Thursday, 19 March 2020

The Cuban Missile Crisis

Missile Crisis of 62’

It was on 16^th October 1962 that the Cuban Missile crisis exploded with a vengeance, bringing the world incredibly close to the brink of a nuclear Armageddon. An event of canonical status, the crisis that erupted brought into question the interrelationship of the United States and the Soviet Union, effectively leading the superpowers of the globe to a direct confrontation.[1]

President John F. Kennedy, upon discovering the undisclosed installation of medium range nuclear missiles in Cuba, believed that the chances of the situation suddenly escalating to war was ‘between 1 in 3 and even’.[2]With the advancement of missiles powerful enough to deliver a substantial nuclear explosion, tensions quickly intensified.

The transportation of these missiles had been directed on the orders of the Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev, in a direct attempt to substantiate the previous Soviet claim of strategic missile superiority. It seems that the Soviets had overemphasised their superiority and ownership of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles [ICBMs] and instead required lands outside the firing range of the USSR, from which Intermediate range missiles could be hypothetically launched, reaching the United States.[3] With Cuba chosen as the perfect location for the missile base, stakes were extremely high. With hindsight, we know that it was not only missiles being transported into Cuba, but there was also 100 tactical weapons that could be launched.[4] It seems that had the Soviet plan succeeded, Khrushchev would be in the position to make demands as and when he pleased.[5]

It was on 14^th October 1962 that a lone U-2 plane flew over Cuba, photographing the installation of missiles, only 90 miles from the United States coast. With information being provided to the President on a minutely basis, the ‘intelligence community performed admirably’.[6] In response to the findings, following a week of deliberations, President Kennedy announced the implementation of a Cuban naval blockade around the island, instantly preventing any additional missile shipments.[7]

The second week of negotiations was intense, with neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev wanting to admit defeat. Primarily played out within the White House, the event lasted for thirteen days, until October 27^th, when the Soviet Premier finally accepted the terms of Kennedys proposal, who promised not to invade Cuba, providing that Khrushchev begin to dismantle and withdraw the missiles.[8]

Today, there are have been many Presidents that have since looked back to the events of 1962, in an attempt to learn from it. With tapes of the National Security Council deliberations, recorded by Kennedy himself, we are able to comprehend and challenge the endless solutions discussed, with the power to suddenly transform the Cold War into an extremely explosive one.[9]

[Bombs in the backyard: the map of Cuba that John F. Kennedy annotated on October 16, 1962, on display at his presidential library][10]

[1] Laffey, Mark, and Jutta Weldes. "Decolonizing the Cuban Missile Crisis." International Studies Quarterly 52, no. 3 (2008): 555-77. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29734251.

[2] Allison, Graham. "The Cuban Missile Crisis at 50: Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy Today." Foreign Affairs 91, no. 4 (2012): 11-16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23218035.

[3] Miller, Linda K., and Mary McAuliffe. "The Cuban Missile Crisis." OAH Magazine of History 8, no. 2 (1994): 24-41. Accessed March 19, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/25162944.

[4] Allison, Graham. "The Cuban Missile Crisis at 50: Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy Today." Foreign Affairs 91, no. 4 (2012): 11-16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23218035.

[5] Miller, Linda K., and Mary McAuliffe. "The Cuban Missile Crisis." OAH Magazine of History 8, no. 2 (1994): 24-41. Accessed March 19, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/25162944.

[6] Miller, Linda K., and Mary McAuliffe. "The Cuban Missile Crisis." OAH Magazine of History 8, no. 2 (1994): 24-41. Accessed March 19, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/25162944.

[7] Allison, Graham. "The Cuban Missile Crisis at 50: Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy Today." Foreign Affairs 91, no. 4 (2012): 11-16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23218035.

[8] Allison, Graham. "The Cuban Missile Crisis at 50: Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy Today." Foreign Affairs 91, no. 4 (2012): 11-16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23218035.

[9] Allison, Graham. "The Cuban Missile Crisis at 50: Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy Today." Foreign Affairs 91, no. 4 (2012): 11-16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23218035.

[10] Allison, Graham. "The Cuban Missile Crisis at 50: Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy Today." Foreign Affairs 91, no. 4 (2012): 11-16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23218035.

