Fine degli Spingboks?

[jeronimo8]

non è questione di avere un fiore o meno che conta
conta il fatto che, a mio modo di vedere, stanno facendo di ogni erba un fascio, travisando la differenza tra sport e politica

[pier12345]

Possibile che questo thread non abbia appeal?

Solo poche repliche...

forse perche e un thread molto CALDO...perche ecome mezclare Religione e Rugby.

cmq,..indietro di tutto questa c'e il ANC...non parliamo del ANC con valori di Nelson mandela, pero forse il ANC del altra Mandela ( Winne Mandela,corrozione, assasinati, hostagi, Rascismo Tribale ecc)

Il ANC son quelli che sta caminando Sud Africa verso un nuovo Zimbabwe.

l sud africa - come sappiamo tutti - è una giovanissima democrazia, pur essendo un paese con una solida classe dirigente di formazione occidentale ed un paese - oltre che bello come pochissimi altri - in grande progesso economico e sociale.


ma cosa dici.....MA EN SERIO , COSA DICI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Che il rugby en Sudafrica e stato usato come un barriera sociale..SI
pero anche vero che e stato usato per , se non rompere certi barrieri, al meno avvicinare le personne

Non c'entra nulla con il Rugby i decisioni del ANC/ SARFU...
ben altra cosa...

[jeronimo8]

beh, più che un paese con grandi progressi economici e sociali, è un paese con grandi potenzialità e grandi risorse di materie prime. è un paese con un tasso di ammalati di aids tra i più alti al mondo, ad esempio. con ancora delle forti divisioni sociali, come pure il tasso di criminalità nelle grandi città.
OT

[jeronimo8]

beh, più che un paese con grandi progressi economici e sociali, è un paese con grandi potenzialità e grandi risorse di materie prime. è un paese con un tasso di ammalati di aids tra i più alti al mondo, ad esempio. con ancora delle forti divisioni sociali, come pure il tasso di criminalità nelle grandi città.
OT

[Pukana]

compromesso raggiunto sui simoli da adottare sulla maglia della nazionale di rugby sud africana:

sulla sinistra di ogni maglia di ogni nazionale un simbolo nazionale da adottare da tutti gli sport prima della fine dell'anno, il King Protea. La SARU potra' poi mantenere il simbolo dello Springbok assicurandosi non comprometta il simbolo nazionale.

Springbok emblem compromise reached
Wednesday, 19 November 2008

The South African Rugby Union (SARU) and the government have struck a compromise deal involving the wearing of the Springbok logo on the national team's jerseys.

The Springbok emblem – a leaping antelope – has been worn by South African rugby sides since 1906 but various government officials have called for it to be scrapped because they said it was a divisive symbol linked to the apartheid past.

Saru met sports minister Makhenkosi Stofile in Cape Town last night and then issued a statement saying the meeting was "very positive".

"The sports minister... explained that legislation requiring the national emblem (a King Protea) to be worn on the left-hand side of the jersey of national sports federations will be promulgated by the end of this year.

"We informed him of the earlier decision of the President's Council to fall in line with national legislation.

"The minister also advised us that the commercial emblem of national sporting federations – in rugby's case the Springbok – can be utilised as federations deem fit so long as that use does not compromise the national emblem," the statement quoted Saru president Oregan Hoskins as saying.

Butana Komphela, chairman of parliament's Sports Portfolio Committee, told a national sports conference in Durban in October the days of the team wearing the Springbok were over.

"The Springbok divides us and there can be no negotiation on its future. We have a responsibility to unite the country on one national emblem," Komphela said.

Luke Watson, who played in the Tri-nations series against Australia and New Zealand, was hauled before a SARU disciplinary committee last week after recordings of a speech he gave at a rugby club gathering in Cape Town, in which he said he wanted to vomit on the Springbok jersey, were made public.

"I have grown to understand the culture, to understand what the Springbok represents and I have become even more accustomed to the oppressive nature of the Springbok toward a majority of the people in this country," Watson was quoted as saying.

SARU said yesterday it had decided to end disciplinary action against Watson, whose father Cheeky is a white anti-apartheid struggle hero of the 1970s, after the judge meant to hear the initial complaint recused himself on a technicality.

