Boeta Dippenaar – Bulletproof Truth

Will money buy justice for cricket’s victims of racism?

Parsing fact from fiction will be CSA’s challenge in their efforts to dispense social justice.

TELFORD VICE | Cape Town

CRICKET South Africa (CSA) could spend more than a million dollars on reparations to former black and brown players who say their careers were blighted by racism. Although the amount has yet to be agreed it promises to be substantial as the organisation tries to buy some peace in the wake of weeks of race ructions. But those who benefit could face accusations of profiting from the pain of the past — even if they were victims of injustice. And it’s not as if CSA are awash with cash.

Cricbuzz has learnt that independent board member Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw, who is driving the initiative as part of CSA’s Social Justice and Nation Building project, has demanded between R20-million and R22-million in funding for the project — the equivalent of between USD1.143-million and USD1.262-million. Nothing has been agreed, but cynics will wonder whether the bandying about of those kinds of figures is fuelling the stream of black and brown former players telling their stories of racist treatment.

In an interview on state television on July 17, Makhaya Ntini said he was socially shunned by his teammates during his international career. On July 23 the Eastern Cape provincial government pledged support to pledged their support to help Ntini relaunch his academy in Mdantsane.

Hardly a day passes without a former player recounting their hardships, often on state media. Thami Tsolekile has appeared three times on one radio show, which is also due to host Lonwabo Tsotsobe and Alviro Petersen. Often the aggrieved players’ white contemporaries come in for criticism, most often Graeme Smith, now CSA’s director of cricket, who has professed his lack of awareness of racism in South Africa’s team environment during his tenure as captain from 2003 to 2014.

“We can’t have him in the system if he’s not going to tell the truth,” Tsolekile said, in his latest appearance on Thursday. Is Tsolekile following his own dictum? Almost always an understudy in South Africa’s squad, he has recently slammed the limited playing opportunities he was given in an international career that amounted to three Tests. Undoubtedly, he deserved more. But in an interview he gave to a South African newspaper in Brisbane in November 2012, Tsolekile was quoted as saying: “I’ve had long talks with [coach] Gary Kirsten in England and here in Australia and he made it clear to me where I stand, and I’m very comfortable with that. I see no reason to change things.” That was in response to Ntini telling another newspaper at the time: “Tsolekile would have been playing if he was white. People will say we are talking politics but we need to say these things.” Tsolekile said then he found Ntini’s assertion “quite disturbing” and that, “For me, I wouldn’t know why he said that; perhaps he has his own reasons.”

Almost eight years on, parsing fact from fiction has only become exponentially more difficult. So quite how CSA are going to decide who is deserving and of how much money is part of the challenge they will face in their efforts to mete out appropriate social justice. That will not be made easier by finances that were in a parlous state even before the coronavirus pandemic. But they are under pressure to address the issue, and have resolved to appoint a transformation ombudsperson by the end of this month.

“We many not have the money at this stage but we have not yet quantified the cost,” Chris Nenzani said in an interview on state radio on July 30, when he was still CSA’s president. “We are busy drafting the terms of reference. We are busy going through a process of saying what resources are we going to need, and how do we then ensure that we can afford these resources.

“The issue may not necessarily be money. Restorative justice does not necessarily mean that you are going to pay somebody something. But there has to be a sense that a person’s dignity has been restored, and that the system is acting in a way that ensures it does not go back to the unfortunate past. Whether that [restorative action] will be monetary or otherwise is going to be determined by the outcome of the process.”

Nenzani resigned on Saturday, ending a tenure of more than seven years in which transformation has been a constant and thorny presence. Not that it has ever been anything else. A former selector tells of the original squad for the 2003 Test series in England taking seven hours to pick, and then being rejected by CSA because it was too white. Instead of the committee being given the chance to reconvene to consider other options, the squad was amended by the suits without the selectors’ input.

For every such tale there are many others of black and brown players getting the short end of the stick. The outpouring of hurt has intensified since July 6, when Lungi Ngidi voiced his support for Black Lives Matter and said he hoped the conversation would be taken up in South Africa’s dressingroom.

He need have no doubt that the discussion is booming in CSA’s committee rooms, albeit online. Kula-Ameyaw has been part of the board only since May, but she arrived as a vocal proponent of black African transformation — she chairs the transformation committee — and is known to have formed an alliance with Welsh Gwaza, the all-powerful company secretary.

CSA will need careful management to come through this phase of their chronically troubled history without inflicting further reputational damage on themselves. They are being beseeched to do the right thing by around half-a-dozen different pressure groups, some of whom represent current and potential conflicting interests.

One such hastily formed collective, which claims that whites represent 60% of crowds at matches in South Africa, has threatened a boycott if CSA do not scrap racially-based selection policies. Whatever thunder they think they have will be stolen if Covid-19 keeps spectators out of grounds in the coming summer. That’s assuming lockdown regulations are relaxed enough to allow foreign teams to tour, which is not the case currently.

The 36 black and brown coaches and former players who issued a joint statement on July 14 supporting Ngidi and criticising white players like Pat Symcox and Boeta Dippenaar, among others, who came out against the fast bowler’s position, has splintered.

More division might follow. A growing number of brown South Africans feel CSA’s targets — six black or brown players in every South Africa XI, two of them black, and six in every franchise XI, three of them black — are unfair on them. For now they are happy to fight the good fight alongside their black comrades, but factionalism is a distinct possibility.

Because there is only so much space in the spotlight, only so much appetite for another saga of sadness, however genuine, and only so much money CSA will pay.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Little from captains Pollock and Smith on Ntini’s claims

“Black and Afrikaans South Africans are part of South Africa, for better or worse, forever. English-speaking South Africans are still ‘soutpiels’.” – historian and author Richard Parry.

