Opportunity and discord: comparing 1960 and the new millennium

Today vs. 1960

As the people of the world take the first steps into a new millennium, they find themselves at a crossroads of opportunity and annihilation in a world that is characterized by advances in technology, science and medicine contrasted by the ugliness of international terrorism, the sad realization that many of the world's people are still not free, and the ever present possibility of war and strife. In parallel, the world of 1960 likewise found itself at the dawn of new opportunities countered by the threats that had the power to destroy not only the dreams of the world's people, but also the planet itself. In this paper, today will be compared and contrasted to 1960 in an effort to effectively make the argument that as far as humanity has advanced in the past four decades, its similarity to the world of today comes down to the choice of opportunity and harmony or discord and destruction.

Introduction and Definition

In 1960, on a cold crisp January afternoon, the newly elected President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, stood at the podium of his inaugural and gave a speech outlining his objectives for the coming presidential term. As one of the most powerful nations in the world at that time, people in all corners of the globe listened with rapt attention. In this speech, Kennedy made it clear that he represented a new era of leadership not only for the United States, but also for the world; a leadership that was born in the 20th century and held a fresh point-of-view to lead the nations of the world in a bold new direction, putting aside petty differences and avoiding another World War, the memory of which was still fresh in the minds of those who listened to the Kennedy speech. Upon this one man, the hopes of a civilized world were hung.

Despite the power of the Kennedy speech and what he offered to the world on that January day in 1960, the rest of the world held a great deal of peril for everyone. Asian nations like Japan and China were struggling to find an economic identity and gain a share of the world market for goods, Communism, as supported by the United Soviet Socialist Republics thrived as the main rival to the freedom promised by the United States, and held the specter of nuclear war over the heads of the entire world. Perhaps the most visible and scary symbol of the power of Communism to oppress free people was the Berlin Wall, a huge concrete and barbed wire barrier which in effect imprisoned the citizens of Communist-controlled East Berlin, Germany and showed the world just how easily rights and freedom could be crushed under the boots of soldiers and at the barrel of a gun.

Broadly defined, comparing 1960 to today comes down to the matter of choices. To be more specific in a working definition which sets the stage for this paper, the comparison of the two eras is best explained as progress vs. destruction. This definition will now be validated through cause and effect and argument that the definition is proper and valid.

Argument

Basically stated, the argument to be made and subsequently reinforced is that despite the passage of time, and even some cultural changes to the fiber of society, today's world, as in 1960, finds itself entangled in a fight for freedom and life itself.

First, the international climate of 1960 needs to be put into proper perspective. Previously, the examples of the ideas that JF Kennedy had for the United States as well as the problem that the Cold War and the Berlin Wall posed during that era were discussed. Beyond these common examples, however, there are other instances that show how the civilization of 1960 struggled for freedom, improvement of the world overall, and the rights of the common person.

Echoing the struggle of the East Berliners in 1960, there were citizens of an obstensibly free nation that fought to gain equal rights and a favorable identity within on their native soil. Even as Kennedy of the U.S. spoke of freedom for the world, within his own country, African-Americans were mounting a Civil Rights movement in opposition to the American legal system which still made it legal in some cases for African-Americans to be banned from certain public places, public schools, private colleges and the like (Gueron, 1995). All that these individuals were seeking was equality, and while this seems easy enough to obtain, it took many years, tears, and bloodshed for even a fraction of equality to be realized, and some would argue, the full effect of Civil Rights, despite legislation and action to the contrary, has yet to be felt in the U.S. As discrimination is alive and well in many parts of the "land of the free and home of the brave." Time has not done very much to remedy this injustice. This dilemma brings out once again the choice between harmony and dischord. Ironically enough, in this instance, disruption of the established order is needed to achieve an overall peace. No one likes to pay such a steep price for freedom, but it must be paid.

Drawing a parallel to 1960 and today in terms of freedom, the nation of Mauritania stands as a blazing example of exactly how a nation can not only gain independence through initiative, but also how it can grow over time to become a respected part of the world community, with valuable contributions being made to the same. In 1960, Mauritania gained its independence from France after many years of struggle and dispute- once again showing how a bit of dispute can eventually lead to a peaceful resolution of differences (Lancaster, 2002). As the decades have gone by, Mauritania has developed its own political and economic system, opening embassies in other nations to promote international relations and advance its economy. Economically, interestingly enough, Mauritania holds several attractive items which have resulted in even the superpowers of the world wishing to conduct business. These attributes come in the form of natural gas reserves and other highly desirable natural resources which other nations do not possess, and therefore must negotiate with Mauritania if they wish to obtain them in a peaceful manner.

Perhaps the most blazing example of something decades in the making which poses the important questions of the future of the world by its very nature is the fight against international terrorism. While the American catastrophe of 9/11/01 and the British tragedy of the bombing of the subway system stand out in the world's consciousness as the main examples of the result of terrorism, the reality is that many Middle Eastern nations have been faced with the plaque of terrorism since at least 1960, and continue to do so today. However, since terrorism has finally struck on the soil of powerful nations like the U.S. And their key allies like the U.K., resources and attention have been focused on the eradication of terrorism like never before. Because of this, polarization has taken place among the people of the world as far as the approach that should be taken in response. There are those who feel that the only way to neutralize terrorism is to attack it head-on through armed intervention in the nations that are suspected, right or wrong, of promoting terrorism. Conversely, there are those who feel that diplomacy and negotiation are the path to what is being called "peace in our time."

However one feels the problem of terrorism should be tackled, either alternative comes down once again to the key question of peace and harmony or violence and disruption of the established order in the world, although both are thought to be effective, albeit by different factions, to remedy terrorism-related problems in the world.

Terrorism has traveled the chasm from 1960 to today, and again brings together the two eras in history. Just as the people of Mauritania struggled for freedom, or African-Americans struggled for full rights under the U.S. government, one thing is very clear- these two time periods, though separated physically by the passage of time, remain similar and in some cases linked by world events, human emotions, and the perpetual nature of the human spirit to desire freedom at any cost.

Conclusion

There is an old adage that says that the more things change, the more they remain the same. When the international climates of 1960 and today are compared as they were in this paper, more true words could not be more appropriate. In conclusion, what has been proven by this research is that the world community is constantly faced with choices that literally can result in life or death. It is incumbent upon every person, every government leader, and every nation to communicate, contribute and make the right choices for future generations to be able to enjoy what the world has to offer and to return the favor to their future generations as well.