The Gibraltar Constitution Order 1969

Self-Government for Gibraltar

Following the outcome of the 1967 Gibraltar Sovereignty Referendum whereby the people of Gibraltar choice to remain under British sovereignty, the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution Order and its developments begun. The new constitution that Britain introduced for Gibraltar in 1969 explicitly reaffirmed Gibraltar's link with Britain while also granting it full internal self-government. This was met by Spain's response of closing the border between itself and Gibraltar whereby they were deprived of its Spanish trade and major labour force. The Constitution was the outcome of the Constitutional Conference chaired by Malcolm Shepherd, 2nd Baron Shepherd which lasted from 16 July to 24 July 1968. The Gibraltarian members of the Constitutional Conference were Joshua Hassan (went on to become the 1st Chief Minister of Gibraltar, serving 4 terms as Chief Minister over a span of 20 years), Aurelio Montegriffo and Abraham Serfaty for the Association for the Advancement of Civil Rights; Robert Peliza (2nd Chief Minister of Gibraltar), Maurice Xiberras and legal advisor Sir Frederick Bennet for the Integration with Britain Party; and Peter Isola.

PREAMBLE

The 1969 Constitution will always be remembered for its Preamble. The Constitutional Talks almost broke down in 1968 for this point specifically. For the Gibraltarians, it was the most important aspect of the 1969 Constitution as they felt it be crucial.

The Preamble read as follows:

" Whereas Gibraltar is part of Her Majesty's dominions and Her Majesty's Government have given assurances to the people of Gibraltar that Gibraltar will remain part of Her Majesty's dominions unless and until an Act of Parliament otherwise provides, and furthermore that Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes..."

This preamble has been called the "single most significant statement made on the sovereignty of Gibraltar since the singing of the Treaty of Utrecht" (Peter Gold, 2005).

The Gibraltar 1969 Constitution Preamble engraved onto a stalactite at the Gibraltar Museum

The Constitution

On 24 July 1968, the Government of Spain under the leadership of General Francisco Franco, complained to the United Nations Secretary General claiming that the constitutional talks were a 'further obstacle to the solution of Gibraltar's future', a statement that was met by rejection from the Government of the United Kingdom. On 30 May 1969, the Constitution was published coming into immediate effect with elections due to be scheduled on the 30 July of the same year. The Spanish Government's thoughts on the agenda was clear as they described the promulgation of the United Nations Resolutions and a violation of the Treaty of Utrecht. What followed was the decision to close the land border between Spain and Gibraltar.

Sir Joshua Hassan, 1st Chief Minister of Gibraltar and Gerald Lathbury, Governor of Gibraltar in 1967

The Constitution gives legislative powers to the Governor, who is the Queen's representative, and the Gibraltar Parliament. Gibraltar enjoys considerable self-government as the Government of Gibraltar and Gibraltar's Members of Parliament deal with domestic matters. The British Foreign Office nonetheless, is directly responsible for Gibraltar's foreign affairs, defence and security matters. With this, Gibraltar has its own legal system based on English Common Law but with her own statutes which are passed by the Gibraltar Parliament.

By Niall Serra

The Closure of the Border between Gibraltar and Spain 1969

 GIBRALTAR, ISOLATED FROM SPAIN

The closure of the frontier ordered by Spanish dictator, General Francisco Franco on 8 June 1969 was part of a two-pronged approach on Gibraltar in response to the Gibraltar Constitution Order 1969. The first being a campaign against the United Kingdom at the United Nations. The second was direct action against Gibraltar and its people on the ground. The consequences were instant for thousands of Gibraltarians as well as citizens across the border, as families were separated and was a major impediment on the development of the 'Campo de Gibraltar' (located across the border from Gibraltar). With this General Franco predicted and expected the demise and fall of Gibraltar. He was proven wrong.

