Tracking the Springboks as a Political Symbol in South Africa

Between 1948 and 1994, South Africa's government enforced apartheid.

During the period of apartheid in South Africa, racial discrimination was painfully present in every aspect of daily life.  As the white minority dominated the black majority, racism manifested itself not only in the country’s laws, but the recreational pastime of sports, as well.  Rugby, in particular, called for the exclusion of South Africa’s black citizens, serving as yet another area in which the country discriminated against them.  The country’s national rugby team, the Springboks, represents a prime example of such discrimination and further reflects how much sports was—and still is—connected to the country’s political structure.  

Global Reaction during the Era of Apartheid 

The Springbok's racial discrimination policies were unsurprisingly met with opposition from the international community, with many countries forbidding their teams from playing against them.  In 1967, for example, New Zealand Prime Minister Keith Holyoake declined a proposed visit of New Zealand's own national rugby team, the All Blacks, to South Africa, stating, "In this country we are one people."  Interestingly enough, however, in 1928, 1949 and 1960, New Zealand’s team had prohibited Maori and black players from attending South African tours—a decision that the country would much later apologize for. 

As time went on, many other countries took a stand with New Zealand in protesting the team's policies and South Africa’s apartheid regime.  Nelson Mandela later revealed that such protests served as a source of optimism for the future during his long imprisonment: “The sun shone into the dark cells of Robben Island and transformed the oppressive Soweto dungeons of despair into beacons of hope.”  To signify its disapproval of South Africa's white rule, the United Nations eventually called for a sports boycott across the entire globe by the end of the late 1960s.  The country’s international isolation in sports soon followed and continued until 1992, when the country finally began talks of bringing an end to the institutional racism that plagued the country.  With a forthcoming multiracial democracy, the Springboks were then able to compete in international sporting events.

1995 Rugby World Cup

In 1995, President Mandela presented the World Cup trophy to Piennar.

The 1995 Rugby World Cup served as a major turning point for both the country and the Springboks, marking the first time that the team was allowed to participate in the event.  The Springboks ultimate win led to the now much talked about moment in which President Mandela walked on the field sporting a Springbok jersey to shake hands with Springbok captain Francois Piennar.  Even inspiring the movie plot of Invictus, the moment is regarded as a symbolic gesture that represented the welcoming of a new era in South Africa’s political structure.  As John Carlin from the South Africa-based Independent Online states:

 “For decades Mandela had stood for everything white South Africans most feared; the Springbok jersey had been the symbol, for even longer, of everything black South Africans most hated. Now suddenly, before the eyes of the whole of South Africa, and much of the world, the two negative symbols had merged to create a new one that was positive, constructive, and good. Mandela had wrought the transformation, becoming the embodiment not of hate and fear, but generosity and love.”

A Long Overdue Apology

Despite the changes in the country’s political landscape, South Africa failed to issue an apology for its longstanding discrimination until just last year, when it finally expressed regret for its exclusion of players on the basis of race.  This long-awaited apology came from both South Africa and New Zealand’s rugby unions for their team’s exclusion of Maori and black players during apartheid.  Oregan Hoskins, the president of the South African Rugby Union, stated that the Maori players that were prohibited from visiting the country were “innocent victims of the racist ideology of our former government.”  Hoskins also apologized to black South Africans that were not allowed to represent the country throughout the “long dark years” of apartheid.  New Zealand’s Rugby Union too expressed its regret for forbidding its own Maori and black team members from playing in games in South Africa.

The Springboks Today

White players still make up an overwhelming majority of the Springbok team.

Still, it is important to note that despite the evolution of a multiracial democracy in the country and the apology for past policies, the Springboks have remained primarily made up of white citizens.  Serving as a source of contention in the country, many argue that, as a national sports team, the Springboks should be more representative of South Africa’s racial demographics.  As a result, the South African government and its citizens have long pressured the team to implement racial quotas—as found with other sporting teams in the country—in their selection of players, but the idea has been repeatedly shut down.   

