But wouldn't the "Super Nomads" really be "Super Prophets" instead?

If a premature Crisis causes the Hero archetype to be omitted, might not an overdue Crisis cause the Artist archetype to be omitted, meaning that the Heroes' immediate juniors would become Prophets instead of Artists?

Maybe they will be "Sub-Artists." And you know what that means: Beatniks!

--Croakmore

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

But wouldn't the "Super Nomads" really be "Super Prophets" instead?

If a premature Crisis causes the Hero archetype to be omitted, might not an overdue Crisis cause the Artist archetype to be omitted, meaning that the Heroes' immediate juniors would become Prophets instead of Artists?

Now that's a very interesting idea! But I think a First Turning would need to be skipped or cut short (however that would happen) to omit an Artist gen. Rather, if a Crisis is actually very late, I think the most likely outcome would be a very long Hero gen, or at least the potential for one. Heroes are born during 3T's. Prophets are born during 1T's. Think about how long the "Era of Good Feelings" 1T was, and then look at how long the Transcendental gen was. I would imagine the same would apply to a Hero gen in a very long 3T. But who knows?

But if that is how it would work, I suppose the following 2T would be intense and anomalous just as the Civil War 4T was with an overpowering Prophet gen.

I think it is very possible that John's talk of "fifth turnings" is not necessary anyway. He equates 4T's with Crisis Wars, whereas S&H equate 4T with an "outer word crisis" that likely includes total war but doesn't necessarily have to. What is required is a fundamental reworking of outer world institutions.

So a lack of of a total genocidal war does not necessarily mean a 4T was skipped or postponed. There is also the matter of possibly incorrect identification of the timing of previous 4T's in the various circumstances.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Maybe they will be "Sub-Artists." And you know what that means: Beatniks!

Mr. E, that sounds uncomfortably close to sub-human. :shock: :wink:

"Sub-Artists" or "Sub Adaptives" are what you get from too much of a call for patriotism. That has not yet occurred, since there is no draft. And it's still tra-la-la at the shoping malls. (But I'm betting that between now and 2012 the real sh!t is going to hit the fan...around the time the Millies catch on to how bad we screwed up their future.)

--Croak

Originally Posted by Croakmore

"Sub-Artists" or "Sub Adaptives" are what you get from too much of a call for patriotism. That has not yet occurred, since there is no draft. And it's still tra-la-la at the shoping malls. (But I'm betting that between now and 2012 the real sh!t is going to hit the fan...around the time the Millies catch on to how bad we screwed up their future.)

--Croak

I don't think you silents messed up anything, especially the amphibians.

They never elected you to anything so it couldn't be your fault.

Dear Anthony and Richard,

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

> But wouldn't the "Super Nomads" really be "Super Prophets"
> instead?

> If a premature Crisis causes the Hero archetype to be omitted,
> might not an overdue Crisis cause the Artist archetype to be
> omitted, meaning that the Heroes' immediate juniors would become
> Prophets instead of Artists?

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Maybe they will be "Sub-Artists." And you know what that means:
> Beatniks!

The would-be Artist generation can't turn into Prophets, since
Prophets just think about things and argue about things, but don't
actually do anything. The only generations that really do anything are
the Nomads and Heroes.

They can't really be Artists any more, since they didn't suffer the
"generational child abuse" of growing up during the horrors of a
crisis war. It's that experience that gives them the characteristics
of the Artist generation.

I chose the name "Super Nomad" because they share the same intensity
as the real Nomads. However, the "Super Nomad" name is only
temporary; once the new crisis war is under way, they'll be the new
generation of Heroes in the newly launched cycle, and their children
will be the new Artist generation.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Strauss and Howe's Civil War Anomaly

When I first became aware of The Fourth Turning, shortly after 9/11,
I didn't know whether it as credible or not, and long before I
thought of setting up my own web site, I was looking for ways of
verifying it or refuting it for myself. The major problem is that
TFT contains several anomalies, inconsistencies and contradictions
that I had to think through and understand.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that TFT only develops a pattern for
six cycles, and even among those six cycles there are many
irregularities. From day one, I felt intuitively that I couldn't
"believe in" TFT if it couldn't be validated for all places and times
in history. If TFT only applied (poorly) to six cycles, then how
could we conclude that those six weren't simply anomalies themselves?

And I'm not the only one with those concerns. I spoke to a number of
academics about TFT, and they simply found it lacking in credibility.
The fact that WW I and WW II were only 20 years apart was the biggest
problem, but other problems became apparent to anyone who drilled
down into the details.