Citizens at the Frontier Gate protesting

FRANCO'S IMPACT

According to the press, which was state-controlled, the closure of the frontier and cutting off of all types of communication between Gibraltar and Spain was happily welcomed by the majority of the Spanish population. It was proclaimed that as from the closure of the border, construction within Gibraltar would immediately come to a halt as approximately 1,500 Spanish building workers would have been lost by Gibraltar alongside around 2,000 Spaniards employed in servicing ships. In addition to these occupations, huge amounts of Spaniards were employed as bakers, electricians, mechanics amongst numerous other jobs in Gibraltar adding to the massive loss of income. In total around 4,800 Spanish citizens lost their jobs in Gibraltar. All those Spaniards working in Gibraltar were forced to leave before the border closed and there was to be absolutely no crossing of any persons under any circumstances with supplies and communications being cut off too. Franco reassured those Spanish workers that they would receive money for enough time to enable them to find another job in Spain as they would not suffer in any way. Moreover, on 27 June 1969, the Ferry linking Gibraltar with Algeciras made its last journey across the bay, meaning that Gibraltar became entirely isolated by land as well as by sea.

Spanish workers leaving Gibraltar with their belongings and tools before the closure of the border

WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER!

Gibraltar turned to Morocco for labour and food, and strengthened its ties with the United Kingdom. This was seen through Britain's action towards Spain, for example, their complaints regarding Spain breaking internationally accepted standards of behaviour done via the closing of the border and termination of the ferry service. The Foreign Office protested "The Spanish Government cannot seriously believe that any British Government could hand over the people of Gibraltar to a government which has done them so much harm already and which demonstrates unrelentingly that its immediate object is to disrupt the daily life of Gibraltar and destroy the people’s livelihood." This also came after protests by Gibraltarians and their supporters marched through London to 10 Downing Street. Furthermore, the closure of the frontier helped shape Gibraltarian's sense of identity as a people as General Franco's attempt to bring Gibraltar to its knees had evidently failed. Gibraltar survived. 

For La Linea, Spain, the population instantly saw a gradual reduction, affecting the economy of the area resulting in backlash from the citizens there who engaged in protests and demands for the reopening of the border.

By Niall Serra

The Gibraltar Sovereignty Referendum of 1967

 BRITISH WE ARE, BRITISH WE STAY!

The Gibraltar Sovereignty Referendum of 1967 speaks volumes of the proud identity us Gibraltarians have of ourselves. The referendum essentially asked Gibraltarian citizens (voters) whether they wished to pass under Spanish sovereignty (marked 'A' in the voting ballot seen below), or whether they desired to remain under British sovereignty (marked 'B'). Of the 12,762 Gibraltarians who were able to vote, 12,237 'llanitos' (as us Gibraltarians call ourselves ~ pronounced yanitos) voted in favour of remaining under British sovereignty, whilst only 44 voted in favour of passing under Spanish sovereignty; with there being 55 spoiled ballot papers.

The Ballot Paper with the 2 options, written in English and Spanish

WHAT'S TO OFFER?

The 'Question of Gibraltar' under the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2070 prompted the governments of the United Kingdom and Spain to begin talks on Gibraltar in 1966. Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fernando Castiella, made a formal proposal to Britain comprising of three clauses which went as follows:

                

1. The cancellation of the Treaty of Utrecht and the subsequent return of Gibraltar to Spain.
2. The presence of the British in the Royal Navy base in Gibraltar, its use being subject to a specific Anglo-Spanish agreement.
3. A 'Personal Statute' for Gibraltarians, under United Nations Guarantee, protecting their cultural, social and economic interest in Gibraltar or anywhere in Spain, including their British nationality.

The people of Gibraltar were therefore met with this option entailing Spanish sovereignty, or the latter which would mean that Britain would consider the vote a voluntary relationship of the Gibraltarians with London, and would discuss with the local leaders any appropriate constitutional changes which they sought after. In relation to this, the Gibraltarians definitely made their thoughts on the referendum and the clear-cut choice known as Gibraltar turned red, white and blue.

The streets of Gibraltar surrounding the 1967 Referendum

The Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, expressed how the referendum was "the first opportunity for Gibraltarians to express in a free and democratic way where their interests lie." This was in fact an indirect reference to the United Nations recommendations, that, while the 'decolonisation' of the 'Rock' (of Gibraltar) should be carried out, the solution of the problem relating to Gibraltar should indeed be in the interests of its inhabitants.

