1960er
Refine
Document Type
- Online Publication (5) (remove)
Language
- English (5) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5) (remove)
Keywords
- Periodisierung (1)
It would be easy to presume that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had always been a symbol of opposition and dissent in the German Democratic Republic. Passed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, the UDHR contained a number of provisions that contradicted the political and social order of the GDR as run by the Socialist Unity Party (SED). It demanded an independent judiciary, prohibited arbitrary arrest and invasion of privacy, and guaranteed the right to leave one’s own country. In East Germany, where the judiciary was firmly an ideological organ, the Stasi regularly conducted mass surveillance and arbitrary detention and those seeking to leave the country illegally were shot at the border, this would seem to be a document seen to be inherently hostile to SED rule. Even the social rights contained in the UDHR, in particular the right to strike, were contrary to the legal realities of East Germany where citizens could not demand rights from the state that would obstruct the will of the party.
Yet over the course of East Germany’s existence, the Universal Declaration was more likely to be invoked by the SED than by its domestic opponents. The SED came to view the Universal Declaration and the UN human rights system as a whole as an ally to the Socialist Bloc and the contents of the UDHR reflected in the achievements of socialism within the borders of the GDR. For decades this was not challenged by East Germans on a mass scale, until very suddenly in the late 1980s, human rights and the UDHR became symbols of the democratic opposition. This article will trace the trajectory of the UDHR in East German public discourse from its passage in 1948 and the reaction by the SED in the Soviet Occupied Zone, through the commemorations of the UDHR on its many anniversaries before the ultimate collapse of SED in 1989.
This year marks a number of anniversaries of significant events of Czechoslovak history, starting with the declaration of independent Czechoslovakia in 1918; the Munich Agreement of 1938, which sumitted Czechoslovakia’s border areas to Hitler’s Germany; the communist takeover of 1948; and finally, the Prague Spring and subsequent Soviet-led invasion of 1968. Dubbed the “year of eights” [osmičkový rok] by the Czech media, historical reflections on the part of witnesses, historians, journalists and pundits alike are rife in the press, on the radio and on television. Yet as historian Pavel Kolář writes, when it comes to the events of 1968, “the anniversary has so far not brought any distinctive impulse” and sees this as a confirmation that “with each round anniversary, the significance of ’68 as one of the focal points of Czech memory is declining”.[1] What then remains of the eventful year of 1968 in Czech memory, fifty years on? This article will briefly examine the media response, which acts as a significant vehicle of memory, to both the reformist efforts of the Prague Spring and their suppression by Warsaw Pact tanks in the Czech Republic.
In recent years, streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime offered the possibility to access internationally produced television shows and movies. One recent trend is content with a historical set or background. Although historical sets and productions have played an important role in cinematic story-telling since the early twentieth century, the immense amount of newly available digital content has a significant impact on a society's cultural memory. Cultural memory is an integral part of a society’s identity; it is often static and its ‘horizon does not change with the passage of time’. It is reproduced in museums, statues, remembrance days, and texts. It is the type of memory which society can collectively call upon and recall. While cultural memory may feel vague or encased in glass cases in museums, a historical television series brings memory alive while munching on popcorn on your sofa.
By using a 60s workplace as its setting, Matthew Weiner’s Mad Men (2007-2015) does not merely provide insight into historical gender and sex relations in the workplace of the 60s. It also reflects current sex and gender relations in the workplace of 21st century America (e.g. the #MeToo Movement). As Sara Rogers, leaning on Horace Newcomb and Paul Hirsch, argues, tv shows’ strength lies in their raising questions, rather than answering them. This is precisely what Mad Men, with its representation of 1960s sex and gender dynamics does. In the following blogpost I will show that Weiner’s hit show is very aware of – among others – Helen Gurley Brown’s influence on the American workplace of the 60s and that it uses its nostalgic effect for reflecting contemporary sex and gender relations in the workplace.
Timothy S. Brown highlights in his article that the year „1968” must be conceived as a cipher for the political and social change in the second half of the 20th century. He inquires the generational connection and the transnational entanglement of the “Global Sixties”. Despite the numerous research in the course of the 50th anniversary of “1968” remains the subject fruitful: Brown points out the potential of interdisciplinary studies, which give more weight to the cultural aspects of “1968” and the new kinds of the political, focus on the analysis of reactions of the states and their elites as well as on the changes in gender relations and in general on the long-term effects of this “epoch-making” year.