Talk:Counterculture/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Regarding the edit by (deletion of incorrect assumption that monotheistic religions such as Christianity believe that man is inherently good): I didn't write that those religions believe that; I wrote that the idea is rooted in those religions, for example, imago viva dei, man in the image of God. I won't tamper with your edit, but I think that this is a point worth discussing. Where did the idea come from originally, that man is not just a Hobbesian beast? --Herschelkrustofsky 00:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It certainly didn't come from Christianity. Romans 3:23 states, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (NIV) You have construed man created in the image of God to mean that man is inherently "good" (morally). This is inconsistent with many passages in the Old and New Testaments. --Knardi 04:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky's point is best described as the Christian idea that man is inherently valuable instead of the idea that man is inherently good. Nevertheless this idea belongs more on a sociology discussion board rather than an article about counterculture.


The article previously at this page was a mess of Lyndon LaRouche propaganda and totally irrelevant and specious nonsense. No article at all is much preferable. A new article needs to be written by someone familiar with the cultural history of the 1960s, the writings of Theodore Roszak, Herbert Marcuse etc. If no-one else does something about it, I will do so when I get time. Adam 08:14, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Note that User:AndyL's edits [1] replaced a grammatically correct formulation, with a grammatically incorrect one. The use of the subjunctive is appropriate here. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The current, protected version of this article is vapid and semi-literate, and part of the ongoing campaign of vandalism carried out by Adam Carr, User:AndyL, and some anonymous person from the University of Houston (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence). I am posting the deleted version of the article below. --Herschelkrustofsky 19:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


  • Krusty's version of the article can be accessed in History pages, or it can be linked from this page. It does not need to be posted here in full.
  • The current article is of course far from complete or satisfactory, subjunctives notwithstanding. It is however an honest attempt to write a truthful article, unlike the pack of LaRouch fabrications and fantasies which Krusty is defending. Adam 02:05, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Far from being an honest attempt to write a truthful article, it is part of an organized vendetta by Adam and Andy, that is presently the subject of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:10, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A vendetta? What did Lyndon LaRouche ever do to me?AndyL 12:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's what I'd like to know. Other than advocating the American system, of course. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:38, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer the "American System" to 19th century British liberalism. In any case, the point is there is no vendetta since there's no motive on my part for revenge. Please contain your hyperbole. AndyL 16:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I have unprotected the page. Any edit war that was going on did not appear serious. Be good. UninvitedCompany 23:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 30 neutrality notice

User, which part of the article do you think is non-neutral? --Gary D 20:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Having not heard back from the anon poster, I have reverted the neutrality notice. Still very willing to discuss it, though. --Gary D 01:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


cultural equivalent of a political Opposition. -- POV? ~ 07:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How so? It seems neutral to me. --Xiaphias 01:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Major new section

Would it be alright if a new section were added on 2000s counterculture movements, and the rebeliion agaisnt what apparently a lot of skin heads feel, is an overly "liberal" society, as there is clearly an obedience-movment in this country, that almost seems like the opposite of 60s counterculture, which would make it counter-counter-culture, which is a tounge twister, to say the least, and seeing as how this all seems based on the idea that there is a great "liberal" force controlling their government, they would probably classify themselves as being counter to some force they think controls the government, so would it be fair to classify this new ultra-loyal-unquestioning group as a type of counter culture? -- 16:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be very confusing in this article. Perhaps that belongs in an article on "skin heads"? I vote against any such new addition to this article, which describes the '60s counterculture. BTfromLA 18:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think something should be said about modern counter culture movements too, such as the punk, goth and emo. I also find it interesting that Catholics who consider a religious vocation are also considered counter culture. Perhaps something about modern day monastic life might be interesting as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purrabella (talkcontribs) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Feedback of the contra-culture into the pro-culture

I began to describe this phenomenon in the last paragraph of the “Russian section”. The phenomenon is that the developments in the contra-culture are absorbed by the “pro-culture” and become popularized. I provided as an example Russian band “Leningrad”. Surely there are also a lot of other examples in music, literature etc. Please extend the paragraph with your examples. Thanx for spelling-check in advance!