BRITISH, BRITISH AND BRITISH!

The absolute astounding victory for the people of Gibraltar was emphasised through the 99.64% of voters favouring and voting for British Sovereignty. It was almost a certain 'no-brainer' and was a vindication of Britain's arguments before the United Nations that Gibraltar was a colony that did not want to be decolonised. As there was no sign within Gibraltar of any popular or political movement pressing for an end to British rule, and as civil liberties in Spain under Franco were restricted, it was evident that the Spanish claim was to be met with a miniscule chance of success. Additionally, the behaviour of the Gibraltarians was adequate and responsible in their celebrations in red, white and blue as the Referendum Administrator praised the people of Gibraltar "for the responsible way in which they conducted themselves during a period when emotions inevitably ran high".

Poster demonstrating Gibraltar's desires to remain British

By Niall Serra

Psychedelics - Hunter S. Thompson

 Fear and Loathing in the Psychedelic Era

It would be criminal not to mention Hunter S. Thompson when talking about psychedelics in the 1960s. The journalist/writer was one of the most influential figures of the era and he did not shy away from his use of (many) drugs, including LSD.

Hunter in his home of Aspen, 1968

 His most famous work is arguably his book ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’ (adapted in a movie starring Johnny Depp, who seems to be unable to escape roles of LSD users). The book is semi-autobiographical and recounts Thompson’s (under his alias of Raoul Duke) psychedelic experiences in Las Vegas. In its opening pages, the tone is set when Duke is said to carry a briefcase holding “ two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... and also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of Budweiser, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls”, as he assures that “once you get locked into a serious drug collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can”.

Illustration for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Ralph Steadman (Hunter's close friend)

Thompson was introduced to psychedelics relatively late into his life, at 28 years old (in 1965) while he was following the Hell’s Angel’s for an article. From then on drugs became an integral part of his life. Thompson was quoted saying “sex, drugs, and insanity have always worked for me, but I wouldn’t recommend them for everyone.”, this is a feeling that seemed to be fairly common in the psychedelic era. Although he used LSD and other drugs like so many others, he did not agree with the hippie communities, who he believed had “never really believed they were the wave of the future anyway”, as he thought that their lack of political actions resulted in a drugged-out society with no aims.

Thompson’s LSD use is a cautionary tale of sort. One of his favourite quotes was “he who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man”, from Samuel Johnson and Thompson did turn into a beast of sort after years of abuse. Roberto Loiderman, of the LA Times, recalls a night spent with Thompson where he showed his dark side as they both did LSD and Thompson ended up aiming a pistol and a rifle “out the window”, terrifying Roberto and Thompson’s then wife, Sandy. Another side to Thompson was what Johnny Depp (who became a very close friend of his while filming Fear and Loathing) described as “a very gentle guy” who was “hyper, hypersensitive, hence the self-medication”. Thompson is a perfect representation of the 1960s artists as his use of psychedelics led him to create some amazing work, and some extremely powerful political commentary, but it also led to his downfall as by the end of his life, he made little to no sense, finally cutting it short by shooting himself in the head with his final words being “No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more than I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun – for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your old age. Relax – This won’t hurt”.

Henri Crépin-Leblond

Psychedelics - Woodstock

Woodstock’s psychedelic legacy

The Woodstock Festival is one of the many music festivals which took place in the psychedelic era, and it is arguably the most impactful one in terms of its effect on culture and its timeless acts. It took place between the 15^th and 18^th of August 1969 in New York, on a farm owned by one Max B. Yasgur. Ironically, Yasgur was a straight-edge Republican who was a strong believer in the Vietnam War. Although he was described by the Woodstock promoting team as the “antithesis of what [the festival] stood for”, Yasgur was quoted saying “a half a million young people can get together and have three days of fun and music, and have nothing but fun and music, and I God bless you for it”, showing that he was either supportive of the movement, or a very good businessman. The festival itself was organised by four young men: Michael Lang, Artie Kornfield, Joel Rosenman and John Roberts who at first aimed for about 50.000 visitors, a number which quickly turned into 100.000 at pre-sale, and finally about half a million on the actual days. And it’s no secret that a vast majority of them were on psychedelics.

