A trait of society that I find particularly annoying is the tendency to make unnecessary name changes. In a manner this has been discussed often recently due to the decision to move away from using the term Prefect. I think that people are not annoyed as much by the change in name as by the perceived loss in status. Let's be honest, being a Prefect sounds much better than being a Portfolio Leader. But I can understand why the school thinks it is a good idea for the name to change.
The word Prefect, according to Pocket Oxford English Dictionary, is defined as being "A senior pupil who is appointed to enforce discipline in a school". I agree with the decision-makers in the school that this sounds very much like a policeman and is not what the spirit of the job is about anymore; I disagree that a name change is necessary. Not only is it moving away from something that is tried and tested but doing so may detract from the pride Prefects have about their positions. When making a decision like this it is important to consider why it is being made and to ensure that it be made for the right reasons.
The jobs that Prefects at the College carry out are very different from the definition given above, except for in assembly and Chapel where enforcing discipline is exactly what the Prefects are expected to do, despite the fact that we are apparently allowed to talk quietly. I see no reason that the definition of the word cannot be adjusted to suit the times. English is still, contrary to popular belief, a developing language. Apart from the job not suiting the common definition of the word anymore I think that the desire to change the name is also due to 'peer-pressure' from other schools and institutions.
Every time the name changing is discussed with students the speaker is always sure to mention that we are not the only school to move away from using the term Prefect. I think they mean this to be reassuring, to let us know that it isn't only us who are taking the plunge. Personally, all this tells me is that we are not very good at coming up with original ideas. Instead, we are more like sheep that just follow where others have gone before. To me, changing the name because other schools are doing it, and because it updates our school's image, sounds very much like giving into peer-pressure, which I am sure you have all been told in Life Orientation can be a very bad thing to do. However, I think it is important to point out that I am not against all name changes.
It can often occur that a name may pick up negative connotations, or may become completely obsolete. In a case like this, I think it is appropriate to change the name to something more acceptable, in order to avoid conflict. An example of this would be the renaming of streets which - due to Apartheid - had offensive names. This helped to alleviate conflict and racial tensions. However, examples of unnecessary name changes were the renaming of streets and places that were not offensive. The unnecessary renaming of such places made many people angry and caused more problems than it solved. Therefore I think any name change should be considered very carefully before being executed.
Monday, August 23, 2010
"Dream Filly" by Nicola du Plessis
Witnessed the birth of that chestnut filly
Blaze pure white
Clear in the night
Told them my dream, which they found quite silly.
As she grew, we saw her athleticism
It inspired me to proclaim:
"The July will beher aim."
Lo and behond, it received no criticism.
It is the first Saturday in July
Briskly she jumps from her pen and
Just like that 'barren doe' she starts to fly.
Thunder in her hooves,
Fire in her heart,
Victorious she proves!
Blaze pure white
Clear in the night
Told them my dream, which they found quite silly.
As she grew, we saw her athleticism
It inspired me to proclaim:
"The July will beher aim."
Lo and behond, it received no criticism.
It is the first Saturday in July
Briskly she jumps from her pen and
Just like that 'barren doe' she starts to fly.
Thunder in her hooves,
Fire in her heart,
Victorious she proves!
A take on "Willem Prinsloo's Peach Brandy" by Herman Charles Bosman -Nicola du Plessis
The theme of this story can be summarized in two words: guile and gullibility. The narrative is simple and uncomplicated. Bosman relates how a young Schalk Lourens attended a dance at the farm of Willem Prinsloo near a place called Abjaterskop in the Great Marico. Prinsloo is a "celebrity" because of his ability to stoke strong mampoer -a peach based beverage that contains a high percentage of alcohol.
We read that Prinsloo's daughter, Grieta was due back from finishing school where she had gone to learn "English manners and dictation and other high-class subjects." All the young men in the district were invited to attend a dance at Prinsloo's farm. Schalk recalls that they were "all somewhat nervous to meet Grieta."
The picture reflects and portrays a young girl in Victorian splendour: that is precisely how I imagine Grieta looked when she arrived at the dance - complete with roses in her hair. She is described as "tall and slender and very pretty" and her dark hair was braided with "a wreath of white roses." The author then proceeds to tell us of Schalk's clumsy attempts to woo Grieta.
We read about a conversation between Schalk and Grieta and how awkwardly he tried to convey his affection for her. She slipped away from him but left one of her roses behind. Schalk in his naive way interpreted this as a token of her affection.
Schalk and the other young men had too much to drink of Willem Prinsloo's peach brandy. Schalk tried to catch Grieta but fell in the process. He picked up the rose and displayed it in his hat when he returned to the dance; and "it caused quite a stir."
The story ends when Schalk woke up the morning after the dance feeling very sick. On his way home Schalk then encounters one of Grieta's other wooers - Frits Pretorious, clearly also suffering from the after effects of the peach brandy. What took the young Schalk by surprise, however, was the fact that Fritz had also received one of Grieta's roses. That, says Schalk, made him "wonder about those finishing schools!"
It was perhaps only then that the penny dropped: both he and Fritz (and many others) had been duped by the guile of Grieta. She relied upon their gullibility to make each one believe that she experienced the same emotions about him - that is to say, that he was the "chosen man."
Greita's guile and the gullibility of the farmers in her area is what makes the story so humorous -an absolute must read!
