Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
22 February 2018 Photo Sonia Small
Histories of whites beyond whiteness the focus of inaugural lecture
Prof Hendri Kroukamp, Acting Vice-Rector, Academic, Prof Neil Roos, Professor in the Centre for Africa Studies, and Prof Heidi Hudson, Acting Dean: Faculty of The Humanities.

Growing up in a small milling village on the Natal South Coast sugar belt from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s, Prof Neil Roos was exposed to poverty, privilege, liberalism, and racism. He carved out a promising academic career at the University of Natal, initially on white communists and the anomaly they represented in South African society - researching their histories in the Springbok Legion, a radical wartime kind of ‘trade union’ for soldiers.

During his doctoral work with the University of the North-West, he shifted his attention from the small number of whites who defied segregation and apartheid, to the large numbers who did not, and he began to engage with historical and comparative approaches to race. He was also interested in the sense of comradeship shown by white war veterans in the village where he lived, which included his own father, and used this interest to investigate the kinds of networks white veterans developed, as well as their role in movements like the war veterans’ Torch Commando and the Memorable Order of Tin Hats (MOTH). He used this history to show how white people were able simultaneously to ’oppose’ apartheid, yet accept its core premise of racial supremacy.

Possibility, dismay, and challenge

During his inaugural lecture on 14 February 2018 at the University of the Free State (UFS), Prof Roos addressed issues that delivered new insights under his fresh and rigorous research approach. “I intended to plot how histories of whites in South Africa have been written during several big historiographic moves, with sub-titles ‘possibility’, ‘dismay’ and ‘challenge’.” In the first section, ‘possibility’, he dealt with the vibrant 1980s-vintage South African social history, arguing that social histories of whites were at looked in a rather simplistic way. In ‘dismay’ he looked at the rise of cultural studies of whites in the new millennium which, he argued, tend to be self-absorbed, ahistorical and outside of any rigorous critique of society as a whole. In ‘challenge’ he proposed that contemporary political concerns, notably demands of the decolonisation movement, should inspire a new, activist, anti-racist history of race which draws on some of the strengths of the earlier social history movement as well as some of the techniques developed during the 1990s and the millennium to understand power, ideology and representation.

A new approach

Prof Roos proposes that histories of whites must more properly be histories of race. “This history must show the production of racial categories, reflect on the moral historiographies of being white, and the kinds of dehumanisation this demanded. It must also identify how and where whites transgressed, defied, opposed, or were simply docile. It must be emphatically anti-racist, and must absolutely avoid the possibility of apologia, of trying to gloss over or present with a human face histories of whites under colonialism, segregation and apartheid.” He also argued for an historical approach to present-day iterations of racial identity occurrences of racism, racial supremacy and racial violence.

“I intended to plot how histories of whites
in South Africa have been written during
several big historiographic moves.”

In arguing for the democratisation of studies about whites, Prof Roos argued that it is inconceivable that only whites write about histories of whites. He pointed out that black scholars bring fresh insights to the study of race, and of whites, and appealed for funding to be made available to black scholars pursuing these angles.  

Prof Roos, who is the author of Ordinary Springboks: White Servicemen and Social Justice in South Africa, 1939-1961, has held fellowships at the University of Chicago, the University of Technology Sydney, Harvard and Notre Dame. He is a professor in the International Studies Group and co-directs the Prestige Scholars’ Programme. He is the author of Whites in Apartheid Society, due for publication by Indiana University Press in 2018.

 

News Archive

UFS study shows playing time in Super Rugby matches decreasing
2016-12-19

Description: Super Rugby playing time Tags: Super Rugby playing time 

The study by Riaan Schoeman, (left), Prof Robert Schall,
and Prof Derik Coetzee from the University of the Free State
on variables in Super Rugby can provide coaches with
insight on how to approach the game.
Photo: Anja Aucamp

It is better for Super Rugby teams not to have the ball, which also leads to reduced overall playing time in matches.

This observation is from a study by the University of the Free State on the difference between winning and losing teams. Statistics between 2011 and 2015 show that Super Rugby winning teams kick more and their defence is better.

These statistics were applied by Riaan Schoeman, lecturer in Exercise and Sport Sciences, Prof Derik Coetzee, Head of Department: Exercise and Sport Sciences, and Prof Robert Schall, Department of Mathematics and Actuarial Sciences. The purpose of the study, Changes in match variables for winning and losing teams in Super Rugby from 2011 to 2015, was to observe changes. Data on 30 games (four from each team) per season, supplied by the Cheetahs via Verusco TryMaker Pro, were used.

About two minutes less action
“We found that the playing time has decreased. This is the time the ball is in play during 80 minutes,” says Schoeman. In 2011, the average playing time was 34.12 minutes and in 2015 it was 31.95.

“The winning team has less possession of the ball and doesn’t want it. They play more conservatively. They dominate with kicks and then they play,” says Prof Coetzee, who was the conditioning coach for the Springboks in 2007 when they won the World Cup.

Lineouts also more about kicking
As a result, the number of line-outs also increased (from 0.31 per minute in 2011 to 0.34 in 2015) and the winning teams are better in this regard.

“The winning team has less possession of the ball
and doesn’t want it. They play a more conservative
game. They dominate with kicks and then they play.”

Schoeman believes that rule changes could also have contributed to reduced playing time, since something like scrum work nowadays causes more problems. “When a scrum falls, the time thereafter is not playing time.”

According to Prof Coetzee, rucks and mauls have also increased, (rucks from 2.08 per minute in 2011 to 2.16 in 2015 and mauls from 0.07 per minute in 2011 to 0.10 in 2015). “The teams that win, dominate these areas,” he says.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept