BBC seems to think so. It says:
- “England’s (rugby) team, drawn from a population that is 85% white, have a starting XV that is only 73% white whereas” whereas “South Africa, representing a nation where whites makes up less than a 10th of the population, have a team that is four-fifths white.”
- “Revolution, it is clear, happens slowly in South African rugby.”
- “One of the great myths of South African rugby is that it has always been a whites-only sport.” But actually, “it has also been played by blacks for just as long.”
So, the non-white South Africans, when they were under apartheid, also happened to pick up a game cherished by their oppressors in some pockets. They, after overthrowing the oppressive regime, don’t seem to be terribly interested in playing this game and so the team still contains lots of white people. England on the other hand, is more accommodating to non-whites, in fact it appears to be biased against whites! What a tragedy?
When anti-immigration rhetoric is at its peak in English polity, BBC is so worried about why achieving racial equality is slow inside white man’s sport set up in South Africa. How considerate?