In February, however, Springboks coach Peter de Villiers refuted the idea that he felt pressure from anyone to select players according to their race, stating that he did not have obligations to promise a spot on the team to anyone.  An article by Jamie Pandaram in New Zealand-based Stuff states that this “obligation” is implicit: “While the racial quota system is often discussed and debated in South African sports, there are no clear guidelines made public.  There is a gentleman's agreement to pick a certain number of black players in Super Rugby teams, generally understood to be two starting players and two on the bench.”

Now, nearly two decades after the Springboks—and South Africa—abolished its racial discrimination policies, the team is still working to rid itself of the symbolism it held for the apartheid regime, with many believing that it has indeed done so.  In an opinion piece titled “’The Springbok Emblem Must Go’” featured in South Africa’s Mail and Guardian, reporter Sentletse Diakanya writes, “Nothing that represented oppression in this country is more transformed than that 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.”  Now one of the most successful teams in international sports, the Springboks will continue to evolve with South Africa as the country makes efforts to finally move past its dark history of apartheid.

The World Reacts to Osama Bin Laden's Death

Ten years after 9/11, U.S. forces killed Bin Laden in a mansion outside of Pakistan's capital.

In The World News Prism, William A. Hatchen and James F. Scotton remind us that every news event is filtered through a cultural and national lens. With this in mind, it comes as no surprise that the global news media reacted with diverse reports when U.S. forces killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011. While news of his death circulated in the international community, many hailed the death as a milestone in the fight against terrorism, with others condemning the actions the U.S. took to serve justice to the man responsible for the September 11th terrorist attacks. When looking more specifically at reports from the United States, Great Britain, Ethiopia, South Africa, Egypt, India and China, one recognizes just how much a news story can change across political borders.

North America

U.S. celebrations went deep into the night on May 1, 2011.

The United States, of course, celebrated the news. An article in The New York Times exemplifies this point and provides the context necessary to understand the sense of closure that Bin Laden’s death brings to the 9/11 attacks. The sources chosen for the article, including President Obama, the president of the group Families of Flight 93 and a Justice Department worker, echo this sentiment and all contribute to the positive tone of the news story.

It is significant to note, as well, that in addition to providing the facts and context of the event, The New York Times article also makes references to the “unknowns” associated with the effects of Bin Laden’s death. The reporters state, “What remains to be seen […] is whether it galvanizes Bin Laden’s followers by turning him into a martyr or serves as a turning of the page in the war in Afghanistan and gives further impetus to Mr. Obama to bring American troops home.” Bringing this point to light leads the readers to contemplate this, as well, and provides a more complete contextual analysis of the news story.

Europe

As a longtime ally of the U.S., it also comes as no surprise that Great Britain maintained a congratulatory tone towards President Obama in its accounts of Bin Laden’s death. In an article published in the Guardian, reporter Ewen MacAskill includes solely positive reactions among current and former international heads of government, notably leaving out any dissenting views of the news event. Among those mentioned in the article include Britain Prime Minister David Cameron and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Both prime ministers maintain the triumphant tone of the article, stating that Bin Laden’s death is a victory for justice and freedom in the world.

Africa

Ethiopian news coverage of the death was the most neutral of the bunch, although frequent mentions are made to Osama as “the world’s most wanted man.” In an article featured on the online Walta Information Center, reporters provide the facts and background of the story, pointing out that the American raid was the “culmination of painstaking intelligence work.” The article even gives details of the compound that Bin Laden was holed up at, as well as a brief history of his life and rise to power as the infamous Al-Quadea leader.

South African coverage of the event, on the other hand, put America in a less than positive light. An article from The Independent is much more negative compared to the previous countries and notably contains sources and quotes that discuss the death in a more critical tone. In one such quote, Young Communist League secretary Buti Manamela said, “Our view is that all of these things seek to prove to the entire world the brutality of the US. They claim to be the champion of peace and democracy, but they are nothing but invaders and their anti-terrorism campaign is the greatest cover-up of their own terrorism.” The article also references the Media Review Network, a South American organization with the mission of bringing about a greater understanding of Muslims and Islam, who asked why the U.S. had not allowed Bin Laden to defend himself in a court of law. It is also interesting to point out that unlike most of the other articles, this one does not provide any quotes from President Obama.

Egyptian citizens protested the killing of Bin Laden in Cairo on May 6, 2011.