When I finally started Generational Dynamics proper, my intention was
to develop a theoretical framework that validates all of S&H's
findings and removes the inconsistencies and contradictions. People
criticize me for "leaving S&H behind," but that's completely untrue.
There's no great glory in being consistent with an inconsistent
theory. My intention has always been to be consistent with S&H's
research, and to validate TFT so that it could be accepted by
academics (and, incidentally, by myself).

I've been highly successful at this. I've extended TFT to all times
and places in history, and I've even shown that S&H's brilliant idea
is a consequence of the evolution of any intelligent species. I've
resolved numerous anomalies, including the Great Depression anomaly,
the WW I anomaly, the date contradiction in the Puritan Awakening,
and the contradiction in the 30-year "Glorious crisis", which
supposedly has no war, and yet begins in 1675 with the bloodiest war
in North American history, and ends in 1704 in the middle of the
bloodiest war in 18th century Europe.

With these and other inconsistencies and contradictions resolved, TFT
and Generational Dynamics have risen to the level of an academically
valid discipline that could be taught as part of the curriculum of any
history, economics and even mathematics degree. Why the people in this
forum, including Strauss and Howe themselves, aren't thrilled by this
is one of the many perversities of human nature that I'll never really
understand, no matter how many times "NIH" is explained to me.

There is still one major anomaly in TFT that I've never really
resolved until now.

Strauss and Howe never found a Hero generation in the American Civil
War. According to their theory, every Fourth Turning must have a
Hero generation, and the lack of one in the Civil War is a major
internal contradiction that has caused TFT many credibility problems.
This contradiction has been much discussed in this forum over the
years, and it's lead many people even in this forum to say that S&H
were simply wrong about that.

I've never looked at it that way. My feeling was that if S&H had
read all those contemporary histories and diaries in their research,
and found no Hero generation, then they couldn't be wrong about that.
The error would have to be found in correcting their theoretical
conclusions, inferred from their research.

Initially, I partially resolved this issue in Generational Dynamics by
simply defining the "Hero Generation" as the generation reaching
adulthood that fought in a crisis war. Thus, the Rebels and Yanks who
fought in the Civil War were, by definition, Heroes.

But this didn't really solve the problem. Why didn't S&H find a Hero
generation? How can that be explained theoretically? How could I
improve the Generational Dynamics theory so that S&H's Civil War
research is consistent with the rest of the theory, and thus validate
S&H's research, even where they couldn't validate it themselves? In
short, what really happened in the Civil War that made it so
different from the other cycles that S&H studied?

I now have a proposed resolution to S&H's Civil War contradiction.
This is a modification to the Generational Dynamics theory which
explains and validates their research, and explains why the Civil War
was different from the other cycles.

Unfortunately, my actual TFT book is packed away in a box that I
haven't unpacked yet, so I can't quote directly from the book, but I
remember one paragraph in particular that talks about it. I remember
the impression that the Rebels and Yanks were really nasty and
brutalized, not at all like Heroes in other crisis wars. (If anyone
has the actual paragraph I'm talking about, please post it.)

What I'm proposing is that this was actually a generation of
"Super-Nomads" in a Fifth Turning (5T) crisis war.

That the American Civil War was a 5T war can be found by recomputing
the dates. The Revolutionary war ended in 1782. The Awakening would
have begun around 1800, the Unraveling around 1820, and the Crisis
Era around 1840. The Mexican-American war wasn't enough to generate
a crisis war (perhaps like our Iraq war?), and a new civil war was
held off by a series of Great Compromises on slavery, and by the
railway bubble that made everyone rich. Once the bubble burst in the
Panic of 1857, disaffection grew.

To support the 5T view, consider the following of description of the
Harpers Ferry raid that I found on pbs.org:

Originally Posted by pbs.org

> The raid on Harpers Ferry 1859

> Resource Bank Contents

> Harpers Ferry Headline

> John Brown's plan seemed fairly straightforward: he and his men
> would establish a base in the Blue Ridge Mountains from which they
> would assist runaway slaves and launch attacks on slaveholders. At
> least that was the plan that the militant abolitionist had
> described to potential funders in 1857. But his plans would
> change. He had been ready in 1858 to launch his war -- he had both
> the men and the money to proceed. Brown was asked to postpone the
> launch, though, because one of his followers had threatened to
> reveal the plan -- a threat that the blackmailer did follow
> through on. So Brown agreed to go into hiding.

> The following summer, after a one-year delay, Brown was eager to
> get underway. He rented a farm in Maryland, across the Potomac
> River from Harpers Ferry. Here he assembled his arms and waited
> for his "army" to arrive.