We read that Prinsloo's daughter, Grieta was due back from finishing school where she had gone to learn "English manners and dictation and other high-class subjects." All the young men in the district were invited to attend a dance at Prinsloo's farm. Schalk recalls that they were "all somewhat nervous to meet Grieta."
The picture reflects and portrays a young girl in Victorian splendour: that is precisely how I imagine Grieta looked when she arrived at the dance - complete with roses in her hair. She is described as "tall and slender and very pretty" and her dark hair was braided with "a wreath of white roses." The author then proceeds to tell us of Schalk's clumsy attempts to woo Grieta.
We read about a conversation between Schalk and Grieta and how awkwardly he tried to convey his affection for her. She slipped away from him but left one of her roses behind. Schalk in his naive way interpreted this as a token of her affection.
Schalk and the other young men had too much to drink of Willem Prinsloo's peach brandy. Schalk tried to catch Grieta but fell in the process. He picked up the rose and displayed it in his hat when he returned to the dance; and "it caused quite a stir."
The story ends when Schalk woke up the morning after the dance feeling very sick. On his way home Schalk then encounters one of Grieta's other wooers - Frits Pretorious, clearly also suffering from the after effects of the peach brandy. What took the young Schalk by surprise, however, was the fact that Fritz had also received one of Grieta's roses. That, says Schalk, made him "wonder about those finishing schools!"
It was perhaps only then that the penny dropped: both he and Fritz (and many others) had been duped by the guile of Grieta. She relied upon their gullibility to make each one believe that she experienced the same emotions about him - that is to say, that he was the "chosen man."
Greita's guile and the gullibility of the farmers in her area is what makes the story so humorous -an absolute must read!
Thursday, August 19, 2010
"Elegantly Disheveled - Adventure to Cuba" by Jess Kempton-Jones
A recent trip in the June/July holidays took me all across the Atlantic ocean toward a tropical, humid cluster also known as Central America. More specifically, to Cuba, the communistic 'hub' of the world.
Among the many other things that this trip taught me, I realised I could probably never reside in a place like Durban, because the weather is certainly not one of my favourite climes. Although, besides the daily climate, there were many more lessons of substance learned in this strange and exotic country. Cuba was incredible. A really different traveling experience to any I've had before it.
Getting there, for one, is a mission in itself. Almost two full days were dedicated to non-stop journeying on some mode of transport -whether it was by aeroplane, bus or taxi. We finally arrived in Havana city on a warm, muggy and cloudy Sunday afternoon.
There we stayed for two weeks, discovering the old dilapidated city one roaming street at a time.
I am asked by many to try and compare it to something, or somewhere rather, but I am stumped at the thought. It really is like the pictures you see in travel shops and places like Buena Vista: old women staring blankly at the camera with an oversized cigar hanging nonchalantly out of their wrinkled mouths, or, men in Panama hats trying to sell you the latest newspaper copy, which at closer inspection is dated may 2009.
An overwhelming sense of a bygone era looms in Old Havana city. My eyes had never seen such strange and odd sights. Beautiful vintage cars, Dodges, Fords and dilapidated Volkswagens were among the many luxury and exotic vehicles that we seem to throw thousands of rands at in the hopes of owning, yet for these people it appears a boring, every day norm. Sad and dampened-hope faces peered out from the dark shadows of doorways, once properties of lucrative businesses and hotels. Now the once grand architecture of a bustling city is crumbling at the skirtings.
From huge graffiti portraits the great, iconic Cuban hero, Che Guevara, leers watchingly over the people of Havana; one cannot but recognise the prolific attempts at propoganda. The more I think of it the less I am prone to believe that the people of Cuba are happy and content with their curent government. Whenever faced with the burning question,"...and the government? Good? Happy?", a man we met and asked shuffles slightly in his seat, shifts his gaze and nods.
Just nods.
Which gives the impression of some sort of advanced oppression - an oppression that has gotten to the point where there is no great hope for change because every day is the same.
Among the many other things that this trip taught me, I realised I could probably never reside in a place like Durban, because the weather is certainly not one of my favourite climes. Although, besides the daily climate, there were many more lessons of substance learned in this strange and exotic country. Cuba was incredible. A really different traveling experience to any I've had before it.
Getting there, for one, is a mission in itself. Almost two full days were dedicated to non-stop journeying on some mode of transport -whether it was by aeroplane, bus or taxi. We finally arrived in Havana city on a warm, muggy and cloudy Sunday afternoon.
There we stayed for two weeks, discovering the old dilapidated city one roaming street at a time.
I am asked by many to try and compare it to something, or somewhere rather, but I am stumped at the thought. It really is like the pictures you see in travel shops and places like Buena Vista: old women staring blankly at the camera with an oversized cigar hanging nonchalantly out of their wrinkled mouths, or, men in Panama hats trying to sell you the latest newspaper copy, which at closer inspection is dated may 2009.
An overwhelming sense of a bygone era looms in Old Havana city. My eyes had never seen such strange and odd sights. Beautiful vintage cars, Dodges, Fords and dilapidated Volkswagens were among the many luxury and exotic vehicles that we seem to throw thousands of rands at in the hopes of owning, yet for these people it appears a boring, every day norm. Sad and dampened-hope faces peered out from the dark shadows of doorways, once properties of lucrative businesses and hotels. Now the once grand architecture of a bustling city is crumbling at the skirtings.
From huge graffiti portraits the great, iconic Cuban hero, Che Guevara, leers watchingly over the people of Havana; one cannot but recognise the prolific attempts at propoganda. The more I think of it the less I am prone to believe that the people of Cuba are happy and content with their curent government. Whenever faced with the burning question,"...and the government? Good? Happy?", a man we met and asked shuffles slightly in his seat, shifts his gaze and nods.