TELFORD VICE | Cape Town

THE captains in almost 90% of the matches Makhaya Ntini played for South Africa have yet to respond meaningfully to the former fast bowler’s claims that he was shunned by his white teammates. Instead they have offered vague and limited comment that is sure to further polarise a game ever more acutely divided along racial lines.

An enduring icon as the first black African to play for the national team, Ntini made the allegations on national television last Friday, saying he ran to and from the ground rather than take the team bus to avoid the loneliness that came with being ignored by his teammates — who he said he would hear making dinner plans in which he was not included.

Ntini was the only black African to play Test cricket for South Africa for almost three years before Mfuneko Ngam made his debut in December 2000. When Ntini retired he was among just five black Africans who had featured at that level. More than 10 years after he hung up his whites, the names of only four more have been added to the list.

From January 1998 to January 2011 Ntini played 284 matches across the formats for South Africa. Shaun Pollock was his captain in 88 of them and Graeme Smith in 167. Cricbuzz asked Smith, via Cricket South Africa (CSA), and Pollock if they knew of Ntini’s feelings, if they noticed whether he was being shut out of team interactions, and — if they had — what they did to remedy the situation.

Pollock’s only reply was: “Regarding your questions Makhaya is your person to speak to.” Smith? A CSA spokesperson said, “As director of cricket, Graeme is fully focused on his task at hand, which is transforming cricket for the future, and is preparing some exciting announcements for the coming weeks that will be clear evidence of that. He has however engaged directly and amicably with Mr Ntini about the contents of his interview.”

That might have happened at the 3TC Solidarity Cup in Centurion on Saturday. Ntini and Smith took a knee alongside each other and raised a fist while wearing Black Lives Matter (BLM) armbands on the boundary before the start of the match. They also shared commentary stints, during which they seemed at ease in each other’s company. If there was anger or awkwardness between them they hid it well. But, asked if he and Smith had spoken about the issues raised during the previous day’s television interview, and whether he was satisfied with the outcome of the discussion, Ntini did not respond.

One-sided communication on issues of race has been the norm since Lungi Ngidi was asked, during an online press conference on July 6, whether South Africa’s players would take up the BLM conversation among themselves. In a comprehensive answer he said the discussion had started and that he was keen to continue it, even lead it. That prompted a backlash against Ngidi from former white players, which sparked support for Ngidi from former black and brown players — along with accounts of their own experiences of racial discrimination within the game.

What we have seen, heard and read from black and brown players over the past three weeks has been, sometimes, a release of hurt rather than the straight up truth. Perhaps that is how it has to be until all of it is out there.

It seems worth pointing out that the question to the black Ngidi came from a white reporter, if only because after that black and brown players have spoken publicly on the matter on social media or exclusively to black or brown reporters and interviewers.

Richard Parry, a UK-based South African cricket historian and author — most recently of Too Black to Wear Whites, the powerful story of Krom Hendricks’ struggles against empire and racism in the game in South Africa in the 1890s, which he co-wrote with Jonty Winch — didn’t struggle to understand why that was happening: “There is a point at which it is exhausting to explain yourself. One of the things that’s underlying BLM internationally is that, ‘We’ve done this stuff. We did this stuff in the ’60s. We did this stuff in the ’90s. How many more times do we have to do this? How many more times do we have to get shat on because we’re trying to end the individual oppression that we are subject to on a daily basis? What’s the point in talking to white reporters when we’ve got to start from the beginning? They don’t get it’.

“That’s certainly a lesson from the broader international movement, that the lessons of history are not being learnt. And that the lack of communication from black players in those settings is partly a feeling of, ‘How many times? How many times do we have to go through this?’.

“BLM is saying there’s significant discrimination towards blacks, whether it’s on or off the cricket field. That’s just the reality of life and it has been for a very long time. There’s a history of this, which grinds you down.”

Maybe that’s why some of what black and brown players have said has not been interrogated as thoroughly as it should have been. When it has, several of their claims have been shown to be overstated, others simply untrue. But a greater truth arches over everything: there is no doubt that black and brown figures in the game — players and coaches in particular, less so administrators — have got and are still getting a raw deal, even in theoretically democratic South Africa. Racism is dead. Long live racism. So what we have seen, heard and read over the past three weeks has been, sometimes, a release of hurt rather than the straight up truth. Perhaps that is how it has to be until all of it is out there.

Five current South Africa players didn’t need those frustrations unpacked for them, and they weren’t who many might have thought they would be. The first cricketers in the country to publicly stand with Ngidi and BLM were Rassie van der Dussen, Faf du Plessis, Anrich Nortjé, Marizanne Kapp and Dwaine Pretorius. All are white Afrikaners, people who in previous generations were the architects and enforcers of apartheid — which put whites above all others, wrote legislation to keep them there, and has damned South African society to ongoing decades of crippling inequality.

But black Africans and white Afrikaners are not as disparate as a cursory reading of the country’s history might suggest. “There’s always been a closer history between blacks and Afrikaners — Afrikaners may not have treated them well but nonetheless there was a closer relationship — than between blacks and English-speaking South Africans,” Parry said. “They both had agrarian cultures; rooted in the land with a sense of what the land was and their relationship to the land. There’s an argument to say that this still exists in these guys’ self-identification. That connection is still strong, although not everybody feels it.

“There’s a level of anger and negation of the system as it is by English-speaking South Africans, much more so than among other South Africans. Black and Afrikaans South Africans see this in the long term. They’re part of South Africa, for better or worse, forever. Whereas English-speaking South Africans are still ‘soutpiels’.”