Poster for Woodstock

There is a reason Woodstock was never recreated (successfully at least). It simply came at the right time. It came at the height of the psychedelic era and as Michael Lang put it (in his book, ‘The Road to Woostock’), Woodstock “would be [their] political statement—proving that peace and understanding were possible and creating a testament to the value of the counterculture”, something that this generation was eager to prove. Although the drugs weren’t the main reason for the success of the festivals (probably not anyway), it surely helped to create a certain atmosphere and some unforgettable acts. Many, if not all, of the artists there were open with their drug use, and it’s been rumoured that drinks backstage were spiked with LSD. Roger Daltrey (lead singer of THE WHO), in his book ‘Thanks a Lot Mr. Kibblewhite’, claims that everything was laced in acid and that “even the ice cubes had been done”. It’s no surprise that performances from bands/artists such as Santana (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPauXWjY4T8) and Blind Melon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t_o21deSZw) were so special.

But arguably the most famous performance of Woodstock was Jimy Hendrix’s. Although the rumour that he stashed LSD under his headband for it to enter his bloodstream faster is questionable at best, his act itself was psychedelic. It was especially known for its rendition of the ‘Star Sprangled Banner’ which he distorted with his electric guitar on the Monday of the festival (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3-b3ViNTMI).

Hendrix performing

The Woodstock festival was born out of the psychedelic era but it also kickstarted a sub-culture in the following years, to the point that David Crosby (who performed there) described it as “the Big Bang”, although the era ended in the 1970s as the counterculture died down and drug problems rose, there were a few years where psychedelic use and music culture went hand in hand, something that is re-emerging today with the psychedelic renaissance.

Henri Crépin-Leblond

Psychedelics - The Birth of the Psychedelic Era

Birth and controversies of the Psychedelic Era  

The music and culture of the 1960s was majorly impacted by the use of psychedelics, in particular LSD (or “acid”). But before it inspired musicians such as The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Jimmy Hendrix and so many more, its use was arguably questionable.

Albert Hoffman, the father of LSD

 LSD was created in 1938 by chemist Albert Hoffman, who accidently tested it on himself on the 16^th of April 1943, it then took about ten years for the drug to be used in psychiatric research. Before it became a recreational drug, LSD was used with relative success to cure alcoholism from the 1950s onwards. As much as 40.000 people were given the drug (between 1950 and 1965), but out of those, only a small fraction was warranted. Patients suffering from schizophrenia, neurosis or even autism (especially children) were subjected to those experiments, with negative results swept under the rug, so much so that data is hard to find on those events. One of the more questionable use of the drug was an experiment led by the CIA and US Military from the late 1950s; it involved giving LSD to prisoners to see if it could be used as a “truth drug”. The life-changing experiment on criminal Whitey Bulger (portrayed by Johnny Depp in the movie Black Mass) is one of its most famous cases due to its public nature. Sent to prison in the mid-1950s for armed robbery, Bulger was subjected to the MK-Ultra program. Him and his fellow inmates were told that the research would go towards “curing schizophrenia” which of course was a lie. Coming out of prison in the mid-1960s, Bulger went on to become one of Boston’s most violent gangsters and it’s argued today that this switch from his early crimes was caused by his experience in prison. Bulger was dosed 50 times and suffered his whole life from “auditory and visual hallucinations and violent nightmares”, during those experiments Bulger was set in front of monitors and repeatedly asked “Would you ever kill anyone?” and other leading questions. Looking at this, it’s easy to see why George Harrison claimed that "so much paranoia [was] created around the drug" during an interview on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971.