This Russian culture discussion seems to be a completely different topic than the counterculture that is the focus of this article. Perhaps it needs its own article? I don't think it belongs here. BTfromLA 17:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I don’t think so. I’m not an expert in other areas of the counterculture in other regions. But I think there are enough “feedbacks” of the counterculture into the every-day life in other countries. May be you can provide some American, European etc. examples, so it will be possible to extract this topic from Russian section into the separate section. (Mike)
Sorry, I really don't understand your reply. I don't know what you mean by "feedbacks" or what sort of examples you are talking about. Can you say that again? My point is that this term has a specific meaning, relating to youth-oriented movemebnts of the 60s and 70s. If the term is used to describe a different cultural trend, in a differnt time and place, then it should get it's own artcile. Otherwise, any cultural movement anywhere at any time that in any way can be described as "counter-" to some cultural establishment would fit here. That's way too broad for a short encyclopedia article. BTfromLA 17:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I hope, that we don’t discus that “” is not US/GB wikipedia, but English written wikipedia.
I understand your point, but the term „counterculture” does not describe only the 60s in USA. (I guess, that why the article consists of different sections:” 1960s counterculture, Russian counterculture etc.) The term describes a social phenomenon in general. One of the occurrences of this phenomenon was in USA in 60s and 70s. The other one is now in Russia. And I’m sure that there a lot of other developments all over the world, which are described with this “term”. That why I offer two different solutions. First solution is to create a short head article about generalized term “counterculture” and two different subarticles with “60s in USA” and “Russian” topic. The second one is to try to structure the current article so, that it will be enough space to add information about “counterculture” in Mozambique, Honduras and other lands. And I agree with you that on this way the article will be too long!
To the topic feedback or reverse influence. I don’t know, if there were such reverse influence of counterculture in 60s in USA on the mass-culture! In Russia it is the case! That means that developments formed in the subculture becomes a part of the general culture. The French example for such feedback is the development of the language. In the beginning of 90s some young people began to use the language with reverted sentence structure (it was a small group of 40-50 people), now it is a standard in usage in some cases, and nobody wondering about “strange language”. The same thing happens know in Russia. It was a small posting in Russian part of live journal, where some guy from USA asked: “what is that for language you use here?”, and somebody replayed “Go and learn Albanian!” – This was adopted by counterculture movement, and now it is a standard phrase not only in cc-movement, which is equivalent to the RTFM in English!
I hope it will help you to understand my previous posting!
The russian section is strange. udaff and similar russian sites are overtly and exclusively obscene, not counter-cultural. There are far more proper things to be mentioned here (punk\DIY scene or anything else). Commercially made B-movies about bandits are also by no means counter-cultural


I'd like to add a section about the counterculture in México. Eric Zolov wrote a book on the subject, and it is one of my favorite books of all time. If I forget, would someone remind me?--Rockero 03:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Some extolling words disguised as info - POV

"American conservatives describe the Netherlands as a “Soddom and Gomorra” — something America should not become. Their arguments are based on a misinterpretation of Dutch liberalism, because humanism is one of the basic values of Dutch society. Dutch society has legalized suicide, prostitution, abortion. Gay marriage and euthanasia are accepted, though euthanasia is only to be applied to stop people from suffering physically. Using words as fuck, asshole or cunt are accepted on television and the radio, even to insult people. Some tourists complain about the rudeness of Dutch people. Rudeness has been identified as a problem in traffic. This rudeness is not something restricted to the low classes, the upper classes are rude as well. The Dutch prefer to call it honesty. Dutch people do as they feel."

This sounds quite triumphalist and I suspect it was written by a proud dutchman or perhaps by a Netherlands enthusiast; but that excerpt is definitely both unencyclopedic in its wording AND POV! Justice III 20:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many facts in this text, so it should be adapted instead of deleted.--Daanschr 06:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I never suggested it be totally deleted. I think the text is good and would be a nice reading IF it were on a blog or something similar. However, there's too much POV-pushing and the wording is generally improper for an encyclopedia. I agree it should be adapted. Justice III 20:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you could be more specific, otherwise it can't be changed.--Daanschr 21:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made some edits in the chapter about the Netherlands' counterculture. It was indeed quite POV and contained many generalizations and misinterpretations. The importance of counterculture for the Netherlands was somewhat exaggerated. I've been quite lenient in editing, there are still questionable parts in the chapter (i.e. the part about Belgium). Daaf 14:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You have deleted facts. This sentence: Using words as fuck, asshole or cunt are accepted on television and the radio, even to insult people is a fact. Also, you should take a user name. Deleting half an article, without having a username is not very accepted.
I agree with you in some regards. Many sentences could be deleted, allthough these should first be discussed here on the talk page. Many articles on Wikipedia have a poor quality. Quality can only be better after debate instead of after an individual decision.--Daanschr 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I disagree quality can only be better after debate instead of after an individual decision, I'll explain my qualms with certain sections and the chapter in general. As a whole it's very speculative, since it assumes Dutch counterculture has become mainstream. There are many sections where the connection with counterculture isn't clear. It also gives some dubious examples of Dutch counterculture, which don't really belong in an encyclopedia.

BTW I think this chapter about Dutch counterculture should have it's own article, because it is quite different in nature and impact from the American counterculture.

Now about the specific sections:

Section about Belgium: I don't see what this section has to with Dutch counterculture. There has always been rivalry between the two countries, and the Dutch have always been known to be the more cheeky/rude ones. Holland has a superiority complex and Belgium an inferiority complex. That hasn't got much (if anything) to do with Dutch counterculture though. I've also never heard about Dutch people terrorizing Antwerp, or Belgians being angry about Dutch casanovas. It's all quite speculative and it certainly hasn't had a big impact so I don't think it's relevant for this article.

The following section is especially bad: saying that American conservatives 'misinterpretate' Dutch liberalism is POV. So is the assertion that humanism is one of the basic values of Dutch society - is it not in America? And has it got anything to do with Dutch progressiveness or rudeness? Words like "fuck," "asshole" or "cunt" aren't that accepted as suggested in Dutch media. Furthermore, "asshole" and "cunt" aren't used at all, and there aren't very clear Dutch equivalents so it doesn't make a lot of sense. "The Dutch prefer to call it honesty; Dutch people do as they feel." is not encyclopedaic use of language at all. It also is POV.

"Some Christians and Muslims in the Netherlands have a minority complex, because their values are ridiculed in Dutch society." is also POV, and speculative. The mention of Czech republic and Estonia isn't useful, because those countries are secularized for very different reasons than in the Netherlands.

"Dutch people have had a strong inclination to change the world in recent decades, desiring a world with more honesty, happiness, and less suffering. Dutch news gives a lot of attention to events in foreign countries. The Dutch have been strongly anti-nationalist." This sentence gives a somewhat wrong impression, as if the Dutch are all extremely idealistic hippies.

"Pim Fortuyn was against the backwardness of the Islamic culture." This could be interpreted to imply Islamic culture is backwards.

"Fortuyn replied by saying that the sperm of Moroccans tasted the same as that of other people. This was quoted in the major newspapers." This is important how exactly? The whole section about Fortuyn doesn't make clear what it has to do with counterculture.

I hope this has cleared up the reasons for my deleting some sections, and we can agree to make some edits.

Daaf 00:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I like to add some sources to the statements that i made. Problem will be that many sources will be in Dutch. Sorry for my late response, i was very busy last days.
I think you have a misinterpretation of the term POV. POVs should not be deleted, but represented in order to make an article NPOV (see Wikiedia:Neutral_Point_of_View#The_neutral_point_of_view). Also this article deals with culture. Cultures are very subjective, so describing a culture correctly will be hard if not impossible.
I could give you some quick explanations for the certain issues that you give, before i will search for sources.
I claimed that the Dutch counterculture became mainstream. As evidence i could give you the television program, the Greatest Dutchman in History.
Regarding the relationship between Belgians and Dutch, then i could refer to the television program Zomergasten in 2005, where the Belgian musician and filmmaker Tom Barman of dEUS was a guest. He showed many fragments of television programs about the Belgian irritations towards Dutch.
You are right that the section about the American critical approach towards the Netherlands should be altered. I think that both the Dutch and the American views should be included and fairly represented according to the Wikiedia:Neutral_Point_of_View policy. For Dutch evidence, i could refer to the Dutch ambassador in the USA, who tried to explain the reasoning behind the Dutch laws of abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia and the soft drugs policy.
Cursing hardly ever take place on Dutch television, but when it does, then it is not a problem, allthough a bad language template appears before every television program that could contain bad language. I could refer to many televison programs. The Dutch television program Spuiten en Slikken which has an average of 500,000 viewers out of a population of 16,500,000 people between 11 and 12 o' clock in the evening. This program is about sex and drugs and contains for instance 'outdoorsex' at 3 o' clock in the afternoon in a driving train with passengers showing vaginal penetration. Other examples of people who like(d) to curse on television are Theo van Gogh, Robbie Muntz, Bart de Graaf and many others.
Regarding the minority complex of muslims and christians. I think that sources could be find make this view stronger. Dutch christian parliamentarians are confronted by a hostile majority that doesn't want abide to their views. The christian broadcasting company EO has dramatically changed its programs in the last ten years. Many programs have nothing to do with religion anymore and programs that do are very careful. The minority complex of muslims in the Netherlands doesn't have to be explained, the evidences are overwhelming. Islam is one of the major isseus in Dutch politics. Millions of Dutch people want muslims to go back to their own country, even when they are born in the Netherlands.
You are right about the Czech Republic and Estonia. The Netherlands appear not to be very different from France Germany and the United Kingdom regarding religion.
Regarding the Dutch as idealistic hippies. This ideology was forced upon the Dutch society from 1968 to 2002. Since 2002, it has collapsed. I refered to it as something from the past. This could be added into the article.
Pim Fortuyn said that the islam is a backward culture. It is a bias, but a very important bias. Don't mentioning it means that you will not be able to understand Dutch culture at the moment. In the Netherlands we are very open about this views nowadays. Pim fortuyn was supported by millions of Dutch for the most thanks to this expression. This sentence was the start of the collapse of the 'Dutch idealistic hippie' dominance of the Dutch culture.
'Fortuyn replied by saying that the sperm of Moroccans tasted the same as that of other people. This was quoted in the major newspapers.' This sentence is very important in my view to describe that the Dutch counterculture is mainstream. This expression of Pim Fortuyn has been repeated over and over again in the Dutch media in the context of explaining our culture. To me it is a typical counterculture element.--Daanschr 09:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Sure, if POV-statements contain verifiable information, they should be adapted so that the information is represented in a neutral manner. Sentences like "Dutch people do as they feel" really don't belong in an encyclopedia; However in this particular case I also doubt if it contains any useful information.
How is the Greatest Dutchman election an example of Dutch counterculture being mainstream? Comparable elections were held in other countries. The people you can thank for the fact that Fortuyn was chosen as the greatest are not exactly the greatest proponents of Dutch counterculture, more the opposite types even.
I don't doubt the anecdotes in the chapter about Belgians & Dutch have a basis in fact, but how is it exemplary for Dutch counterculture? Are popular Dutch television programs or our rudeness/cheekyness signs of our counterculture?
Regarding Dutch liberal social mores, that certainly is a sign of the influence of the sixties counterculture. My remarks about that section are still valid though. And can you be certain the swearing and free talk about sex really on Dutch TV is solely a consequence of Dutch counterculture?
The problem with the Dutch 'desiring honesty, happiness and less suffering' statement in the chapter is that it is not very specific, and therefore rather meaningless. Doesn't everyone want more honesty, happiness and less suffering. Why in concreto are the Netherlands different from other countries in this regard? You say this ideology was forced upon Dutch society from 1968 to 1972. However you must remember that most people never shared the opinion of a group of intellectuals who may have been somewhat overrepresented in the media and politics. 'Desiring honesty, happiness and less suffering' sounds to me like something hippie (slightly naive leftist intellectual) would say. It does not apply to the Dutch people as a whole, as is suggested in the chapter.
I think you overestimate the importance of Fortuyn and make 2002 too strict a boundary. As I said, most Dutch people from 1968 to 2002 were not idealistic hippies. On the other hand, the counterculture impact has not completely vanished in 2002. Many 60s ideas can still be heard, many people still believe in them (not to mention the policies like gay marriage, euthanasia etc. are still in place).
My problem about Fortuyn's comment is with the wording in this article. It should be rephrased to something like "Fortuyn criticized Islam, claiming it to be a backwards religion/ culture".
Fortuyn's comment about Moroccan's sperm could indeed be used as an example about Dutch liberalness/bluntness. Such comments are still possible today (Spuiten en Slikken). So apparently Dutch counterculture didn't really go away in 2002.
It is indeed difficult to make an article about culture completely correct, but IMO we should still try to make it as correct as possible. As it is, this chapter is rather caricatural, with some exaggerations and generalizations, AND the use of language is often unencyclopedaic. Like the other commenter said, it would be ok for a blog or so, but not for an encyclopedia. We should try not to theorize too much, there are other places for that.
I'm not convinced Dutch 60s counterculture 'became' mainstream, I just think it had a big influence. The existing order took over many counterculture ideas, which meant the counterculture pretty soon ceased to lose it's relevance. After about 1975 the 60s counterculture wasn't a counterculture anymore. There have been and still are different countercultures though, it would be great if something about those could be written. Which is another argument for making a separate page, for the various Dutch countercultures.
Daaf 03:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to make you acquainted with the Wikipedia:Npov#Pseudoscience policy. Minority views can be represented even when these are not factual according to a view held by a majority.
I think it would be best to rewrite the chapter in accordance to the opinion of people who have been famous for their ideas on Dutch counterculture and mainstream culture.
What i meant with the example of the Grootste Nederlander competition was that during this programm, the Dutch culture was being discussed at length. The picture represented there could be used in this article.
I think it used to be part of our nationalism, that the Netherlands was represented as being part of a counterculture. I have to agree that at the moment it is not longer the case.
Swearing and free talk started with counterculture at the least. Worldwide, people would still describe it as being part of a counterculture. I think that a majority of the Dutch population are not concerned with it anymore.
Regarding the liberalness of Dutch politics before 2002. Why is it that people overwhelmingly voted for liberals and not for Hans Janmaat and other small conservative parties? Why is our mainstream conservative christian party (CDA) so moderate in comparisson to conservative parties in other countries, with former leader Dries van Agt as a strong supporter for the Palestinians for instance?
2002 has been represented as a strict boundary in the Dutch media. There should be many links on the internet to support this claim.
I agree with the Fortuyn change. At the moment it appears in the article that the islamic culture is backward, while it should be an expression of an opinion. That is a rascist bias.
Theorizing is allowed in an article as long as it is part of a text with verifiable sources, allthough most texts on Wikipedia are not verifiable. Of course an article shouldn't become like a talk page, so debates in an article are not allowed, but this doesn't mean that theories are not allowed. It could be a matter of debate if a culture in itself is a theory.
To conclude, i agree with a rewrite, but only when the views of all relevant leading theorists about this subject have been fairly been represented in this article.--Daanschr 07:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Forget the last sentence. You may delete knowledge and i will say it when i don't agree with it.--Daanschr 09:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)--Daanschr 09:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD on Gabba, award-winner at London counterculture festival

The article on punk tribute band Gabba is marked for deletion. Their musical short film won the 2003 "Special Independent Film Award" at London's counterculture Portobello Film Festival (sources at article). You may want to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band) -- 13:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD closed, the result was Keep -- 10:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


How true actually is it that the counterculture originated in the USA? parallel movements in France and the UK, for example, not to mention Holland and West Germany, Scandinavia, etc, *might* have predated that movement...who is to say? thus, how factually concrete is it to say it started in the US? if it is not factually concrete then the info needs changing. thanks Peter morrell 14:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, the events and dates mentioned in the article are quite accurate. I spent time in Europe during 1963 and 1964; at that time there was no hint of the counterculture in Holland, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Scandinavia. In England the Beatles had already begun their rapid ascent to worldwide popularity, though their definitive counterculture personality only came into full flower given the mid-60s influence of the developing American youth counterculture. Good to remember how primed European youth was to be influenced by the developing American youth counterculture. Americans were great heroes to the Europeans during that era, what with our choosing to come to the aid of Europe during WWII and, especially, implementation of the Marshall Plan and our willingness to offer a protective umbrella to Western Europe in the face of Soviet aggression.Founders4 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that highly Americocentric reply. The first Ban the Bomb march in the UK was on "Good Friday 1958" [2] which is considerably earlier than 1963-4. I think you must have visited Europe back then with your eyes closed! as did millions of people who lived here throughout the 1960s and were unaware of and unaffected by anything called a counterculture. I also find your reply exrtremely patronising and wildly inaccurate. As you will recall, the US was dragged very reluctantly into WW2 by Pearl Harbour or did you forget that little detail? you were not heroes who came to save Europe, and I do not buy your ridiculous 'Europe copies America' nonsense. Indeed, the first 'ban the bomb' marches on the UN were in 1962, so I could just as well say the Americans were copying the British! "These marches turned into a regular event, and, by 1960, tens of thousands joined the march and 100,000 joined the final rally." [3] So I think you should try a little harder to get your facts right. I will amend the article with appropriate citations in due course. Peter morrell 06:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No need to get so riled Peter. I was offering my perspective as an American, that's all. Don't deny that "Ban the Bomb" marches occurred when you say they did; just never identified such marches with the 1960's counterculture discussed in the article.
I refer to the attitude I experienced from young Europeans of the time not to brag, but rather with some embarrassment--they tended to copy me and I was only a young, dumb American kid. Hitchhiking around Europe, I could not go into a bar without someone (in France, in Italy, in Germany, in Britain) wanting to buy me a drink so they could thank an American for the help offered during and after the war. I had no part in World War II, nor in the Marshall Plan or other help they wanted to thank me for, since I was born in 1947.
I am well aware of American reluctance to get into the war until the attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR favored an earlier entry, but the American people remembered their experiences during World War I, and they were hesitant to get involved. Once America did decide to engage, however, the sacrifice of more than 400,000 American lives to defeat Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini seems rather significant to me. And the Marshall Plan was an inspired bit of statesmanship.
What facts do you think I got wrong? Wish you didn't choose to be so combative.Founders4 07:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
sorry if you felt a combative tone, but I just think the facts are a little more complex and the article OUGHT to reflect that complexity rather than boldly stating that it all started out in the US. blah blah. I am not convinced that is the case on the basis of an alleged eyewitness of one! yes you are right about WW2 in many respects but that fact does not necessarily transfer to the analysis about 50s and 60s culture this side of the you follow? I just think it is probably a crass or suspect argument and a more subtle wording based on evidence and citations might be a way to improve that intro...does that sound slightly less combative to you? thanks Peter morrell 07:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
sorry the fact you got wrong I think, or more likely blurred, is about dates and when things became countercultural and where. The 'ban the bomb' marches, wearing of beards and duffle coats and interest in jazz music [beatniks] started in the UK in the 50s...just because the same thing was happening in the US [except maybe the duffle coats!] does not necessarily mean one caused the other - do you follow? they could just be parallel does happen and it is a specious historical argument to say bluntly A caused B. I don't buy it cuz life is usually more complex than that. how does that sound to you? Peter morrell 07:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine, Peter. Hope you will add your bit to the article; everyone has something to contribute. I am sure that the 50s beat phenomenon was just as significant in the UK as in the US, and that it happened simultaneously. I was thinking mainly of the 60s counterculture, which I am more familiar with. The influence was certainly back and forth, with one side of the pond influencing the other, as you say. Founders4 08:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thanks, it might be worth my writing a new section on UK counterculture 50s to 70s...what do you reckon? a useful addition? glad we could get good humoured about it in the end! ;-) cheers Peter morrell 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think a new section on UK counterculture would be great. Go for it!Founders4 05:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
OK thanks I will do a full job on this so you will have to give me a few days. It's a compelling theme that goes back to the ancient Celts. I will try and keep it short and snappy, but detail will always creep in. thanks for the invitation to try and do a good job! Peter morrell 14:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a great interest in the Celts, with whom I strongly identify. I only studied them, and the remarkable spirit of their civilization, long after my '60's counterculture participation--but it was apparent to me immediately that we had been hearkening back to something quite ancient. Have you, by chance, read BEFORE COLUMBUS by Samuel D. Marble? Marble offers a highly romanticized description of the Celts in Europe, England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales and describes their early migration to Peru and to the North American continent, where they influenced the Quechua and various Native American tribes. Anyway, it is fun, though it may be more fanciful than historical. Founders4 17:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

I have no personal stake in this, but why did you decide to delete the information provided about the tension between the Dutch and the Flemish? It did seem relevant to me, so this might qualify as vandalism.Founders4 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Large sections deleted

Just visited this article after an absence and noticed that entire sections had been deleted with no explanation. The funny thing is that this happened without my being aware of it, though the article is on my watch list.

Why did someone delete the section on "Counterculture in the Netherlands," for example.

Care to comment? Founders4 09:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Founders4, i have deleted my own peace of work: the Dutch counterculture. I don't know why other users deleted this section before me. The reason for me doing this is the new research on religion in the Netherlands compared to other countries in Western Europe. It appears that the Netherlands is one of the most religious countries of Western Europe at the moment, only to be beaten by Italy. Researched were Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, United Kingdom, Austria, Spain and Italy. I know that Poland, Greece and Ireland are still very conservative and christian. They are the only countries i guess that are more conservative than the Netherlands.
Most people are not religious in the Netherlands, which says a lot about Western Europe. The impact of secularisation at the moment in the neighbourcountries is enormous. The German Christian-Democrats are already contemplating to make materialism (non-believe in god) as a dogma of the political party, something which the Dutch Christian-Democrats are still far from removed.
I think i should have been more careful in editing. At the moment i prefer to edit only after reading a book. There are far too many morons on Wikipedia, who think they don't need to read a book in order to write or even delete an edit. I was looking at the history of this page and i really like the earlier version of before july 2004. The deletion of this version points the the necessity of organizing congresses in which multiple opinions can be defended instead of quiet deletion or rampaging edit wars ending in censoreship.--Daanschr 20:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
We could start a congress for this article and invite all people who have edited this article. That could be a nice edit wa...uh debate, i mean.--Daanschr 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I just read about the Krusty affair. Perhaps it is not a good idea to bring back the version of before july 2004. It would be good though to put something about the history of the counterculture movement. I see some striking similarities between the 'rebel without a cause' and 'live fast die young' attitude and the BBC-version of Lord Byron. It would be good to look at the leaders of the counterculture: who were their examples. You were part of it i see, so i guess you know more about it. I am only 28.--Daanschr 21:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Last Paragraph

I think I'll leave the editing to someone a little more qualified on the subject than me, but I am really wondering about the accuracy of the last paragraph. Can someone find a source, or should it be removed?Minidoxigirli 14:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, after that last edit it's even worse. I mean, seriously, how is using the term "the establishment" NPOV-friendly? It's also not formatted correctly, with the capitalized "AND" in there.Minidoxigirli 21:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, the last paragraph really stuck out at me. Its not very objective, its an interpretation. I think it should be removed/altered.
It needs to be mentioned in some form, otherwise one is left with the false impression that there are two "countercultures" that are basically mirrors of the two fronts of the political parties. The youth of today do not feel they are forced to choose between two things they regard as equally evil and probably supported by the same pigs in power since Alexander the Great anyway, war and homosexuality. Tell the truth! Or it will be told for you.
The referenced paragraph is nonsense. It is unsourced and not reflective of reality. The above comment is just as BENT!!! (True statement added back in).Founders4 02:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add it back without rational revision and sourcing. Thanks. Founders4 23:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
But the way you want it, suggests the lie or illusion that there are only two choices, and that we are forced to choose between war and homoes marriage, both of which we consider anti-Life and evil. Sorry, but both you know AND we know, that the homoes are the ones who have always pushed war and division and strife since the beginning of time, so you aren't fooling anyone. We are rebelling against both. If you think I am going to take advice from the likes of you, you just don't understand the spirit of rebellion very well. In the spirit of rebellion, I am going to ignore your spewing hot air and definitely going to keep adding this truth about the situation in for balance, as often as it takes, so that this falsehood will not stand. Have a nice life! --chav
Connection between homosexuality (your "homoes"--where'd you get that) and war? Pretty darn hard to take this discussion seriously! lolFounders4 00:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"If it were possible to form a state or an army exclusively of homosexuals, these men would direct all their emulations toward honors, and going into battle with such a spirit would, even if their numbers were small, conquer the entire world." -- Plato, The Banquet

"They, the homosexuals, are among the best among the boys and young men because they are the most valiant of them. This is strikingly demonstrated by the fact that, after growing up, they - and they alone - are fit for ruling the state." -- Plato, The Banquet

Plato taught Aristotle, who taught Alexander the Great. Of course we disagree with Plato that these are anything but human turds trying to make decisions for the other 90% of us who are normal people, so what Plato said is exactly what we are rebelling against. If you'd like to see more, much more, just reply. -- CHAV

Perhaps something more contemporary? Founders4 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Ernst Röhm. You can call me an "inmate" if you feel it will help, but don't say I didn't warn you. CHAV
???? A few gays among Hitler's thugs hardly count. Besides official Nazi policy was pointedly anti-gay. Warn me about what? Founders4 02:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Founders4, I am so glad that you are the one who gets to decide what "counts" and what doesn't "Count". It must be nice. I will be sure to call on you if I ever feel myself in need of your supreme refereeing skills. In the mean time, I'm not going away... See ya! CHAV

More Truth

Here is the difference between the Democrat and Republican parties. Bot hparties are in favor of war and homosexuality. But Democrats put mnore of an emphasis on pushing homosexuality first, war second. Republicans have an emphasis on war first, but they are closet homosexuals. The counterculture is not a mirror of this, it is something totally different. The popular revolution against these human turds in our government, these gay hawks,is alive and well! See ya! --CHAV

Astute observations! Founders4 01:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we find a place in the article for the two primary motivations of the counter-culture? These are: (1.) staying alive by avoiding military service, and (2.) enjoying as much pleasure as possible, short of self-destruction. Of course, this does not correspond to the academics' picture of a people's revolt led by intellectuals who theorize about reason and dialectics. 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Aubrey Aubervilliers
I agree about the military service but not anything else you say. Hedonistic? somewhat but ythat's not the whole truth, SqueakBox 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the most widespread counter-culture maxims was "If it feels good, do it!" 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Aubrey Aubervilliers

The disputed paragraph, just so anyone can read it here

"However, the fastest-growing counterculture in the US today would seem to be one combining elements of both of these, into the "establishment"'s absolute worst nightmare: a youth movement that is at once anti-war AND anti-gay marriage. This would indeed be a 'counterculture' in the truest sense, its very existence representing the gravest threat to those segments who are both pro-war and pro-gay, since the Yippies in the era of LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover."

Conservative Movement

That section is just silly. "Many" is such a pejorative term. Also, "studies" should be linked to if they're going to be referenced. minidoxigirli-talk--contribs 08:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

LGBT section

I just spent some time trying to clean up this article with regard to formatting, citations and internal links, but I think there is a larger problem with the way in which the section is written. It reads like a exam essay with a strong personal view. In fact, I suspect the contributor just pasted the entire text in and clicked "save", which would account for all of the poor formatting and lack of links and attributions. I also strongly suspect that there is a degree of bias from some editors with the profound amount of "ciatation needed" tags--particularly in the last paragraph. This topic is not my area of expertise, but rather one that I am somewhat familiar with, so I would look to an expert to concisely define the LGBT lifestyle as a valid historical countercultural movement. I believe it is and would be well worth reading. grit 01 March 07


On the first paraphrasing of Kaiser:

"But homosexuality ... was not a significant movement in itself.[3]"

May suggest that the writer believes or agrees with the notion of homosexuality as a "movement" i.e. trend or campaign? elle 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Extremely biased, unsourced original research

However, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the entire culture did suffer a very serious collective trauma, albeit short-lived and not yet fully understood, and society has been dividing itself into two opposing cultural and political camps ever since; one that is imperialist, evangelical, and oppressive, and another that is mostly secular, humanist, and anti-authority.

"Imperialist, evangelical and oppressive"? An extreme oversimplification with respect to "evangelical" (are all those who favor current U.S. foreign policy evangelical), "imperialist" and "oppressive"...give me a break. I intend to delete this section. Any comments? Apostle12 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole article is ridiculous

This article drones on about the sixties kids,how awesome they are and how much good they did. Really.Sorry,I didnt realize how being a lazy dumbass who smokes pot and never works qualifys as a "social movement".Whatever you say I guess.C'mon.Lets not pretend these people are "intellectuals" who changed the way we view the world.There not much different then your average street criminal degenerate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Hippies were merely the tools of affluent, marxist indoctrinated people seeking power. Power that they still hold. It occurred to me the other day?. Why aren't liberals..... liberal?. It's because they never were, although the people they used were. It's impossible to write about this without some bias. Libertarian ideals were more in line with what the hippies thought, the people that pulled the strings were neo-marxists pretending to embrace dialectical idealism, but actually they were mostly pretending to embrace marxism too. Power was the goal to be achieved, and having achieved that power, they have instituted a police state that is more invasive than any 1950s nightmare including penalties for things down to seat belt traffic citations and very high sin taxes. That is, unless you are one of the very finely defined "oppressed". My comments are biased, but so is the article in question. I think you could also examine the definition of neo-marxism in the context of american life. The correct definition of neo-marxist is Stalinist. As to the question of whether this whole article is ridiculous. It's not ridiculous, it's just that this whole line of trying to define this and other terms like it are subject to so many subjective viewpoints, that it would be difficult to actually define. Who is the counterculture?. What were/are the goals of the counterculture, neo-marxists, neo-cons, democrats, republicans, humanists and evangelists?. That would depend on who you talk to. I think these questions are more suited to a line of opposing editorials, than an encyclopedia article. Even people claiming to be part of these groups would probably have a problem creating a definitive definition acceptable to all the people that proclaim they are part of the same group. For example, a hippie might define marxism as libertarianism. That's the way I would have defined it 40 years ago, now I'd call it Stalinism or national socialism.

One thing the facts bear out, the violence and death in the 1960s were appalling. I don't think it resulted in a better quality of life or more social harmony for anyone. Even the people it allegedly helped.

I'm a bit confused. When you say "the violence and death in the 1960s were appalling," to what might you be referring? Certainly not large scale violence and death in the United States. About two million Vietnamese (North and South Vietnam combined) died during the Vietnam War in the 1960s. And perhaps 30 million Chinese perished during Mao's "Cultural Revolution." Those are the most significant "violence and death" tolls I am aware of. Please clarify.
Also, for the record, hippies have been clearly identified as avowed libertarians. Quite a bit has been written on this topic, especially one very fine article by Stewart Brand that links hippie libertarianism to the advent of the personal computer and the creation of contemporary Internet culture. Left-leaning Marxists, and especially avowed Marxist-Leninists, distrusted hippies--for good reason, because they were never able to co-opt the hippie movement in the furtherance of their goals. Apostle12 02:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this whole article is pretty bad and should probably be entirely rewritten. The bit about "conservative counterculture" is particularly laughable considering that there's a vibrant conservative counterculture centered around magazines like Vice and WYWS that has more to do with porn, gore and heroin than abstinence and clean living. I'd suggest a total rewrite.

I am confused by the never did anything bit? Do you honestly think those who never did antything were the counterculture. It was actually full of active people who did a lot, SqueakBox 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if a bunch of people do nothing but sit and take pot, it is still a cultural movement. I believe that the impact of counterculture is undeniable. Anyone who disagrees is most likely ignorant or just hates the movement and doesn't want to give it credit for being legitimate. Articles on this website site the holocaust but that does not mean that it is advocated; it is only reported. the counterculture movement is only reported here as well, not necessarily advocated. Wikipedia exist for the purpose to provide unbiased information, with as many views as are relevant to the material given. I believe all information should be as unaffected as possible, allowing each individual to decide their opinions for themselves instead of being swayed by the bias or viewpoints of another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Predominantly white, middle-class youth, for the first time since the Great Depression of the 1930s, had sufficient leisure time, inclination and courage to raise concerns about social issues..." Because we all know the generation of young people who helped defeat Fascism lacked the courage and inclination to raise concern about social issues. Leisure time might indeed have been a problem. (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Communism and Hippies

First of all I'd like to recognize that we're dealing with some very slippery terminology here. One could ask "What is a hippy?" and "What is a communist?". Then there's the whole spectrum of hippies and yippies; those whose motivation was to challenge the culture vs. those whose motivation was to change the politics.

However we require working definitions of these terms before we can really have a productive discussion on the matter of a hippy "ideology". Many here would make the case (as has been done in this discussion) that hippies' ideals of independence and individualism show their true ideology to be more in line with libertarianism than any sort of communistic belief system. While I will grant that individualism seems to have been key to the hippie lifestyle, I'd also like to point out that equally important to this lifestyle was a sense of community, sharing of resources, and mutual respect for others "tuned in" to the "happenings". While not always 100% in line with any given school of communist thought, the Hippies rejection of the capitalist system makes them, at least to my mind, incompatible with the free-market cherishing libertarians.Furseiseki 17:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Counterculture in the 2000s

This whole section should be dropped or drastically re-written... No mainstream culture to rebel against? that's not only POV, it's in the running for the most laughable POV assertion I've ever encountered in my life. Dlabtot 05:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also in this section: I find it laughable that Indies are equated with Bohemians, and together with Punks, are asserted to be sympathetic with Communism and Socialism! While certainly some individuals in these genres are probably sympathetic to these views, I believe that they overwhelmingly lean more towards anarchism and/or libertarianism (not that I necessarily sympathize), at least in the United States (perhaps especially in the Midwest, South, Mountain states, etc.). Indeed, many are even populists, conservatives, or even fascists! The main thing they all seem to have in common is a hatred of the status quo, usually everything corporate, and usually all rich and upper middle class people (even if that's where they come from). Shanoman (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I happened to be on Wikipedia binge last night reading articles about counterculture movements for some reason, when I thought, "Is there a considerable counterculture presence in America in the 2000s?" I happened upon this section of this article, but the quality of this section is sub-par, does not answer any real questions about 21st Century counterculture, and doesn't even convince me that there is a sizable counterculture element in 21st century America. Essentially, the original author seems to be trying to establish the existence of a 21st Century counterculture by pointing out drug use (which he himself declares is part of mainstream culture) and anti-war sentiment. Also, he fails to mention that anti-war and anti-Bush sentiment is fairly common in the mainstream, particularly in the entertainment industry. What made the hippie movement a counterculture movement was their rejection of social norms and capitalism in the form of communal living, gift economy, and other related concepts, not their drug use and anti-war sentiment (though those were likely the primary reasons for the popularity of the hippie movement). Also, the portion about the acceptance of Communism, Anarchist, and Socialist principles seems more like advertising one's own political belief than describing the actual beliefs of young people today. I would recommend that this section be entirely rewritten, preferably by an expert on contemporary counterculture, or that we mention more of the dominate subcultures. I haven't seen evidence (in print, on the web, or in real life) of a sizable counterculture element, though I have seen plenty evidence of subcultures. This article should at least address some of the major subcultures existing in America. That's just my two cents on the subject. Mandanthe1 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep on truckin'

This phrase redirects to this page, with no apparent explanation, and the phrase isn't even mentioned in the page at all. Is there any reason for this? ~~ Gromreaper(Talk)/(Cont) 02:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I searched that phrase because I wanted to find the artist who drew that cartoon--and I can't remember his name. I still haven't got it. (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
He's Robert Crumb, who used the phrase "Keep On Truckin'" in his early cartoons. (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


The claim that Donahue, Winfrey et al are a point of the counter-culture is unsourced as well as being demonstrably untrue and therefore the section on the media has been removed, SqueakBox 18:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What is going on under the russian heading?

Looks like vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)