Thalidomide: Scare of the Sixties.

Thalidomide: Scare of the Sixties

It was in 1954, in West Germany, that Wilhelm Kunnz first synthesised a drug, which in decades to come, would have a detrimental effect on the lives of an estimated 10,000 new-born babies.[1]

Despite being initially marketed as an antihistamine, by 1956, it had been presented to the mass market as a highly effective sedative, by the German pharmaceutical manufacturer Chemie Grunenthal. Such a market certainly had a global reach and before long, this same drug was easily accessible in 46 countries, though was marketed under 51 different brand names. With incredible successes due to its ‘prompt action, lack of hangover effects and apparent safety’, the drug, commonly regarded as Thalidomide, quickly became one of the three most sought after drugs throughout Europe.[2] Available on demand, Thalidomide was frequently prescribed by physicians to pregnant women as an anti-sickness medication, in an attempt to minimise the impact of morning sickness.[3]

In 1958 Distillers Biochemicals LTD commenced the manufacture and distribution of Thalidomide throughout the United Kingdom. Following their entrance into the pharmaceutical market, they successfully launched a campaign advertising Thalidomide as a replacement for ‘barbiturates’, a drug previously held accountable for numerous fatalities.[4] Before long, Thalidomide was advertised to physicians across the globe, with sales rising exponentially.

However, this façade of success was incredibly short lived. On a timeline parallel to the surge in sales, a tragedy had taken hold on the world’s population.

In 1960, The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] received an application for Thalidomide to be distributed throughout the United States. Following investigation, the case was swiftly rejected by Frances Kelsey, who had uncovered a range of damaging implications catalysed by its use. This decision was reinforced by physicians after countless reports emerged detailing thousands of babies born with life threatening birth defects.[5] These deformities were predominantly present in the limbs of infants, where proximal sections of limbs had failed to develop. Not only were these birth defects extremely debilitating, but in a handful of cases, children were even found to have suffered neuropathic impairment.[6]

Physicians were left completely perplexed as to the catalyst of the deformities after investigations evidenced that they were not caused by hereditary illnesses. However, in 1961, Widukind Lenz drew significant connections between the use of Thalidomide during pregnancy and the resulting neurotoxic defects.[7]

With circumstantial evidence accumulating from every corner of the globe, Distillers Co, saw no choice but to halt operations and did so, on 3^rd December 1961.[8]

The scale of the disaster was unfathomable. Not only had the tragedy shattered the confidence of the general public, but the unfolding epidemic emphasised the absolute failure of sufficient preclinical testing, unnecessarily risking the lives of the population. Following this realisation, drug regulation and preclinical testing rapidly became the subject of public attention throughout the UK and the US. The Thalidomide tragedy not only marked a watershed moment in the history of drug regulation but acted as a catalyst for drastic improvements to be made to the pharmaceutical industry.[9]

Such improvements came in the form of legislations, including critical changes to the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act 1962. Not only did these changes investigate the effectiveness and safety of new preliminary drugs, but they challenged the efficacy of their use.[10] By 2003, throughout the US, Thalidomide became the subject of law 10.651. It was an unprecedented change and to this day, it remains the only drug in the US to have its own dedicated law. [11]

Currently regarded as a ‘potentially life-saving drug’, Thalidomide continues to be used in modern medicine to treat a range of conditions, including leprosy. However, it is only used under strict adherence to the legislations previously set out, to avoid yet another disaster.[12]

[1] Timmermans, Stefan, and Valerie Leiter. "The Redemption of Thalidomide: Standardizing the Risk of Birth Defects." Social Studies of Science 30, no. 1 (2000): 41-71. Accessed March 17, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/285769.

[2] Timmermans, Stefan, and Valerie Leiter. "The Redemption of Thalidomide: Standardizing the Risk of Birth Defects." Social Studies of Science 30, no. 1 (2000): 41-71. Accessed March 17, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/285769.

[3] Timmermans, Stefan, and Valerie Leiter. "The Redemption of Thalidomide: Standardizing the Risk of Birth Defects." Social Studies of Science 30, no. 1 (2000): 41-71. Accessed March 17, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/285769.

