Culture war

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)

Current revision

"I'm sick and tired of hearing about all of the radicals, and the perverts, and the liberals, and the leftists, and the Communists coming out of the closet! It's time for God's people to come out of the closet, out of the churches, and change America!", 1980, James Robison

Related e

Wikipedia
Wiktionary
Shop

Featured:

Rhombicuboctahedron by Leonardo da Vinci

The term culture war or culture conflict has different meanings depending on the time and place where it is used, as it relates to conflicts relevant to a specific area and era. Originally, it refers to the conflict between traditionalist, classical liberal, or conservative values and social democratic, progressive or social liberal values in the Western world, as well as other countries. Culture wars have influenced the debate over history, science and other curricula in all societies around the world.

It has come to signify different matters in modern United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, and generally, all over the world.

1 Origins
2 United States
- 2.1 1990s
- 2.2 2000s
3 Canada
4 Australia
5 See also

[edit]

Origins

The phrase "culture war" represents a loan translation (calque) from the German Kulturkampf. The German word Kulturkampf (culture struggle) refers to the clash between cultural and religious groups in the campaign from 1871 to 1878 under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck of the German Empire against the influence of the Roman Catholic Church.

[edit]

United States

The expression "culture war" entered the vocabulary of United States politics with the publication of Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America by James Davison Hunter in 1991. Hunter perceived a dramatic realignment and polarization that had transformed United States politics and culture, including the issues of abortion, federal and state gun laws, global warming, immigration, separation of church and state, privacy, recreational drug use, LGBT rights, and censorship.

In American usage the term "culture war" may imply a conflict between those values considered traditionalist or conservative and those considered progressive or liberal. It originated in the 1920s when urban and rural American values came into clear conflict. This followed several decades of immigration to the States by people who earlier European immigrants considered "alien". It was also a result of the cultural shifts and modernizing trends of the Roaring 20s, culminating in the presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928. However, James Davison Hunter's 1991 book Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America redefined the "culture war" in the United States of America. Hunter traces the concept to the 1960s. The perceived focus of the American culture war and its definition have taken various forms since then.

[edit]

1990s

James Davison Hunter, a sociologist at the University of Virginia, introduced the expression again in his 1991 publication, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. Hunter described what he saw as a dramatic realignment and polarization that had transformed American politics and culture.

He argued that on an increasing number of "hot-button" defining issues—abortion, gun politics, separation of church and state, privacy, recreational drug use, homosexuality, censorship—there existed two definable polarities. Furthermore, not only were there a number of divisive issues, but society had divided along essentially the same lines on these issues, so as to constitute two warring groups, defined primarily not by nominal religion, ethnicity, social class, or even political affiliation, but rather by ideological world-views.

Hunter characterized this polarity as stemming from opposite impulses, toward what he referred to as Progressivism and as Orthodoxy. Others have adopted the dichotomy with varying labels. For example, Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly emphasizes differences between "Secular-Progressives" and "Traditionalists".

In 1990, commentator Pat Buchanan mounted a campaign for the Republican nomination for President against incumbent George H. W. Bush in 1992. He received a prime-time speech-slot at the 1992 Republican National Convention, to give his speech on the culture war. He argued: "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself." In addition to criticizing environmentalists and feminism, he portrayed public morality as a defining issue:

The agenda [Bill] Clinton and [Hillary] Clinton would impose on America—abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units—that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country.

A month later, Buchanan characterized the conflict as about power over society's definition of right and wrong. He named abortion, sexual orientation and popular culture as major fronts—and mentioned other controversies, including clashes over the Confederate flag, Christmas and taxpayer-funded art. He also said that the negative attention his "culture war" speech received was itself evidence of America's polarization.

The culture war had significant impact on national politics in the 1990s. The rhetoric of the Christian Coalition of America may have weakened president George H. W. Bush's chances for reelection in 1992 and helped his successor, Bill Clinton, win reelection in 1996. On the other hand, the rhetoric of conservative cultural warriors helped Republicans gain control of Congress in 1994.

The culture wars influenced the debate over state-school history curricula in the United States in the 1990s. In particular, debates over the development of national educational standards in 1994 revolved around whether the study of American history should be a "celebratory" or "critical" undertaking and involved such prominent public figures as Lynne Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and historian Gary Nash.

[edit]

2000s

A worldview called neo-conservatism shifted the terms of the debate in the early 2000s. Neo-conservatives differed from their opponents in that they interpreted problems facing the nation as moral issues rather than economic or political issues. For example, the decline of the traditional family structure was seen as a spiritual crisis by neo-conservatives that required a spiritual response. Critics accused neo-conservatives of confusing cause and effect.

[edit]

Canada

In Canada, "culture war" refers to differing values between Western versus Eastern Canada, urban versus rural Canada, as well as conservatism versus liberalism. A divide between French and English is also a consistent part of Canadian society.