Just nods.
Which gives the impression of some sort of advanced oppression - an oppression that has gotten to the point where there is no great hope for change because every day is the same.
"Cloned Cow Chow" by Lara Kingwill
If you had driven past Dundee Paratrouper or Dundee Perfect chewing away in a field, you wouldn't have been able to tell that they were different to any other bull. You may have noticed how similar they appear, but you would not expect them to be identical. But they are, in fact, exact replica: clones of a bull in America.
Dundee Paratrouper was slaughtered in July last year and his meat entered the UK food chain, unnoticed by authorities. Dundee Perfect, however, was not so lucky. He was slaughtered on the 27th of July this year, but the Food Standards Agency prevented his meat from reaching the shelves. As news of this incident spread, it has caused a raucous about whether or not cloned meat should be allowed on the shelves, ready for human consumption.
To some, eating something that was alive but not procreated by its own species does not seem to be worth the fuss. The chief of FSA, Tim Smith, has reassured the public that all their tests have shown that eating cloned meat does not cause any health problems for humans and is exactly the same as consuming normal produce. I mean, since the meat is identical (literally) to the rest on the shelf and there are no safety concerns, what's the big deal?
To others, however, it is a provocative issue. The Food Safety authorities claim that there have not been enough tests done to say with full confidence that cloned meat is perfectly safe to eat. In contrast, Professor Hugh Pennington, an expert in food safety from Aberdeen University, claims that the results have been consistent and that "I've got no expectation that any such evidence will ever emerge." Consumer groups have also argued that buyers have a right to know what they are buying. A recent survey showed that 85 % of customers would at least want cloned meat labelled if it were to be legalized.
Perhaps one of the bigger concerns, raised by various campaign and Animal Welfare groups, is that cloning is a cruel and painful process for the animal. Statistics have shown that for every normal cloned birth theire are hundreds of miscarriages or deformed young born. Animals are also modified to their full capacity for industry, to produce more milk or get fatter easier. These transformations stretch the animal to its physical limits.
Many people do not feel it is right for humans to 'play God' in this way. We should not try to change nature to suit our needs. Species need to develop and evolve and cloning limits the progress of this as they are exactly the same. It is limiting biodiversity.
In light of these points, the MP's in the UK voted in favour of a legislation that bans cloned meat and other animal products from being entered into the European Food Supply Chain.
Dundee Paratrouper was slaughtered in July last year and his meat entered the UK food chain, unnoticed by authorities. Dundee Perfect, however, was not so lucky. He was slaughtered on the 27th of July this year, but the Food Standards Agency prevented his meat from reaching the shelves. As news of this incident spread, it has caused a raucous about whether or not cloned meat should be allowed on the shelves, ready for human consumption.
To some, eating something that was alive but not procreated by its own species does not seem to be worth the fuss. The chief of FSA, Tim Smith, has reassured the public that all their tests have shown that eating cloned meat does not cause any health problems for humans and is exactly the same as consuming normal produce. I mean, since the meat is identical (literally) to the rest on the shelf and there are no safety concerns, what's the big deal?
To others, however, it is a provocative issue. The Food Safety authorities claim that there have not been enough tests done to say with full confidence that cloned meat is perfectly safe to eat. In contrast, Professor Hugh Pennington, an expert in food safety from Aberdeen University, claims that the results have been consistent and that "I've got no expectation that any such evidence will ever emerge." Consumer groups have also argued that buyers have a right to know what they are buying. A recent survey showed that 85 % of customers would at least want cloned meat labelled if it were to be legalized.
Perhaps one of the bigger concerns, raised by various campaign and Animal Welfare groups, is that cloning is a cruel and painful process for the animal. Statistics have shown that for every normal cloned birth theire are hundreds of miscarriages or deformed young born. Animals are also modified to their full capacity for industry, to produce more milk or get fatter easier. These transformations stretch the animal to its physical limits.
Many people do not feel it is right for humans to 'play God' in this way. We should not try to change nature to suit our needs. Species need to develop and evolve and cloning limits the progress of this as they are exactly the same. It is limiting biodiversity.
In light of these points, the MP's in the UK voted in favour of a legislation that bans cloned meat and other animal products from being entered into the European Food Supply Chain.
"Untitled" by Matthew Webber
I like trees
They are cool
If you don't
Then you're a fool
Trees are tiny
Big and small
Play with trees
You'll have a ball
Tie them down
Make them bend
If you're nice
They'll be your friend
You can climb them
Up and down
But don't fall out
Or you will frown
Now everybody
Hug a tree
'Cause if you do
You'll be like me
And if you tell them
That you care
They will go
And a hug a bear
Bears are cuddly
Cute and nice
But I gotta tell you
They don't like mice
'Cause mice are naughty
Crazy beasts
They run around
And have a feast
They steal your lunch
And take your food
They're not even hungry
They just wanna be rude
That is why
I don't like mice
That is why
Mice are not nice.