[4] MORO, Adriana; INVERNIZZI, Noela. The thalidomide tragedy: the struggle
for victims’ rights and improved pharmaceutical regulation. História, Ciências, Saúde – Manguinhos, Rio de Janeiro, v.24, n.3, jul.-set. 2017. Available at: http://www.scielo.br/hcsm.

[5] Timmermans, Stefan, and Valerie Leiter. "The Redemption of Thalidomide: Standardizing the Risk of Birth Defects." Social Studies of Science 30, no. 1 (2000): 41-71. Accessed March 17, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/285769.

[6] Taussig, Helen B. "The Thalidomide Syndrome." Scientific American 207, no. 2 (1962): 29-35. Accessed March 17, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/24936633.

[7] Taussig, Helen B. "The Thalidomide Syndrome." Scientific American 207, no. 2 (1962): 29-35. Accessed March 17, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/24936633.

[8] Venkataramiah, E. S. "THE SUNDAY TIMES' THALIDOMIDE CASE." Journal of the Indian Law Institute 30, no. 2 (1988): 129-37. Accessed March 18, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/43951160.

[9] Timmermans, Stefan, and Valerie Leiter. "The Redemption of Thalidomide: Standardizing the Risk of Birth Defects." Social Studies of Science 30, no. 1 (2000): 41-71. Accessed March 17, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/285769.

[10] Timmermans, Stefan, and Valerie Leiter. "The Redemption of Thalidomide: Standardizing the Risk of Birth Defects." Social Studies of Science 30, no. 1 (2000): 41-71. Accessed March 17, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/285769.

[11] MORO, Adriana; INVERNIZZI, Noela. The thalidomide tragedy: the struggle
for victims’ rights and improved pharmaceutical regulation. História, Ciências, Saúde – Manguinhos, Rio de Janeiro, v.24, n.3, jul.-set. 2017. Available at: http://www.scielo.br/hcsm.

[12] Timmermans, Stefan, and Valerie Leiter. "The Redemption of Thalidomide: Standardizing the Risk of Birth Defects." Social Studies of Science 30, no. 1 (2000): 41-71. Accessed March 17, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/285769.

Moonwalk of 69'

Moonwalk of 69’

“Houston, Tranquillity Base here, the Eagle has landed,” Neil Armstrong declared, when at 10.56 p.m., on 20^th July 1969, his left foot first touched down upon the lunar surface.[1] Despite being accompanied by Edwin Aldrin and Michael Collins on the manned mission, Armstrong, as the Space Commander of the Apollo 11 lunar module, really was the first man on the moon. The iconic moonwalk and announcement that followed is one that certainly marked a watershed moment in the history of mankind.

The momentous event, despite taking place almost 250,000 miles away in space, was televised across the globe to an enthusiastic audience of 528 million people, patiently watching, waiting for success. Confirmation of such success arrived at mission control with Armstrong announcing ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’.[2] A phrase that will outlive generations to this day, Armstrong’s infamous words not only marked an enormous triumph for the American population in the ongoing space race, but transformed what was once a dream, for countless individuals, into a reality.[3]

The space race, prior to this triumph, had been predominately led by close rivals; the Soviet Union, who, in recent years, had held key technological victories over the United States.[4] One of these biggest victories was Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gargarins orbit around the earth on 12^th April 1961, beating the well-publicised American launch of Alan Shepard, due to commence only one month later.[5] With competition fiercely increasing throughout the 1960’s, the successful Apollo 11 mission was so much more than just a triumph; it was America signalling the dawn of a new age. The Space Age.

It was on 24^th July 1969, that Armstrong and his fellow astronauts landed in midst of the Pacific Ocean, having been escorted to safety by aircraft carrier USS Hornet. Upon returning to earth, the three astronauts were awarded with an array of medals, with Armstrong even receiving the uppermost award offered to any U.S. Civilian - the Medal of Freedom.[6] However, the celebratory reception that greeted the astronauts upon their return was miniscule compared to the symbolic value that the moon-landing held. Not only was this accomplishment instrumental in reminding America’s population of their common national values, but it also delivered a much-needed morale boost, following the recent assignations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King.[7]

As predicted by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1958, the scientific successes of Apollo 11 did not bring America any ultimate weapon. Instead, it represented something much more valuable, this being; the ‘position of total control over earth’.[8]Not to be taken literally, but rather as an international image of the ‘pioneering, technologically advanced, risk-taking, high-achievement society’ that the American population so desperately wanted to project.[9]

It was the newly established National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] that the task was entrusted to. Attempting to achieve the mandate previously set out by President Kennedy, President Johnson re-organised the moon programme into a three-phase plan, these being; Project Mercury, Gemini and Apollo.[10] Whilst the mission remains one of humanities greatest achievements, there is little doubt that Kennedy’s desire to conquer the moon was simply a tactical manoeuvre in his advancing Cold War strategy.