The phrase "culture war" (or "culture wars") in Canada describes the polarization between the different values of Canadians. This can be West versus East, rural versus urban, or traditional values versus progressive values. "Culture war" is a relatively new phrase in Canadian political commentary. It can still be used to describe historical events in Canada, such as the Rebellions of 1837, Western Alienation, the Quebec sovereignty movement, and any Aboriginal conflicts in Canada, but is more relevant to current events such as the Grand River land dispute and the increasing hostility between conservative and liberal Canadians. Controversy erupted in 2010 when pollster Frank Graves suggested that the Liberal Party launch a "culture war" against the Conservative Party. "I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy. If the cranky old men in Alberta don't like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin." The phrase "culture wars" has also been used to describe the Harper government's attitude towards the arts community. Andrew Coyne termed this negative policy towards the arts community 'class warfare'.

[edit]

Australia

Interpretations of Aboriginal history became part of the wider political debate sometimes called the "culture wars" during the tenure of the Coalition government from 1996–2007, with the Prime Minister of Australia John Howard publicly championing the views of some of those associated with Quadrant. This debate extended into a controversy over the way history was presented in the National Museum of Australia and in high school history curricula. It also migrated into the general Australian media, with regular opinion pieces being published in major broadsheets such as The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Marcia Langton has referred to much of this wider debate as 'war porn'

Two Australian Prime Ministers, Paul Keating and John Howard, were major participants in the "wars". According to the analysis for the Australian Parliamentary Library of Mark McKenna, Paul Keating (1991–1996) was believed by John Howard (1996–2007) to portray Australia pre-Whitlam in an unduly negative light; while Keating sought to distance the modern Labor movement from its historical support for the monarchy and the White Australia policy by arguing that it was the conservative Australian parties who had been barriers to national progress and excessively loyal to the British Empire. He accused Britain of having abandoned Australia during World War II. Keating was a staunch advocate of a symbolic apology to indigenous people for the misdeeds of past governments, and outlined his view of the origins and potential solutions to contemporary Aboriginal disadvantage in his Redfern Park Speech (drafted with the assistance of historian Don Watson). In 1999, following the release of the 1998 Bringing Them Home Report, Howard passed a Parliamentary Motion of Reconciliation describing treatment of Aborigines as the "most blemished chapter" in Australian history, but he did not make a Parliamentary apology. Howard argued that an apology was inappropriate as it would imply "intergeneration guilt" and said that "practical" measures were a better response to contemporary Aboriginal disadvantage. Keating has argued for the eradication of remaining symbols linked to British origins: including deference for ANZAC Day, the Australian flag and the monarchy in Australia, while Howard was a supporter of these institutions. Unlike fellow Labor leaders and contemporaries, Bob Hawke and Kim Beazley, Keating never traveled to Gallipoli for ANZAC Day ceremonies. In 2008 he described those who gathered there as "misguided".

In 2006, John Howard said in a speech to mark the 50th anniversary of Quadrant that "Political Correctness" was dead in Australia but: "we should not underestimate the degree to which the soft-left still holds sway, even dominance, especially in Australia's universities"; and in 2006, Sydney Morning Herald political editor Peter Hartcher reported that Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd was entering the philosophical debate by arguing in response that "John Howard, is guilty of perpetrating 'a fraud' in his so-called culture wars... designed not to make real change but to mask the damage inflicted by the Government's economic policies".

The defeat of the Howard government in the Australian Federal election of 2007, and its replacement by the Rudd Labor government, altered the dynamic of the debate. Rudd made an official apology to the Stolen Generation with bi-partisan support. Like Keating, Rudd supported an Australian republic, but in contrast to Keating, Rudd declared support for the Australian flag and supported the commemoration of ANZAC Day and expressed admiration for Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies.

Since the change of government, and the passage, with support from all parties, of a Parliamentary apology to indigenous Australians, Professor of Australian Studies Richard Nile has argued: "the culture and history wars are over and with them should also go the adversarial nature of intellectual debate", a view contested by others, including conservative commentator Janet Albrechtsen. An intention to reengage in the history wars has been indicated by the Federal Opposition's Christopher Pyne.

