The 1960s: The Chaotic Decade For World Politics

The 1960s was a chaotic decade for world politics. Major political assassinations, desegregation, and the Vietnam War are all events that encouraged culture to go outside of what is generally agreed upon to be normal. Young people would gather around, do all sorts of socially inept things, and talk about their politics. (Hill, 2019) This is one of the reasons the Hippie movement came into being. The baby boomer generation was rebelling against the status quo and the old morality of their parents. Over time, censorship became less common because societal taboos changed, so bands such as The Beatles were able to exercise more creative freedom over their art.

When The Beatles came to America they wedged themselves into some deep cultural change. They encouraged rebellion against almost anyone in power and helped to inspire America’s newfound fascination with drugs. These were two things the younger generation in America really enjoyed. Whatever the Beatles said was something the people wanted to hear. The Beatles always seemed to preach a message that resonated with young Americans. This only boosted the already popular hippie movement. (Tomasky, 2014)

Ending racial segregation was a massive rejection of the old ways in America. The desire to separate people based on race was something that was no longer desirable. Many saw how horribly this affected black Americans. After some anti-segregationist protesters were repressed by police in Alabama, somebody had to do something. So, President John F. Kennedy decided to quickly propose a new anti-discrimination bill in 1961. The bill wouldn’t pass until 1964, but segregation became illegal nationwide through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act stated that no one would be segregated based on race, religion, or national origin. (Hasday, 2007)

The leader of the free world being shot and killed shook the American people to their very core. Many young people had a distrust of the government. The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a big part of how young people saw the government. There were hundreds of theories on why John F. Kennedy was shot and killed. “I think we came to look upon the presidency in an entirely different way. Up until that point, we thought our president was somehow this superhuman individual. … We were reminded of the vulnerability not only of our president but for everyone. We were reminded of the preciousness of life.” said Bob Schieffer. Schieffer also theorizes that it changed the way we looked at media, and how the news can be disorderly and confusing depending on the situation. Schieffer also believes that the John F. Kennedy assassination actually changed how the American people consumed news media. “Most people in America depended on the printed word for their news. From that weekend on, with the country — for the first time in its history — all focused on one news story at the same time … television would be the place most people would get their news.”

Many young people had a distrust of the government. The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a big part of how young people saw the government. There were hundreds of theories on why John F. Kennedy was shot and killed. Part of this distrust influenced a protest against American involvement in the Vietnam war. People felt like they were tampering with something they shouldn’t be tampering with. The politics of Vietnam was not of any concern to the average American citizen at that time. Young people disagreed with the idea that they had to fight a war and potentially lose their lives for a cause on the other side of the world that was so irrelevant to their daily lives. To the young people, communism wasn’t an issue that was large enough for them to want to fight against it. The protests initially began on college campuses as the war particularly affected young college-aged men who were being drafted, but as casualties and the expenses of the war began to skyrocket, so did support for pulling out of the war. Protests in public places became commonplace. Many of the larger demonstrations were in front of memorials or important landmarks such as the Lincoln Memorial and the Pentagon. The American people’s hatred for the war was so intense that in 1969 men started to move to Canada to avoid the draft. Eventually, the American government finally decided to cater to their people and ended the Vietnam war shortly afterward in 1970. This was a massive victory for the American people. (HISTORY, 2010)

The result of the Cuban Missile Crisis was to create fear in the American populace and it cemented the idea that nuclear weapons are a threat to human existence. The concept that humans can completely wipe themselves out of existence struck terror into the hearts of many. America’s national security was threatened by Cuba in 1962 when the Cuban government pointed their nuclear weapons straight at the United States so close to our shores. Additionally, the Soviets were showing off their new and improved nuclear weapons on their northern islands close to America’s North American Treaty Organization (NATO) allies. There needed to be some kind of reasonable compromise, the threat of nuclear warfare and the testing of nuclear weapons wasn’t safe for the natural environment or the political environment. Because of this, multiple nations negotiated to limit the testing of nuclear weapons. To ensure the protection of the global population, a new treaty would be formed. This new treaty would be called the Partial Test Ban Treaty. This was a treaty in which many nations agreed to restrict the testing of nuclear weapons in our atmosphere. (HISTORY, 2009)

The events of the 1960s changed the world’s public opinion forever. Some hated war, some loved drugs, and some loved each other. That generation chose to fight against those who were in charge. A generation that had a utopian vision for how they would shape America. 1960’s revolutionary Abbie Hoffman said, “This is a revolution in human history; a personal and cultural revolution arguably more profound and far-reaching than most political ones. And in the scheme of things, it’s quite new. That your average person even had a “self” to express was hardly recognized for centuries. For most of history, most people just worked, feared God’s wrath, raised their children, and died.” (Tomasky, 2014) For better or for worse, societal change is inevitable as long as you give people the freedom to change who and what they can be.

Development Of Religion Freedom In The 1960s

Religion has played a big part in shaping the United States. It is important in many ways, bringing tradition, diversity, and sometimes peace. The 1960s was an important decade when it comes to religion. Without many events that occurred in those years, our nation would be missing much of the diversity we have today. The 1960s was the decade of religious change, when the past dominant population, Protestants, began shrinking due to other beliefs.

Religion grew diverse during the 1960s, but before, the United States looked fairly different. Before the 1960s, most people held the same belief: Christianity. The seven types of Protestants dominated, with a few Catholics and Jews (Funes “Religion in the 1960s” 2012). Nobody had to think much about different religious practices because there was almost no diversity (Liu & Liu “A Brief History of Religion and the U.S. Census” 2013). Most leaders were heads of churches because religion was valued so much. Also, conservatives were more common. Because practically everyone followed the same culture, there was no need to separate religion from politics or education (Beinart “America’s Empty-Church Problem” 2017). Before the 1960s, there was not much diversity, and that would soon change.

During the beginning of the 1960s, religion started changing. About 741 people in one thousand were religious in the year 1961, and most of those religious people practiced some form of Christianity. Before 1962, 42 percent of schools required or tolerated Bible reading, and 50 percent performed a devotional exercise (“Site Deactivated”). After 1962, the year a significant amount of new religion entered, the Supreme Court repeatedly ruled it unconstitutional for public school officials to plan prayers (Gallup, Inc “Americans More Religious Now Than Ten Years Ago, but Less So Than in the 1950s and 1960s” 2001). In that same year, all official school prayers and recitations were determined unconstitutional, even if they were optional (A.U.C. “The United States of America”). Another significant event was a theologically liberal religious movement called Unitarian Universalism. It was the result of Unitarian and Universalist churches uniting as they tried to stay popular. As more religions entered, more people started to discriminate against certain religions. Even after discrimination against certain races or sexes began fading, discrimination against certain religions continued to take place. Some people were unhappy with some changes. For example, many believed public school prayers were fine if they were optional and were unhappy with the Supreme Court ruling it unconstitutional. New religions began entering during the beginning of the decade, and they are still expanding today.

During the middle of the 1960s, religious freedom started growing (“History of the United States (1964–1980)” 2019). When immigration restrictions were removed in the year 1965, more religions entered, increasing the popularity of Eastern religions. Many small religious cults also began forming after 1965. By 1966, the religious population grew to 724 out of one thousand. Not many people felt extreme hate or support for any events that occurred in the middle of the 60s. Only a few preferred keeping the immigration restrictions. Though the middle of the 1960s had few major events, the removal of immigration restrictions and the formation of cults brought extra diversity to the United States.

The beginning of the 1960s was when people with new religions came, and the middle of the 1960s was when the diversity of the new religions began growing, but late into the 1960s was the change in people with traditional beliefs. Most priests resigned in the year of 1968, and religions began conflicting with women and gay activism that began. Young people were drawn to evangelical Christianity, and megachurches exploded, neither of which were considered traditional before the late 60s. For a bit of time, because women and gay activism conflicted with some religions, activists and religious people began disliking each other. Even though not much new religion came to the country in the late 1960s, they were important years of change in traditional religious beliefs.

