honour apartheid brutes was to offend our democratic dispensation. It was necessary that offensive names such as “kafferskraal” be eradicated from existence and replaced with acceptable names; and the same applies to street names, town names and names of public institutions.
But while we all agree that there was a need at the beginning to free ourselves of burden of the past, I suppose we all agree that this change has now been taken a bit too far! For example, the change of name of Jan Smuts International Airport to Johannesburg International Airport was largely accepted, as consensus existed that Smuts was a racist that deserved no continued honour, although I was uncertain who this “Johannes” was whom we were honouring. But the further change from Johannesburg International Airport to OR Tambo International Airport was an indication of a problem of indecisiveness and poor leadership on the part of Pallo Jordaan who is responsible for these name changes. The decision to change the name of the airport to OR Tambo should have been taken when the airport name was still Jan Smuts.
Butana Komphela, the controversial chairperson of the sports portfolio committee, has now decided, 14 years after our democracy, that the national rugby emblem of the Springbok be changed. Perhaps if that debate was opened shortly after 1994, the overwhelming majority of our people would have with one voice expressed their disgust at continued use of a symbol of apartheid to represent the national team. But a lot has since happened. In 1995 the country united as one behind the Springboks on their victorious return to the international rugby state. The Springboks were not representing whites only but all the rest of us, black and white. The same applies to the victory at the 2007 Rugby World Cup. Nothing that represented oppression in this country is more transformed than that Springbok emblem.
Komphela appears to have an itch to continuously exaggerate his importance by making controversial, irresponsible and divisive statements, which are not helping to advance true transformation and nation building. Equally disgusting are people like Dan Roodt who is a self-appointed spokesperson of the Afrikaner community; who believes the Springbok is a symbol of Afrikaner nationalism; that Luke Watson’s alleged and unfortunate utterances were “the subsistence of age-old colonial hatred that significant number of the English people still harbour towards Afrikaners.” Roodt claims that Watson wanted to puke on the Springbok because it is Afrikaans. It is the position of imbeciles such as Roodt that serve to strengthen the absurd resolve of the likes of Komphela to do away with the Springbok emblem.
The majority of South Africans couldn’t care less about what the Springbok emblem used to represent but are encouraged by what it represents now and would continue to represent in future. The debate about the Springbok emblem is a diversion from the real issues that the Sports Portfolio Committee should be concerned with. The national soccer team is in a dismal state with only a few months before the Fifa World Cup; and that is what Komphela should be directing all his energy towards. The Olympic Team was pathetic in Beijing and Komphela should be focusing on what programs the government is intending to implement in preparation for the London Olympics.
Why the ANC continues to have Komphela as chair of the sports portfolio committee is mind-boggling. We can only conclude that his utterances are representative of the ANC’s views on these matters he makes preposterous pronouncements on.
It is as you say “much ado about nothing”. Of course it does allow us to play with peoples buttons. A fellow blogger over at www.onelongminute.com pointed out the following.
“My fellow broeders who support the Springbok have not played their cards very well. A bit of research would have led them to Sailor Malan (Ace World War II), who led a left wing movement that had 25 000 members called the Springbok Legion! This movement mobilized both White and Black servicemen against the intentions of the National party prior to and after 1948. Now we could say that the springbok is carrying on that great anti-apartheid tradition.”
Now perhaps that is what we need. More research before we all get really upset and call our national rugby side Umuntu-Umuntu. Lets face it they are now the most succesful Rugby team in the world and deserve to be treated with a whole lot more respect than the dismal failures known as Banana-Banana.
1/ The Springbok is not a relic of Apartheid, it was started in 1905, that is 43 years before Apartheid. That Apartheid used the Bok is not in question but they also used the Union Buildings and Parliament buildings and much else but no one is suggesting pulling them down and
2/symbols as Naas Botha says are not important, playing for your country is. So why don’t the politicians approach the matter in the following way:
“we regard the Springbob as a symbol of supression and in a spirit of unity ask you to join with us in replacing it with something more unifying, that we all agree to. We recognise that it will cost SARU much resources and money to rebrand their image so we as Govt will contribute R0000/year for 5 years as compensation, as long as 60% of that money goes into grass roots/school level transformation and development.”