The Afrikaans word is a mild pejorative that denotes those South Africans who, by dint of their UK heritage, are said to have one foot in Africa and the other in Britain; leaving significant parts of their male anatomy dangling in the ocean. The term has been in common use for decades, rarely causes offence, and is the equivalent of calling an Afrikaner a “dutchman”.

Most “dutchies” and “souties” are happy to be labelled as such, and often describe themselves accordingly. It really is harmless banter. But those who engage in it are white, so they are not condemned to live lesser lives because they have been artificially classified — a distinct difference to what it has meant and still means to be black and brown in South Africa. BLM confronts this deep-seated injustice head on, and demands change for the better. In a society not short on seismic shifts and explosive moments, this sticks out as among the most seismic and explosive yet. Not before time, South Africans are staring at their unvarnished, imperfect, contested truth. It’s not a pretty picture.

“It’s the end of the reality of the rainbow nation, in a sense,” Parry said. “In Europe, for example, everyone is in favour of BLM. The entire English cricket team takes a knee, before the [first] Test match [in Southampton], with the West Indies players. There was never a question of them doing it. There’s nobody saying, ‘We wouldn’t do this’, even though there are still huge issues around slavery and empire in the UK. So while there’s a consciousness of history about that, the capacity of the team itself to build bridges and operate within the present is quite strong. In the South African context I think there’s clearly still some basic resistance to internationalising the issue. There are strong elements of racism in South Africa, and that’s based on a lack of communication between racial groups.”

Despite South Africa having changed so much, even since Ntini made his debut, attitudes remain in lockstep with the past. If you’re old enough, Boeta Dippenaar’s rejection of BLM in an interview with Cricbuzz on July 9 might have sounded familiar: “It’s got all the characteristics of a leftist movement — ‘If you don’t agree with what I propose you do, then you’re a racist’. The movement itself has gone beyond what it stands for. It’s now nothing short of thuggery — ‘I throw stones and break windows because I stand for this’.”

In 1971, as opposition to apartheid mounted and organised itself into protests against tours by South Africa’s all-white teams, one of the pariah’s players was quoted as saying: “I see these demonstrations and riots as part of a Communist-inspired idea to smash the vital links which have for years forged the Western [sic] nations firmly together. We cannot afford to give them the scent of victory … A principle is involved and any measure of success for this kind of defiance would see the idea far beyond the realms of sport.”

The 49 years between those likeminded comments is a long time in politics and in cricket, enough for anyone to understand that apartheid was evil and that isolating South Africa from international sport was the least the world could do. Let it not take as long for the remaining unconvinced outposts of civilisation to accept that BLM is a vital and required reaction to a crisis that started in 1526, when the first European slave ship set sail across the Atlantic.

That’s 494 years of wrong and not nearly enough done to make it right. Dippenaar was wrong on July 9. As was the man who spoke in 1970, a fast bowler who had by then played all of his 28 Tests: Peter Pollock. Three years later he became the father of someone who would be South Africa’s record wicket-taker in Tests for three months short of 15 years: Shaun Pollock. Almost 25 years after that Peter Pollock convened the selection committee that picked South Africa’s first black African player: Makhaya Ntini.

People change. So do the times. But never fast enough. Forty-nine years is a long time in everything. Except, perhaps, in hearts and minds.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Not before time, and not a lot, but there’s white support for Ngidi and BLM. And it’s Afrikaans …

“Good intentions were failed by a lack of perspective when I said I don’t see colour. In my ignorance I silenced the struggles of others by placing my own view on it.” – Faf du Plessis

TELFORD VICE | Cape Town

RASSIE van der Dussen became, on Thursday, the first current South Africa player other than Lungi Ngidi to express his support for the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. In a society that remains riven with racial and other divisions, it will be noted that Van der Dussen is the first white player to do so. And the first, current or former, from the Afrikaner community — though not the only one whose first language is Afrikaans.

In reply to a twitter exchange between noted journalists Dougie Oakes and Max du Preez, Van der Dussen posted: “I support BLM, I’m against all murders; physical, character, and cultural murders. I support equal opportunities for all. Just because I support BLM does not mean I support violence or Marxism, so I refuse to be labelled by people. Long live Africa!”

The conversation started on Wednesday, when Oakes posted: “I’m waiting patiently to hear white Proteas — past or present — state that they support [BLM].” Du Preez replied: “I am too. AB, Faf, Quentin, Rassie van der Dussen, Mark Boucher et al: where do you stand?”

The thread encapsulates South Africa’s tangle of races, ethnicities and cultures. Van der Dussen posted his response to Du Preez in Afrikaans, his and Du Preez’ first language — and which millions of South Africans considered, to quote a prominent slogan during the country’s struggle against apartheid, “the language of the oppressor”.

Van der Dussen and Du Preez are white. Oakes is, in the widest South African context, coloured. In the progressive South African context he is black, though not black African. In the rest of the world he would be considered black, brown or mixed race. Although Oakes’ first language is English, he is fluent in Afrikaans. But many others who self-identify as coloured are first-language Afrikaans speakers.

Few coloureds would consider themselves or would be accepted as Afrikaners, a group reserved for whites who grew up speaking the language — even though some of the oldest written Afrikaans was recorded in Arabic script in Cape Town’s mosques in the 1830s. That’s part of the substantial evidence that slaves transported to the colonised Cape from Java, India and Madagascar, among other places, invented Afrikaans. The slaves encountered Dutch in the Cape’s finest white settler houses, took the language into the kitchen, baked it into what we now call Afrikaans, and served it up to their masters, who claimed it as their own and made it the centrepiece of their white supremacist ideology.