Today, the possibilities as a result of the manned mission to the moon are endless. Today, there are over 72 countries with advanced space programmes. With the global space economy estimated to be worth in excess of $383.5 billion, we are still reminded of the successes of Armstrong and his team on that 20^th July 1969 mission.

For on the lunar surface still lies a plaque.

It reads: ‘Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon. July 1969, A.D. We came in peace for all mankind’.[11]

[Bringing Back a Portion of the moon: Neil Armstrong scoops up a lunar sample][12]

[1] Koman, Rita G. "Man on the Moon: The U.S. Space Program as a Cold War Maneuver." OAH Magazine of History 8, no. 2 (1994): 42-50. Accessed March 13, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/25162945.

[2] Reichstein, Andreas. "Space—the Last Cold War Frontier?" Amerikastudien / American Studies 44, no. 1 (1999): 113-36. Accessed March 13, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/41157439.

[3] "[On the Moon]." Science News 96, no. 4 (1969): 72-75. Accessed March 13, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/4548212.

[4] Reichstein, Andreas. "Space—the Last Cold War Frontier?" Amerikastudien / American Studies 44, no. 1 (1999): 113-36. Accessed March 13, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/41157439.

[5] Koman, Rita G. "Man on the Moon: The U.S. Space Program as a Cold War Maneuver." OAH Magazine of History 8, no. 2 (1994): 42-50. Accessed March 13, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/25162945.

[6] Launius, Roger D. "Heroes in a Vacuum: The Apollo Astronaut as Cultural Icon." The Florida Historical Quarterly 87, no. 2 (2008): 174-209. Accessed March 14, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/20700214.

[7] Koman, Rita G. "Man on the Moon: The U.S. Space Program as a Cold War Maneuver." OAH Magazine of History 8, no. 2 (1994): 42-50. Accessed March 13, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/25162945.

[8] Reichstein, Andreas. "Space—the Last Cold War Frontier?" Amerikastudien / American Studies 44, no. 1 (1999): 113-36. Accessed March 13, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/41157439.

[9] Koman, Rita G. "Man on the Moon: The U.S. Space Program as a Cold War Maneuver." OAH Magazine of History 8, no. 2 (1994): 42-50. Accessed March 13, 2020

[10] Koman, Rita G. "Man on the Moon: The U.S. Space Program as a Cold War Maneuver." OAH Magazine of History 8, no. 2 (1994): 42-50. Accessed March 13, 2020

[11] Cross, Mai’a K. Davis. Report. Norwegian Institute for International Affairs (NUPI), 2019. Accessed March 18, 2020. doi:10.2307/resrep19870.

[12] "[On the Moon]." Science News 96, no. 4 (1969): 72-75. Accessed March 19, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/4548212.

Civil Rights Activism in the 1960’s: The unique environment and development of the Greensboro Sit-In Movement. - Megan Hibbs

The Greensboro Sit-In Movement began on the 1^st of February in 1960 with four, young black men who attended North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College. They entered the local Woolworths in downtown Greensboro and made a small stand in demand for equal treatment with the white customers. They were refused, but they returned the next day with more students. The Sit-In Movement quickly spread, over the next couple of months, to 54 cities across 9 states.^{^[1]}

This initially small statement of four students became the start of the Student Civil Rights Movement. This had a huge impact on improving the level of desegregation in America, as a year later showed that more than 100 cities had enacted at least a minimum of desegregation. The Sit-In Movement also inspired the creation of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which was founded in Raleigh North Carolina which led Non-Violent Student-Led protests across the United States and was a huge part of the growing Civil Rights Movement.[2]