The journey Protestants took was one of starting big and losing popularity. Protestants began as the dominant population but shrank as the decade passed. Some liberal Protestants worked with Roman Catholics for peace and rights because Protestants were not at as much peace as they were before new religions challenged them. A few Protestants felt persecuted, but most people in the United States either did not have an opinion on Protestants becoming less popular or were happy because there was more diversity (Jenkins “The Religious World Changed in 1968, but Not in the Ways We Think” 2018). Through the decade, Protestants went from the dominant population to just a religion.

Unlike the Protestant population, Catholicism, a more oppressed part of Christianity, found its way to popularity. Before the 1960s, there were some Catholics in the United States, but Protestants clearly outnumbered Catholics. One of the major events that helped Catholics become accepted was John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, becoming president. Because he became president, Catholicism grew more popular through the years and received more respect. John F. Kennedy helped Catholics keep up with the growing numbers of Pentecostals, Baptists, and Mormons. Catholicism also became popular when Roman Catholics worked with the liberal Protestants for peace and rights. However, though Catholics became more accepted, people opposed Catholicism when John F. Kennedy first became president because they were angry a Catholic was president. Despite this, hate towards Catholicism quickly diminished. Christianity remains the most popular belief today (Buller A faith like mine: a celebration of the world’s religions– seen through the eyes of children 2005). Catholicism contributed to that. Even though many first disliked the growth of Catholicism, they came to tolerate it. As the years of the 1960s passed, Catholicism grew from a small, oppressed belief to a more common one.

The path Eastern religions took after arriving in the United States brought many beliefs to the country (Organization “How The ’60s Transformed The Catholic Church Forever” 2011). There were practically no people who practiced Eastern religions until 1960. With time, Hinduism, Daoism, and Zen Buddhism became popular through the 60s (“History of the United States (1945–1964)” 2019). Fortunately for people who practiced Eastern religions, not many people disapproved of the more peaceful ones; only a few disliked the new diversity and wished the United States could remain mostly Christian. Even though not many events regarding Eastern religions occurred, if Eastern religions had never moved west, our nation would not be as diverse.

The 1960s was decades ago, but religious events in the past had impacts on today. The baby boom helped spread religion to make it as common as it is (“History of religion in the United States” 2019). Also, some baby boomers dropped out of the church, leading to more variety (“History of Religion in America”). Adding onto that, many events helped religious tolerance and freedom grow, leading to religion being separated from school, politics, and more (“Spirituality and Religion”). Also, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, or the SCLC, made by Martin Luther King Jr., helped fight segregation (Melton ““New Age movement” 2016). Plus, other qualities have more value today because the value of religion decreased so much back then (Sides “How Democrats became secular and Republicans became religious. (It’s not what you think.)” 2015). If no events happened, religion would be less common and have less variety. There would also probably be less religious tolerance and freedom as well. Martin Luther King Jr. might have never made the SCLC, leading to more segregation, and other valued qualities would mean less. Even though the 1960s was a long time ago, events that occurred back then still affect us to today.

Different religions grew in popularity through the 1960s, the decade of religious change, resulting in fewer Protestants. Many events took place regarding religion. It was the decade when diversity came, grew, and modified traditions to change the popularity of religions. It was when religious events took place to shape our country into what it is today. The 1960s was when many of the most important religious events happened, and without even a few of them, our position in religion would be much different from today.

The 1960s Changed The Future For Women Today

The role of women in Canadian society changed dramatically throughout the 1960s. At the beginning of the decade, women were displayed as weak, fragile, emotional homemakers. Women who did not strive to marry were made out to be unattractive and sinful, while those who stood up for themselves, and feminism in general, were dismissed as naggers. Women were to make their best attempts at the beauty, poise, marriage, children, and a well-managed home. The aim of this essay is to bring attention to the great things women accomplished despite evident oppression, and how the ladies of the 60s have changed the future for females today.

When you hear someone talking about the “Women’s Movement,”, first you will most likely think about women gaining the right to vote, and while that was a very significant historical accomplishment, it actually happened in 1917. Therefore, other leaps taken during the 1960s in regards to equal treatment of women included things like when the Food and Drug Administration approved birth control pills for regular use (1960), or when John F. Kennedy appointed Eleanor Roosevelt as chairwoman of the President’s Commission on the Status of Women (1961). The Women’s Movement of the 60s was a nation-altering part of history because along with other minority groups, women were finally standing up for equality. Done with being complacent, they changed the lives of women today.

In the 1960s, cultural changes were greatly altering the role of women in North American society. Women were active in the workforce during World War II, due to the fact that many men were away acting as soldiers serving their country. Without their husbands around, women had to get jobs to support their families. This is when women were entering the workforce, and actually receiving payment.

Traditions like; the men going off to work while the woman stays in the home and takes care of the children, wives expected to prepare three meals for the family daily, pour drinks for their husbands after their day of work, keep the household tidy, and always listen to the men talk about their day – all amounted to an undeniably demeaning way of life. When women started entering the workforce, it was almost as if they were made to believe that the new opportunity to work was a “privilege” and that they should be grateful to be receiving any pay at all.

Along with arguably equalizing the role of men and women through allowing them to work, also brought upon attention to the new sparked issue; dissatisfaction of women in regards to obvious gender differences in pay and promotions. In the 1960s a huge gender-pay gap was obvious between men and women.

In the 60s, women earned 61 cents for every $1 a man-made. Today, they earn 78 cents for every dollar a man makes. Surprisingly, this is the biggest pay jump since the recession (the biggest economic downfall since the Great Depression). This is still very far from equal pay. The pay gap was caused by factors like blatant discrimination, traditions and stereotypes, and household labor. At this time women were seen as less than men, the undervalued, weaker, incompetent sex. That in itself is discrimination.

Some argue that the reason there is still such a prevalent pay gap today is that many women work in different industries than men do. For example, growing up, how often did you see men working as teachers? It wasn’t until these last few years that we’ve seen an almost balanced ratio of women to men teachers. Still to this day, society considers jobs to be gendered, as well as differently valued. With the way our world works, women often shy away from going into career fields like scientists, engineering, police work, business, etc. It is no secret that these occupations are heavily dominated by men, which is an intimidating and discouraging truth for women. Though these statistics have leveled slightly throughout the years, both gender roles and discrimination are still highly apparent in our society.

The pay gap wasn’t the only setback women faced at this time. In the 1960s, a bank could deny an unmarried women’s request for a credit card, and even if she was married, her husband was required to cosign for it. It wasn’t until 1974, that the Equal Credit Opportunity Act made so that it was illegal to deny a woman a credit card based on gender.

Laws vary depending on where you lived, in many places women were not permitted to serve on a jury. The reasoning said to be behind it was because their primary responsibility was to act as “caretakers”, and therefore it would be unjust to pull them away from their home responsibilities. Women were also said to be too fragile and sympathetic to be able to stand their ground against the objecting side.

Women were hardly permitted the right to decide the fate of their own bodies. In 1960, birth control pills were approved as a legal method of contraception. Even then, still highly frowned upon. They were said to be “immoral” and to promote prostitution. Society in the 60s even went as far as to say that contraceptive pills were basically equivalent to abortion. That of which was also not legalized in Canada until 1969. By the end of the 60s, more than 80 percent of wives were using contraceptive pills. This step to the future provided so many women with more freedom and control of their lives.

It wasn’t until 1969 at the earliest, that Ivy-League educational institutions started accepting women into their schools. Highly respected places like Yale and Princeton didn’t accept women into their programs until 1969, Harvard only following suit in 1977. And even then, most admissions were on a case-by-case basis, generally only accepting their applications if the school felt that women, in particular, would be beneficial to them.

As the role of women in Canadian society evolved, television still widely featured stereotyped female characters, but movies began to show women acting in “non-traditional” roles. For example, though she wasn’t introduced until 1981, Superwoman was a huge step in the right direction of feminism. Though she was still partially sexualized within society, introducing a female superhero was a big deal.

Following the topic of changes in women’s rights reflecting on the social and cultural aspects of Canada – while the “roaring twenties” occurred 40 years prior, the 60s were clearly still an age of rebellion, except less by youth and more by women as a whole. This seemed to reflect in younger women’s fashions. Among this decade, popular clothing segwayed from neat, prim, and proper outfits to more casual tie-dyed shirts and jeans.

