Being an ardent rugby supporter, I've often wondered about the role of rugby and in particular the Springbok symbol. When Luke Watson honestly raised his personal struggle over the symbol, he was demonised by the Afrikaans media and apparently he was recently threatened with his life at the Loftus (Versfeld) rugby stadium. Compare this to how the same media responded to the so-called 'Joost van der Westhuizen sex clip', where it seems as if this rugby hero is implicated in a complex situation, as an attempt by the producers of this highly contested clip, to expose Joost's alleged dark side. Joost has consistently denied these allegations, but the interesting thing, is how the Afrikaans media has worked hard at providing evidence that this is in fact a hoax, a serious attempt by nameless individuals to destroy the character of this upstanding Christian family man. Joost then, remains a respected member of rugby's halls of fame, in particular at Loftus.
On the other hand Watson, also a born-again Christian, who spoke at a private function on his personal background in a home where, based on their values, they then opted for non-collaboration with this system, is ostracised. His father Cheeky Watson, opted to play in the black league, called Kwaru, as part of their struggle against injustice. This was in a time when blacks could never become Springboks and they therefore loathed this evil symbol of white supremacy. Luke, told his story of how he, when recently chosen for the Springbok team, had to transform himself from abhorring this symbol, because of its racist background, to accepting it, for the sake of the bigger picture- for the sake of those who died for a new dispensation. He was at pains to emphasise that this was an attempt at transforming himself. Yet he was vilified, charged and last week, threatened with his life, for stating, 'Your attitude needs to be one of hope, .... an era that had no hope, we have been given hope and we need to recreate and ?? the culture of hope for generations to come, we need to see the bigger picture and realise that the here and now is not just the here and now, but the here and now only exists of those who went before us and because of those who are still to come, there is a bigger picture, whether you like it or not - 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…
Why the difference in this response? Because he dared say something negative about the Springbok. I wondered what this means. Mark Keohane, leading sportswriter and at one point media guy of the Springboks, reflected about this on his popular blog, in a post called, 'St Luke slays Loftus louts'. Keohane analysis is sharp on Watson's reception at Loftus, stating, ' The Loftus crowd, many of them believers of Christianity, misread the contest because effectively they were doing battle with one of their own, but whereas they lacked conviction in their application of resentment, Watson was committed to his stand of defiance. Watson, disgusted at wearing a jersey with a Springbok emblem on it, is not popular for saying so. He is even less popular for calling South African rugby a game run by Afrikaners, even though there has never been a disciplinary to confirm if he ever did utter the supposedly wicked word 'dutchmen'. (In the official transcript of his speech these words never appeared-acc)
Indeed, Keohane's analysis point to a commitment deeper then the Christian commitment, which is where Oom Tjol Lategan comes in. In an article, by Le Roux Schoeman he is quoted to have responded, taking the initiative (i.e. running with the ball), in a debate on the Springbok emblem. His response was simple: his Springbok blazer was more precious then money, it's not simply a trademark. This blazer with the Springbok on was a central part of his attire, as he goes to the Newlands rugby stadium, which he then call the 'rugby-church'. There we have it. At least for oom Tjol, rugby is more then just a game. The Springbok is more then simply an emblem or a trademark worth millions. For this grand personality of Springbok-rugby it's a religious symbol. No wonder then that a fellow Christian is crucified in public, for raising his struggle over the Springbok jersey, whilst another, is supported and defended in the face of the most damning of allegations. The point is he never challenged the holy Springbok. Maybe, oom Tjol indeed has helped the debate, to help us to see what is really going on here…
0 comments:
Post a Comment