Judge Nape Dolamo ruled his appointment was unlawful according to SARU's own regulations.

-Reuters

[ItalianRugbyFriends]

Sud Africa: razzisti no, ma puttane sì!

Vergognoso! Eliminano ufficialmente un simbolo centenario, ma permettono di sfruttarlo commercialmente! Ridicoli!

[luqa]

Mah,

mi sembrate eccessivi.

hanno scelto una soluzione tutto sommato "diplomatica".

Protea come simbolo del "Nuovo" Sudafrica "Rainbow Nation"
lasciando la possibilità di mantenere l'antilope saltante purché ridotta.

Volevate ancora la bandiera del Transvaal o dell'Orange?

[Giorgio8]

Kruger Presidente!!!

[pier12345]

"Pakeha_70"..Se questa è vera (e speriamo di no) vuol diere che in SA sono proprio alla frutta...

stanno andando a la frutta en SA....soltantano vedere il comportamentiento del ANC.....

ecco vi fatto un potenziale nuovo Zimbabwe dove le simboli , le tribu, le vechie vendetti saranno la "politica"

presto diranno che le squadre Currie Cup devono avere presidnete non blnachi e cosi via ..

ripeto il ANC di oggi non e il ANC di Nelson Mandela...e una brutta brutta organico

[cumonfeelthenoize]

Se hanno messo in pensione la Ka-mate per una verisone commerciale da wrestling dell'Haka, pososno anche mettere in pensione lo springboks

[nino22]

Se hanno messo in pensione la Ka-mate per una verisone commerciale da wrestling dell'Haka, pososno anche mettere in pensione lo springboks

Ma tu messaggi sempre dire la tua solita frase no ne sai scrivere?

[DVD]

in effetti molti sudafricani sono preoccupatissimi della situazione politica nell ANC. Infatti le famiglie dei miei amici che lavorano qui in Oz hanno fatto trasferire anche i loro genitori; questo e' possibile perche' loro (i figli) hanno o il Permanent REsident VIsa o la cittadinanza, per cui possono far emigrare i genitori. Fino ad ora vi parlo di almeno 5 famiglie di amici a me cari, chissa' se ci sono altri esempi.

Pare che il leader , se non sbaglio Zuma, sia parente di Mugabe (non diretto, ma per via della moglie) e che la pensi allo stessisimo modo dal punto di vista politico.

Secondo i genitori di questi miei amici, Zuma tuttavia pare abbia accuse di corruzione ed altro sulla sua testa, ma forse non tutti sanno che l'Italia come paese da G8 e "sviluppato' ha fornito un precedente pericolossisimo; infatti Zuma lo disse in una conferenza che una volta eletto avrebbe fatto la stessa legge che il signor B. ha fatto passare da noi in Italia.

Quindi, per il bene di tutti i Sudafricani speriamo bene, sarebbe tristissimo se dovessero fare la fine dello Zimbawe, e a me rattristisce vedere che ora molte famiglie stiano facendo i bagagli e vendendo tutto, ma a quanto pare anche la sicurezza interna e' ormai prossima allo 0.

speriamo......

[Gioann_Bagoss]

...in effetti molti sudafricani sono preoccupatissimi della situazione politica nell ANC...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 348676.ece

Why South Africa deserves a yellow card
Threatening the World Cup rather than violent intervention will force action on Zimbabwe

Catherine Philp

Few experiences are more frustrating than seeing misery unfold before you as you stand helplessly by. Few provoke a stronger urge to cry: “Something must be done!” Add a cartoon baddie with a creepy Hitler tache, the ruination of a beautiful land and a televisually awful cholera outbreak and the cries for action get shriller still: “Send in the troops!”

The ruination of Zimbabwe provokes - in Britain, at least - many more such calls than most of the other miseries unfolding in Africa. Ghastly, intractable problems such as Congo and Darfur are not our problem. Our history as the former colonial power makes Zimbabwe our cause - and our refusal to intervene, moral cowardice, dressed up in historical excuses and lingering white guilt.

It is only 11 years since Clare Short, then Secretary of State for International Development, insisted otherwise, writing the maddest letter in the history of modern British diplomacy to Robert Mugabe. She repudiated Britain's “special responsibility” to fund land reforms, as promised in 1979. “We are a new government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests,” she opined. “My own origins are Irish and, as you know, we were colonised, not colonisers.” That's settled then, isn't it? International agreements be damned, my people died of potato hunger. So there.

To be fair to Short, Mugabe was fleecing Britain blind, and the situation could not go on. But Britain did have a responsibility to Zimbabwe, as the original architect of its unequal land distribution, to see justice done.

What followed is better remembered in Britain: the land invasions that began in 2000, which drove hundreds of white farmers and their families violently from their land. Britain screamed loudly - many of the victims were British citizens - and a new dynamic of antipathy between Britain and Zimbabwe was born. Britain was the evil imperialist seeking to recolonise “Rhodesia”; Mugabe became the “black Hitler”.

It is hard to describe how bizarre our Zimbabwe obsession looks from other vantage points. This weekend I dined with two friends, experienced foreign correspondents with a half-century of war reporting between them. Neither is British; both expressed bafflement at the British media obsession with Zimbabwe, a country both know well. Both have also witnessed the horrors of Congo, Rwanda, Darfur and Somalia.

How, they asked me, can people here seriously be debating forcible regime change in Zimbabwe while the millions killed by war and hunger in Congo and Darfur are met with apathy? Zimbabwe's situation is indeed appalling: a cholera epidemic that has killed hundreds, a collapsing economy, political terror and widespread hunger. It is also, we were forced to agree, the only story any of us had ever covered that is less awful on the ground than in the news. Congo is where I have heard the most stomach-churning stories of violence in my life. The testimony I have heard from Darfuri refugees convince me that they are victims of a genocide - and how often do we hear of our colonial legacy there? Yet Zimbabwe is the story that has this country angriest.

Military intervention is not going to happen, and Mugabe knows it. But not only would he love us to threaten it, he is already pretending that we have. The Zimbabwean Opposition is firmly against even the talk of military intervention, believing it drives Mugabe's military cabal tighter around him. Yesterday Mugabe accused Botswana, his nearest critic, of training insurgents against him, just days after it threatened to close its border with Zimbabwe. If we threaten it, we had better be seconds away from meaning it. Mugabe has shown us plenty of time already what he will do with his back to the wall.

We need to accept that we have no leverage with Harare and turn to those who do. South Africa is the regional superpower and the country on which Zimbabwe most depends.

But if we want South African leaders to act, we cannot make it suicidal for them to do so. South Africa is riven with its own racial problems and violence hanging over from its incomplete post-apartheid reconciliation. Hundreds of white farmers have been murdered in South Africa in recent years. That the killings are not part of an orchestrated campaign does not diminish the ferocious racial tensions they reveal.

No South African leader - not even Jacob Zuma, in whom we are investing a terrifying degree of trust - is going to unseat a black liberation hero at the bidding of a white former colonial power. So it is behind closed doors that South Africa must be told that while we understand its own difficulties, enough is enough.

South African eyes are focused on 2010, when footballing nations will gather for the World Cup. South Africa is already justifiably worried that its internal troubles may imperil the tournament. There are background whispers, still quiet, of a boycott.

Now is the time to show South Africa a yellow card. South Africa has already suggested that some teams could be based in neighbouring countries such as Namibia or Botswana, making it a genuinely African contest. Let's go farther still. Persuading footballing nations to send teams only to those countries, and play their matches there too, would deliver South Africa a monumentally embarrassing rebuke that no one could plausibly portray as racist or anti-African. Would the prospect of losing the World Cup stir South Africa into more action? We owe it to Zimbabwe to find out.

- Catherine Philp is diplomatic correspondent of The Times

[Pakeha_70]

Ecco la nuova maglia del Sud Africa 2009 con la protea sulla sinistra e lo springbok alla fine spostato a destra.

Alla fine forse tanto rumore per nulla

[nino22]

Ecco la nuova maglia del Sud Africa 2009 con la protea sulla sinistra e lo springbok alla fine spostato a destra.

Alla fine forse tanto rumore per nulla

Tutto bene quel che finisce bene ... anzi mi infastidice di + lo stile delle Canterbury 2007 in poi