Egypt, a predominantly Muslim country, was more sympathetic towards Bin Laden in its coverage, with one article pointing to a poll that showed the percentage of those that felt sympathy and support for the Al Quaeda leader were rising. In fact, a whopping 40 percent said that they consider him a hero and that they are sad about his death. The article goes on to discuss the protests that have taken place across Egypt and even quotes Ayman Alfayed, one of Bin Laden’s former advisers, who stated that reports of his death were false. The quotes that follow also express feelings that the U.S. had “hurled the greatest insult” when it threw his body into the sea, also expressing that this action will likely lead to more sympathetic feelings towards Bin Laden.

Asia

News coverage in India was positive, which arguably reflects the American-Indian strategic military and economic partnership. Indian Prime Minister Manhohan Singh reacted to the death in an article in The Times of India, stating that the death was a significant move forward and also requesting that the entire global community come together to fight terrorist groups. In another statement, the Indian home ministry discussed the issue that Bin Laden had found sanctuary in Pakistan, pointing out its concern that other terrorists might be also seeking refuge in the country. According to the article, India has expressed this point to the United States before and no doubt had an “I told you so” moment when news of Bin Laden’s whereabouts in the years before the attack circulated.

The Chinese reaction to Bin Laden’s death was mindful of the future effects the event would have on the country. In an article displayed on Al Jazeera’s Web site, reporter Antoaneta Beckerc points out that while China has “reluctant admiration at the success of the secret mission,” it also worries about where the United States will turn its attention to now. More specifically, Beckerc states that the country is concerned that “the U.S. strategists” will focus its efforts on restraining emerging economies such as theirs. Since China has previously expressed suspicion over U.S. motives associated with their presence in Libya and Afghanistan, it comes as no surprise that the country is worrying about what might come next.

After looking at the news coverage around the world on Osama Bin Laden’s death, it is clear that every country had its own take on the historical event. Each news story contained subtle or more blatant biases, proving Hatchen and Scotten’s point that every news story is indeed influenced by a cultural and national frame of reference. By looking at all of these reports together, we become more aware of the diverse views and perspectives surrounding news events and in turn, become more informed global citizens.

Daily Life for Many in South Africa

Coverage of Osama bin Laden's Death in South Africa

Mail & Guardian Online

Independent Online

Daily Dispatch Online

American Perceptions and Knowledge of South Africa

Before I started researching South Africa, I have to admit that I didn't have a great deal of knowledge about the country.  Sure, I knew the basics, including its blatantly obvious geographic location and its longstanding AIDS epidemic, but my historical and political knowledge of the country was slim.  So when I set out to interview other Americans about their perceptions and knowledge of South Africa, I was unsure of what I’d find.  Would they have the same lack of historical and political knowledge about the country?  Or would they surprise me with the amount of information that easily flowed with their answers?

In order to get a wide set of responses, I interviewed six people of varying ages and backgrounds.  They included:

• Anne, 16, high school student
• Kathryn, 26, college student majoring in history
• David, 44, graphic designer
• Kim, 53, special education teacher
• Michael, 68, business professor
• Bonnie, 80, retired flight attendant

I started out with the easiest question of the bunch: what continent South Africa is located on.  Thankfully, all of them answered this first question without hesitation (of course, only after shooting me a look that suggested I was doubting their intelligence).  Just two of them, however, knew the capital city of South Africa, Cape Town.  Two others believed it was Johannesburg, South Africa’s largest city, and the remaining respondents were unsure.  

Like many other countries in Africa, South Africa is known for its wildlife.

My interviewees had a wide range of answers when asked my next question: what the first thing that came to mind was when they thought of South Africa.  The two youngest respondents, Kathryn and Anne, replied that the country made them think of safaris and its sunsets.  Another individual stated that they thought of the AIDS epidemic, while the remaining said that apartheid stood out to them when considering the country.    

“The fact that such a small portion of the population had power and control over the entire country simply because they were white is baffling,” Michael said. 

Mandela spent 27 years of his life in prison.

When I asked my interviewees more specifically about political or historical events that had occurred there over the past century, five of the respondents mentioned Nelson Mandela’s release from prison.  I was further surprised to learn that two knew the exact amount of time that Mandela had been in prison, as well as the specific prison he spent the majority of this time.  These individuals also pointed to the significance of Mandela’s release, accurately stating that he helped lead South Africa to a multi-racial democracy.  