The feminist revolution of the 60s changed women’s experience of life forever. While we are still working towards full equality, it is now normal to see female politicians, doctors, business leaders, etc. In Canada’s society today, it seems crazy to even imagine a woman being automatically dismissed as less intelligent than a man, simply based on her gender. Not all that long ago, women were not even allowed to attend school, let alone speak up and write an essay about women’s rights and hardships in a way like this. It is remarkable to see how women’s role in society has changed throughout the last century.

We now recognize that it is incredibly important that women are given a choice about how they want to live, behave, and spend their time. Women throughout history have not always had that choice. We should be forever grateful to those who came before us and changed society forever.

Marriages Today Differ From Marriages Form The 60’s: Gay Marriage

  • General Purpose: To inform
  • Specific Purpose: To inform my audience that marriages today differ from marriages from the 60’s.
  • Central Idea: Marriages of today’s time are a lot different from the way they were in the 60’s.

Introduction

I. Attention Material

A. When you think of the 60’s, your most likely things about afros, barbie dolls, bell-bottoms, and go-go boots, etc., but what you don’t think about typically is marriage.

B. As time has progressed a lot has changed since the year of the 60’s and one of those things is marriage. More and more people are getting divorced, gay marriage is very much legal now, and the roles of gender have been changed.

  1. About 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States are divorced now.
  2. In the U.S. 10/2% of LGBT adults are now married to the same-sex spouse.

II. Orienting Material

A. I know that everyone in the world hopes to be happily married to the love of their life someday, and I want to inform all of you on how things have drastically changed for both good and bad, and maybe that will help people have a successful marriage.

B. In the speech I present to day I will discuss how divorce rates have increased since the 60’s, and how gay marriage is very much legal in all of the fifty states, and how the gender roles throughout marriages have changed.

(Transition: Now we will discuss the difference between divorce rates now and divorce rates in the 60’s.)

Body

I. The rate of divorce has defiantly increased since the 1960’s.

A. The divorce rate in the 1960’s was at 25%, compared to the rate it is today which is 50%. In the 60s, of course if a person were to get divorced, they were looked at differently and most likely always frowned upon for it, but today no one really cares about it because it happens so often.

B. One reason why the divorce rate is increasing is because divorce is so much easier to go through with, so most people don’t really think marriage is something that is meant to last a lifetime.

II. A really big thing that has changed since the year of the 60’s is the right for gay marriage.

A. In the 60’s being gay was not up for discussion. The first gay rights demonstration was held in America and was on September 19, 1964.

B. As the years went by, gay marriage became something that became more and more common and also became legal in all 50 states.

III. Last but not least, gender roles have completely changed in today’s time compared to the 60’s.

A. In the 60’s, the men went to work to provide for his wife and kids (if they had any), and women stayed home and cooked and cleaned and took care of the children (if they had any).

B. Today’s society consists in no specific gender roles. There are a variety of stay at home dads, and moms who do all the manual labor and go to work. There are times where there are two dads in a household and two moms in a household. The gender roles are no longer used religiously, and things are more looked upon in a lenient manner.

(Transition: Now that you know how things differ in marriage from the 60’s to today’s time, let’s review.)

Conclusion

I. Review:

I explained how marriage in the 1960’s is completely different to the way marriage is looked upon now days.

II. Clincher:

In conclusion, there have been so many changes from the 60’s to today’s time. Some are very good, and some changes aren’t so good. I know there are still people out there that look at marriage the proper way, like the way it was looked upon in the 1960s. The traditional white, elegant wedding that every little girl dreams of having.

Visual Aids

References

  1. Chappell, B (2015, June 26). Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal In All 50 States. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages
  2. National Affairs, Number 39/ Spring 2019/ Bradford Wilcox https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce

Positive Effects of the Cold War

Cold War Advancement

War is not necessarily bad, it also has its good sides. There is such a war in history. It has no flames and no soldiers died. That is the Cold War, a game between the two great powers of the United States and the Soviet Union. The two great powers have raised human technology to unprecedented heights in the competition.

The beginning of competition

A discovery by nuclear physicists in a laboratory in Berlin, Germany, in 1938 made the first atomic bomb possible, after Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner and Fritz Strassman discovered nuclear fission(History, 2009).The United States dominated the Manhattan project because of concerns that Hitler began to develop nuclear weapons. Top physicists from all over the world began to join the Manhattan project and began to develop nuclear weapons.July 16, 1945,The United States’ first atomic bomb was successfully tested in the desert of New Mexico, known as the Trinity nuclear test, It makes us ushered in the Atomic Age (New internationalist).

Scientists at Los Alamos had developed two distinct types of atomic bombs by 1945—a uranium-based design called “the Little Boy” and a plutonium-based weapon called “the Fat Man.”Although Nazi Germany has been defeated, the war between Japan and the United States in the Pacific still continues. In late July, President Harry Truman called for Japan’s surrender with the potsdam declaration The declaration promised “prompt and utter destruction” if Japan did not surrender.However, Japan did not choose to surrender.On August 6, 1945, the United States used a bomber to cast the first atomic bomb in Hiroshima, Japan, the ‘little boy.’ When Japan did not immediately surrender, the United States again used a bomber to cast a second atomic bomb in Nagasaki,the ‘Fat man’ (New et al.,).

Two nuclear bombs killed 120,000 people in Japan, and many later died of nuclear radiation.The devastating power of nuclear bombs caused Japan to surrender on August 15 (John, S, 2009), World War II ends (Michelle, H, 2013).

An increasingly extreme arms race

The speed at which the Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons shocked American scientists.In response, the United States began to develop a weapon that is thousands of times more powerful than a nuclear bomb. This weapon is hydrogen bomb.The US tested its first fusion bomb (code-named ‘Mike’) in 1952. More than 450 times the power of the Nagasaki bomb, it obliterated Elugelab atoll in the Marshall Islands.Not to be outdone (John, F, 2008), After one year, the Soviet Union also tested a more powerful nuclear bomb.

As the arms race intensified, in the 1960s, nuclear bombs no longer needed bombers to transport.By the 1960s both had developed intercontinental ballistic missiles which could be launched far away from their target, and submarine-launched missiles which could sneak up without any radar warning. At this time, the arms race is almost reaching an uncontrollable level, and the United States and the Soviet Union are completely capable of destroying any country (New et al.,).

Cuban Missile Crisis

In 1962, a Cuban missile crisis that shocked the world occurred in the Caribbean. It was caused by the deployment of medium-range ballistic missiles, Raytheon missiles and Jupiter missiles by the United States in Italy and Turkey in 1959. The Soviet Union deployed missiles in Cuba in order to regain a city.On October 14, two American fighters discovered the fact that the Soviet Union deployed missiles in Cuba and took a lot of photos (John, F, 2008).

The United States recognized this huge threat and began a complete blockade against Cuba. The US President ordered that US bombers carrying nuclear warheads enter the sky around Cuba,The Soviet Union also accelerated the speed of transporting missiles and Soviet bombers to Cuba.

In the next few days, the situation was extremely tense, and the United States and the Soviet Union were beside the nuclear button, and the whole world was at stake (New et al.,).On October 26, the Soviet Union began to seek compromise. Khrushchev wrote a letter to Kennedy and wrote a second letter on the 27th. In order to reject the contents of the second letter, Kennedy chose to reply only to the first letter(Jim, H, 1995).

Khrushchev understood the meaning of Kennedy. From November 11, 1962, the Soviet Union began to withdraw weapons from Cuba, and the United States also lifted the blockade against Cuba (New et al.,),the Caribbean has calmed down.

End of the nuclear weapons competition

With the continuous increase in the number of nuclear weapons, thousands of protesters took to the streets to oppose the existence of nuclear weapons (New et al.,).In 1985, after Gorbachev came to power, the Soviet economy was in a state of stagnation. He knew that the Soviet Union could no longer afford an arms race with the West. He began to cut military spending and disarm the Russian nuclear arsenal. And reached many agreements with President Reagan (New et al.,).

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, the nuclear threat officially subsided.

Impact on modern times

Nuclear weapons in the cold war are the embryonic form of modern nuclear weapons. In modern times, nuclear weapons have stabilized relations between big powers, because the consequences of nuclear weapons are unbearable to any country, so nuclear weapons on the other hand maintain order and peace in today’s world.

The development of nuclear weapons in the Cold War has given people a basic grasp of nuclear energy, which is inseparable from the exploration and discovery of early scientists. Nuclear energy is a sustainable energy source. It is not only an efficient and economical energy source, but also a clean and safe energy source.Power generation is widely used in modern nuclear power, which will provide solutions for future alternative energy sources.In addition, nuclear radiation is also widely used in the medical field, including radiotherapy in the medical field, disinfection, perspective (X-ray, CT), gamma knife(World Nuclear Association, 2017).

The arms race in the cold war has greatly promoted the development of modern science and technology. Without the cold war, human technology will not reach the current level.

Another dramatic arena

Space is another stage in the Cold War arms race.When the Soviet Union launched the world’s first satellite Sputnik 1 in October 1957 (Dominic, S, & Piers, B, 2019), the Cold War entered space,This marked the official start of the space race between the United States and the Soviet Union.Americans are surprised, but more panic.

In response, the U.S. Congress passed the National Defense Education Act, redesigned the school’s curriculum, vigorously cultivated aerospace technology talents, and authorized an additional $ 1 billion in expenditure to promote US science and technology. The space race has increased the United States ’investment in education.

In 1958, the United States launched its own satellite Explorer I, And the establishment of NASA under the order of President Eisenhower (History, 2019). NASA became the driving force behind the U.S. space program.

The Cold War sent humans to the moon

In 1959, the Soviet space program took another step forward with the launch of Luna 2, the first space probe to hit the moon. In April 1961, the Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first person to orbit Earth, traveling in the capsule-like spacecraft Vostok 1(History et al., 2019).

On May 5, American astronaut Alan Shepard became the first American to enter space, even though he did not land on the moon(History et al., 2019)..At the end of 1962, the United States established the foundation of NASA’s lunar landing program, the Project Apollo (History et al., 2019).The U.S. significantly increased funding for space exploration and new jobs after the Apollo program was established(Domic et al., 2019).

Although the Apollo 1 program failed, huge capital investment and a large number of talents have enabled NASA technology to continue to improve rapidly. On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the moon, and Neil Armstrong was on the moon (The Telegraph, 2017). He left his footprints and won the United States in a landing of about 723 million people.

America is the winner

More active research environment, more effective management, better fuel and machinery technology, and huge investment all determine that the United States is the winner of the space race.After meeting political needs, the United States and the Soviet Union have slowed their pace of space exploration and started to cooperate.

Great influence on modern times

The space race puts human into unprecedented space-space, and puts human on the moon. The space race has enhanced the country’s innovation and investment in education, cultivated many outstanding talents, and people’s thinking has been further improved.

As pioneers of space missions, the United States and the Soviet Union have helped their allies in space exploration and agreed to other countries to use their space stations for experiments to benefit all humanity.

At the same time, space technology has also been applied to our daily lives. The earth is now surrounded by huge satellite networks that provide continuous broadband communication and high-definition television, data for weather forecasting, navigation and positioning, etc. And, of course, the global positioning system, which has almost changed the lives of people today, navigation, parcel transportation, and self-driving cars are inseparable from it.

Some of the technologies used in astronauts are now also used in daily life, such as artificial mechanical prostheses used by disabled people, high-energy food used by military personnel and laptops’ precursors-portable computers. It can be said that without the space race, humankind would not have achieved today.

There is no doubt that through the nuclear weapons race and space race, the Cold War greatly promoted the development of human science and technology, and greatly affected the pattern of the modern world. It can be said that if there is no Cold War, human technology will stay in the World War II period. We must recognize the positive aspects brought by the Cold War and understand the relationship between the nuclear weapons race and the space race and today’s human science.

Pop Culture Music 1960’s Protest Music Essay

Music has more influence over large groups of people than any other cultural product. With the power to unify, bridge, build, or protest, music can connect large groups of people to transform values, patterns, and habits. With the ability to provide an incredibly comprehensive framework to package and present a viewpoint or an idea, music serves to open up conversations and spur reflection and action relating to the issues of the day. In times of social and political conflict, a musician’s role becomes particularly important. Music serves as an indicator of social progress as it incites a call for unity and action. Positive change for society is often found through songs pushing for positive social change. Musicians often serve as humanity’s conscience. Progressive revolution for society is often the result of Popular Music pushing for positive social change. US Protest songs, ‘Strange Fruit,’ and ‘Fortunate Son’ enabled people to transform values and adopt new patterns of behavior by infiltrating the consciousness of generations. Often with simple verses, these songs are generally less about aesthetics and more focused on purpose, specifically through the written lyrics. Highlighting the use of Popular Music as a tool of social commentary, this paper analyses the lyrics and social impact of Billie Holiday’s ‘Strange Fruit’ and Creedence Clearwater Revival’s ‘Fortunate Son’ to reflect on the civil unrest in the 20th Century.

The increasing multiculturalism that is found in American culture, consciousness, and values can be traced back to the mid-20th Century, ‘when politically-charged music helped project a new vision of American Society’ (Eyerman, 452). Throughout this time, the concept of generation became commercialized. This encompassed both cultural and political modes of thought and behavior, something which did not go unnoticed either by marketing promoters, or social theorists. Generational self-awareness linked rebellious working-class urban musicians with disaffected suburban middle-class youth, ‘who had all the material comforts imaginable but were still searching for something different’ (Eyerman, 453). Being ‘young’ became a factor that old transcend and overcome both traditional barriers of race and religion and eventually, economic division.

Since social activism often carries significant risks, a sense of political efficacy is needed to overcome the dread of the consequences of challenging the status quo. People need to believe they are not alone, that they can trust other potential protestors, and that their collective action will bring about the desired change. ‘Movements try to frame that issue, that is, assign meaning to and interpret relevant events and conditions in ways that are intended to mobilize potential adherents and constituents, garner bystander support, and demobilize antagonists’ (Klandermans, 80). United States Protest Music has a considerable influence and rich cultural history. The goal of protest songs drew people together around a central mission. Often with simple verses, these songs are generally less about aesthetics and more focused on purpose, specifically through the written lyrics.

Along with the technology to perform for audiences at a mass scale with the public production utilization of the radio, inspiration was plentiful for 20th-century songwriters, and protest songs became ingrained within American music. They found inspiration in issues like multiple wars, the great depression, worker’s rights, and unionizing, as well as women’s rights, and of course, civil rights, particularly on the topic of race. Songs were integral to each of these movements, and artists of this Century were not afraid to mix ‘high’ and ‘low’ cultures, which had previously remained separate, but now were blending the realms of experience and expression like never before. ‘Besides its form, the content of this new music was also distinctive’ (Eyerman, 458). Along with the intimate connection with the collective identity of a rising generation, this encouraged the development of a new sort of song, which readily disclosed cultural and political criticism into its lyrical content.

Billie Holiday’s 1939 song ‘Strange Fruit,’ has a silky melody and uses Abel Meeropol’s poem as lyrics to reflect on the civil unrest in the South, using the transparent metaphor of fruit to evoke a vivid image of the lynching of black Americans. The song became a piece of pop culture; it was something to enjoy in a smoky bar, and to initiate a conversation afterward, signifying disappointment with the status quo in a haunting and memorable way.

Strange Fruit was undoubtedly not the first protest song, but it was the inaugural song of what became the Civil Rights movement. Different from the brass workers’ anthems of the union movement, it did not stir the blood; it chilled it. Protest songs had previously functioned as propaganda, but Strange Fruit proved protest could be art.

It is a song so memorable that many performers have since tried to put their stamp on it, yet, Holiday’s performance outlives them all. In 1999, Time magazine named her initial studio version of ‘Strange Fruit,’ the ‘song of the century.’ Although lynching was seemingly on the decline by the time of Strange Fruit – the disturbing photograph of a double hanging in 1930’s Indiana moved Meeropol to pen what has remained a vivid symbol of American racism, or a stand-in for all the more subtle forms of discrimination affecting the black communities of the United States. Perhaps only the visceral horror that lynching inspired gave Meeropol the necessary conviction to write a song with no precedent, one that required a new songwriting vocabulary.

Meeropol taught high school in the Bronx and published topical songs, poems, and plays under the gentile alias, Lewis Allan. Initially published under the title Bitter Fruit, the poem was first found in 1937 in a New York Teacher magazine. The title was shortly changed to evoke a haunting sense. ‘Strange’ puts the reader or listener in the shoes of an observer who catches something out of the corner of their eye; the hanging shapes from afar and moving closer towards a sickening realization.

The song’s form is short and was able to shock listeners in a mere three stanzas and twelve lines, keeping to the original form of the poem. It is not complicated rhythmically, seeing as the piece follows a consecutive rhythm pattern where each pair of lines ends rhyming together in AABB format. Again, this maintains the integrity of the poem. The meter is quadruple, with the tempo often played slowly similarly to a dirge — the rhythm, is layered and homophonic with the piano repeating the minor chords in B-Flat while Holiday sings. The slow tempo and homophonic relationship throughout the song ensure the song is never too fast or busy for a listener to miss a single lyric. The minor key helps push a gloomy atmosphere as minor keys have been proven to evoke a bluer emotional response than major keys. It is suspected that this was because the emotional impact of music is due to the way it mimics our ‘voice when we cry out in happiness or yell in anger’ (Williamson, 64).

The contrast of the song is overlapped with Holiday’s singing and the trickling of the piano keys. The piano begins in a lower, quieter range, the piano contradicts Holiday’s voice’s precise ambiance. Her voice is an octave higher than the piano, overshadowing it and putting her lyrics in the front of the song, to ensure they are not ignored. Holiday’s chosen vocal dynamics and articulation play a role in her lyricism as she swells her voice to deliver the final lines of the song ‘For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck, For the sun to rot, for the tree to drop, Here is a strange and bitter crop’ (Meeropol, lines. 10-12), but they are limited as not to dispel the raw texture of the tune, creating an even more haunting sound. The song carries a low timber and melancholy aching tone, achieved through the soft, low chords of the piano and Holiday’s limited articulation. Holiday’s This beautifully contrasts the painful wailing of the trumpet during the lyrical interludes. Holiday’s legato sound punches sharply on lines such as ‘for a tree to drop’ and ‘here is a strange and bitter crop,’ which calls attention to the words and makes the listener think of these images. The most significant change to the texture of the song is at the end, where the multitude of instruments swell following the final line to signal the ending and act as a final cry of protest before being silenced.

‘Strange Fruit’ helped begin the Civil Rights protest movement. ‘A declaration of war, It even continues to influence the civil rights movement today’ (Margolick, 36). An anomaly of work, ‘Strange Fruit,’ helped light the fuse of the singing protest movement in America, and if it didn’t, it fed the flame.

During the mid-1960s, the collective identity of the counterculture was articulated through mass protests and demonstrations, but perhaps even more significantly through ‘the increasing multiculturalism that is to be found in American education, historical consciousness, and popular values and behavior can be traced back to the 1960s, when politically-charged music helped project a new vision of American society’ (Eyerman, 452). The different movements of the 1960s contained a critique of the role of the military in American life. A significant determiner of the movements of the decade was a massive protest against the dominant position of the military in political, economic, and cultural life. The predominance of military values and priorities meant that other important social goals, such as race and poverty, were not adequately addressed. It also meant ‘that aggressive and violent behavior had become defining characteristics of American culture’ (Eyerman, 454).

The Vietnam War began as a fight for independence that spiraled out of control as the US got involved. The war itself was profoundly unpopular in the States, especially with the young men who were sent to fight a war in which they never believed. This unpopularity, coupled with the American tradition of protest created an opportunity for musicians to tap into the feelings felt by their audience; Many musicians who protested the war were young themselves, and some had even fought in Vietnam. Despite being drafted and serving his country, Fogerty was labeled as a rebel. The governmental administration painted anyone who questioned its policies as ‘un-American. The same administration shamefully ignored and mistreated the soldiers returning from Vietnam.

When Creedence Clearwater Revival’s ‘Fortunate Son,’ released in 1969, quickly became synonymous with the anti-war movement. The furious lyrics, coupled with the most ‘rock’ sound CCR ever recorded, dramatically emphasized the disparity between the rich and poor, with the boys of the wealthy staying home and their marginalized peers being drafted. They were deemed a powerful symbol of the counterculture’s opposition to the US infiltrating the Vietnam War and solidarity with the soldiers fighting in it.

While there were plenty of ways to secure a draft deferment, they all seemed to benefit the wealthy. Young men could receive a deferment for going to college, be diagnosed with medical or mental issues, or simply know the right people. From Fogerty’s autobiography: ”Fortunate Son’ was not inspired by any one event. Julie Nixon was dating David Eisenhower. You would hear about the son of this senator or that congressman who was given a deferment from the military or a choice position in the military. They seemed privileged, and whether they liked it or not, these people were symbolic in the sense that they weren’t being touched by what their parents were doing. They weren’t being affected like the rest of us’. (Fogerty, 64)

‘Fortunate Son’ decries the idea of wealthy Americans avoiding service. With lines such as ‘Some folks are born silver spoon in hand, Lord, don’t they help themselves’ and ‘I ain’t no millionaires son,’ it was clear whom Fogerty was addressing. While singer John Fogerty fought in the Vietnam War, he was not as overtly patriotic as those who got to stay home. ‘Fortunate Son’ was not a standard CCR hit. Straight-forward, and hard-hitting, the song jumps into an apparent attack on the wealthy. It is now in the top group of class-consciousness songs to ever become a hit record. Set to a hard rock sound that demonstrated the rage many were feeling regarding the draft and economic disparity, the song itself is simple. While the chorus is I, IV, and V format, the verses invert the same chords. Fogerty spits out the words in a gravelly tone, clearly enveloped in rage: ‘It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no fortunate one’ (Fortunate Son, ln.6). While the actual title of the song is not found int eh recorded version, it does appear at the very end of the live ending to the song, which Fogerty uses to this day.

Sitting out the war is the privilege of the fortunate, the sons of Senators and millionaires were happy to wave the flag while shirking the duties of defense that they lay on those who were not as fortunate. When Fogerty himself was drafted into the war in the mid-60s, he gained extra insight into the plight of the young men being sent to war. Throughout the song, with the line ‘it ain’t me,’ Fogerty exclaims that he is not a fortunate son, and he is certainly not a millionaire’s son, which means that he and the people like him will have to go to war. In the Zippy track, he explains that the only people who can avoid the fight are those ‘born with silver spoons’. It is a quick blast of bitterness that makes its point.

Throughout the 20th Century, music was central to the creative role of consciousness and cognition of collective action. The rate of change in this era was remarkable, but it may be argued that music plays a vital role in all social movements in their formative stages (Eyerman, 451). Plato understood music’s potential and banned all forms except the orderly Lydian from his Academy to discourage dissidence (Freeman, 100. The Catholic Church long forbade the augmented fourth or ‘tritone’ (the “Devil’s Interval”), favoring instead the tightly regulated forms of music like Gregorian chants. However, while censorship of music has run rapidly for centuries, the mass media surge in popular culture during the 20th Century provided the groundwork that was essential to develop a widespread and long-term air of collective dissent within the country.

The partnership and idealism so easily observed in American music in the 1900s steadily gave way to cynicism and alienated individualism, ultimately resulting in the absence of strong revolutionary music movements pushing for social change in the US. Toward the end of the 20th century, many Americans grew disenchanted with the rise and fall of promises for equality on all levels. The steady transformation of pop music from anthems of idealistic discontent to laments of unmet dreams turned songs “into products manufactured for private consumption on a mass market rather than the vehicles for collective identify formation and shared consciousness-raising…” (Eyerman and Jamison, 451).

Despite failed promises, social movements in the 20th Century contributed to considerable social progress, aided in no small part by music, particularly songs that called for a change of action; Protest Songs. During the mid-20th Century, social movements not only “provided singers with an audience, but also a sense of mission over and above commercial gains” (Eyerman, 458).

Popular music in the 20th Century functioned as another kind of social theory, ‘translating the political radicalism that was expressed by relatively small coteries of critical intellectuals and political activists into much different and far more accessible idiom’ (Eyerman, 464). The intricate balance between popular culture and politics dissolved into its parts, leaving both fundamentally different than before but diffusing the revolutionary potential into different and often destructive directions. Through US Protest music, processes of personal and political change linked into a joint project of liberation, and at least some musicians became movement intellectuals, leaving their artistic identity behind in pursuit of some more significant, more all-encompassing societal role.

Billie Holiday’s choice to step out of her contract with Columbia Records to record ‘Strange Fruit’ was a testament to her passion regarding the conversation of civil rights (Margolick, 34). Her harrowing rendition of the song lingered in the hearts and minds of men and women, black and white alike. It created conversations on the morality of Jim Crow Laws and the ever-continual lynching of innocent black people in the Southern states. While a beautifully haunting melody, ‘Strange Fruit’ provided the footbed of pop culture to cross the lines political in nature, and got the everyday individual discussing a country’s deplorable habit.

Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Fortunate Son” allowed many across the nation to cope with the pain, anger, and sorrow that accompanied the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War. This song became an anthem of those who struggled under the weight of economic disparity and highlighted the hypocrisy many lawmakers, and upper-class individuals displayed by keeping their sons home but funding the impending slaughter of American and Vietnamese men and women.

The songs discussed above, ‘chipped away at the edifice of official propaganda and ideological strictures’ (Payerhin, 5). They created a multitude of constructive comments and points of reference to help define a societal critique, and form and collective identity for listeners. Crossing racial, gender, and economic lines, these pop culture songs paved the way for social mobilization to heal the injustice of minority groups within the US. Protest songs aggregate, reinforce, and propagate common symbols and beliefs that allow social movement participants and leaders to construct effective action. ‘Strange Fruit’ and Fortunate Son influence independent public discourse by framing the respective issues of reactionary racism and anti-war propaganda that influenced pop culture consumers who worked to shift the paradigms in which they lived.

Essay on Counter Culture Civil Rights Movement

The 1960’s: The counterculture strikes back.

Our first reading summarises the 1960’s, an epoch marked by a momentous transition. Denoted as one of the most tumultuous and divisive decades, it is defined by the historical actions of the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, political assassinations, anti-war marches, and the emergence of the “generational gap.”[ 1] Challenging Hollywood’s traditions of conservatism, it was here in the late 1960s that “exploitation” films became a substantial market. Transitioning the taboo subjects of sex, drugs, violence, and defiant youth into more than just low-budget pictures. [1: John Belton, Chapter 3 “The 1960s: The Counterculture Strikes Back” in John Belton, American Cinema/American Culture (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004, 275. ]

Contextually rich, the article details societal and political revolutions and their correlations with Hollywood’s transforming subject matter. Most prominent is that of the generational gap which saw the established members of society and the youth as ideological oppositions. War, sexual mores, race relations, lifestyle, musical preference, and finer details of style and hair (which quickly became a symbol of the decade) saw conservative elders maintain desires for censorship whilst the youth continued to resist these suppressive discourses. These displays of activism were set off by the Civil Rights Movement, the cornerstone of the 1960s crusade. This non-violent intervention would inform subsequent protests seeking social justice including that of the women’s liberation movement.

Betty Friedan’s 1963 book “The Feminine Mystique,” is simply one noted example of feminist protest, she remarks that the mundanity of suburbia is a tool that buries women alive.[ 2] In attempts to console these frustrations, Hollywood unwisely consulted one aspect of the movement, the women’s sexual revolution. Adhering to the opposing stereotypes of the Madonna/whore and the motherly governess. Hollywood depicted these binaries through films such as Lolita (1962), Barbarella (1968), Mary Poppins (1964), and The Sound of Music (1965). Affected by this treatment also were the 1960s youth, Hollywood cinema clinging to confused college kids, heavily involved with sex, cheap thrills, and political activism. The political conservatism of Hollywood was driven largely by economics.’[ 3] Films were produced for a general audience therefore their reluctance to display politically charged pictures was an obvious financial gamble. Thus, the silver screen continued to condescendingly summarise the thriving counterculture in a way that didn’t completely satisfy its desired market. [2: Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York: Norton, 1963.] [3: Ibid, 284]

However, revolutionizing sixties cinema was Easy Rider (1969). Hollywood’s misinterpretations and slow adaptation to its new audience[ 4] saw BBS’s output deal, a low-budget film not attempt to interpret nor talk down to its ‘college-aged crowd.’[ 5] Instead, it summarised 1960s America both through culture and aesthetics. Avoiding capitalist regurgitations of the youth culture, Easy Rider captured the essence of the sixties in a way that was tangible to its audiences. [4: Ibid.295 ] [5: Ibid.290]

References

    1. John Belton, Chapter 3 “The 1960s: The Counterculture Strikes Back” in John Belton, American Cinema/American Culture (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004, 275-294.
    2. Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York: Norton, 1963.

What Were the Cold War Fears of the American? Essay

In early 2018, in the idyllic southern English city of Salisbury, two Russian citizens Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Yulia fell dangerously ill. After extensive investigation, the British government accused Russia of using a type of Novichok, which it said was developed by the Soviet Union, to poison the Skripals. Russia has vehemently denied these allegations and claimed that the Novichok agent could have originated in other European countries. With what may have seemed like the introduction to a 1960’s spy thriller, began the greatest threat to Anglo Russian relations since the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution to the USSR in 1991. It has been claimed a new Cold War between the West and Russia could lead to disastrous consequences, as tensions between Vladimir Putin and both the UK and US rise. I would argue that history is close to repeating the mistakes of the past by creating an impasse between East and West.

In the wake of the alleged poisonings, the UK expelled 23 Russian Diplomats and were supported by 18 European member states; the USA and Canada also expelled Russian representatives and Ambassadors. This coordinated effort exhibited significant diplomatic support for the UK in the face of Russia’s strenuous rebuttal of accusations and subsequently resulted in retaliatory expulsions of UK Diplomats from Russia.

The expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats from American Embassies, could be viewed as a politically overt challenge to the Russian Premier, Putin, and a return to tensions not seen since the Cold War. I would argue however, that the tensions in Russian and world politics have never really gone- that the concept of “Glasnost” (the Russian theory of openness and governmental transparency) was only ever a temporary solution to a centuries old mistrust between the East and West. That solution has been eroding for some time now, and my fear is that we are edging ever closer to a Second Cold War.

The origins of the first Cold War came in to being after World War II; the United States and Russia had fought together as allies, however, the relationship had always been based on necessity rather than comradeship. Russia had initially sought an alliance with Germany, however, after Hitler’s expansionism had encroached into Russian territory, Russia looked to be allies with the UK and USA. After the war ended, tension and mistrust grew; a grudging entente developed out of necessity rather than desire. The terms agreed by Churchill (the British Prime Minister), Roosevelt and Stalin soon disintegrated as post war Russian expansionist tendencies divided East and Western Europe into distinct economic and political blocs.

As Russia’s territory and political power expanded to be known as The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), Americans’ fears of Russia grew. Churchill expressed deep regret in relation to the terms set out in the Yalta Treaty, soon after its ratification, and recognised that the individual agenda of The USA and USSR would ultimately lead to future hostility. No single nation or cultural theory was entirely to blame for the Cold War- it was a culmination of historical territorialism, economic, social, ideological and political mistrust. Ultimately it was the disintegration of a marriage of convenience.

The Cold War spread, and hardened like a frost, impacting on American and British domestic life. This distrust spread across political relationships, leading to the disastrous conflict between the US and Vietnam, Cuba, China and North Korea, whose invasion of South Korea was backed by Russia. A temporary political and economic truce came in to place with the election of President Nixon who recognised the benefits of political and economic peace and attempted to reduce the threat of a nuclear war. However, after the election of President Reagan, anti communist sentiment became evident again. However, as Reagan “fought” communism, declining economic stability and political unrest, necessitated Soviet political openness, and “Perestroika,” or economic reform. The Berlin Wall and Communism fell. East and Western Europe enjoyed a sense of peace and economic prosperity.

Since the Salisbury poisonings, it appears that the Cold War is no longer confined to the history books and is more of a political “palindrome than a straightforward narrative” (1). History it seems is destined to repeat itself.

When President Trump met Angela Merkel in 2017, the German chancellor warned of rising Russian expansionist politics. German political analysts and the Media have expounded the theory that Putin wants to “go back to the good old days”. Putin regularly condemns the Northern Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), and has gone against their agreements and direction. He has used military force in Georgia and Ukraine in order to quash social and economic unrest against the Russian state and in the Middle East, Russia has intervened in Syria on the side Bashar al-Assad. NATO, as well as German, French, and U.S. leaders have expressed concerns after Putin announced that his country has deployed or is developing an array of new nuclear-capable weapons; it is a muscle flexing trajectory towards another war. It seems evident that the theory that German advisors told the sceptical American president back in March 2017 that Putin was “back to fighting the Cold War,” even if we in the West are not” has become a reality.

The concept of a second Cold War was signalled by UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats. Russia then declared via Twitter that “Cold War II has begun.” Will this Second Cold war differ from the first? History paints the first Cold War, as an era of espionage, atomic weapons and secret deals rather than traditional warfare. It is more than likely that the Second Cold War will be played out on Social Media, through computer hacking and on the Political stage.

The biggest concern is the reach and influence of Russian politics- the impact Russia allegedly had on elections; the impact on British institutions (Russian hackers are alleged to have crippled the NHS computer Network in Summer) and public safety which was put at risk by the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury. This did not only impact on the Russian Nationals, but one of the first responders, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, was also poisoned by the nerve agent as were two other members of the public in the weeks that followed- Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess, who later died.

The list of Russian Nationals attacked on British soil is ever increasing and constitutes a wider threat to the public: after the Salisbury attack, police found the body of Nikolai Glushkov, a former executive of a Russian airline, who was granted political asylum in 2010. He -like Alexander Litvinienko – poisoned by Polonium in 2006-had links to other Russian exiles who have died in mysterious circumstances in the UK. This is evidence that the cold war has never really ended and that Russian political schemes have never been far from the surface.

Prior to the Russian elections, Putin issued defiant warnings to the West, who he accused of trying to hold Russia back. This was a clear declaration of war. A new Cold War is exactly what the West could and should expect, sparked by the events in a peaceful English village. With the growth of political egos, “shows of strength” and instability in the UK, USA and Russia, we must see beyond the threats and accusations, and seek peace, reconciliation and unity before it is too late for a thaw to occur. Politics should not be about the rise of pure naked power. History teaches us we should have loftier aims, that democracy should not be forced into reverse and that we should strive for a better future- not to relive the mistakes and mistrust of the past.

Essay on Conformity in the 1960s

Rod Serling’s 1960 ‘Eye of The Beholder’ from the series The Twilight Zone, and Charlie Brooker’s 2016 ‘Nosedive’ from Black Mirror, both respectively highlight how the science fiction genre emerged out of the 1960 American society and the modern technological society and projects into the future. Both films are set in a future dystopian society, exploring the dehumanizing effects of conformity and societal values. Serling depicts the strength of conformity during the 1960s American society, where society ostracized those who did not conform to societal norms and ideals.

While many themes are present within this episode, Serling particularly focuses on exploring how beauty is determined. Conversely, ‘Nosedive’ explores modern society concerning the unanticipated consequences of a social rating-based system, to provide a deeper perspective on social and socioeconomic identities. In both texts, a wide range of techniques are used to explore and elaborate on the common theme of conformity to influence similar target audiences but achieve different purposes.

While both films share a mutual purpose of entertaining their respective audience, they also communicate different moral messages. Brooker’s intended purpose was to make the audience not only question their behavior as an individual, but collectively as a nation, whereas Serling’s purpose was to make the audience reconsider their perceptions of beauty. Brooker may explore the murky relationship between humans and technology; however, it is in no way a criticism against it. Rather, Brooker celebrates what modern society has become and heightens aspects of real life within the film by offering an entertaining interpretation of the characters for a dramatic purpose and entertainment. This is demonstrated when Lacie, the leading character repeatedly yells, “F–K”, utterly releasing her built-up repression and emotions to allow for a bittersweet ending. In comparison, Serling demonstrates that everyone can recognize beauty and ugliness with some variation based on their frame of reference. He particularly achieves this through a dictator yelling indirectly at Janet, the protagonist, “We must have a norm…[and] conform to that norm”, which shows how Serling utilizes language to stress the audience about today’s pressures of conformity.

Audience

Determined by various factors and interests regarding the science-fiction genre, both individual films attract a specific target audience. In today’s modern world, the younger, impressionable generation is strongly influenced by social media, whether it be by the number of likes they receive on Instagram or by the appearances of others. While both films are targeted towards young adults, ‘Eye of the Beholder’ differs in the intended audience, as the notion that beauty is always changing can be aimed at anyone. This idea where every culture and individual has their perceptions of standard beauty, supports that the film can be targeted to a broader audience. Moreover, both films target an audience that can identify and comprehend complex themes such as conformity, which is crucial for the audience to understand how these issues reflect on their current society. Hence, these exaggerations of reality create a deeper connection between the intended audience, young adults, who would be more inclined to empathize and relate with the protagonists

Context

Both directors incorporate aspects of their period with an exaggeration, to deepen the impact on their audience. Today, the ability for one to curate not only content, but a unique persona, creates a cultural push and an incentive to portray an ingenuine life of perfection. Brooker takes this familiar approach to the next level where he conveys that technology has become a distraction from raw experience. He provides a palatable version of reality, that offers an easy way to ignore the deeply ingrained prejudice and systematically corrupt world, that most benefit from. In other words, Brooker conveys the notion that social media functions as a set of “rose-colored glasses”, used to fabricate modern privilege into a more comfortable reality and to dilute the awareness of the injustices that maintain the system of privilege. Serling however, makes a commentary regarding the 1960s, taking aspects of his society’s notion of beauty at the time and exaggerating them to reflect on society’s intolerance. His message of the film lies entirely within its title and is presented by Serling himself, “Beauty is within the eye of the beholder”, meaning the perception of beauty is subjective. Thus, Serling’s message remains as relevant as it did during his century as the notion of beauty is always changing.

Ideas and perspectives

A defining similarity between ‘Nosedive’ and ‘Eye of the Beholder’ is how they each convey their respective idea that social media creates an ingenuine but comfortable reality and that the perception of beauty is subjective, through the experiences of prejudice and conformity pressures. In both films, the female protagonists are placed within dystopian societies with great pressure to conform to ideals and norms. While Lacie is strongly adored for her high rating in society, Janet is feared and pitied by the doctors. Janet’s facial revelation and Lacie’s confrontation with truth are met with malice and criticism from society’s judgment, believing that these characters are the root of disturbance in their perfect society, and should be isolated and imprisoned. In a desperate and final act to conform to societal values, Janet tries to escape in hopes of another chance to treat her “grotesque face” and Lacie attempts to boost her social score at the wedding, “they’ll vote me through the roof”. Thus, attempting to win over their society’s validation, they both ultimately result in separation from society.

Language and stylistic features

The use of color progresses the films into becoming more realistic, warning the audience of today’s prejudiced society. ‘Nosedive’ exposes and elaborates upon Brooker’s ideology with intentional aesthetic choices to demonstrate the contrast between the naive contentment of “rose-colored glasses” and the harsh reality behind Brooker’s dystopian system. A range of muted tones and pastel colors correspond to the population’s dull sense of reality, whereas the use of stark black and dark colors, found only during the final scene, corresponds to the confrontation of truth. Alternatively, Serling shoots ‘Eye of the Beholder’ so each frame is filled with an ideal blend of light and shadow, shaping the reality of Janet’s society to manipulate shadows and provide an atmosphere of suspense and anticipation.

The intention is evident when the audience is presented with a bandaged patient under a single overhead light so that she alone is illuminated, as if under a spotlight. Surrounded by large overpowering shadows, Janet yells, “[I’m] grotesque, ugly, deformed…I want to belong!”, to which the doctor replies, “If treatment fails, we’ll move you…[where] your kind have been congregated,” drawing suspense within the audience as they have not been presented with any faces. Janet may not be ugly, however, Serling uses dialogue to influence the audience’s thought process to believe she is indeed deformed. ‘Nosedive’ however, provides the concept of choice between a comfortable but naive state of thinking and an uncomfortable but honest grasp of reality, which is often referred to using the analogy of a red pill versus a blue pill. The same analogy is subtly woven into the film’s dialogue where Lacie meets a truck driver, “blue thermos is coffee, red’s whiskey”. Naomi, Lacie’s childhood friend, later says, “Don’t come to my wedding”, and Lacie replies, “I will…you’ll weep your f–king eyes out”, demonstrating that she chose the red thermos which serves as a tool to push Lacie and the audience closer to confronting the deep truth behind the veiled society. Alternatively, Serling’s anticipating revelation brings closure to the suspense as the audience is presented with Janet’s beautiful face and the doctors’ deformed faces. Serling presents a group of deformed people, but in their eyes, that’s beautiful, demonstrating that when someone the audience perceives as beautiful is put in a place where they are a minority, they lose that association of beauty; it is all down to the individual or society. Serling’s manipulation of light and shadows presents the audience with a visceral realization that there cannot be one objective standard concerning which beauty is and is not acceptable. Thus, these examples showcase how the directors’ use of color influences the audience’s interpretation of events and looks to contribute to their opinions.

Similar stylistic features including dialogue and camera angles enhance ‘Nosedive’ and ‘Eye of the Beholder’ to showcase different reflections of today’s society. As a consequence of genuine self-expression and thus, confrontation of truth, Lacie is imprisoned. The extreme close-up on the removal of Lacie’s rating-system eye implant reinforces the audience with the discomfort and acknowledgment of the brutal realization. This shot serves to communicate that her “rose-colored glasses” have been ripped out and it demonstrates how deeply society has internalized this ingenuine life. Similarly, this idea is showcased during the close-up of Janet and the doctors’ face reveal, but instead of internalizing Janet’s appearance, Serling’s society externalizes their feelings of disgust upon realizing the treatment failed, “No change at all!”. As Janet is dragged away with a dictator yelling, “Glorious conformity,” there is a close-up shot of the doctors’ deformed faces. Their expression can be interpreted in various ways, however Serling primarily demonstrates this moment as a moment of longing. Exiled characters like Janet, are isolated to a “lovely village” where they will be “accepted by a community unconditionally”, and these deformed doctors will never experience that. Their presence in society, is at every moment, contingent on their conformity, and when deviants like Janet are taken away, all Serling leaves with the audience are these apathetic people waiting to become the monsters they just got rid of.

This is not exactly true to life, however; to be othered by an authoritarian regime, usually does not mean they will be sent to a community of “acceptance”, and this is contrasted in ‘Nosedive’. Brooker utilizes Lacie’s muddied dress as a juxtaposition to her previously pristine dress to convey that her curated persona became part of her own identity, but only after the removal of the “rose-colored glasses”, is she able to genuinely connect with herself and reality. Much like Lacie’s stained dress, Brooker also drenches the entire scene in grey tones to demonstrate the quickly unfolding truth that is sinking into both Lacie and the audience. This is supported by a long shot of Lacie removing her dress, conveying her shedding the final layer of her curated persona. Cross-cutting between Lacie’s tear-stained face and a cascade close-up shot of white dust contrasting with the dark background, Brooker demonstrates how Lacie begins to find beauty in raw truth. Lacie then argues with a man across her prison, “What the f–k are you looking at…I was wondering…don’t…Don’t wonder? It’d be a dull world without wonder…”. Not only does Brooker use this statement to prod at the use of muted colors and its implications throughout the film, but he also bridges a gap in human connection and communication. These examples establish how the directors are specific in the collaboration of the dialogue, camera angles, and color to concern the audience about society’s perspective on differences.

Conclusion

Despite being fifty-six years apart in production, both films achieve the intended purpose by offering an entertaining and relatable interpretation of the characters, ideas, and storyline. Both directors engage their intended audiences by including complex issues and exaggerating aspects of real life to raise people’s consciousness and provoke their emotions in criticizing society’s mistreatment of different individuals. Brooker achieves this through the utilization of film techniques including close-up shots of Lacie’s face to show raw and genuine emotions. Comparably, Serling incorporates dialogue and a dictator to achieve his purpose and influence the audience’s opinions on the notion of beauty. ‘Nosedive’ illustrates a more realistic prediction of the near future and provokes the audience to fear technology. However, although one talks about beauty and the other about technology, both films prove to be effective as they both showcase the sacrifice of freedom and individuality in exchange for acceptance. Each film aims to provoke the audience into criticizing today’s society, therefore being aware of their self-consciousness. Similarly, the films convey the consequence of a society built on conformity, and the overall ideology of both is framed meticulously with color, dialogue, and camera angles to serve as a direct juxtaposition to the pre-established dystopian society. Thus, each text achieves its intended purpose and successfully engages the audience in a chillingly real exaggeration of modern society.

Essay on Counter Culture Civil Rights Movement

The 1960’s: The counterculture strikes back.

Our first reading summarises the 1960’s, an epoch marked by a momentous transition. Denoted as one of the most tumultuous and divisive decades, it is defined by the historical actions of the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, political assassinations, anti-war marches, and the emergence of the “generational gap.”[ 1] Challenging Hollywood’s traditions of conservatism, it was here in the late 1960s that “exploitation” films became a substantial market. Transitioning the taboo subjects of sex, drugs, violence, and defiant youth into more than just low-budget pictures. [1: John Belton, Chapter 3 “The 1960s: The Counterculture Strikes Back” in John Belton, American Cinema/American Culture (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004, 275. ]

Contextually rich, the article details societal and political revolutions and their correlations with Hollywood’s transforming subject matter. Most prominent is that of the generational gap which saw the established members of society and the youth as ideological oppositions. War, sexual mores, race relations, lifestyle, musical preference, and finer details of style and hair (which quickly became a symbol of the decade) saw conservative elders maintain desires for censorship whilst the youth continued to resist these suppressive discourses. These displays of activism were set off by the Civil Rights Movement, the cornerstone of the 1960s crusade. This non-violent intervention would inform subsequent protests seeking social justice including that of the women’s liberation movement.

Betty Friedan’s 1963 book “The Feminine Mystique,” is simply one noted example of feminist protest, she remarks that the mundanity of suburbia is a tool that buries women alive.[ 2] In attempts to console these frustrations, Hollywood unwisely consulted one aspect of the movement, the women’s sexual revolution. Adhering to the opposing stereotypes of the Madonna/whore and the motherly governess. Hollywood depicted these binaries through films such as Lolita (1962), Barbarella (1968), Mary Poppins (1964), and The Sound of Music (1965). Affected by this treatment also were the 1960s youth, Hollywood cinema clinging to confused college kids, heavily involved with sex, cheap thrills, and political activism. The political conservatism of Hollywood was driven largely by economics.’[ 3] Films were produced for a general audience therefore their reluctance to display politically charged pictures was an obvious financial gamble. Thus, the silver screen continued to condescendingly summarise the thriving counterculture in a way that didn’t completely satisfy its desired market. [2: Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York: Norton, 1963.] [3: Ibid, 284]

However, revolutionizing sixties cinema was Easy Rider (1969). Hollywood’s misinterpretations and slow adaptation to its new audience[ 4] saw BBS’s output deal, a low-budget film not attempt to interpret nor talk down to its ‘college-aged crowd.’[ 5] Instead, it summarised 1960s America both through culture and aesthetics. Avoiding capitalist regurgitations of the youth culture, Easy Rider captured the essence of the sixties in a way that was tangible to its audiences. [4: Ibid.295 ] [5: Ibid.290]

References

    1. John Belton, Chapter 3 “The 1960s: The Counterculture Strikes Back” in John Belton, American Cinema/American Culture (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004, 275-294.
    2. Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York: Norton, 1963.