The Springbok Tour protests of 1981 had a divisive effect on New Zealand society. The Springbok Tour protests represented the collision of traditional New Zealand rugby culture with a strengthening culture of concern for social and human rights issues. In essence, it pitted the values of the World War Two generation with those of the baby boomers born from the 1940s-60s. It allowed anti-tour protestors to glimpse a chance of influencing events in apartheid South Africa as well as immediately fighting a racist tour.
The tour, and the reactions to the tour, showed two New Zealands; a younger, liberal and vocal one, protesting for increased social change, and the other was slightly older, had more conservative values and wanted the country to remain the same. The latter could not understand the formers desire to cause havoc within the well-ordered New Zealand society.
Historian Jock Phillips explains the more conservative outlook by considering the values of men in that generation. They had grown up in depression and war, and believed strongly in the British culture, and rugby was central to this. They also believed strongly in the role of New Zealand men in armed conflict, and rugby’s emphasis on physical strength and teamwork made good war training. These were typical, conservative men who were part of ‘Rob’s Mob’ and staunchly pro-tour.
This split in New Zealand society meant that conservatives were forced to think about New Zealand in a different light. They were forced to see that there was more to life than rugby: the concept that ‘rugby is always right’ would not go unchallenged anymore. After the Springbok tour, New Zealand had a more liberal society. The Muldoon government was out in the 1984 election: Labour was in with a big majority. Big change began to appear in New Zealand legislation. There was anti-nuclear protest and homosexual law reform protests which helped to bring about societal change, and these were partly because of the division and protest New Zealanders experienced in the Springbok tour of 1981. People had realized that New Zealanders could make change in society for good, and the long-term success of the tour protests was that it raised a politically-conscious generation, and one that fought for what was beneficial for all, not just for some.
The tour, and the reactions to the tour, showed two New Zealands; a younger, liberal and vocal one, protesting for increased social change, and the other was slightly older, had more conservative values and wanted the country to remain the same. The latter could not understand the formers desire to cause havoc within the well-ordered New Zealand society.
Historian Jock Phillips explains the more conservative outlook by considering the values of men in that generation. They had grown up in depression and war, and believed strongly in the British culture, and rugby was central to this. They also believed strongly in the role of New Zealand men in armed conflict, and rugby’s emphasis on physical strength and teamwork made good war training. These were typical, conservative men who were part of ‘Rob’s Mob’ and staunchly pro-tour.
This split in New Zealand society meant that conservatives were forced to think about New Zealand in a different light. They were forced to see that there was more to life than rugby: the concept that ‘rugby is always right’ would not go unchallenged anymore. After the Springbok tour, New Zealand had a more liberal society. The Muldoon government was out in the 1984 election: Labour was in with a big majority. Big change began to appear in New Zealand legislation. There was anti-nuclear protest and homosexual law reform protests which helped to bring about societal change, and these were partly because of the division and protest New Zealanders experienced in the Springbok tour of 1981. People had realized that New Zealanders could make change in society for good, and the long-term success of the tour protests was that it raised a politically-conscious generation, and one that fought for what was beneficial for all, not just for some.