So the original version of Van der Dussen’s tweet could be seen as masterfully subversive. But chances are he was simply trying to communicate as carefully as he could. Hence he did so in his mother tongue. Welcome, gentle reader, to the complexities of life in South Africa’s myriad contested terrains.

Strictly, Tabriz Shamsi beat Van der Dussen to the punch with his social media support of Ngidi. But he muddled his message by, along with referencing BLM, also posting “#AllLivesMatter” – a controversial trope used to denigrate and undermine the BLM movement.

Doubtless Shamsi wasn’t trying to do that, but unsurprisingly the focus was on Van der Dussen, who spoke up the morning after a Cricket South Africa (CSA) release on Wednesday night that began: “[CSA’s] board of directors and executive committee reaffirm their support of [BLM], and its relevance in South Africa and South African sport. We note the claims of discrimination and racism that have been made by current and former players and coaches, and we acknowledge that these are a part of the sport’s past, and, sadly, its present. We have to face the reality, as management and custodians of the game, that we need to come up with creative, tangible and meaningful ways to address this — even more than we have done already — to make sure that they are not part of our future.”

The saga started last Monday, when Ngidi voiced his support for BLM in response to a question he was asked during an online press conference. He also said he wanted to take the conversation into South Africa’s dressingroom. That prompted, last Wednesday, criticism from white former players, notably Pat Symcox and Boeta Dippenaar, that Ngidi was trying to convince his teammates to support his stance.

The wave of backlash against the white figures’ view crested on Tuesday when 36 black and brown former players and coaches released a statement of support for Ngidi and said they had suffered racial discrimination during their careers. The document was written in English, but some of the brown players named in it might have been more comfortable, like van der Dussen, making their feelings known in Afrikaans. On Wednesday 49 black and brown former rugby players, coaches and administrators — among them six former national team members and a head coach — issued a similar release.

Also on Wednesday, Hashim Amla, who is of Indian heritage and therefore brown, posted a photograph of himself and Ngidi on Instagram, which he captioned: “In the Islamic tradition it is understood that the first man, Adam (pease be upon him), was of dark skin. Henceforth all of humanity have deep roots to this proud heritage and should have zero qualms in being referred to as black. This makes it even clearer for the person who believes … that the imagined superiority of whites over blacks or whites overs blacks, or one nationality over another, is delusional.”

That prompted former first-class player Craig Marais, who is brown, to post on Facebook: “White lives count because we are all black.” Doubtless that will give all concerned, of whatever race, pause for fruitful thought.

Including CSA, whose release said they welcomed “the statement of support for Lungi Ngidi’s BLM stance, made by 31 [sic] players and coaches, and the CSA board and CSA [executive committee] stand with this group, and every other cricket player, coach and fan that believes that there is no place for racism of any kind in cricket. CSA encourages more current and former players and coaches to do the same.”

Then followed a litany of the opposite of what Faf du Plessis said last season his team do not do, as in see colour: “[Fifty-two] of the 64 full-time CSA employees are black, as is the current president and chairman of the board. Ten of the 12 board members are black, of which six are black African. Two-hundred-and-forty-four of the 261 nationally accredited men’s coaches in South Africa are black, and nine of the 15 nationally accredited women’s coaches are black. Seventy-two of the 115 nationally accredited male referees and umpires in the men’s game are black, while six of the 15 umpires and referees in the women’s game are black. CSA also supports 612 [black] township-based cricket clubs, 1,052 township primary school cricket clubs, and 572 township high school cricket clubs.”

On Friday morning, Du Preez remedied the situation on his Instagram account: “In the last couple of months I have realised that we must choose our battles. We are surrounded by many injustices in our country that require urgent attention and action to fix them. If we wait only for the ones that attack us personally, we will always live for ‘my way vs your way’ and that way leads us nowhere.

“So I’ve remained silent, with the intent to listen, but not respond. Slowing down my point of view, but quicker to hear the pain of someone else. I knew that words would be lacking and that my understanding is not close to where it needs to be.

“I surrender my opinions and take the knee as an intercessor. I acknowledge that South Africa is still hugely divided by racism and it is my personal responsibility to do my best to emphasise, hear the stories, learn and then be part of the solution with my thoughts, words and actions.

“I have gotten it wrong before. Good intentions were failed by a lack of perspective when I said on a platform that I don’t see colour. In my ignorance I silenced the struggles of others by placing my own view on it.

“A race problem is a human race problem, if one part of the body hurts ,we all stop, we empathise, we get perspective, we learn and then we tend to the hurting part of the body.

“So I am saying that all lives don’t matter UNTIL [sic] black lives matter. I’m speaking up now, because if I wait to be perfect, I never will. I want to leave a legacy of empathy. The work needs to continue for the change to come and whether we agree or disagree, conversation is the vehicle for change.”

Anrich Nortjé has also come out in support of BLM, as have Marizanne Kapp and Dwaine Pretorius — who pledged to take a knee at the 3TC game in Centurion on Saturday, a gesture he said on Facebook would be “only the start”. Van der Dussen, Du Plessis, Nortjé, Kapp and Pretorius; five of the whitest Afrikaners you could hope to find.

Here’s another number: more than 90% of South Africa’s population are black and brown. But more than 90% of South Africa’s Test players have been white. A few are batting for the other side. But they are few among many. The majority’s silence is as alarming as it is deafening.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Race wounds still raw in South African cricket

“Those injustices were done to us as blacks. I doubt that any white player out there has ever been called a monkey.” – Geoff Toyana

TELFORD VICE | Cape Town

A statement on Tuesday in support of Lungi Ngidi’s stance on the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has thrown into stark relief the gaping racial divisions in South African cricket. The release lists 31 former players and five current coaches as signatories. Not one of them is white. Neither have any white current or former national players volunteered their backing for Ngidi.