> The delay had an adverse effect on Brown's plan. Many of the men
> he had recruited the previous year had changed their minds, moved
> away, or simply didn't think the plan would work. Even Henry
> Highland Garnet, the radical abolitionist who advocated
> insurrection, didn't have faith in the plan, believing that slaves
> were unprepared. Brown also met with Frederick Douglass in August
> of 1859, when Brown told his friend of his intentions of seizing
> the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry rather than staging guerilla
> warfare from the mountains. Attacking the arsenal was in effect
> attacking the federal government and, in Douglass' estimation, a
> grave mistake. "You're walking into a perfect steel-trap," he said
> to Brown, "and you will never get out alive."

> On October 16, Brown set out for Harpers Ferry with 21 men -- 5
> blacks, including Dangerfield Newby, who hoped to rescue his wife
> who was still a slave, and 16 whites, two of whom were Brown's
> sons. Leaving after sundown, the men crossed the Potomac, then
> walked all night in heavy rain, reaching the town at 4am. They cut
> telegraph wires, then made their assault. First they captured the
> federal armory and arsernal. They then captured Hall's Rifle
> Works, a supplier of weapons to the government. Brown and his men
> rounded up 60 prominent citizens of the town and held them as
> hostages, hoping that their slaves would join the fight. No slaves
> came forth.

> The local militia pinned Brown and his men down. Under a white
> flag, one of Brown's sons was sent out to negotiate with the
> citizens. He was shot and killed. News of the insurrection,
> relayed by the conductor of an express train heading to Baltimore,
> reached President Buchanan. Marines and soldiers went dispatched,
> under the leadership of then Colonel Robert E. Lee. By the time
> they arrived, eight of Brown's 22-man army had already been
> killed. Lee's men moved in and quickly ended the insurrection. In
> the end, ten of Brown's men were killed (including two blacks and
> both of his sons), seven were captured (two of these later), and
> five had escaped.

> Brown, who was seriously wounded, was taken to Charlestown,
> Virginia (now Charles Town, West Virginia), along with the other
> captives. There they were quickly tried, sentenced, then executed.
> John Brown's statements during his trial reached the nation,
> inspiring many with his righteous indignation toward slavery. The
> raid ultimately hastened the advent of the Civil War.
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2940.html

Now, John Brown himself was born in 1800, putting him on the
Prophet/Nomad cusp, according to this recomputation of the turning
timeline. But his "22-man army" would, I assume, have been young men
just coming of age -- i.e., Super-Nomads.

Reading through the above description, I see many elements in common
with the July 7 London subway bombers -- young, disillusioned men
turning to secretive terrorist violence under the leadership of an
aging Prophet, but disapproved of by their own parents. This is
strikingly parallel to the story of the four London bombers, who were
educated and motivated by a trip to the Madrasses in Pakistan.

If the Civil War was fought by "Super-Nomad" Rebels and Yanks, then
S&H's findings about this generation would be completely validated by
the revised theory, and S&H's actual description of these people
would be completely explained.

This explanation makes a lot of sense to me. If anyone else has any
thoughts about it, I would be interested in hearing them.

The optional "Fifth Turning" is a new proposed modification to
Strauss and Howe's theory. Something was needed anyway, because
S&H's theory calls for three 20-year era's between crisis periods,
and most of the six cycles they considered violated their own theory.
The 5T concept is an elegant addition to the theory, and may resolve
a whole collection of contradictions and questions in the original
TFT.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Indonesia nearing panic as bird flu spreads

There's mass confusion in Jakarta over possible human to human
contamination.

According to yesterday's surveillance report by the United Nations
World Health Organization (WHO), an 8 year old hospitalized boy has
been confirmed positive for the bird flu. The WHO report downplays
the likelihood of of human to human transmission, but leaves the
question open.
http://www.who.int/entity/csr/don/ar.../en/index.html

News reports have not been nearly as sanguine. The boy is the nephew
of a woman who died of bird flu on Sept. 16. He had contact with his
aunt after she became ill, and developed symptoms shortly thereafter.
http://www.canada.com/health/story.h...e-5837d364c155

It seems pretty likely that the boy caught it from his aunt,
indicating human to human transmission.

Jakarta, one of the most densely populated cities in the world, is
beginning to panic. Five people in Jakarta have died recently of the
bird flu. On Wednesday, a five year old girl died, having bird flu
symptoms; a DNA analysis will reveal next week whether it was the
actual bird flu.
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.ph...10620726&par=0

Malaysia, Indonesia's neighbor, is beginning to close down the border
between the two countries, in order to try to stop the spread.

So the question of whether there's human to human transmission in
Jakarta is confusing, but that isn't the half of it.