Who would resist this approach as opposed to being called ‘arrogent whites’ and told that ‘there is no discussion on the matter’.
I don’t get what the whole fuss is about. As you said, we should change offending names and symbols, but i hardly think that the Bok emblem offends. Maybe i’m mislead in thinking that most people don’t really feel offended by the Bok symbol. I pretty much don’t care about sports in general, but i do agree that this is a weak attempt at trying to divert the reall issues and the soccer team is a case in point. The administration in sports seems to suck in general.
To improve transformation in rugby, the administrators need to spend some time and money on school rugby. As far as I know they have not even provided a single set of goalposts to the schools!
As for the Afrikaners claiming rugby! The sport started at Rugby School, England!
Actually I am surprised that a racist like Komphela wants anything to do with such a colonial legacy!
Mind you the Brits started Soccer as well - on the mines!
The issue of scrapping the springbok emblem is a component of the same logic that drives the vast majority of name changes in this country. Truly offensive names aside– kaffirfontein etc – changing names is just something to do that is within the limited capabilities of those in power. It is easier to change the name of a street than fix potholes or pick up the litter. Indeed, the huge costs borne by businesses in complying with these sorts of unnecessary regulations is not included in the equation – because business owners are unlikely to have voted for the people making these decisions, and because these sorts of considerations are made by power-drunk bureaucrats like Komphela and so long as it ‘in the name of the people’ there need not be a valid reason.
There is an unfortunate reality that needs to be understood in this country: people like Butana Komphela have no particular interest in Olympic success or winning rugby world cups – just as people changing the names of streets and hospitals have no interest in the costs and resultant economic impacts. They are using unrestrained power to exorcise the chips from their shoulders, and avoiding having to actually do their jobs. It is easier to demand quotas for black players than to create effective development structures – but then you would have to staff sports bodies with professional, dedicated, qualified people. We are forced to suffer with ‘deployed’ party members who are merely positioning themselves to benefit from BEE deals and to advance a few rungs up the ladder of power within the party.
If removing the springbok emblem had any value whatsoever in ensuring that South Africa dominated world rugby into the future and produced young talent of all colours – then I would support it. But it is just a stupidly contentious idea from a man with no genuine interest in the sport or in doing his job. Unfortunately it is symptomatic of the way government structures operate on this continent – re-arranging the deckchairs on the sloping decks of the titanic. Removing the springbok emblem is the only thing they can do, it is suitably ‘revolutionary’ and does nothing to actually address transformation, development, or strategically position SA rugby going forward. Any success that SA sports teams (or businesses) enjoy internationally is usually despite the best efforts of the dithering idiots who are paid vast amounts to ‘manage’ them.
I agree Komphela and Roodt are both total imbeciles. I also agree we should keep the springbok, and rally behind our South African team, which is amongst the very best in the world.
Please read up on Jan Smuts before you lump him in with the Nats and apartheid. Apartheid would not have happened under Smut’s United party.
As to the Springbok emblem - is it not time that south africans took it back.
I support a team that is competitive and honours our country. So who really gets out of bed to watch Bafana Bafana and they have no symbol. I think that they should get the Springbok emblem - it just might give them a fighting spirit. It really would be nice to be proud of our soccer team.
The ‘debate’ about the Springbok emblem is nothing but a lightning rod to distract attention away from the split in the ANC. This is just a tired old strategy and we fall for it every time : a non-existing ‘crisis’ is created to divert our attention from what really should be debated. When the Springbok emblem ‘crisis’ has heated up enough, the ANC gracefully ‘allow’ the emblem to be used until the topic is taken off the rack and dusted off for diversion again somewhere in the near future. Any bets that the next ‘crisis’ may have something to do with street name changes? A new monument, perhaps?
I wish my fellow white SOuth Africsn would stop pretending. The Springbok is a vile symbol of rascist oppression. Danie Craven said “No black man will ever play for the Springboks” Now that statement has never been dealt with We have Craven week and we honor the memory of a rascist
Whilst we are getting rid of everything colonial, let’s ditch the English alphabet and revert to whatever alphabet(s) was/were used in Africa in the pre-colonial years.
Owen I agree with you about Gen Smuts and this is where a blanket aproach to changing anything that appears colonial or apartheid could do a lot more damage than any good.