They are cool
If you don't
Then you're a fool
Trees are tiny
Big and small
Play with trees
You'll have a ball
Tie them down
Make them bend
If you're nice
They'll be your friend
You can climb them
Up and down
But don't fall out
Or you will frown
Now everybody
Hug a tree
'Cause if you do
You'll be like me
And if you tell them
That you care
They will go
And a hug a bear
Bears are cuddly
Cute and nice
But I gotta tell you
They don't like mice
'Cause mice are naughty
Crazy beasts
They run around
And have a feast
They steal your lunch
And take your food
They're not even hungry
They just wanna be rude
That is why
I don't like mice
That is why
Mice are not nice.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
"Quota corruption" by Sarah de Villiers
"Mum, do you think I made the team because I'm good, or because I'm black?"
This stumping and awkward question is being raised in households across the country as the quota system manipulates the selection of sports teams and tournaments. From the tender age of seven to international levels of play, the selection of players no longer depends on raw talent and fiery passion, but your ethnical group.
The quota policy dictates that in every competitive sports team a certain pecentageof players and coaching staff must be of colour. This policy has caused much uproar and dispute, as it has been perceived by many as "reverse" or "controlled" racism, favouring particular ethnical groups.
Whilst some raised their hands in frustration because of the injustice, others recoiled in embarrassment. Being chosen based on your skin colour builds a false sense of pride and a deep sense of shame for many "quota" players. These players may be left feeling inadequate or incompetent in their teams. The low self-esteem that develops because of this could be further battered by exclusion or bullying based on the fact that some quota players are perhaps under-qualified.
Their parents feel the blow as they too experience shame in the favouritism and can become socially victimised or excluded. These parents also have to deal with the questions and emotions intertwined with the issue of racism, as well as bullied or distraught children with shattered self-esteems. The parents of the children denied positions could feel fuelled frustration and racism as the effects of apartheid continue to linger in society. These parents may be marginalised and watch helplessly as their children suffer the consequences of a previous generation's mistakes.
The selected team will endure having to carry weaker players and the talent of ethnical players will be called into question, leaving them wondering whether they were chosen based on skill or to filfil a government policy. This sort of doubt disadvantages the team's spirit, performance and unity, but without the meeting quota they would be disqualified from participation in some leagues. Either way, the team will suffer and be unable to reach their full potential.
The players who are denied a position in the team regardless of their talent are left with low self-esteems and a sour taste for the ethnical community. This type of situation spawns hatred, grudges and ultimately racism in the youth, the polar opposite of the government's intention when introducing a law that was intended to give equal opportunities to previously disadvantaged players.
But in attempting to make right the injustices of the past, are they not instead stripping other people of opportunities they truly deserve? We are a democratic country and favour should not be shown based on our past, but on our future.
In a rainbow nation we should see in colour, not in black and white.
Bibliography:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/q/quota-system/
http://www.btimes.co.za/98/1213/colums/columns2.htm
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2005-01-23-sports-quota-law-a-last-resort
This stumping and awkward question is being raised in households across the country as the quota system manipulates the selection of sports teams and tournaments. From the tender age of seven to international levels of play, the selection of players no longer depends on raw talent and fiery passion, but your ethnical group.
The quota policy dictates that in every competitive sports team a certain pecentageof players and coaching staff must be of colour. This policy has caused much uproar and dispute, as it has been perceived by many as "reverse" or "controlled" racism, favouring particular ethnical groups.
Whilst some raised their hands in frustration because of the injustice, others recoiled in embarrassment. Being chosen based on your skin colour builds a false sense of pride and a deep sense of shame for many "quota" players. These players may be left feeling inadequate or incompetent in their teams. The low self-esteem that develops because of this could be further battered by exclusion or bullying based on the fact that some quota players are perhaps under-qualified.
Their parents feel the blow as they too experience shame in the favouritism and can become socially victimised or excluded. These parents also have to deal with the questions and emotions intertwined with the issue of racism, as well as bullied or distraught children with shattered self-esteems. The parents of the children denied positions could feel fuelled frustration and racism as the effects of apartheid continue to linger in society. These parents may be marginalised and watch helplessly as their children suffer the consequences of a previous generation's mistakes.
The selected team will endure having to carry weaker players and the talent of ethnical players will be called into question, leaving them wondering whether they were chosen based on skill or to filfil a government policy. This sort of doubt disadvantages the team's spirit, performance and unity, but without the meeting quota they would be disqualified from participation in some leagues. Either way, the team will suffer and be unable to reach their full potential.
The players who are denied a position in the team regardless of their talent are left with low self-esteems and a sour taste for the ethnical community. This type of situation spawns hatred, grudges and ultimately racism in the youth, the polar opposite of the government's intention when introducing a law that was intended to give equal opportunities to previously disadvantaged players.
But in attempting to make right the injustices of the past, are they not instead stripping other people of opportunities they truly deserve? We are a democratic country and favour should not be shown based on our past, but on our future.
In a rainbow nation we should see in colour, not in black and white.
Bibliography:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/q/quota-system/
http://www.btimes.co.za/98/1213/colums/columns2.htm
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2005-01-23-sports-quota-law-a-last-resort
"Am I to blame?" by Anonymous
Little hands
And little feet
No one stopped to consider
The future they were to meet.
Feet kept moving
And hands stretched out
Out there someone cared
But this has left only doubt.
Many days I wondered
Many weeks I dreamed
Many months I cried your name
And asked the question:
Am I to blame?
Memories of fights
Internal scars
I closed my door and
Sought the comfort of music bars.
Forced to look at a picture
Just to see your face
A smoking brain and a racing heart
Pondered on how you'd left without a trace.
Many days I wondered
Many weeks I dreamed
Many months I cried your name
And asked the question:
Am I to blame?
I pray to God
To make it stop.