[edit]

 ==Origins==
-[[File:Kladderadatsch 1875 - Zwischen Berlin und Rom.png|thumb|200px|Bismarck (left) and the Pope, from the German satirical magazine ''[[Kladderadatsch]]'', 1875]]
+The phrase "culture war" represents a loan translation ([[calque]]) from the German ''[[Kulturkampf]]''. The German word ''Kulturkampf'' (culture struggle) refers to the clash between cultural and religious groups in the campaign from 1871 to 1878 under [[Chancellor of Germany (German Reich)|Chancellor]] [[Otto von Bismarck]] of the [[German Empire]] against the influence of the [[Roman Catholic Church]].
-The phrase "culture war" represents a loan translation ([[calque]]) from the German ''[[Kulturkampf]]''. The German word ''Kulturkampf'' (culture struggle) refers to the clash between cultural and religious groups in the campaign from 1871 to 1878 under [[Chancellor of Germany (German Reich)|Chancellor]] [[Otto von Bismarck]] of the [[German Empire]] against the influence of the [[Roman Catholic Church]].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=Kulturkampf |encyclopedia=[[The Catholic Encyclopedia]] |year=1910 |publisher=[[Robert Appleton Company]] |location=New York |volume=8 |accessdate=March 27, 2015 |url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08703b.htm |last=Spahn |first=Martin}}</ref>
 ==United States==
-{{further information|Ethnocultural politics in the United States}}
 The expression "culture war" entered the vocabulary of United States politics with the publication of ''[[Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America]]'' by [[James Davison Hunter]] in 1991. Hunter perceived a dramatic realignment and polarization that had transformed [[politics of the United States|United States politics]] and [[culture of the United States|culture]], including the issues of [[abortion]], [[Gun law in the United States|federal]] and [[Gun laws in the United States by state|state gun laws]], [[global warming]], [[immigration]], [[separation of church and state]], [[Privacy laws of the United States|privacy]], [[recreational drug use]], [[LGBT rights in the United States|LGBT rights]], and [[censorship]].
-In American usage the term "culture war" may imply a conflict between those values considered [[Traditionalist conservatism|traditionalist]] or [[Conservativism in the United States|conservative]] and those considered [[Progressivism in the United States|progressive]] or [[Modern liberalism in the United States|liberal]]. It originated in the 1920s when urban and rural American values came into clear conflict.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.assumption.edu/users/McClymer/his394/ |title=Seminar on the Culture Wars of the 1920s |date=Fall 2001 |accessdate=March 27, 2015}}</ref>  This followed several decades of immigration to the States by people who earlier European immigrants considered "alien". It was also a result of the cultural shifts and modernizing trends of the [[Roaring 20s]], culminating in the presidential campaign of [[Al Smith]]<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/reclaiming_faith_and_politics.html |title= Culture Wars: How 2004 |last=Dionne |first=E. J. |authorlink=E. J. Dionne}}</ref> in 1928. However, [[James Davison Hunter]]'s 1991 book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' redefined the "culture war" in the United States of America.  Hunter traces the concept to the 1960s.<ref name=CultStrat>{{cite book |last=Holt |first=Douglas |last2= Cameron |first2=Douglas |year=2010 |title= Cultural Strategy |publisher= Oxford University Press |isbn= 978-0-19-958740-7}}</ref> The perceived focus of the American culture war and its definition have taken various forms since then.<ref name="Andrew Hartman 2015">Andrew Hartman, ''A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars'' (University of Chicago Press, 2015)</ref>
+In American usage the term "culture war" may imply a conflict between those values considered [[Traditionalist conservatism|traditionalist]] or [[Conservativism in the United States|conservative]] and those considered [[Progressivism in the United States|progressive]] or [[Modern liberalism in the United States|liberal]]. It originated in the 1920s when urban and rural American values came into clear conflict. This followed several decades of immigration to the States by people who earlier European immigrants considered "alien". It was also a result of the cultural shifts and modernizing trends of the [[Roaring 20s]], culminating in the presidential campaign of [[Al Smith]] in 1928. However, [[James Davison Hunter]]'s 1991 book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' redefined the "culture war" in the United States of America.  Hunter traces the concept to the 1960s. The perceived focus of the American culture war and its definition have taken various forms since then.
 ===1990s===
 Hunter characterized this polarity as stemming from opposite impulses, toward what he referred to as ''Progressivism'' and as ''Orthodoxy''. Others have adopted the dichotomy with varying labels. For example, [[Fox News]] commentator [[Bill O'Reilly (commentator)|Bill O'Reilly]] emphasizes differences between "Secular-Progressives" and "Traditionalists".
-[[File:Patrickjbuchanan.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Patrick Buchanan in 2008]]
