4 the springbok tour in 1981 wuld u b anti tour or pro tour???and why (this is 4 ma school)?

Question

4 the springbok tour in 1981 wuld u b anti tour or pro tour???and why (this is 4 ma school)?

Answer 1

it was norman kirk and the labour party that broke the promise not robert muldoon, he was from national and for the tour because somehow (anti apartheid myself) more new zealanders at the time of the election wanted the tour and so he got voted more then the labour party who didnt werent going to allow the tour and so therefore the tou went on. stupid decision nz nearly got kicked out of the common wealth because the other others thought this meant nz supported apratheid, specially after world war 2 and the holocast and crazy hitler killing jews, everyone would still be nervous about racial discrimination.

Answer 2

aprtheid aint kul cos itz sukz fo dah blaks ae. hw wud u fel if u wr nt alwd 2 play lyk sport ae juzz cus u blak. u feelin me ? it wud p**s u off yo nd mak u du bad fingz nd dis is al cuz u wer treatd badly nd yud fel za need to b mean 2 evrywun plus hw wud u lyk it if yur princaple cme between yur sprt game nd wuz lyk "yo, yu blak cuz , u cnt play sprt no mre cuz" ud wna kill tht btch ae. it aint fair dawg. nd i tink it shudnt hav happnd . sport nd plitics nt frinds yo. lyk da bloodz nd crip. yeahh boy. aiiit. layts homees catch u ubb. x0x0.

Answer 3

oh ma skul duin ths 2. im anti apartheid bro. no good. if this hapnd i wud be sad (deis)

nd stff cz lyk rugbii isnt tht kewwwwl y0u no ?

nd lyk blakz ar lyk. awsuhmm. mah homies aye.

layt.

Answer 4

I'm doing this at school as well.

I would be pro-tour.
It would be a bad idea to close the bridge between SA and NZ. The future participation of Nz's athletes in other countries would be in danger.

The Government handed the decision over to the Rugby Union. In my opinion they did not break the agreement (too much) because they discouraged the tour to the Union. The Rugby Union actually has a right to invite other countries into New Zealand for sporting reasons.

How can you protest for freedom for the black South Africans, when you want to deny freedom to people here in NZ?

The rugby supporters just wanted to see a game of rugby. Thats all. Just because they went to the games and wanted to see a game of rugby does not mean they condone apartheid.


What about the Maori's? HART wanted to fix South Africa's problem but took hardly any action on the Maori's oppression here in New Zealand.

The Gleneagles agreement shouldn't of been signed in the first place, however it was done and there is nothing we can do about that.
Robert Muldoon promised in his election campaign that his government would not interfere in sport.
Although he broke this promise, he tried to continue to keep it and therefore I applaud him.

Answer 5

I'm doing this at school as well.

I would be pro-tour.
It would be a bad idea to close the bridge between SA and NZ. The future participation of Nz's athletes in other countries would be in danger.

The Government handed the decision over to the Rugby Union. In my opinion they did not break the agreement (too much) because they discouraged the tour to the Union. The Rugby Union actually has a right to invite other countries into New Zealand for sporting reasons.

How can you protest for freedom for the black South Africans, when you want to deny freedom to people here in NZ?

The rugby supporters just wanted to see a game of rugby. Thats all. Just because they went to the games and wanted to see a game of rugby does not mean they condone apartheid.


What about the Maori's? HART wanted to fix South Africa's problem but took hardly any action on the Maori's oppression here in New Zealand.

The Gleneagles agreement shouldn't of been signed in the first place, however it was done and there is nothing we can do about that.
Robert Muldoon promised in his election campaign that his government would not interfere in sport.
Although he broke this promise, he tried to continue to keep it and therefore I applaud him.

Answer 6

Whether you want it to or not sports and politics are intertwined. And South Africa had been mixing the two long before 1981. In 1960 they asked the All Blacks to only have white players included in the team and NZ complied. And after that they called the non-white players "honourary whites". So for those who say it was just sports and who are disrespecting the activists who took a stand against apartheid,you are clearly uneducated on the subject and should not share your idiotic opinion.

Answer 7

definitely anti-tour. im pretty ashamed at what nz chose at that time tbh. they should have taken a stand for the hugely disadvantaged blacks in SA. nz has some kind of intense fascination with rugby, and nothing could get in the way of it, even if that meant sacrificing
the reputation of nz and the lives for black south africans. everyone has a choice to stand up for people that can't stand up for themselves, and nz was like, stuff them i wanna watch rugby. i know there were a lot of protestors, but the fact that the tour went ahead at all showed the opinion of the majority of new zealand and for that i am ashamed of nz in 1981.