I'd ask him to make
The pressure drop.
I prayed that you
Were okay.
As a 5 year-old
This to the Lord I'd pray.
Many days I wondered
Many weeks I dreamed
Many months I cried your name
And asked the question:
Am I to blame?
I never stopped praying;
Never stopped pleading.
When my time with you was over-
Again my heart would start bleeding.
When we spoke over the phone
There was no doubt about it
The message in your voice was blame,
But nevertheless I found strength in my shame.
Many days I wondered
Many weeks I dreamed
Many months I cried your name
And asked the question:
Am I to blame?
And little feet
No one stopped to consider
The future they were to meet.
Feet kept moving
And hands stretched out
Out there someone cared
But this has left only doubt.
Many days I wondered
Many weeks I dreamed
Many months I cried your name
And asked the question:
Am I to blame?
Memories of fights
Internal scars
I closed my door and
Sought the comfort of music bars.
Forced to look at a picture
Just to see your face
A smoking brain and a racing heart
Pondered on how you'd left without a trace.
Many days I wondered
Many weeks I dreamed
Many months I cried your name
And asked the question:
Am I to blame?
I pray to God
To make it stop.
I'd ask him to make
The pressure drop.
I prayed that you
Were okay.
As a 5 year-old
This to the Lord I'd pray.
Many days I wondered
Many weeks I dreamed
Many months I cried your name
And asked the question:
Am I to blame?
I never stopped praying;
Never stopped pleading.
When my time with you was over-
Again my heart would start bleeding.
When we spoke over the phone
There was no doubt about it
The message in your voice was blame,
But nevertheless I found strength in my shame.
Many days I wondered
Many weeks I dreamed
Many months I cried your name
And asked the question:
Am I to blame?
"You & I" by Anonymous
It's hard for me to see sometimes
Harder to understand
It's hard for me to live sometimes
Even harder to say "I can"
You come around - renew my strength
You show me the beauty in today
You touch my heart - make it beat again
You teach me to breathe again and it's all okay.
It's hard for me to be sometimes
Harder to fake that I'm alright
It's hard for me to care sometimes
Even harder for me to try
You come around - take my hand
You show me that I can walk that extra mile
You lead me to the right path again
You teach me how to smile
It's hard for me to speak sometimes
Harder to make a sound
It's hard for me to pick myself up sometimes
Even harder to find solid ground
You come around - hold me tight
You show me how love should be
You remind me who I am again
You teach me to sing that sweet melody.
Harder to understand
It's hard for me to live sometimes
Even harder to say "I can"
You come around - renew my strength
You show me the beauty in today
You touch my heart - make it beat again
You teach me to breathe again and it's all okay.
It's hard for me to be sometimes
Harder to fake that I'm alright
It's hard for me to care sometimes
Even harder for me to try
You come around - take my hand
You show me that I can walk that extra mile
You lead me to the right path again
You teach me how to smile
It's hard for me to speak sometimes
Harder to make a sound
It's hard for me to pick myself up sometimes
Even harder to find solid ground
You come around - hold me tight
You show me how love should be
You remind me who I am again
You teach me to sing that sweet melody.
"Has P Diddy run out steam?" by Ricky Klopper
Peter de Villiers has, since his controversiall appointment as Springbok coach, never been far away from the headlines. His often perplexing way of communicating his views onrugby and life in general, has always kept the media at his fingers. Diddy supplies the press with a constant flow of "Devillierisms" which cause uproar in the press, like his famous "garage owner comparison" or his views on Schalk Burger's eye gouging. The Springboks have relinquished their Tri Nations title already and the country has almost entirely forgotten last year's results. So, the question is, should Peter de Villiers go?
The answer, in my opinion, is no. Peter de Villiers was, and remains a good "coach". I am hesitant to call him a "coach" because, is that really what he, or any other international team's "coach" is? They are in essence, the player's managers as most of the so-called "coaching" is done by backline, forward, defensive and kicking coaches. The primary role of the head coach is to select, and then get the best out of, his players. The head coach is also concerned with the essential tactics and style of a team. When questioning de Villiers' position, one should assess him on his performance in these areas, which contrary to popular belief, has been admirable.
Taking over as coach of the world champions is not easy, especially when the media and public immediately label you as a "quota" selection because of your skin colour. Corne Krige, the former Springbok captain, predicted "seven lean years" after de Villiers's appointment as coach and many other rugby "experts" questioned his ability. Peter de Villiers was unfortunately on the back foot from the start. De Villiers's selection may have been questionable, but he came into the job with a greater pedigree than his predecessor, Jake White. De Villiers had led the Under 21 Springboks to world titles and the Emerging Springboks to the Nations Cup as well as coaching various teams at Currie Cup level. While Jake White joined with a short spell as coach of the SA under 21 team being his only experience as head coach of a first-class team.
De Villiers immediately sparked controversey when he announced that he would take the team to "new heights" by adding a new attacking dimension to their game. Experts insisted that De Villiers should stay with Jake White's formula of a defence-orientated game and these opinions seemed vindicated when the Springboks' Tri Nations hopes disappeared with two games remaining. The last game of the Tri Nations, a 53 - 8 thrashing of Australia, gave the country a glimpse of de Villiers's attacking game and subsequent victories in Europe showed his ability to adopt different styles for the team when necessary.