Jan smuts was definitely not anything like the plank brained, “swart-gevaar” orientated nationalists and was definitely somebody that had vision and a plan that could have worked for SA, unlike Malan, Verwoed and the rest of the other thugs that nothing to give SA except division and devastation.
Those who claim the the bok emblem has apartheid roots need to check history books. Not the NAT version of history.
“…as consensus existed that Smuts was a racist that deserved no continued honour, although I was uncertain who this “Johannes” was whom we were honouring.”
*Mumbles something about ignorance*
Firstly, Jan Smuts was the opposite of a racist. Go do some homework on him. If he won the 1948 election, apartheid would never have happened. Yes, he was an Afrikaner, and if that’s a sin, smite him, but to call him a racist is disingenuous and unfair. Go look up the “Fagan Report”. He was pretty damn liberal and progressive for his era and heritage, and while the Fagan report was not fully democratic, it was the beginning of the end for the then NP, and his election loss set SA back, literally, 50 years. Also take into account that he was the founder of the League of Nations, and later, the United Nations. This man is indeed a South African hero, and to tar him with a racist brush is really ignorant, and if any Afrikaner is worthy of honouring, it would be Smuts.
Secondly – The Johannes in “Johannesburg” is both Johannes Meyer and Johan Rissik. (as in Rissik Street in Jo’burg.) They were surveyors, Rissik the Surveyor-General, and they proclaimed the city at the gold-rush in 1886.
Back on topic: sober reasoning will see if there was ever a symbol of unity in South Africa, it was the springbok. Never has this country stood together as one as we did in 1995 and 1997. I wept when a number 6 Jersey gave the Trophy to a number 6 Jersey in 1995, and I swelled with pride when John Smit lifted ex-prez Thabo on his shoulders.
Walking around Clifton wearing my Bok-jersey on holiday in Cape Town a few weeks later, I was stopped by two black guys at a construction site (Read: man in the street) who started talking rugby to me, and told me how they started to love the game, how they admire John Smit and Bryan Habana, and how they wish they could feel the same pride for Bafana. Wake up you silly sods who laughingly call yourself “leaders” (and the w*nkers who call themselves “progressive” rugby players and commentators) - the Bok Emblem is the one thing we now share, this is the one thing in SA that has embraced transformation, We lifted a world cup – twice – as a united country with that logo, it should be used as an example of what can be done.
I am an Australian Springbok supporter, and cannot seem to understand the fuss about nothing. I think this a good article written by Diakanyo. Are my fellow Aussie bok supporters, now to become Protea supporters? Besides all the Australian national teams have different names and association with different animals, what is the problem! Having won the 1995 & 2008 Rugby World Cups, I presume there will be many black, white & coloured Springboks, upset and confused. This seems to be politics getting mixed up in sport again.
Thinking ahead: what should SA do after 40 years of divisive neo-apartheid under the ANC? Remove all ANC related names as relics of neo-apartheid and again trying unsuccessfully to wipe out history? As if we have nothing else to do?
@ oosthuizen… No black was ever denied the right to drive or cycle down or to walk along any public tarred road. No black patient in need of an anti-biotic was ever denied penicillin. Have you been reading these grim fairy tales from Essop’s Fables?
Isn’t it strange how much money, time and energy is spent on destroying the old than building the new?…well I suppose that this is the african way.
There is a difference between accepting reasonable and needed change and you asking me to embrace your cultures while you try to destroy any
evidence that mine ever existed.
In your mind:
Afrikaans = Apartheid therefore everything to do with Afrikaans, including Afrikaners themselves need to be destroyed.
Both my grandfathers were MPs in Smuts’ parliament in the war, at considerable financial sacrifice - MPs did not get a salary in those days. It was a voluntary job. Might be a great idea to go back to that idea!
Never Made It
The Springboks were around long before apartheid and Danie Craven. And just because both Craven and Komphele are racist adminstrators why should the players and the spectators suffer?
Oosthuizen
How did they keep off the tarred (or gravel) roads - fly? (Sorry Jon - there was no gravel either). And 90% of the population was black so 90% of the medicine dispensed in public hospitals was to blacks. Get a life!