The document, which former Titans player and Lions coach Geoff Toyana told Cricbuzz was the work of “a collective”, seeks to “invite our fellow white cricketers to join in this move to defend human dignity”. Had any whites been approached to back the initiative? “No, but that’s a very good question,” Toyana said. “Those injustices were done to us as blacks. I doubt that any white player out there has ever been called a monkey.”

The atmosphere around the game has been racially charged in the wake of Ngidi being asked, during an online press conference last Monday, whether South Africa’s current players were talking about supporting BLM. “That’s definitely something that we will discuss once we are together in person,” he said. “We have spoken about it and everyone is well aware of what’s going on. It’s a difficult one because we are not together, so it’s hard to discuss. But once we get back to playing that is definitely something we have to address as a team.

“As a nation as well, we have a past that is very difficult because of racial discrimination. So it’s definitely something we will be addressing as a team and if we are not, it’s something I will bring up. It’s something that we need to take very seriously and, like the rest of the world is doing, make a stand.”

That earned Ngidi disapproval from former white players, who with no apparent evidence took his view to mean he was telling his peers what to do. “What nonsense is this,” Pat Symcox posted on social media. “[Ngidi] must take his own stand if he wishes. Stop trying to get the Proteas involved in his belief.”

In perhaps the only note of notable white support for Ngidi, Vince van der Bijl, a former fast bowler, disagreed: “BLM does not say other lives don’t matter … Respect is allowing others to have their opinions. You are allowed yours. We do not have the space to state all the things that we talk about. And agree on. Saying one thing does not exclude other beliefs. We ache for so many things in this country. Hopefully we can help the healing as opposed to widen the divides.”

Tuesday’s statement said: “We note … that the most outspoken criticism directed at Ngidi has come via former players such as Pat Symcox, Boeta Dippenaar, Rudi Steyn, Brian McMillan and others, and we urge that their views be challenged. We are not surprised at their comments.

“Given South Africa’s well-known past, black cricketers have borne the brunt of subtle and overt racist behaviour for many years, including from some colleagues. Consequently, there is a need to understand how white privilege feeds into the perpetuation of these old attitudes and assumptions.

“Our attitude, mistakenly, we now believe, has always been to say: ‘These are teething problems, and that these will be resolved if we are patient’. But after almost three decades of cricket unity, the views expressed from one side of the racial divide are still very much part of our lives, and we now believe: ‘Teething problems cannot be allowed to continue for this long’ …

“We represent, or have represented, South Africa on merit. Far too many white South Africans cannot accept that black cricketers have proved, time without end, that they are good enough to play at the highest level.”

South Africa’s 2019 rugby World Cup triumph, achieved with a squad captained by the black Siya Kolisi and that included 11 black or brown players — six of whom started the final — was proof that diversity bred strength, the statement said.

“We want to remind South Africans that, as recently as 2017, we were told that a South African sister sport, rugby, was ‘dead’ — killed by ‘transformation’. But guess what? South African rugby won a World Cup last year. We cannot recall anyone suggesting that the victory was due to transformation. Why is transformation always rammed down the throats of national teams when they lose, but never when they win?

“… We are determined that future generations should not have to experience the pain we have had to endure, and that no South African cricketer should be discriminated against in the future. Racism is a global problem and, as the great Michael Holding explained, we can no longer just keep on laughing, grimacing and moving on.”

Former Test fast bowler Holding, now a television commentator, made an impassioned plea for racial justice last week during coverage of the first Test between England and West Indies in Southampton.

Racial unity in South African cricket was proclaimed in 1991, but the game continues to struggle to properly represent the country’s black and brown people — who make up more than 90% of the population — on the field. Of the country’s 345 men’s Test players, 316 — more than 90% — have been white.

Makhaya Ntini, the only one among South Africa’s nine black Test players to earn 50 or more caps, was among the signatories of Tuesday’s release. The brown Hashim Amla, who played 124 Tests, was not. Neither was the brown Russell Domingo, the first South Africa head coach who is not white.

Such colour coding is grim. Not that it was, for the first 100 years and more of cricket’s history in South Africa, difficult to say which race was winning. But the match situation is changing — to the chagrin of some, not nearly quickly enough for others. Who’s winning now? That’s difficult to say, but this struggle is a long way from decided.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Social media exposes South Africa’s anti-social cricket culture

“CSA believe they have the privilege and prerogative to decide whether black lives matter.” – Omphile Ramela, SACA president

TELFORD VICE | Cape Town

CONTRASTING reactions to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement have ripped the band-aid off the still gaping wound of racial disunity in South African cricket’s broader community. That follows Lungi Ngidi’s expressed support for BLM, and Graeme Smith’s suggestion that Cricket South Africa (CSA) will mark the tide rising globally against ongoing systemic racism towards blacks. Ngidi’s stance will be welcomed far and wide, but he has been chastised by former players from his own country on social media.

South Africa, which emerged from centuries of racial oppression 26 years ago, remains the most unequal society in the world with the white minority controlling a disproportionate amount of the country’s wealth. It will not escape notice that Ngidi is black and his detractors white, and that all of the latter owe their playing and subsequent careers in large part to the privilege afforded them by laws that advantaged those of their race.

And that they would likely not have had those careers had they been born black. Conversely, Ngidi would have been barred by law from fulfilling his talent had he been born in the country his critics grew up in. Those laws no longer exist, but their ongoing effects are impossible to explain away. Black lives did not matter in the old South Africa, and it is difficult to believe they matter currently.

None of which informed a Facebook thread on Wednesday that started with Rudi Steyn, who played three Tests and an ODI for South Africa during the 1990s, posting an article quoting Ngidi on BLM and commenting: “I believe the Proteas should make a stand against racism, but if they stand up for [BLM] while ignoring the way white farmers are daily being ‘slaughtered’ (sic) like animals, they have lost my vote.”

Boeta Dippenaar supported Steyn: “If you want me to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you, Lungi, then stand shoulder-to-shoulder with me with regards to farm attacks.”

Former international umpire Ian Howell was on the same page: “Agree with you Rudi: all lives matter. [Ngidi] is entitled to his opinion but he should not be in a position to force it on his teammates.”

Brian McMillan wrote: “Opinions always accepted. But [Ngidi’s] current one, in my opinion, is crap and political! All lives matter!”

Pat Symcox weighed in with: “What nonsense is this. [Ngidi] must take his own stand if he wishes. Stop trying to get the Proteas involved in his belief … Now when Ngidi has his next meal perhaps he would rather consider supporting the farmers of South Africa who are under pressure right now. A cause worth supporting.”

Vince van der Bijl, a former fast bowler who served as the ICC’s umpires’ and referees’ manager, was a rare white voice arguing the other way: “BLM does not say other lives don’t matter … Respect is allowing others to have their opinions. You are allowed yours. We do not have the space to state all the things that we talk about. And agree on. Saying one thing does not exclude other beliefs. We ache for so many things in this country. Hopefully we can help the healing as opposed to widen the divides.”

According to the UN, South Africa has the ninth-highest murder rate in the world. Government statistics say 21,022 people were murdered in the country from April 2018 to March 2019. Only 57 of all those who suffered that fate in South Africa in 2019 were farmers. Many wealthier farmers are white, and the conspiracy theory that they are being wantonly attacked is widely spread by global far-right and neo-fascist political groups who propagate the myth an international “white genocide” is underway.

“Black Lives Matter. It is as simple as that.” – Jacques Faul, CSA acting chief executive

Dippenaar told Cricbuzz he took issue with the way BLM presented itself: “It’s got all the characteristics of a leftist movement — ‘If you don’t agree with what I propose you do, then you’re a racist’. The movement itself has gone beyond what it stands for. It’s now nothing short of thuggery — ‘I throw stones and break windows because I stand for this’.”

Most reports of violence at BLM protests have been shown to be untrue. More often protestors have been attacked by police, often without due cause.

Asked if he agreed that whites of his generation had benefitted unfairly from apartheid, Dippenaar said: “Of course we did. There is no doubt that it was a repressive, repulsive institution. And that it left us with a lot of scars. Things that happened during apartheid haven’t changed overnight, but as long as we use the excuse of apartheid we’ll never move forward. It’s a bit like being a drunk — he can only help himself the day he realises he’s an alcoholic.”

The spark for all that was Ngidi’s answer when he was asked, during an online press conference on Monday, whether South Africa’s players had or would talk about supporting BLM. “That’s definitely something that we will discuss once we are together in person,” Ngidi said. “We have spoken about it and everyone is well aware of what’s going on. It’s a difficult one because we are not together, so it’s hard to discuss. But once we get back to playing that is definitely something we have to address as a team.

Even though he clearly spoke in his personal capacity, Dippenaar regarded his comments as prescriptive: “The thing that’s wrong is Lungi Ngidi saying that CSA, as if he is speaking on behalf of everybody, should take a stand.”

At another online presser on Wednesday, director of cricket Smith did not give a direct answer when he was asked to clarify CSA’s stance on BLM: “We are very aware of what’s going on around the world and of our role at CSA. Lungi answered it very well when he said we are all in our own little pockets, and I think it’s important that in the future we all come together and figure out how we can play our role in the BLM movement; how we can be effective in doing that.

“My belief in these things is that it’s important to have buy-in and that of everyone invested in it as well, and I have no doubt that will be the case. But the discussion in each team environment and as CSA about how we handle it going forward is important.

“We do have the 3TC [a game in a new format] approaching on Mandela Day [July 18], where we are doing a lot for charity, and that will be our first occasion with the BLM movement. But as far as our iconic men’s and women’s teams are concerned there needs to be discussion.

“We’re discussing various ways of handling it. The kit has gone to print already. We need to figure out how we can be effective about it as well, also authentic, and spread the messages that are meaningful to us as South Africans. And how that affects us on a daily basis.”

That has been interpreted as unacceptable vacillation, not least by South African Cricketers’ Association president Omphile Ramela, who hit back in his personal capacity in a Facebook post on Thursday: “The fact that CSA is ‘pondering and seeking buy-in’ about how best to partake in the [BLM] movement is shameful! They believe they have the privilege and prerogative to decide whether black lives matter. Well, here is an answer to their ponder … Black lives do matter as stipulated by the law and transformation policies. It is a just, human, and lawful matter which requires no pondering nor buy-in from anybody.”

Ramela accused CSA of “regressing the gains of transformation in senior administrative representation and on the field of play”, a reference to the appointment of several whites — including Smith — in high profile positions in December, and to the fact that of the 176 places available in the XIs picked for the 16 matches South Africa’s men’s team have played since then, only 80 went to black and brown players. CSA’s transformation targets say at least six players in every team should not be white: two black and four brown. The teams picked since December thus fall short by 16 black and brown player places.

