South Africa’s first white quota player and captain elect Luke Watson, has made some startling comments this week.
“Me having to wear the Springbok jersey, to keep myself from vomiting on it, because there is a bigger picture, because men and women have bled for me to get there.
“Did I ever want to be there? No, it’s never been my dream, but I chose this burden with the greatest of pride and satisfaction, knowing that my father Cheeky Watson laid down his life to get me there.
“the problem with SA rugby is that it is controlled by Dutchmen”, whilst Watson also suggested that SA rugby is “rotten to the core” and that “the men who sit on my left and right of me in the change room despise me for who I am”.
He concludes his speech in the third person, a great way to get any point across
“I’m not throwing some political twist to this transformation, I’m not saying transformation of South African rugby. I’m not saying transformation of the man next to me, on my left or on my right.“I’m saying transformation of Luke Watson. Because, when I’ve transformed, when I’ve pushed on, when I’m alive, when I’m reaching for my destiny, the man next to me he will automatically get upset. The man next to me automatically gets uncomfortable.
“He looks at me and says: ‘There is something different about this man, there is something different about Luke Watson. He can’t be bought – I can’t throw the Springbok jersey at him and expect him to beg for it, to be on his knees, because it is not going to happen’.
SARU has called an urgent meeting on Monday to determine the accuracy of the reports with Western Province, the player’s contracting union, and UCT, where the statements were said to have been made.
Watson’s father Cheeky was an outspoken anti-racism activist during the apartheid era who declined the opportunity to participate in Springbok trials as a promising player because of his convictions and has made no secret of his displeasure with the game’s current administration. Now it would appear that Luke is following his fathers beliefs, and putting his position as Stormers captain in jepoardy in the process.
The civil rights initiative AfriForum has since sent Watson a letter and intends to have him summoned to the Equality Court on charges of hate speech if he refuses to withdraw his comments.
Luke’s right on this. I can’t believe they’ve they’ve kept the Bok emblem for so long.
Thick Afrikaaner cunts
I can understand where he’s coming from, I want to vomit on a Springbok Jersey everytime I see one.
Did you like the picture of South African Chess? Thought it went well with the story..
I nearly felt it below me to comment on the absolute drivel of the two comments before me but as a self respecting and educated White Afrikaner Male I cannot let it go – isn’t it ironic that the commentators of above critique did not have the courage of their conviction to supply their full names, hiding in the obscure safety of the electronic web. Well I am not ashamed and I have never been ashamed of who I am or of anything I’ve done or said growing up with the racist doctrine of the so called Old South Africa which myself and most of my white Afrikaans friends despised and which, when we had the forum to legally do something about it in the referendum of 17 March 1992 we showed the then ruling apartheid government what we thought (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_referendum,_1992). This being said I truly believe that the Springbok emblem has done more than most so called nation symbols to unite people in SA and shooting that down shows an underlying lack of knowledge of the situation. I also have no problem defending my viewpoint in more detail if anybody cares to contact me at ossebrawandrag@gmail.com
Regards
Very nice comments. Will take it with a grain of salt – coming from the country responsible for the genocide of the Aborigines.
[quote comment=""]Very nice comments. Will take it with a grain of salt – coming from the country responsible for the genocide of the Aborigines.[/quote]
Leg Break is a kiwi, so probably not all that responsible..
Get on with it people, wherever Europeans have colonized the locals suffered. Everybody knows this. How do you measure two evils up against each other? What I don’t understand is that everybody blames the next person for it and everybody’s hands are washed clean in their own minds with ignorant beliefs that if my dad did it don’t mean that I did it. If we were to do things “right”, every “white” person must pack up and move back to the northern hemisphere (all of us, and all the Americans and Canadians too), where we came from, or we must see what happened as natural migration of the human species around the globe and realize that it has happened since time began and that only now we have grown a conscience and the Afrikaners were the scapegoat for everybody else. So now it is not the survival of the fittest anymore, but the survival of the ignorant.
Why do you have to hate on the Bokke (World Champions without Luke’s help…)?
‘Whites’ are not the ones responsible for screwing over places they colonised. Besides, the world wouldn’t be what it is today without them…or anyone else for that matter!
Luke Watson is just a stupid wally who is too nauve and ignorant to face the fact that he’s just not good enough to play for the Springboks. so he blames other people, past and present, fir HIS failure.
Grow up people.
Leg Break and Sakkie Swart, grow some balls and maybe a few brain cells!!!
Why do you have to hate on the Bokke (World Champions without Luke’s help…)?
‘Whites’ are not the ones responsible for screwing over places they colonised. Besides, the world wouldn’t be what it is today without them…or anyone else for that matter!
Luke Watson is just a stupid wally who is too nauve and ignorant to face the fact that he’s just not good enough to play for the Springboks. so he blames other people, past and present, fir HIS failure.
Grow up people.
Leg Break and Sakkie Swart, grow some balls and maybe a few brain cells!!![quote comment=""]Why do you have to hate on the Bokke (World Champions without Luke’s help…)?
‘Whites’ are not the ones responsible for screwing over places they colonised. Besides, the world wouldn’t be what it is today without them…or anyone else for that matter!
Luke Watson is just a stupid wally who is too naive and ignorant to face the fact that he’s just not good enough to play for the Springboks. so he blames other people, past and present, fir HIS failure.