+In 1990, commentator [[Pat Buchanan]] mounted a campaign for the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] nomination for President against incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in [[United States presidential election, 1992|1992]]. He received a prime-time speech-slot at the [[1992 Republican National Convention]], to give his speech on the culture war. He argued: "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself." In addition to criticizing environmentalists and feminism, he portrayed [[public morality]] as a [[defining issue]]:
-In 1990, commentator [[Pat Buchanan]] mounted a campaign for the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] nomination for President against incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in [[United States presidential election, 1992|1992]]. He received a prime-time speech-slot at the [[1992 Republican National Convention]], to give his speech on the culture war.<ref>{{cite web |quote=Not since Pat Buchanan's famous 'culture war' speech in 1992 has a major speaker at a national political convention spoken so hatefully, at such length, about the opposition. |title=Dogs of War |url=http://www.newdonkey.com/2004/09/dogs-of-war.html |deadurl=yes |publisher=New Donkey |date=September 2, 2004 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050308043424/http://www.newdonkey.com/2004/09/dogs-of-war.html |archivedate=March 8, 2005 |accessdate=August 29, 2006}}</ref> He argued: "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself."<ref name="1992-GOP">{{Cite speech |authorlink=Patrick Buchanan |first=Patrick |last=Buchanan |title=1992 Republican National Convention Speech |date=August 17, 1992 |url=http://buchanan.org/blog/1992-republican-national-convention-speech-148 |accessdate=November 3, 2014}}</ref> In addition to criticizing environmentalists and feminism, he portrayed [[public morality]] as a [[defining issue]]:
+<blockquote>The agenda [Bill] Clinton and [Hillary] Clinton would impose on America—abortion on demand, a [[Litmus test (politics)|litmus test]] for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units—that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country.
-<blockquote>The agenda [Bill] Clinton and [Hillary] Clinton would impose on America—abortion on demand, a [[Litmus test (politics)|litmus test]] for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units—that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country.<ref name="1992-GOP" />
 </blockquote>
-A month later, Buchanan characterized the conflict as about power over society's definition of right and wrong. He named abortion, sexual orientation and popular culture as major fronts—and mentioned other controversies, including clashes over the [[Confederate flag]], Christmas and taxpayer-funded art. He also said that the negative attention his "culture war" speech received was itself evidence of America's polarization.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://buchanan.org/blog/the-cultural-war-for-the-soul-of-america-149 |title=The Cultural War for the Soul of America |last=Buchanan |first=Patrick |authorlink=Patrick Buchanan}}</ref>
+A month later, Buchanan characterized the conflict as about power over society's definition of right and wrong. He named abortion, sexual orientation and popular culture as major fronts—and mentioned other controversies, including clashes over the [[Confederate flag]], Christmas and taxpayer-funded art. He also said that the negative attention his "culture war" speech received was itself evidence of America's polarization.
-The culture war had significant impact on national politics in the 1990s.<ref name="Andrew Hartman 2015" /> The rhetoric of the [[Christian Coalition of America]] may have weakened president George H. W. Bush's chances for reelection in 1992 and helped his successor, [[Bill Clinton]], win reelection in 1996.<ref>{{cite book |last=Chapman |first=Roger |title=Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices |year=2010 |publisher=M. E. Sharpe |location=Armonk, NY |isbn=978-0-7656-1761-3 |page=88 |url=https://books.google.com/?id=vRY27FkGJAUC&pg=PA88}}</ref> On the other hand, the rhetoric of conservative cultural warriors helped Republicans gain control of Congress in 1994.<ref>{{cite book |last=Chapman |first=Roger |title=Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices |year=2010 |publisher=M. E. Sharpe |location=Armonk, NY. |isbn=978-0-7656-1761-3 |page=136 |url=https://books.google.com/?id=vRY27FkGJAUC&pg=PA136}}</ref>
+The culture war had significant impact on national politics in the 1990s. The rhetoric of the [[Christian Coalition of America]] may have weakened president George H. W. Bush's chances for reelection in 1992 and helped his successor, [[Bill Clinton]], win reelection in 1996. On the other hand, the rhetoric of conservative cultural warriors helped Republicans gain control of Congress in 1994.
-The culture wars influenced the debate over state-school history curricula in the United States in the 1990s. In particular, debates over the development of national educational standards in 1994 revolved around whether the study of American history should be a "celebratory" or "critical" undertaking and involved such prominent public figures as [[Lynne Cheney]], [[Rush Limbaugh]], and historian [[Gary Nash]].<ref>{{google book |title=Who Owns History: Rethinking the Past in a Changing World |last=Foner |first=Eric |id=H3I-Z8KW5REC |location=New York |publisher=Hill & Wang |year=2002 |isbn=1-4299-2392-X}}</ref><ref>{{google book |title=History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past |last1=Nash |first1=Gary B. |authorlink1=Gary B. Nash |last2=Crabtree |first2=Charlotte A. |last3=Dunn |first3=Ross E. |authorlink=Ross E. Dunn |id=iE1DzmHrh9EC |location=New York |publisher=Knopf |year=1997 |isbn=0-679-76750-9}}</ref>