2009 saw a change in approach from the Springboks due to law changes that had been introduced half way through 2008, which made them rely more on kicking and positional play. this approach was highly successful, with the Springboks winning the Tri Nations and the Lions Series. the Springboks had a 100 % record against New Zealand for only the second time ever, a feat that Jake white never achieved. During this time, although some recognition was given to de Villiers, there were still murmurs that the Springboks were overly reliant on Jake White's players and that de Villiers had nothing to do with their success. John Smit, and other senior Springboks, denied this and attributed the team's success to the team's morale which de Villiers was instrumental in creating.
Peter de Villiers's greatest strength is his relationship with his players. His greatest weakness, in my opinion, is his relationship with those outside the team, particularly the press. De villiers's first language is Afrikaans, and it is often clear that he finds it difficult to accurately express himself to the English press. This often leads to misinterpretation and has helped create his image as a "clown". He is a very honest speaker and can surely, even by his greatest detractors, not be accused of not admitting his own mistakes.
No one can decide whether Peter de Villiers is "the right man for the job", but I feel that he has and still is being unfairly judged by South Africans and our other Southern Hemisphere counterparts, Australia and New Zealand.
Peter de Villiers will remain in the spotlight for as long as he remains Springbok coach and I doubt the controversies will ever stop. There is no denying the man's faults, but I feel his ability to get the best out of his players gives him an edge that few other coaches have.
Only the future will tell whether I am correct.
The answer, in my opinion, is no. Peter de Villiers was, and remains a good "coach". I am hesitant to call him a "coach" because, is that really what he, or any other international team's "coach" is? They are in essence, the player's managers as most of the so-called "coaching" is done by backline, forward, defensive and kicking coaches. The primary role of the head coach is to select, and then get the best out of, his players. The head coach is also concerned with the essential tactics and style of a team. When questioning de Villiers' position, one should assess him on his performance in these areas, which contrary to popular belief, has been admirable.
Taking over as coach of the world champions is not easy, especially when the media and public immediately label you as a "quota" selection because of your skin colour. Corne Krige, the former Springbok captain, predicted "seven lean years" after de Villiers's appointment as coach and many other rugby "experts" questioned his ability. Peter de Villiers was unfortunately on the back foot from the start. De Villiers's selection may have been questionable, but he came into the job with a greater pedigree than his predecessor, Jake White. De Villiers had led the Under 21 Springboks to world titles and the Emerging Springboks to the Nations Cup as well as coaching various teams at Currie Cup level. While Jake White joined with a short spell as coach of the SA under 21 team being his only experience as head coach of a first-class team.
De Villiers immediately sparked controversey when he announced that he would take the team to "new heights" by adding a new attacking dimension to their game. Experts insisted that De Villiers should stay with Jake White's formula of a defence-orientated game and these opinions seemed vindicated when the Springboks' Tri Nations hopes disappeared with two games remaining. The last game of the Tri Nations, a 53 - 8 thrashing of Australia, gave the country a glimpse of de Villiers's attacking game and subsequent victories in Europe showed his ability to adopt different styles for the team when necessary.
2009 saw a change in approach from the Springboks due to law changes that had been introduced half way through 2008, which made them rely more on kicking and positional play. this approach was highly successful, with the Springboks winning the Tri Nations and the Lions Series. the Springboks had a 100 % record against New Zealand for only the second time ever, a feat that Jake white never achieved. During this time, although some recognition was given to de Villiers, there were still murmurs that the Springboks were overly reliant on Jake White's players and that de Villiers had nothing to do with their success. John Smit, and other senior Springboks, denied this and attributed the team's success to the team's morale which de Villiers was instrumental in creating.
Peter de Villiers's greatest strength is his relationship with his players. His greatest weakness, in my opinion, is his relationship with those outside the team, particularly the press. De villiers's first language is Afrikaans, and it is often clear that he finds it difficult to accurately express himself to the English press. This often leads to misinterpretation and has helped create his image as a "clown". He is a very honest speaker and can surely, even by his greatest detractors, not be accused of not admitting his own mistakes.
No one can decide whether Peter de Villiers is "the right man for the job", but I feel that he has and still is being unfairly judged by South Africans and our other Southern Hemisphere counterparts, Australia and New Zealand.
Peter de Villiers will remain in the spotlight for as long as he remains Springbok coach and I doubt the controversies will ever stop. There is no denying the man's faults, but I feel his ability to get the best out of his players gives him an edge that few other coaches have.
Only the future will tell whether I am correct.
"A simple mistake" by Gabriella Llennity
"It was only a simple mistake," mother would say to me each time father cheated on her. I could see she resented my father, but it would be too much of an embarrassment for mother, since her only friends were of high society. The other reason she stayed with father was because of my sister, Angela, and I. She didn't want us to come from a broken home or to see that her marriage was a failure, even though we could hear them screaming and shouting at each other every night.
We never saw father much, and when we did he was always too busy to spend time with us. Mother always tried to teach us to stand our ground against people who caused trouble for us; she did not want her babies making the same mistakes she had already made. If father ever did something wrong it was always a 'simple mistake'. If we ever did anything wrong, we were disciplined, and were taught the right way. Not like father. We were not let off as easily as father was. My mother believed in us, which I could see in her. Everything she did was usually for Angela and I. Father worked for a big important company so whenever there were suppers or evening parties, we were summoned to silence unless spoken to.
Mother was very displeased with father's work, as every few years it meant that we would have to move to another town. Father's boss had big ideas for him, so it means we simply had to obey. I do not believe mother was ever happy in her marriage. She probably only faked it when father needed her to impress his boss or his own high society friends.