I touched on this recently when I was discussing symbols of apartheid on one of the subjects debated earlier. The fact that the springbok emblem was abused for racial purposes is a fact and as a result for the sake of sustainable democracy and starting off on a clean sheet the bok must go together with other such symbols.
I personally think it is not negotiable as these symbols continue to sustain the mentality that things have not changed and will never change depending on which side of one is on. I get my 8 year old daughter coming to me recently to tell me that they were discussing the old apartheid (South African)flag at school and that they were told that they have to know it and its colours.
As disgusting as this was to me at least I was able tell her that the flag was banned and it is against the law to carry it in public.
When the new anthem is sung I doubt if there is any section of the South African public who feel that it does not represent them ….may be arguably so, but the point being that it is not based or used by the current regime or any section of the population to dicriminate against other sections no matter how imperfect it maybe. The same goes for the new flag.
I still insist that this is more important to black people than the “truth and recociliation” as it forms part of our daily reality in the new South Africa. Call them whatever you want so long as you change the embllem and the name, maybe I will go back to supporting local rugby.
Being a big BAFANA BAFANA and SPRINGBOK supporter myself, all this talk of changing our country’s sports emblems, truly saddens me!… I love all South African Sport, I love that sporting occasions bring us ALL together! And I do not see how anything positive could come from changing this famous and historic emblem? It feels to me that it will only add more sadness, uncertainty and negativity into the hearts of a nation already having to cope with REAL problems, such as Education, an ailing Health System, massive amounts of Violence and Crime, Skills shortages, political Corruption etc, etc, etc, etc… For if President Nelson Mandela could wear the springbok emblem on his chest with pride and honour, on that famous day in 1995, in the wake of an Apartheid Era he had just overcome, was that not one of the most unifying moments in our country’s history? Did that moment not get a whole nation on their feet in unison, to salute a Man and a Team of Champions worthy of such an honour? By deciding to change this emblem, you will be implying that, that moment, that team, and that amazing man did not achieve anything… But rather that a small jumping buck, which stood proud on the shoulders of this country’s first major international sporting achievement after apartheid, is still something that some individuals can associate with negative events of the past. I am afraid that if this is the reality, then “these people” who ever they may be, will never be satisfied… but will continue to try and find something to blame, something to change, and something to hate… And I will be ashamed, to be associated with such a narrow-minded, miss-guided and ultimately humiliating decision. Stop this silliness! Get it over and done with! And then tell the nation what will be next… so that we can start preparing our hearts for the next DISSAPOINTMENT.
Do not try to stop your children learning history - though at school she is probably being taught propaganda, which is the last thing you should re-inforce at home. I made sure to explain to my children the difference between reality and what was in their schoolbooks!
As for the Springbok - it was first adapted as an emblem for South Africans, black AND white, in the First World War.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Sentletse Diakanyo's blogs may contain views on any subject which may upset sensitive readers. Parental Guidance is strongly adviced. He is not a journalist and his readers should not unreasonably expect balanced articles.
Views expressed here are his, and his alone, and do not represent any other organisation or person(s).
"Africans are not a problem to Africa, it is the Europeans," said former British prime minister Harold Macmillan on recognition of the winds of change...
"To be or not to be, that is the question" that confronted Hamlet in William Shakespeare's classic tragedy of the same name. Hamlet is confronted with...
Often anti-Zionist and Israeli apologists when arguing about the Israel/Palestine conflict, behave like toddlers on a playground needing parental supe...
As Africa grapples with the strenuous task of finding lasting solutions to her problems under the mantra "African solutions to African problems", we s...
Loading ...
It is as you say “much ado about nothing”. Of course it does allow us to play with peoples buttons. A fellow blogger over at www.onelongminute.com pointed out the following.
“My fellow broeders who support the Springbok have not played their cards very well. A bit of research would have led them to Sailor Malan (Ace World War II), who led a left wing movement that had 25 000 members called the Springbok Legion! This movement mobilized both White and Black servicemen against the intentions of the National party prior to and after 1948. Now we could say that the springbok is carrying on that great anti-apartheid tradition.”
Now perhaps that is what we need. More research before we all get really upset and call our national rugby side Umuntu-Umuntu. Lets face it they are now the most succesful Rugby team in the world and deserve to be treated with a whole lot more respect than the dismal failures known as Banana-Banana.
(Report abuse)