When I narrowed down the question to historical events that had occurred in South Africa over the past five years, however, only two were able to answer.  Both of these respondents mentioned AIDS in their answer, with Kim stating that the AIDS epidemic had been growing and Bonnie recalling that the government had taken more proactive steps to fight the epidemic. 

My last question, which was perhaps the hardest of the bunch, was to narrow down historical events even further: only those that had happened within the past year.  Once again, only two answered and both of them accurately stated that the World Cup had occurred there last summer.  

Many of my interviewees were only able to correctly answer a few of my questions, but all of them demonstrated knowledge of at least one of the most important issues and events that surround South Africa: AIDS, apartheid and the freeing of Nelson Mandela.  Though Americans might have a long way to go to grasp a more complete understanding of the society, culture and politics of the country, my interviewees proved that they have basic foundational knowledge to get there. 

Web site/Twitter of the Week

Mail & Guardian Online

• First online news publication in Africa
• One of South Africa’s and Africa’s major major news publishers
• Internationally recognized
• Has received three Webby Honourable mentions
• “The Oscars of the Internet”
• Owned by M&G Media (privately-held)
• Works closely with the London-based Guardian Newspapers

Article: Zuma: It will take time to recover lost jobs

Article: Editorial: Turn the Lights on for All 

AfricaNews 

• “We offer a podium to everyone willing to post his/her own stories on our website. Webloggers, writers, (citizen) journalists, photographers, filmmakers: everybody is welcome.”
• An interactive Web site that allows people to share news, photos, weblogs, videos, mobile reports
• Part of Africa Interactive, an online media company
• Bios about employees
• Focuses on business microfinance, society, culture, travel, nature, music and sport

Article: Tanzania: Rampaging elephants destroy crops

South Africa: Family and Politics

The family structure in South Africa has been affected by a number of factors, including its history of apartheid, poverty and the HIV/AIDS pandemic.  Up until 1993, the National Party government enforced the segregation of races, providing black citizens with medical care, education and other public services that were inferior to those offered to the white minority.  Black citizens were treated like second-class citizens, and as a result, they did not have the economic opportunities afforded to white individuals to provide for a stable family life.  The election of the African National Congress’s Nelson Mandela brought about a non-racial democracy in April 1994, but the history of apartheid has ongoing reverberations in the South African family, as well as the greater society.

Two-thirds of children in South Africa live in poverty, according to UNICEF.

Although apartheid ended over 15 years ago, poverty continues to be an ever-present problem in the nation.  South Africa has a shocking unemployment rate of 25 percent, according to BBC News--a statistic that continues to increase as a result of globalization.  More and more jobs are being lost in sectors that cannot compete in the growing global market, which has left a growing number of parents unable to provide adequate resources for their children to stay healthy and prosper in life. 

It is important to note, however, that the government has responded with policies to combat the effects of poverty on families.  Its substantial social grants system calls for free primary health care for pregnant women and children under the age of six, as well as exempted school fees for those who cannot afford them.  Still, many argue that the social security system is inefficient and inadequate, pointing out that the rates of inflation have led the cost of supporting a family to skyrocket.

The family structure in South Africa has perhaps most significantly been affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic.  The country has a higher number of HIV-positive individuals than any other nation in the world, which has led to an increasing number of orphan children and child-headed households.  In fact, 23 percent of South African children were living with neither of their biological parents in 2008, according to the University of Capetown.  

The HIV/AIDS epidemic is now garnering more attention from the government.

The HIV/AIDS crisis received a criticized lack of attention by former President Thabo Mbeki, who suggested that antiretroviral drugs were potentially harmful and even went as far as to question whether HIV causes AIDS.  However, current President Jacob Zuma has stated that actions will be taken to ensure that HIV-positive individuals are treated earlier, and that drug therapy would be expanded for HIV-positive pregnant women and babies.  

The family structure in South Africa has historically been plagued with a number of political, economic and social problems.  Though the current government is taking steps to help combat the plight of its citizens, it is clear that there is still a great deal left to be done in the realm of politics to bring about a stable family unit in South Africa.