If Angela or I ever became scared we could turn to mother for absolutely anything. I loved that about her. I wonder who she turns to when something bad happens to her; since grandmother and grandfather have both already passed, she does not really have many people to turn to. I do not suppose her friends would ever really care either. They are all to worried about themselves to be concerned about mother. That is what husbands are supposed to be for, I suppose, but mother was deprived of that benefit in marriage. I suppose that is what builds a person; makes them stronger. I suppose that is why mother is the way she is.
It is rather unfortunate. Mother deserves better than father, though she keeps putting up with his "dealings". As the daughter of a well established and respected man, I suppose I should have respect for him but I do not. I wonder what Angela thinks of father. Although I do not suppose she knows how to diagnose the whole situation.
I wonder why father cheats on mother so much. I wonder if he even still loves her, and why he even remains in their marriage.
When we were younger, Angela and I would be sent off to our Aunt Grace, mother's sister. From the very beginning Aunt Grace had despised father. She simply could not stand him, she knew it would never work but mother was young and in love. Mother and father sent us to aunt Grace because they said that they needed some "alone time" which did not mean together to build their relationship, what it really meant was that mother was getting tired of life and needed to go the spa and father was probably home and could not deal with us so they would send us to aunt Grace. the only reason that mother was becoming tired of life was because father's dealings were like fire to mother, and she was helpless wood. These dealings would slowly eat away at her until she turned to ash and needed some rejuvenating. they worked from the outside in, melting her down piece by piece. Mother and father's fights are the smoke of the fire, the outcome of father's 'dealings'.
Father's number one priority was his job and then his possessions. One time, when I was younger, I took some papers off father's desk and started drawing. When father discovered me decorating his documents, I tried to make the same as him, I said, "But daddy, it was only a mistake."
Well, that definitely did not work in the same way as when father said it to mother. From that day on I never took anything from his office, or anything he owned for a matter of fact, ever, ever again. I can still remember his face when he found me, enraged, full of anger he grabbed me and said, "Do not ever touch my things again Abigail. Understood?"
I could not even look into his eyes; he scared me to death that day.
I wonder why mother even married him in the first place. And if father ever really loved mother. Perhaps they were in love at first, and it just slowly faded because of father's job. It must have, because they rarely ever even hold hands or hug one another, and father always speaks to mother in a very monotonous voice. Perhaps I was a mistake, a summer romance that went wrong, and they were forced to get married, and then to make it all look real they had Angela. I wonder perhaps if my father's parents' relationship was the same, and that's where father learned all this.
Perhaps mother did not know in the beginning about father's dealings. Perhaps it only started when father stopped showing any affection to mopther, or perhpas he never did show any affection at all to mother because his life ended when mother got pregnant. Perhaps their whole marriage and Angela and mother and I were all just another big mistake.
We never saw father much, and when we did he was always too busy to spend time with us. Mother always tried to teach us to stand our ground against people who caused trouble for us; she did not want her babies making the same mistakes she had already made. If father ever did something wrong it was always a 'simple mistake'. If we ever did anything wrong, we were disciplined, and were taught the right way. Not like father. We were not let off as easily as father was. My mother believed in us, which I could see in her. Everything she did was usually for Angela and I. Father worked for a big important company so whenever there were suppers or evening parties, we were summoned to silence unless spoken to.
Mother was very displeased with father's work, as every few years it meant that we would have to move to another town. Father's boss had big ideas for him, so it means we simply had to obey. I do not believe mother was ever happy in her marriage. She probably only faked it when father needed her to impress his boss or his own high society friends.
If Angela or I ever became scared we could turn to mother for absolutely anything. I loved that about her. I wonder who she turns to when something bad happens to her; since grandmother and grandfather have both already passed, she does not really have many people to turn to. I do not suppose her friends would ever really care either. They are all to worried about themselves to be concerned about mother. That is what husbands are supposed to be for, I suppose, but mother was deprived of that benefit in marriage. I suppose that is what builds a person; makes them stronger. I suppose that is why mother is the way she is.
It is rather unfortunate. Mother deserves better than father, though she keeps putting up with his "dealings". As the daughter of a well established and respected man, I suppose I should have respect for him but I do not. I wonder what Angela thinks of father. Although I do not suppose she knows how to diagnose the whole situation.
I wonder why father cheats on mother so much. I wonder if he even still loves her, and why he even remains in their marriage.
When we were younger, Angela and I would be sent off to our Aunt Grace, mother's sister. From the very beginning Aunt Grace had despised father. She simply could not stand him, she knew it would never work but mother was young and in love. Mother and father sent us to aunt Grace because they said that they needed some "alone time" which did not mean together to build their relationship, what it really meant was that mother was getting tired of life and needed to go the spa and father was probably home and could not deal with us so they would send us to aunt Grace. the only reason that mother was becoming tired of life was because father's dealings were like fire to mother, and she was helpless wood. These dealings would slowly eat away at her until she turned to ash and needed some rejuvenating. they worked from the outside in, melting her down piece by piece. Mother and father's fights are the smoke of the fire, the outcome of father's 'dealings'.
Father's number one priority was his job and then his possessions. One time, when I was younger, I took some papers off father's desk and started drawing. When father discovered me decorating his documents, I tried to make the same as him, I said, "But daddy, it was only a mistake."