 

Sketch of Whitey Bulger at his trial, 2013

But it was in the early 1960s that the true Psychedelic Era started. The use of LSD exploded among hippie groups and became part of the 1960s counterculture, especially as it became illegal in 1966, giving yet another way to go against the government. Artists did not shy away from their use of acid, as psychedelic sounds and album covers became the norm, leading to the birth of “acid rock”. Looking at the Beatles, the switch between Help! (1965) and Revolver (1966) is obvious. The difference in sound and lyrics between the tracks, going from classic songs such as ‘Ticket to Ride’ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHsN9d4FTVI0) with fairly innocent lyrics to ones such as ‘Love You Too’ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1X-q7MweIc&list=PLMhU9Z43N_1hu2525DEB50mvC-cioI85w&index=6) with the lyrics “Make love all day long, Make love singing songs”, is a good indicator of the start of the Psychedelic Era.

      

Henri Crépin-Leblond

Ella Baker and her role in the Civil Rights Movement

Ella Baker (1903-1986)

Ella Baker played a significant role in the development of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and the 1960s.[1] Baker had devoted her entire adult life to building organisations that believed in social change by encouraging and empowering individual growth. In 1927, Baker graduated from Shaw University in North Carolina, and later she went on to joining the National Association for the Advancement for Coloured People (NAACP) as a field secretary in 1938. This saw to Baker travelling across the South, trying to persuade people that they could make “extraordinary changes”[2] in their lives. Although Baker was apart of the largest and oldest civil rights organisations in America who believed in ending racial segregation and discrimination, she later left her full time position within the organisation in 1946 as she became “disaffected”[3] by the hierarchical model of the organisation. The structure of the organisation meant that the decision process was largely being held in the national office, whereas Baker believed it should be distributed equally amongst the brand organisations. According to Aprele Elliot, Baker also “rejected”[4] the hierarchical system that was in place because she felt that it forced women into the position of the servants. Not only is Baker crucial in developing the Civil Rights Movement throughout the sixties, but she is also crucial in the development of women’s rights with regards to the movement.

In 1957 Baker joined the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) as an associate director, where she worked alongside the infamous Martin Luther King Jr. Baker began to encourage the younger generation to continue the fight for civil rights within American by creating their own organisation, as she “opposed”[5] the notion that the younger generation should become an arm of the NAACP or the SCLC. Because of this, Baker became known as the women who encouraged the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

The SNCC consisted of college students who believed in taking a nonviolent approach towards dismantling racial segregation and discrimination in the United States by partaking in Sit-in movements. The aim of the sit-ins were to highlight how immoral segregation was by walking into a ‘white only’ establishment, and taking a sit next to a white individual and show peacefully that they were both the same, and therefore, should be treated the same. Baker used her extensive contacts that she had accumulated throughout the years of working with older Civil Rights Movement activists to help spread awareness for the youths movement. Because of Bakers actions, not only did she ensure the survival of the Civil Rights Movements future by making sure the younger generation have the freedom to create their own movement, but she also gave the SNCC a platform, which helped the newly founded organisation gain a respectable reputation, not only from the older civil rights organisations, but also the Kennedy Administration.[6] Baker played a crucial role in the development of the Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s and the 1960s with regards to the older organisations, but she also played a crucial role in the formation of future organisations which were founded by the younger generation, ensuring that they also had the freedom to do so.

By Emma Ritchie

---

[1] Ella Baker “Bigger Than a Hamburger,” The Southern Patriot, vol.18 (June 1960) in Manning Marable and Leith Mullings, ed., Let Nobody Turn Us Around: Voices on Resistance, Reform and Renewal, 2nd Ed. (Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, 2009) pp. 375

[2] Elliott, Aprele. “Ella Baker: Free Agent in the Civil Rights Movement.” Journal of Black Studies, vol. 26, no. 5, Sage Publications, Inc., 1996, pp.595

[3] Ella Baker “Bigger Than a Hamburger,” The Southern Patriot, vol.18 (June 1960) in Manning Marable and Leith Mullings, ed., Let Nobody Turn Us Around: Voices on Resistance, Reform and Renewal, 2nd Ed. (Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, 2009) pp. 375

[4] Ibid, pp.594

[5] Ibid, pp. 375

[6] Raiford, Leigh. “‘Come Let Us Build a New World Together’: SNCC and Photography of the Civil Rights Movement.” American Quarterly, vol. 59, no. 4, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007, pp.1130

The Feminine Mystique

Betty Friedan’s publication of The Feminine Mystique was an instant best seller amongst the women when it was first released in 1963.[1] It was the first time that women’s struggles were not only acknowledged, but also given its own platform for people to discuss. As ominous as the name of the problem is, “the problem that has no name”, Friedan was able to capture the pure essence of the dissatisfaction that white suburban housewives were feeling during that time.