Grow up people.
Leg Break and Sakkie Swart, grow some balls and maybe a few brain cells!!![/quote]
Craig, when you die, wisdom will go to the grave with you.
http://www.cyberessays.com/History/145.htm
Colonization – extension of political and economic control over an area by a state whose nationals have occupied the area and usually possess organizational or technological superiority over the native population. It may consist simply in a migration of nationals to the territory, or it may be the formal assumption of control over the territory by military or civil representatives of the dominant power (see colony).
Overpopulation, economic distress, social unrest, and religious persecution in the home country may be factors that cause colonization, but imperialism, more or less aggressive humanitarianism, and a desire for adventure or individual improvement are also causes. Colonization may be state policy, or it may be a private project sponsored by chartered corporations or by associations and individuals. Before colonization can be effected, the indigenous population must be subdued and assimilated or converted to the culture of the colonists; otherwise, a modus vivendi must be established by the imposition of a treaty or an alliance.
Early Colonization
As early as the 10th cent. b.c., the Phoenicians founded trading posts throughout the Mediterranean area and later exercised political dominion over these commercial colonies. The Greeks, from a desire for wealth or as a result of the expulsion of a political faction or the defeated inhabitants of a city, established colonies in Asia Minor and Italy, spreading Hellenic culture and stimulating trade. Greek colonies were patterned after the parent state and were at first subject to its jurisdiction. Colonization was an integral part of Roman policy, providing land for the poor, supporting Roman garrisons, and again spreading Roman culture. In their colonization the Romans sought to assimilate the native culture into their own, and in some cases they bestowed Roman citizenship upon natives of the colony. Medieval colonization began with the Crusades and was mainly Italian. The Venetians and Genoese established commercial colonies along trade routes and exercised strict supervision over them.
The Portuguese and Spanish
The Portuguese and Spanish became great colonizing nations at the end of the Middle Ages. Portuguese colonization, which received impetus from the development of greatly improved methods of navigation, began with the establishment of trading ports in Africa and the East, while the Spanish concentrated most of their efforts in the Americas. Both the Spanish and the Portuguese exercised strict governmental control over their colonies and used them primarily as a basis for rich commerce with the parent government. They discouraged them from becoming economically self-sufficient.
The English, Dutch, and French
In the late 16th and early 17th cent., the English, Dutch, and French began to undertake colonization through the agency of chartered companies. The greatest of these private trading companies was the British East India Company, which played a vital role in the history of the British Empire.
The French generally adhered to mercantilist theory in establishing their colonies, using them mainly for the economic advantage of France. The English colonists in North America, however, were, in many respects, virtually independent of the parent country, the most serious restriction being the establishment of a trade monopoly by the home government through the Navigation Acts. Because their territory was suitable for settlement, rather than exploitation, the residence of the British colonists in America tended to be permanent. The increase in overseas trade and colonial consumption helped to stimulate the Industrial Revolution, which in turn, because of the increased technological superiority afforded Europe, especially Great Britain, and because of the greater desire for markets and raw materials, gave added impetus to colonization and made it easier to accomplish.
Although Great Britain lost most of its North American colonies as a result of the American Revolution, other acquisitions (most notably in India) soon made it the greatest colonial power in the world. The French, stripped of one colonial empire in the colonial wars of the 18th cent., established another in the 19th cent.
The Germans and Japanese
Germany emerged as an industrial empire in the late 19th cent., but found the colonies of other powers closed to German products and, therefore, embarked upon its own colonial adventures. Japan, also recently industrialized, followed the same path. These ambitions helped to bring on World Wars I and II. Germany was stripped of its colonies after the first conflict; Japan lost its colonies after the second.
Decline of Colonization
Modern colonization, frequently preceded by an era in which missionaries and traders were active, was largely exploitative, but it did not in the long run prove directly lucrative to the colonial power, because it involved a heavy drain on the treasury of the home government. After World War II, there was increasing agitation and violence in the European colonial empires as subject peoples demanded their independence. Most colonies were granted or won independence from the imperial powers; those belonging to Portugal were among the last major colonies to become independent. Today, only a few remnants of the great colonial empires survive, mainly as self-governing dependencies (e.g., Aruba, Bermuda, and French Guiana). Colonization in its classical form is rarely practiced today and is widely considered to be immoral.
Oh by the way Sakkie, so glad you went and studied a bit! Hope you’ve learned a bit too!
Getting back to Luke Watson. Shame I really think his a pathetic excuse for a man, just as the men supporting such a cry baby sissy(yes that include you Sakkie and Leg Break). If he wants to puke on the Springbok Jersey, why does he then he play for South Africa? Oh I can tell you, cause he can’t get into any other national rugby team on merits without politics. I mean why doesn’t he go play for another team seeing that the Boks are runned by a bunch of Dutchman? I must say the Dutchman did a great job winning the World Cup without his help. Maybe he should just emigrate to NZ or Australia so we can all say good riddance!!
By the way Graig, I am also very proud of being a white South African and with very good reason!!
The Springbok is one of South Africa’s wonderful wild animals, we should be proud to have such a beautiful animal on a rugby jersey…all the traits of that animal reflect of what type of sport man you are and if you want to vomit on a springbok..get yourself another country and then you’re not worth being called a south african