+The culture wars influenced the debate over state-school history curricula in the United States in the 1990s. In particular, debates over the development of national educational standards in 1994 revolved around whether the study of American history should be a "celebratory" or "critical" undertaking and involved such prominent public figures as [[Lynne Cheney]], [[Rush Limbaugh]], and historian [[Gary Nash]].
 ===2000s===
-{{expand-section|date=September 2018}}
-[[File:Bush War Budget 2003-crop.jpg|thumb|[[George W. Bush]], [[Donald Rumsfeld]], and [[Paul Wolfowitz]] were prominent neo-conservatives of the 2000s.]]
+A worldview called [[neo-conservatism]] shifted the terms of the debate in the early 2000s.  Neo-conservatives differed from their opponents in that they interpreted problems facing the nation as moral issues rather than economic or political issues.  For example, the decline of the traditional family structure was seen as a spiritual crisis by neo-conservatives that required a spiritual response.  Critics accused neo-conservatives of [[Correlation does not imply causation|confusing cause and effect]].
-A worldview called [[neo-conservatism]] shifted the terms of the debate in the early 2000s.  Neo-conservatives differed from their opponents in that they interpreted problems facing the nation as moral issues rather than economic or political issues.  For example, the decline of the traditional family structure was seen as a spiritual crisis by neo-conservatives that required a spiritual response.  Critics accused neo-conservatives of [[Correlation does not imply causation|confusing cause and effect]].<ref> Zafirovski, Milan.  [https://books.google.com/books?id=UEl91MbLiO0C&pg=PA60&dq=culture+war+in+the+united+states+2000s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik0vfog6fdAhWqrVkKHeOpD0AQ6AEISzAG#v=onepage&q=culture%20war%20in%20the%20united%20states%202000s&f=false "Modern Free Society and Its Nemesis: Liberty Versus Conservatism in the New ...."] ''Google Books''.  6 September 2018.</ref>
 ==Canada==
-{{Hatnote|See: [[Battle of Alberta]] and [[Battle of Ontario]]}}
-In [[Canada]], "culture war" refers to differing values between [[Western Canada|Western]] versus [[Eastern Canada]], [[List of the 100 largest population centres in Canada|urban]] versus [[rural Canada]], as well as [[Conservatism in Canada|conservatism]] versus [[Liberalism in Canada|liberalism]].<ref>{{cite news|first=Gerald|last=Caplan |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/culture-clash-splits-canadians-over-basic-values/article4626123/ |location=Toronto|work=The Globe and Mail |title=Culture clash splits Canadians over basic values |date=October 20, 2012}}</ref> A divide between [[Francophone|French]] and [[Anglophone|English]] is also a consistent part of Canadian society.
-The phrase "culture war" (or "culture wars") in Canada describes the [[political polarization|polarization]] between the different values of Canadians.{{cn|date=April 2017}} This can be [[Western Canada|West]] versus [[Eastern Canada|East]], [[Rural Canada|rural]] versus [[List of the 100 largest urban areas in Canada by population|urban]], or [[Conservatism in Canada|traditional values]] versus [[Progressivism in Canada|progressive values]].<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/culture-clash-splits-canadians-over-basic-values/article4626123/ |location= Toronto |work= The Globe and Mail |title= Culture clash splits Canadians over basic values |date= October 20, 2012}}</ref>{{failed verification | reason = No example of "culture war(s)" in a Canadian context|date=April 2017}} "Culture war" is a relatively new phrase in Canadian political commentary. It can still be used to describe historical events in Canada, such as the [[Rebellions of 1837]], [[Western Alienation]], the [[Quebec sovereignty movement]], and any [[:Category:Aboriginal conflicts in Canada|Aboriginal conflicts in Canada]], but is more relevant to current events such as the [[Grand River land dispute]] and the increasing hostility between conservative and liberal Canadians.{{cn|date=April 2017}} Controversy erupted in 2010 when pollster Frank Graves suggested that the [[Liberal Party of Canada | Liberal Party]] launch a "culture war" against the [[Conservative Party of Canada | Conservative Party]]. "I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy. If the cranky old men in Alberta don't like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin."<ref>{{cite web |url= http://canuckpolitics.com/2010/04/23/culture-wars/ |title= EKOS pollster ignites furor over divisive 'culture wars' advice |date= April 23, 2010 |work= Canuck Politics}}</ref> The phrase "culture wars" has also been used to describe the [[Stephen Harper | Harper]] government's attitude towards the [[arts community]]. [[Andrew Coyne]] termed this negative policy towards the arts community 'class warfare'.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.macleans.ca/general/this-isnt-a-culture-war-its-a-good-old-class-war/ |title= Coyne: This isn't a culture war, it's a good old class war |author= Andrew Coyne |date= October 2, 2008 |work= Macleans}}</ref>