In The Feminine Mystique, Friedan explains that she believes the editors and the writers of Magazines for both men and women, although mostly the women magazines, were the “Frankenstein’s”[2] who had created this feminine monster. Friedan argues that because of these magazines, women were trapped by a web of assumptions, which essentially “narrowed”[3] and cut women’s worlds down to being the perfect housewife/mother or staying at home.

Demure Douching AD for Women. 1969

An example of Friedan’s analysis on the feminine monster can quite clearly be seen during a 1969 Advert for Demure and their douching product for women. Not only is the opening sentence of this advert incredibly misogynistic, but so is the big bold placement of the word ‘husband’, as if to suggest that the gynaecological needs of a women revolves around their desire to please their husbands. Another example can be seen in a magazine series called How To Make Money In Your Spare Time  by the Ladies’ Home Journey in 1969. The advert pushed the notion that women could find self-fulfilment in their own time at home by becoming a party planner. The example given involved one woman who invented games for the children to keep them distracted while the other two women ran an arts and crafts store.[4] These two examples of adverts that ran during the late sixties show perfectly how the ‘Frankenstein’s’ were promoting the traditional responsibilities of housewives by encouraging their readers to define women’s roles in the context of either their family, as the primary caregiver who cannot have the luxury that men do, which is a father who works, or the notion that women need to become the perfect “feminine”[5] housewife.

In an interview with Jennifer C. Harris, Friedan explained that she at one point had the constant feeling that “something was missing”[6] and that she thought “something was wrong with her.”[7] It was not until Friedan realised that nothing was wrong with her, but instead the mass circulation of these magazines that promote toxic traditional roles of women that contribute towards women’s dissatisfaction with their limited gender roles. By Friedan publicly giving ‘the problem with no name’ a platform, she was allowing other women to feel less alienated by validating their shared feelings, which was something that the Magazines such as the Ladies’ Home Journey were not doing. This is one of the many reasons why hundreds of women have testified that The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan had changed their lives. [8]

By Emma Ritchie

---

[1] Meyerowitz, Joanne. “Beyond the Feminine Mystique: A Reassessment of Postwar Mass Culture, 1946- 1958.” The Journal of American History, vol. 79, no. 4, [Oxford University Press, Organization of American Historians], 1993, pp. 1455

[2] Ibid, pp.1455

[3] Ibid, pp.1445

[4] Keller, Kathryn. “Nurture and Work in the Middle Class: Imagery from Women’s Magazines.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, vol. 5, no. 4, Springer, 1992, pp.583

[5] Thompson, Caroline. “How to Be a Woman, According to 1960s Women's Magazines.” Vice, 2018

[6] Friedan, Betty, and Jennifer Chapin Harris. “Interview: After the Mystique Is Gone: A Phone Interview with Betty Friedan, March 19, 1997.” Off Our Backs, vol. 27, no. 9, off our backs, inc., 1997, pp.10

[7] Ibid, pp.10

[8] Meyerowitz, Joanne. “Beyond the Feminine Mystique: A Reassessment of Postwar Mass Culture, 1946- 1958.” The Journal of American History, vol. 79, no. 4, [Oxford University Press, Organization of American Historians], 1993, pp.1455

Mods, Rockers and The Media

The Mods and Their Scooters

Modernists (Mods)

Mods first appeared in the East End of London around 1958. They were visibly detectable because they had adopted a “pose of scooter-driving sophistication”[1] which saw their style heavily infused by Italian and French fashion trends that were slightly more colourful, which was considered “outrageous”[2] at the time. Their scooters of choice were Vespas and Lambrettas. Mods were known to have listened to Modern Jazz at the start, but later they begun to shift towards Rock music with bands such as The Who and Yard Birds.