It is important to understand that the Sit-In Movement developed due to the unique environment of Greensboro. This series of events would likely not have been possible in another political and social atmosphere of the US in the 1960’s. The Sit-In Movement occurred due to a growing level of frustration within the black community. They had lost any trust that had developed with the white leaders of their city because of their empty promise to end segregation in the late 1950’s. As well as the following treatment of many African American school children who either attempted to or attended the previously all-white public schools.[3]

The atmosphere of Greensboro was unusual due to the ‘moderation politics’^{^[4]} that was being used as an attempt to camouflage the true racist nature of the city and its leaders. They were trying to create an image of racial liberalism, which meant that the treatment of their African American communities was largely less barbaric and brutal than other Southern cities. This unique environment allowed the resentment and the civil unrest to grow and fester, without the same level of fear that many black communities in the South had to overcome.

[1] W. H, Chafe, Civilities and Civil Rights: Greensboro, North Carolina, and the Black Struggle for Freedom, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 73, Accessed: 13/03/2020

[2] Hohenstein K., ‘Sit In Movement’, Encyclopaedia Britannica, March 11 2020, https://www.britannica.com/event/sit-in-movement, Accessed: 13/03/2020

[3] W. H, Chafe, Civilities and Civil Rights: Greensboro, North Carolina, and the Black Struggle for Freedom, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 43, Accessed: 13/03/2020

[4] W. H, Chafe, Civilities and Civil Rights: Greensboro, North Carolina, and the Black Struggle for Freedom, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 42, Accessed: 13/03/2020

The Music Revolution of the 1960’s: How the Beatles led the British Invasion - Megan Hibbs

The British Invasion was a never before seen trend that occurred in the mid-1960’s. Several popular British rock and pop bands, as well as other elements of the newly emerging British teen culture including fashion, literature and film, began to see a growing rise in popularity over in America.[1] Bands such as The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Kinks were at the forefront of this surge. Throughout the 1950’s American pop music was slowly developing a fan base in the UK, acts such as Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry and Ray Charles became popular and introduced rock and roll to the United Kingdom.

The first band to break America was The Beatles, with their record I Want to Hold Your Hand. A copy Life magazine released in 1964 explained the beginning of the British Invasion, they wrote: “In 1776 England lost her American colonies. Last week the Beatles took them back.”[2] Their reputations had proceeded them, and the band had made the American news before their music had. The US was aware of the growing Beatlemania in the UK and across Europe. Famously, Paul McCartney stated, “I think one of the cheekiest things we ever did was to say to Brian Epstein, ‘We’re not going to America until we’ve got a Number One record.’”[3] This media attention and attitude had already attracted attention and when they announced the American release date for I Want to Hold Your Hand was January, the demand was so big they rush-released it in December 1963. By the time the Beatles landed in America for the first time, their record had held its place at number one for seven weeks.

It is unknown why The Beatles caused such a sensation across the United States so quickly. According to Rolling Stones there are several reasons people believe they were such a hit. They suggest that “in the aftershock of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, transferred to the Beatles all the youthful idealism that had begun cresting under JFK.”[4] Arguing that due to the devastation and panic caused by of the assassination of a widely popular president, the American youth were looking for something to find joy in and to connect with. But this acceptance of the Beatles and the sound of British Rock and Roll opened the doors for the British Invasion, which inspired a new generation of musicians.

[1] Robbins, A. I., ‘British Invasion – Music’, Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/British-Invasion, Accessed: 09/03/2020

2020

[3] What You Don’t Know about the Beatles’ U.S. Debut, NBC News, February 7 2014, https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/what-you-dont-know-about-beatles-u-s-debut-n24171, Accessed: 09/03/2020

[4] Puterbaugh, P., ‘The British Invasion: From the Beatles to the Stones, The Sixties Belonged to Britain’, Rolling Stones, July 14 1988, https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/the-british-invasion-from-the-beatles-to-the-stones-the-sixties-belonged-to-britain-244870/, Accessed: 09/03/2020