Well, that definitely did not work in the same way as when father said it to mother. From that day on I never took anything from his office, or anything he owned for a matter of fact, ever, ever again. I can still remember his face when he found me, enraged, full of anger he grabbed me and said, "Do not ever touch my things again Abigail. Understood?"
I could not even look into his eyes; he scared me to death that day.
I wonder why mother even married him in the first place. And if father ever really loved mother. Perhaps they were in love at first, and it just slowly faded because of father's job. It must have, because they rarely ever even hold hands or hug one another, and father always speaks to mother in a very monotonous voice. Perhaps I was a mistake, a summer romance that went wrong, and they were forced to get married, and then to make it all look real they had Angela. I wonder perhaps if my father's parents' relationship was the same, and that's where father learned all this.
Perhaps mother did not know in the beginning about father's dealings. Perhaps it only started when father stopped showing any affection to mopther, or perhpas he never did show any affection at all to mother because his life ended when mother got pregnant. Perhaps their whole marriage and Angela and mother and I were all just another big mistake.
PIE, anyone?
Ƿē biddaþ þē, ēalā lārēoƿ ðæt þū tǣce ūs ſprecan riȝte!
/we: bɪdaθ ðe: ɛalɑ lɑrɛɔw ðat θʊ: tæ:tʃə us sprɛkan riχt/
"we ask you, teacher, that you teach us to speak correctly!"
*
Part 1 of 5 : the English Language Series
*
In this series we explore the origin of the English language. Although it will be relatively brief, the coverage will be wide: from the most ancient form, to the most current manifestation of the English language. "PIE, anyone?" serves both as an introduction to this series, but also as an overview of English's most ancient ancestor.
When most people are asked what the history of English is, their reply can be represented as follows:
Latin → Shakespearean "Old" English → Modern English.
Some may even say:
Hebrew → Latin → Shakespearean "Old" English → Modern English.
In my experience, after offering this answer the person feels proud of their historical outline. And all those who heard agree that their English History is correct. But it is not.
I am not a linguist, but I do know enough about Historical linguistics and English to confidently tell you that it is not.
Firstly, Shakespearean is Modern English. What we speak now is álso Modern English. Old English, or Anglo-Saxon, is much older. The introductory line: "wē biddaþ þē..." is Old English. Secondly, English is not a daughter language of Latin. Thirdly, Hebrew isn't even closely related to English or Latin. Hebrew and Latin's great-great grandparents were neighbours - but that's as close as they get.
***
To describe the history of English, we need to start at the very beginning: we start with Proto-Indo-European. Proto-Indo-European (or PIE) is the "mother" of all the languages of the Indo-European Language Family.Indo-European (IE) is the largest and most widespread of all the language families. It consists of about 150 languages and has over 3 billion speakers.
IE is split into ten sub-families. Within each sub-family I will list only the most well known languages.
1) ALBANIAN
2) ANATOLIAN
All these languages are extinct. They were spoken in the Middle East and records of these languages survive from about 1600 BCE. These languages are famous for the Cuneiform writing system.
-Hittite; Luwian
3) ARMENIAN
4) BALTO-SLAVIC
-Baltic: Old Prussian; Latvian; Lithuanian
-Slavic: Ukranian; Polish; Czech-Slovak; Croatian; Serbian...
5) INDO-IRANIAN
-Iranian: Persian/Farsi; Kurdish; Pashto (yes, this language is in The Kite Runner).
-Indo-Aryan: Although many languages in this group are spoken in India, not all the languages of India are IE. Most of them are part of an unrelated language family called the Dravidian Family.
-Sanskrit; Hindi; Urdu; Bengali; Punjabi
6) TOCHARIAN
Tocharian A; Tocharian B are the only languages in this group. They were spoken in the Xinjiang region of China. Both languages are now extinct... and they had very creative names :Þ
As we get closer to Modern English, the following languages will become more and more important. These are the groups that English interacted with greatly. Some of them left undeniable influences upon English:
7) CELTIC
The Celts were the original inhabitants of France and Britain. The Romans kicked them out of France and the Saxons kicked them off England. The surviving Celtic languages are endangered and spoken by few people in Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
-Welsh; Irish; Gaelic; Cornish; Breton
8) HELLENIC
-Greek and Grecian dialects.
9) ITALIC
The Italic languages are probably the most famous langauges in the world.
-Umbrian; Oscan (both dead)
-Latin: French; Spanish; Portuguese; Italian; Romanian; Sardinian.
10) GERMANIC
English technically belongs to this Family! I deliberately put 'Anglo-Saxon', not "English" under West-Germanic. This will become apparent as the series unfolds.
-East: Visigothic; Ostrogothic; Vandal (all dead)
-North: Icelandic; Danish; Swedish; Norwegian
-West: German; Dutch; Afrikaans; Frisian; Anglo-Saxon.
Here I add some reconstructed PIE words!
Notice the bolded similarities in the PIE root and the modern word. Phonological change can only obscure so much!
*-kʷe = [and] = Latin: -que \ Old Greek: -qe \ Sanskrit: ca
*(d)kmtóm = [100] = Latin: centum \ English: hundred \ Greek: hekatón
*(h)yêro = English: year \ Dutch: jaar \ Latin: hōrnus \ Slavonic: jara \ Avestan: yārə
*(s)ker- = [cut] = English: shear \ Lithuanian: skiriù \ Greek: keírô \ Norse: skort \ Hittite: kartai- Armenian: k'erem
HERE ENDS THE DISCUSSION OF PIE
next: the Germanic Family, and English's place therein.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)