 

The Rockers and Their Bikes

Rockers

Rockers were part of a biker subculture which originated in the United Kingdom during the 1950s. Rockers were known to have adopted a more “macho biker gang”[3] image which consisted of black leather jackets, silver studs, big heavy boots and they would ride motor bikes. Rockers were known to have gotten their name from their love of Rock ‘n’ Roll music which involved music from Elvis Presley and Eddie Cochran. 

Mods and Rockers were two conflicting British youth subcultures that were both coexisting in the early to mid-sixties. Because Mods and Rockers were so different, the two groups would often clash with one another which would end up being broadcasted by the media. Between 1964 and 1966, a series of disturbances begun to take place at Southeast seaside towns all across England. Places such as Brighton, Bournemouth, Clacton and Margate became the breeding ground for the clashes. Many different newspapers all throughout the country had been “over reporting”[4] the Mods and Rockers clashes, creating mass hysteria and moral panic. Newspapers and other forms of media were painting the Mods and Rockers as  “aggressively deviant”[5] youths who were incredibly “anti-social”[6] which was essentially simplifying the phenomenon as a violent youth movement.

            The media played a major role in creating mass hysteria and moral panic surrounding the two British youth movements of the sixties, but the reality of the clashes that took place between 1964 and 1966, was no where near as aggressive or violent as the media had made it out to be. According to Chris Tull, the leader of the Thanet District Council,  the ‘clashes’ were “no different”[7] to something you would see in a town on a Saturday night. Although, by today’s standard it wasn’t violent, Tull went on to say that “nobody had seen anything like it before.”[8] Newspapers were profiting on the clashes between the Mods and Rockers by painting them to be “sociopathic, scooter riding tidal waves”[9] of mass destruction simply because they as an older generation did not understand what it was the Mods and Rockers were clashing for. Michael Levi argues that the pushed perception on the Mods and Rockers created by the media of the mainstream society, was because the older generation believed that they “did not deserve the liberty that they were asserting.”[10] This is further backed up by S.N Eisenstadt as he argues that:

“their feelings have often been shared by many members of the parent generation and reinforced by its guilty feeling about the incomplete realization of the goals of their own youth and of the movements in which they participated in – because of this very process of institutionalization.”[11]

The new concept of “conformity of nonconformity”[12] challenged the pre-existing social norm that was so engraved in the older generation, and because they already accepted it, they expected the younger generation to also accept. The older generation mistook the clashes as acts of unjustified violence, instead of seeing that the newer generation were simply trying to make a safe place within society for themselves, as they believed the older generation and the media, did not accommodate nor understand why they were trying to liberate themselves. 

By Emma Ritchie

---

[1] Richmond, Deborah. “Schmods + Mockers.” Log, no. 7, Anyone Corporation, 2006, pp. 43

[2] Ibid, pp.43

[3] Richmond, Deborah. “Schmods + Mockers.” Log, no. 7, Anyone Corporation, 2006, pp. 43

[4] Cohen, S., ‘Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers’, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980, pp.26

[5] Hunt, Arnold. “‘Moral Panic’ and Moral Language in the Media.” The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 48, no. 4, [Wiley, London School of Economics and Political Science, London School of Economics], 1997, pp.631

[6] Ibid, pp.631

[7] Ainsworth, C., ‘Margate capitalises on 1964 Mods and Rockers’ Riots’, BBC-News, 01 October 2011

[8] Ibid.

[9] Darlington, Joseph. “‘A Clockwork Orange’: The Art of Moral Panic?” The Cambridge Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 2, Oxford University Press, 2016, pp.126

[10] Levi, Michael. “SUITE REVENGE? The Shaping of Folk Devils and Moral Panics about White-Collar Crimes.” The British Journal of Criminology, vol. 49, no. 1, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp.49

[11] Eisenstadt, S. N. “Generational Conflict and Intellectual Antinomianism.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 395, [Sage Publications, Inc., American Academy of Political and Social Science], 1971, pp.75

[12] Richmond, Deborah. “Schmods + Mockers.” Log, no. 7, Anyone Corporation, 2006, pp.44