End of the Cold War Ambrose 16

 

In 1989 Franis Fukuyame wrote an essay titled “The end of history“.  In it, and its subsequent 1992 book, he argued that with the advent of democracy humankind had found its last form of government.  Seems kind of naive now doesn’t it?

So could it have been, or in what way was it, the “end of history”?  It appeared to be the end of the Cold War, just don’t tell that to Castro’s Cuba or the imprisoned citizens of North Korea, or citizens of Ukraine.  It is sad reading this chapter that the word “terrorism” isn’t used once yet the idea of a “new world order” is touted about by Ambrose and Bush and others.

In an editorial in Life Magazine (remember those?) near WWII Henry Luce declared the 20th century the “American Century”. arguing that all centuries have great nations that lead the way, Britain the 19th century, France in the 18th, and that now it was America’s turn.

Derrick Bell snidely commented that the “American Century foundered on the shoals of Vietnam”.  But did it?  What would Ambrose say?  And why do you think, or does Ambrose think, we didn’t financially support the emerging democracies in eastern Europe any better?  Did we really need to spend $* billion on the unwindable “war on drugs”?

In terms of the quiz keep an eye on Gorbachev, other names you may know, like Dick Cheney and of course the immediate events, the dot in the center of the circles of causality, that caused the end of the Cold War.

2 Responses to “End of the Cold War Ambrose 16”

  1. Nawar Nemeh says:

    I think Ambrose would still stand by his position that the world is better off still (if he didn’t he probably would have changed in a subsequent edition) and I have to say I agree with him. The world is plagued by many issues today, the war in Syria, the crisis in the Ukraine and the faltering Israeli-Palestinian peace process. But that does not change the fact that, although the United States has acted in poor judgment on many issues since the end of the Cold War, the world is better off and, as Ambrose said, significantly more free

  2. Nick Lee says:

    I feel like Ambrose is riding the wave of optimism that’s flowing throughout the world as the capitalist countries are celebrating the falling of Communism in the 1990s. It’s naive of Ambrose to assume that a new world order will take place as quickly as he thinks, when the Communist government of the USSR took more than 40 years to fall apart, after constant instability. There is a large change in the type of conflicting governments, but now terrorism is the new key word, instead of Communism, and the conflicting ideals of opposing groups will make it hard to create stability.

Leave a Reply