+In [[Canada]], "culture war" refers to differing values between [[Western Canada|Western]] versus [[Eastern Canada]], [[List of the 100 largest population centres in Canada|urban]] versus [[rural Canada]], as well as [[Conservatism in Canada|conservatism]] versus [[Liberalism in Canada|liberalism]]. A divide between [[Francophone|French]] and [[Anglophone|English]] is also a consistent part of Canadian society.
+The phrase "culture war" (or "culture wars") in Canada describes the [[political polarization|polarization]] between the different values of Canadians. This can be [[Western Canada|West]] versus [[Eastern Canada|East]], [[Rural Canada|rural]] versus [[List of the 100 largest urban areas in Canada by population|urban]], or [[Conservatism in Canada|traditional values]] versus [[Progressivism in Canada|progressive values]]. "Culture war" is a relatively new phrase in Canadian political commentary. It can still be used to describe historical events in Canada, such as the [[Rebellions of 1837]], [[Western Alienation]], the [[Quebec sovereignty movement]], and any [[:Category:Aboriginal conflicts in Canada|Aboriginal conflicts in Canada]], but is more relevant to current events such as the [[Grand River land dispute]] and the increasing hostility between conservative and liberal Canadians. Controversy erupted in 2010 when pollster Frank Graves suggested that the [[Liberal Party of Canada | Liberal Party]] launch a "culture war" against the [[Conservative Party of Canada | Conservative Party]]. "I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy. If the cranky old men in Alberta don't like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin." The phrase "culture wars" has also been used to describe the [[Stephen Harper | Harper]] government's attitude towards the [[arts community]]. [[Andrew Coyne]] termed this negative policy towards the arts community 'class warfare'.
 ==Australia==
-{{Main article|History wars}}
+Interpretations of Aboriginal history became part of the wider political debate sometimes called the "[[History wars#History wars and culture wars|culture wars]]" during the tenure of the [[Coalition (Australia)|Coalition]] government from 1996–2007, with the [[Prime Minister of Australia]] [[John Howard]] publicly championing the views of some of those associated with ''Quadrant''. This debate extended into [[#National Museum of Australia controversy|a controversy]] over the way history was presented in the [[National Museum of Australia]] and in high school history curricula. It also migrated into the general Australian media, with regular opinion pieces being published in major broadsheets such as ''[[The Australian]]'', ''[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]'' and ''[[The Age]]''. [[Marcia Langton]] has referred to much of this wider debate as 'war porn'
-Interpretations of Aboriginal history became part of the wider political debate sometimes called the "[[History wars#History wars and culture wars|culture wars]]" during the tenure of the [[Coalition (Australia)|Coalition]] government from 1996–2007, with the [[Prime Minister of Australia]] [[John Howard]] publicly championing the views of some of those associated with ''Quadrant''.<ref name="Manne11/08">{{cite news |url=https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2008/november/1277253191/robert-manne/what-rudd-s-agenda |last=Manne |first=Robert |authorlink=Robert Manne |title=What is Rudd’s Agenda? |work=[[The Monthly]] |date=November 2008}}</ref> This debate extended into [[#National Museum of Australia controversy|a controversy]] over the way history was presented in the [[National Museum of Australia]] and in high school history curricula.<ref>{{cite web |last=Rundle |first=Guy |url=http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/06/28/1915-and-all-that-history-in-a-holding-pattern/ |title=1915 and all that: History in a holding pattern |work=Crikey |date=June 28, 2007 |accessdate=April 27, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Ferrari |first=Justine<!--Education writer--> |url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24492542-13881,00.html |title=History curriculum author defies his critics to find bias |work=The Australian |date=October 14, 2008 |accessdate=April 27, 2010}}</ref> It also migrated into the general Australian media, with regular opinion pieces being published in major broadsheets such as ''[[The Australian]]'', ''[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]'' and ''[[The Age]]''. [[Marcia Langton]] has referred to much of this wider debate as 'war porn'<ref>Baudrillard J. War porn. ''Journal of Visual Culture'', Vol. 5, No. 1, 86-88 (2006) {{doi|10.1177/147041290600500107}}</ref> and an 'intellectual dead end'.<ref name=Langton>Langton M. Essay: Trapped in the aboriginal reality show. ''Griffith Review 2007'', 19:Re-imagining Australia.</ref>