Ramela called for introspection: “Nobody is to be spared, starting with the white leaders across the entire cricket fraternity from the sponsors to the executives of unions and the mother body. Until these individual leaders collectively demonstrate contrition and consciously build a more inclusive future for the game, rather than preserving ill-gotten white privilege, they have no right to speak a word towards a global movement that has been sparked by the most grotesque incident [in Minneapolis on May 25, when the black George Floyd was killed in full public view by a white police officer].

“What the BLM movement is calling for, especially in the business of sport, is for the black and white members of the sport fraternity to start holding accountable those we entrust with the power to lead and preserve the integrity of the game,” Ramela wrote. “Sport continues to be a microcosm of society, yet it remains one of the most forceful tools we have to break the shackles and bondages of the past.”

That, as social media luridly laid bare on Thursday, is a long way off. Ngidi should be admired and respected for using his platform as a prominent player to become an activist in the cause for long denied justice that has, rightfully, won millions of followers of all races worldwide. But, for some, he has done the wrong thing. You have to wonder what those who feel that way made of Ngidi’s franchise, the Titans, issuing a release on Thursday to “add their voice and unwavering support to the [BLM] movement, as well as reiterating their unwavering intolerance of gender based violence”.

CSA, in particular, need to tread carefully. Having wasted one opportunity to put themselves on the right side of history, they can’t afford to stumble again. Nothing less than a strongly expressed anti-racist stance — non-racism is a cop-out — will suffice. A release on Thursday, which arrived long after all of the above had been spewed out, showed a shift in approach.

“CSA stands in solidarity with the BLM movement,” it began. “CSA was founded on the principles of non-racialism and inclusion at unity. The vision of CSA, to become a truly national sport of winners supported by the majority, finds resonance in the ethos of ‘Black Lives Matter’.”

The acting chief executive, Jacques Faul, was quoted as saying: “Black Lives Matter. It is as simple as that. As a national sporting body representing more than 56-million South Africans and with the privileged position of owning a platform as large as we do, it is of vital importance that we use our voice to educate and listen to others on topics involving all forms of discrimination.

“During our celebrations of Nelson Mandela International Day on 18 July, CSA will further spread the message of anti-racism through the BLM campaign while we also speak out against all forms of violence and in particular, the scourge that is gender based violence and various other causes that are of importance to our society and the organisation.”

From non-racism to anti-racism. From not saying enough themselves — or not saying it clearly enough — to listening to others. From a rotten past to a difficult present, but striving for a better future. Keep at it, CSA. The world is watching.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

And they’re back: Boucher, Kallis all grown up

“Dean Elgar won’t come out batting right-handed, or anything like that.” – Jacques Kallis assures South Africans that not everything about cricket has changed.

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

MARK Boucher and Jacques Kallis. For all but 19 of the 156 men’s Tests South Africa played from October 1997 to March 2012, there was no separating them: behind the stumps, Boucher; at second slip, Kallis. They batted together 33 times and shared 1,157 runs, among them two century stands. They felt South Africa’s pain together at the 1999, 2003 and 2007 editions of the World Cup.

Where one went the other was sure to follow, on and off the field. Sometimes they seemed to be two halves of the same person. Boucher had enough brashness for the both of them. Kallis’ sheer stature seemed to add a foot to Boucher’s height. Boucher did almost all of the talking, Kallis almost all of the listening. At least, that’s how it looked from outside their bubble.

The partnership was broken, on the field, at Taunton on July 9, 2012, when a bail tumbled into Boucher’s left eye, ending his playing career. Off the field, the bond was seamless. They lived close to each other. They produced a brand of wine together. They were bestmen at each other’s weddings.

And, as of Wednesday, they are back in South Africa’s dressingroom. Boucher’s appointment as coach and Kallis’ acquisition, for the summer, as the batting consultant are the biggest pieces in the puzzle Graeme Smith is trying to solve since his own enlistment as acting director of cricket last Saturday. With those three giants has come some of the belief that has been seeping out of South Africa’s cause since Smith’s retirement in March 2014. Add Charl Langeveldt as the bowling consultant — he has had a previous and successful coaching stint with the team — and there are reasons to be cheerful that rise above even Cricket South Africa’s (CSA) shambolic administration.

Or are there? The jury in the court of public opinion would seem to be out. In captioning a photograph of Boucher, Kallis and Langeveldt on social media, Boeta Dippenaar connected the dots to the ills of South Africa’s wider society: “Are these gentlemen the answer to CSA’s problems? The short answer is no. Why? Because years of neglect got us to where we are today. A systematic breakdown of structures is the root cause. It’s politics, it’s about ‘me’ and not the game. CSA is a reflection of what we see happening at SOE’s [state owned enterprises] and most local municipalities. The appointment of the three gentlemen represents a small step in the right direction. That brought Vince van der Bijl into the conversation: “African proverb … How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. We have started the meal.” Soon Barry Richards was at it: “Cricket sense from a cricketer. Right direction of course. But the elephant is still in the room.”

The elephant is CSA and its gift for losing money and stumbling down dark alleys in governance terms. At board level, that is — the appointment of the respected Jacques Faul as acting chief executive, to replace Thabang Moroe, who has been suspended, elicited almost audible sighs of relief. Moroe’s removal was required to get Smith aboard, and here we are a week later with a newly minted coaching staff and rather more than we previously had of the precious metal Dippenaar referenced to end his post: “#hope”. But there are no honeymoons after shotgun marriages, and South Africa’s new regime will hit the ground running in a Test series against England that starts at Centurion on Thursday.

“Two weeks ago I thought I was going to be in St Francis [a resort on South Africa’s east coast] over Christmas, maybe take a little trip to Fancourt for some golf,” Boucher told reporters in Centurion on Friday, where South Africa’s camp was in full swing with him directing operations. “Things have changed …” Things like the people in top jobs: “I had faith that the guys who had been put in those leadership positions would be able to take care of certain things and I would be able to focus on this job and try to take this group of players forward.”