Mods and Rockers: Youth Culture Phenomenon of the 1960’s - Megan Hibbs

With the current media climate fanatically hopping from one moral panic to the next, and newspapers such as The Sun, The Mirror and The Daily Mail providing horror and hysteria with every page. It seems strange to imagine a world without the continuous critical assault and media fuelled panic targeting youth culture. One modern example being articles claiming that the next generation are becoming more volatile, as they become desensitised by the casual violence of TV shows and video games. However, it was the Mods and Rockers phenomenon, in particular the events of 1964, which has been referred to as the first ever publicised moral panic.[1]

The developing rivalry between the Mods and Rockers allowed the media to allude to the youth of the 1960’s becoming dangerous and anarchic. The two factions of teens defined namely by their fashion and music. In May 1964, the animosity and tension between these two groups of teens reached a head, which resulted in teens fighting and causing disruptions across the South East of England. Brighton, Margate, Bournemouth and Clacton became known as the epicentres of the violence; the media extensively photographing and publicising the events, with dramatic headlines such as the “Battle of Brighton” and “Wild Ones ‘Beat Up’ Margate.”[2]

The reality of this weekend, however, was not necessarily as violent as it was made out. The media created a scandal of teenage aggression, when according to Chris Tull of Thanet District Council, “in today's terms it was probably something like an ordinary Saturday night in any town centre but at the time nobody had seen anything like it before.”[3] The papers sensationalised the level of violence and anarchy being cause by teenage rivalry. In a quote from John Braden, who was an 18-year-old Mod at the Margate fights, he said, “I joined in a few of the fights. It was a laugh; I haven't enjoyed myself so much for a long time.”[4] Giving an alternate view to the dramatised media coverage. He continued to describe the reasons for the desire to rebel, “It was like we were taking over the country. You want to hit back at all the old geezers who try to tell us what to do. We just want to show them we're not going to take it.”[5] He tells us that it was not as extreme as the headlines and tabloids suggested. Whilst there were fights and several arrests, the ‘Battle of Margate’ "was hardly a teen take-over.”[6]

The term moral panic was coined by sociologist Jock Young and by definition it means, “a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylised and stereotypical fashion by the mass media.”[7] Stanley Cohen observed that, “one of the most recurrent types of moral panic in Britain since the war has been associated with the emergence of various forms of youth culture”.[8] He argued that the Mod’s and Rockers were creating a generational shift. Simply making room for themselves in an environment that did not accommodate for them and the adults took their actions as “threatening and a symptom of national decay.”[9]

With the Mods and Rockers there was certainly violence, but Cohen argues that the exaggerated levels implied by the media only reflect the fears of the older generation.[10] In conclusion, it isn't violence that the Mods and Rockers should be remembered for. They were more than just violence; they were about redefining and creating a space for the youth in a world that alienated them. More than just a lifestyle, they symbolised the changing and developing world.

[1] Savage, J., ‘Mods and Rockers: Two Tribes go to War’, BBC-Culture, 21 October 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/story/20140515-when-two-tribes-went-to-war, Accessed: 05/03/2020

[2] Savage, J., ‘Mods and Rockers: Two Tribes go to War’, BBC-Culture, 21 October 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/story/20140515-when-two-tribes-went-to-war, Accessed: 05/03/2020

[3] Ainsworth, C., ‘Margate capitalises on 1964 Mods and Rockers’ Riots’, BBC-News, 01 October 2011, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-15094293, Accessed: 05/03/2020

[4] Feldman, C. J., ‘We are the Mods": A Transnational History of a Youth Subculture’, New York, Peter Lang, 2009, Accessed: 07/03/2020

[5] Feldman, C. J., ‘We are the Mods": A Transnational History of a Youth Subculture’, New York, Peter Lang, 2009, Accessed: 07/03/2020

[6] Savage, J., ‘Mods and Rockers: Two Tribes go to War’, BBC-Culture, 21 October 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/story/20140515-when-two-tribes-went-to-war, Accessed: 05/03/2020

[7] Savage, J., ‘Mods and Rockers: Two Tribes go to War’, BBC-Culture, 21 October 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/story/20140515-when-two-tribes-went-to-war, Accessed: 05/03/2020

[8] Cohen, S., ‘Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers’, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980, Accessed: 07/03/2020

[9] Cohen, S., ‘Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers’, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980, Accessed: 07/03/2020

[10] Cohen, S., ‘Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers’, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980, Accessed: 07/03/2020