-Two Australian Prime Ministers, Paul Keating and John Howard, were major participants in the "wars". According to the analysis for the Australian Parliamentary Library of Mark McKenna,<ref name=McKenna>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9798/98RP05 |title=Different Perspectives on Black Armband History |author=Mark McKenna |series=Parliamentary Library: Research Paper 5 1997-98 |publisher=The Parliament of Australia |date=November 10, 1997 |accessdate=March 5, 2015}}</ref> [[Paul Keating]] (1991–1996) was believed by John Howard (1996–2007) to portray Australia pre-[[Gough Whitlam|Whitlam]] in an unduly negative light; while Keating sought to distance the modern [[Australian Labor Party|Labor]] movement from its historical support for the monarchy and the [[White Australia policy]] by arguing that it was the conservative Australian parties who had been barriers to national progress and excessively loyal to the British Empire. He accused Britain of having abandoned Australia during World War II. Keating was a staunch advocate of a symbolic apology to indigenous people for the misdeeds of past governments, and outlined his view of the origins and potential solutions to contemporary Aboriginal disadvantage in his [[Redfern Park Speech]] (drafted with the assistance of historian [[Don Watson]]). In 1999, following the release of the 1998 ''[[Bringing Them Home]]'' Report, Howard passed a Parliamentary [[Motion of Reconciliation]] describing treatment of Aborigines as the "most blemished chapter" in Australian history, but he did not make a Parliamentary apology.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20080221_1.htm |title=The History of Apologies Down Under &#124; Thinking Faith |publisher=thinkingfaith.org |date=February 21, 2008 |accessdate=March 5, 2015 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141202000730/http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20080221_1.htm |archivedate=December 2, 2014 }}</ref> Howard argued that an apology was inappropriate as it would imply "intergeneration guilt" and said that "practical" measures were a better response to contemporary Aboriginal disadvantage. Keating has argued for the eradication of remaining symbols linked to British origins: including deference for [[ANZAC Day]],<ref>https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-nation-reborn-at-anzac-cove-utter-nonsense-keating-20081030-5enw.html</ref> the [[Australian flag]] and the [[monarchy in Australia]], while Howard was a supporter of these institutions. Unlike fellow Labor leaders and contemporaries, [[Bob Hawke]] and [[Kim Beazley]], Keating never traveled to [[Gallipoli]] for ANZAC Day ceremonies. In 2008 he described those who gathered there as "misguided".<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.theage.com.au/national/a-nation-reborn-at-anzac-cove-utter-nonsense-keating-20081030-5enw.html |title=A nation reborn at Anzac Cove? Utter nonsense: Keating |work=The Age |date=October 31, 2008 |accessdate=March 5, 2010 |location=Melbourne |first=Tony |last=Wright}}</ref>
+Two Australian Prime Ministers, Paul Keating and John Howard, were major participants in the "wars". According to the analysis for the Australian Parliamentary Library of Mark McKenna, [[Paul Keating]] (1991–1996) was believed by John Howard (1996–2007) to portray Australia pre-[[Gough Whitlam|Whitlam]] in an unduly negative light; while Keating sought to distance the modern [[Australian Labor Party|Labor]] movement from its historical support for the monarchy and the [[White Australia policy]] by arguing that it was the conservative Australian parties who had been barriers to national progress and excessively loyal to the British Empire. He accused Britain of having abandoned Australia during World War II. Keating was a staunch advocate of a symbolic apology to indigenous people for the misdeeds of past governments, and outlined his view of the origins and potential solutions to contemporary Aboriginal disadvantage in his [[Redfern Park Speech]] (drafted with the assistance of historian [[Don Watson]]). In 1999, following the release of the 1998 ''[[Bringing Them Home]]'' Report, Howard passed a Parliamentary [[Motion of Reconciliation]] describing treatment of Aborigines as the "most blemished chapter" in Australian history, but he did not make a Parliamentary apology. Howard argued that an apology was inappropriate as it would imply "intergeneration guilt" and said that "practical" measures were a better response to contemporary Aboriginal disadvantage. Keating has argued for the eradication of remaining symbols linked to British origins: including deference for [[ANZAC Day]], the [[Australian flag]] and the [[monarchy in Australia]], while Howard was a supporter of these institutions. Unlike fellow Labor leaders and contemporaries, [[Bob Hawke]] and [[Kim Beazley]], Keating never traveled to [[Gallipoli]] for ANZAC Day ceremonies. In 2008 he described those who gathered there as "misguided".
-In 2006, John Howard said in a speech to mark the 50th anniversary of ''Quadrant'' that "Political Correctness" was dead in Australia but: "we should not underestimate the degree to which the soft-left still holds sway, even dominance, especially in Australia's universities"; and in 2006, ''Sydney Morning Herald'' political editor [[Peter Hartcher]] reported that Opposition foreign affairs spokesman [[Kevin Rudd]] was entering the philosophical debate by arguing in response that "John Howard, is guilty of perpetrating 'a fraud' in his so-called culture wars... designed not to make real change but to mask the damage inflicted by the Government's economic policies".<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pms-culture-wars-a-fraud-rudd/2006/10/27/1161749320974.html |title=PM's culture wars a fraud: Rudd - National |work=The Sydney Morning Herald |date=October 28, 2006 |accessdate=April 27, 2010}}</ref>
+In 2006, John Howard said in a speech to mark the 50th anniversary of ''Quadrant'' that "Political Correctness" was dead in Australia but: "we should not underestimate the degree to which the soft-left still holds sway, even dominance, especially in Australia's universities"; and in 2006, ''Sydney Morning Herald'' political editor [[Peter Hartcher]] reported that Opposition foreign affairs spokesman [[Kevin Rudd]] was entering the philosophical debate by arguing in response that "John Howard, is guilty of perpetrating 'a fraud' in his so-called culture wars... designed not to make real change but to mask the damage inflicted by the Government's economic policies".