Something else that would seem to have changed is that Kallis isn’t letting Boucher do all of the talking anymore: “Jacques mentioned in the changeroom the other day about preparing for an exam. If you go into an exam and you don’t feel prepared, you are not going to have the confidence. That’s what we are trying to do — get the guys’ confidence back and make sure we have ticked every box possible, so that when they do get into the Test match they feel they are ready.”

While Boucher is calculating and canny, Kallis is as close to instinct on legs as it is possible to be for someone steeped in the complexities of cricket. He thinks, but he doesn’t let thought get in the way of action. “I’m just trying to get to know the individuals,” Kallis said. “‘Bouch’ and Enoch [Nkwe, the assistant coach] have worked with a lot of the guys so they know them pretty well. I’m trying to get a relationship with the players and see how they are thinking and trying to give them game plans. I’m not a big one for changing too many things. Dean Elgar won’t come out batting right-handed, or anything like that. I’m just trying to give the guys options and ideas and make them realise you can’t bat the same way every time you walk out to bat. You have to adapt your game. I’m trying to get them to know their game plan a lot better so they can try and adapt while they are batting. It’s not the spoonfeeding of coaching; it’s trying to educate them so they can educate themselves while they are out in the middle. It’s a lot of off-the-field stuff, the mind stuff, along with the technical stuff.”

Kallis has come a long way since his playing days, when you could look into his eyes and see not a flicker of life if he wasn’t interested in what was going on around him. Boucher, too, has become a proper human being compared to the time when his primary ambition was to, he used to say, “walk onto the field as if you own the place”. Losing half his sight may have helped make him see things more accurately, or at least in a light favourable for more positive, less competitive interaction with his world. “I’ve learnt a lot of lessons along the way,” Boucher said. “I learnt that my way is not always the right way. There were times in my career where I used to go out there and be quite aggressive and try and impose myself on teammates. This is what I have learnt on diversity within a set-up. Sometimes you won’t get the best out of the players if you are trying to get them to be like you. My biggest lesson is to let people be who they are and let them be natural. I played at my best when I was natural but my natural wasn’t the same as AB’s [De Villiers] natural or Jacques’ natural. That’s a big lesson I have learnt with regards to leading individuals. Whenever I make a decision, I ask myself, ‘Is it a good cricketing decision?’. And if I can answer yes, then I go with it and I tap into other knowledge in the dressingroom to back that up. And then we go full steam ahead with that. The last thing you want to do is second-guess yourself.”

Some things don’t change. Boucher is still a hard bastard. Kallis is still a colossus who owns any room he steps into. Other things do change: they’ve learnt how to be themselves better. For the rest of us, that’s called growing up. For people like Boucher and Kallis, who aren’t allowed the time and space to mature naturally, it’s called success. If they can get that into their charges’ heads, nothing will stop South Africa.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Another ugly Aussie in the frame of a game in trouble

Justin Langer was the David Warner of his time. How can he be considered part of the eradication of the monster he and Warner helped create and grow?

Sunday Times

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

AUSTRALIAN cricket’s revolution will be betrayed. At least, it will be if you believe the papers that reported last week that Justin Langer was to set to replace Darren Lehmann — a claim promptly denied by the suits, who said the appointment of Australia’s next coach had yet to be made.

But Langer remains the frontrunner for the job. Whether you trust the press or the pinstripes, the fact that he is even in the frame is a worry.

South Africa’s players remember him as an unpleasant opponent — even by Australia’s standards.

“He was a very tough customer and he had his bit to say on the field,” said Boeta Dippenaar, who played against Langer in five tests.

“His opening partner, Matthew Hayden, was just as tough but he was good company off the field. I can’t say the same about Justin.

“He didn’t strike me as a people’s person, and as a coach you need to be able to relate to people who’s viewpoint you possibly don’t agree with.”

How Langer could be part of any sincere attempt to rebuild a team culture whose ugliness was exposed by the ball-tampering scandal beggars belief.

Langer was the David Warner of his time. How can he be considered part of the eradication of the monster he and Warner helped create and grow?

If any good has come out of Australia’s cheating it’s that cricket everywhere has been given a priceless opportunity to examine every aspect of the game and how it presents itself to the world.

The problem is far from Australian only and far from cricket’s only problem. The game needs to stop and think about important issues. But will it? And who will do so?

Kumar Sangakkara, for one, who wrote in a column on Wisden’s website last week: “Whether it’s using fingernails, biting the ball, Brylcreem, a Murray Mint, a lozenge, a zipper on your pants — and now sandpaper — ball-tampering is an evil that has got a free pass [for more than 30 years].

“The responsibility has to be shared between all the players, captains, administrators, all who have known that this was happening and had seen it, but shrugged their shoulders and said, ‘Well, it’s just part of the game’.

“To me, any tampering of the ball, using any of the above-mentioned methods, is the same. And there should have been zero tolerance from all of us.”

You can feel South Africa’s players cringing: zips, fingernails and mints have been proven to be their ball-tampering equipment in the past five years.

Also last week, the Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations released their “men’s professional cricket global employment report 2017”.

In it, Darren Sammy is quoted as saying, “The crowds don’t lie and T20 cricket is great for fans … The cricket world is in many ways now like football and playing for your club is now the peak for a lot of players.”

Are Cricket South Africa listening? On May 1, as things stand, most of the country’s professionals will be out of contract. No players equals no game.

It was a big week for cricket. The coming days will be bigger.