-The defeat of the Howard government in the Australian Federal election of 2007, and its replacement by the [[First Rudd Government|Rudd Labor government]], altered the dynamic of the debate. Rudd made an official apology to the ''[[Stolen Generation]]''<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/12/australia.text/index.html |title=Full text of Australia's apology to Aborigines |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=February 12, 2008 |accessdate=April 27, 2010}}</ref> with bi-partisan support.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/brendan-nelsons-sorry-speech/2008/02/13/1202760366050.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 |title=Brendan Nelson's sorry speech |work=The Sydney Morning Herald |date=February 13, 2008 |accessdate=April 27, 2010}}</ref> Like Keating, Rudd supported an Australian republic, but in contrast to Keating, Rudd declared support for the [[Australian flag]] and supported the commemoration of ANZAC Day and expressed admiration for Liberal Party founder [[Robert Menzies]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/keating-utterly-wrong-on-gallipoli-pm/story-0-1111117908459 |title=Paul Keating 'utterly wrong' to reject Gallipoli identity, says Kevin Rudd |date=October 31, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/is-rudd-having-a-bob-each-way/2007/04/12/1175971263000.html |title=Is Rudd having a Bob each way? - Opinion |work=The Sydney Morning Herald |date=October 28, 2004 |accessdate=April 27, 2010}}</ref>
-Since the change of government, and the passage, with support from all parties, of a Parliamentary apology to indigenous Australians, Professor of Australian Studies Richard Nile has argued: "the culture and history wars are over and with them should also go the adversarial nature of intellectual debate",<ref>{{cite news |url=http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/richardnile/index.php/theaustralian/comments/end_of_the_culture_wars |title=End of the culture wars &#124; Richard Nile Blog, ''The Australian'' |publisher=blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au |date=November 28, 2007 |accessdate=April 27, 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100309215605/http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/richardnile/index.php/theaustralian/comments/end_of_the_culture_wars/ |archivedate=March 9, 2010 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> a view contested by others, including conservative commentator [[Janet Albrechtsen]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/orwellian-left-quick-to-unveil-totalitarian-heart/story-e6frg6n6-1111115088194 |title=Orwellian Left quick to unveil totalitarian heart |work=The Australian |date=December 12, 2007}}</ref> An intention to reengage in the history wars has been indicated by the Federal Opposition's [[Christopher Pyne]].<ref>[http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?&docID=SMH130427114V71OBPNC Julia Baird, (April 27, 2013), Don't dismiss nation's blemishes ''Sydney Morning Herald'', Sydney, p. 12]</ref>
+The defeat of the Howard government in the Australian Federal election of 2007, and its replacement by the [[First Rudd Government|Rudd Labor government]], altered the dynamic of the debate. Rudd made an official apology to the ''[[Stolen Generation]]'' with bi-partisan support. Like Keating, Rudd supported an Australian republic, but in contrast to Keating, Rudd declared support for the [[Australian flag]] and supported the commemoration of ANZAC Day and expressed admiration for Liberal Party founder [[Robert Menzies]].
+Since the change of government, and the passage, with support from all parties, of a Parliamentary apology to indigenous Australians, Professor of Australian Studies Richard Nile has argued: "the culture and history wars are over and with them should also go the adversarial nature of intellectual debate", a view contested by others, including conservative commentator [[Janet Albrechtsen]]. An intention to reengage in the history wars has been indicated by the Federal Opposition's [[Christopher Pyne]].
 ==See also==
+*[[Clash of Civilizations  ]]
-{{col-begin}}
-{{col-3}}
 ;Life issues
 *[[Capital punishment]]
 *[[Corporal punishment]] and [[Child discipline]], most notably [[spanking]]
 *[[Sexual education]] and [[Sexual abstinence|abstinence only education]]
-{{col-3}}
 ;Drugs
 *[[Legal drinking age]]
 *[[War on Drugs]]
 ;Environment and Energy
-*[[Global warming]] and [[climate change mitigation]]<ref>[http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/climate_science_as_culture_war ''Climate Science as Culture War: The public debate around climate change is no longer about science—it's about values, culture, and ideology''] Fall 2012 [[Stanford Social Innovation Review]]</ref>
+*[[Global warming]] and [[climate change mitigation]]
 ;Society and culture
 *[[Animal Rights]]
 *[[Political correctness]]
 *[[Secularism]] and [[Secularization]]
-{{col-3}}
 ;Law and Government
 *[[Crypto wars]]

Culture war

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

Current revision

Contents

Origins

United States

1990s

2000s

Canada

Australia

See also

Views

Personal tools

Search

Metas

Navigation