A major Jakarta zoo was closed on Monday, after 19 birds tested
positive for bird flu. A number of people who visited the zoo prior
to its closing have been admitted to the hospital showing symptoms of
bird flu. Test results will be available next week.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detail...923.B06&irec=5

Even more serious, over 115 patients have developed mild bird flu
symptions in the last couple of days, but were refused treatment
because of lack of beds and because the symptoms were mild.
http://www.recombinomics.com/News/09...tment_115.html

The Recombinomics web site, which posts analyses of current events in
the progression of bird flu, has been wondering whether Jakarta and
WHO have been hiding the seriousness of the situation.
http://www.recombinomics.com/News/09...Jakarta_9.html

According to Recombinomics, the bird flu has become a Phase 5
pandemic and appears to be close to Phase 6. WHO classifies it as
Phase 4.

The phases have been defined to show how close a new virus is to a
general pandemic. Here are the last few phases:

> Phase 3: Human infection(s) with a new subtype, but no
> human-to-human spread, or at most rare instances of spread to a
> close contact.

> Phase 4: Small cluster(s) with limited human-to-human
> transmission but spread is highly localized, suggesting that the
> virus is not well adapted to humans.

> Phase 5: Larger cluster(s) but human-to-human spread still
> localized, suggesting that the virus is becoming increasingly
> better adapted to humans, but may not yet be fully transmissible
> (substantial pandemic risk).

> Phase 6: Pandemic: increased and sustained transmission in
> general population.
> http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/gen-info/pandemics.htm
>

Until more testing is done, there's no way to tell whether something
has changed in the last few days. It's possible that the current
storm will pass, when all the tests are in, or it's possible that the
tests will reveal the first stages of a real bird flu panemic.

As with most things in life, there's no way to tell what's going to
happen now. That there'll be a pandemic is certain, but whether it
will occur next week is far from certain. A lot will depend on what
happens with those 115 patients who weren't treated. If it turns out
that they all have bird flu, then we have an pandemic; if all they
have is the sniffles, then the pandemic will be postponed for a
while.

In my opinion, if you've been planning to make some sort of
preparations in advance of a bird flu pandemic, such as purchasing
face masks or something, now is the time to do it.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Wow. That should be a major update to your Generational Dynamics for Historians & other folks.

A close friend of mine with whom I share T4T ideas thinks the Hero Generation really was out there - on the Western Frontier, leaving Back East to the Nomads and Artists.

Hi John,

Recently I have been having an email discussion with you. I brought up the subject of the Gallic Wars, and for whatever reason I have not received a response. Maybe you didn't receive it so I'll just post it here.

Chapter 9 of your most recent book:

Ancient Rome

Social/Civil War -91 -82 9 46 55
War with Egypt -36 -30 6 92 98

My friend knows a lot about Rome and Roman wars and he thinks the Gallic Wars, culminating in the battle of Alesia fits into the Algorithm.

This is not listed and it takes place in 52 BC; too close to either war.

A response or explanation would be appreciated.

Thanks

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The fact that WW I and WW II were only 20 years apart was the biggest
problem, but other problems became apparent to anyone who drilled
down into the details.

Why is this a problem? WWII occurred during a period of fundamental institutional change. WWI solved little in terms of that. One is a 4T war and the other is not.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

People criticize me for "leaving S&H behind," but that's completely untrue.

So dispensing with their definition of a fourth turning (to a Crisis War only),adding a fifth turning and fifth archetype to their decidedly four-stroke mechanism, radically simplifying their intergenerational dynamics, and radically changing the dates they identified for turnings and generations (including switching 2T's to 4T's and much more) is not leaving S&H behind?!?!? I wonder what they would think of that.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I've resolved numerous anomalies, including the Great Depression anomaly, the WW I anomaly,

How are these anomalies?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

the date contradiction in the Puritan Awakening,

No contradiction. You don't have to move it to somehow remove the English Civil War from it. The ECW was not a 4T war by S&H's definition because it was suffused with "inner-world" cultural turmoil and ultimately solved nothing in the institutional order. By 1660 England was back to having a monarch with Papist inclinations who adored the Divine Right concept and a Parliament very nervous about those qualities. The change came in the Glorious Revolution. What's the problem?

The problem is you don't recognize a fundamental component of S&H's theory which defines what the turnings actually are. To you, all great wars must be Crisis Wars. That's NOT S&H's definition and entirely changes the theory. You have indeed left S&H behind. That may be fine, but to say you are building upon them is factually not correct.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

and the contradiction in the 30-year "Glorious crisis", which
supposedly has no war, and yet begins in 1675 with the bloodiest war
in North American history, and ends in 1704 in the middle of the
bloodiest war in 18th century Europe.

It started in 1675, in America. It looks like it started later in England. For England, it is likely that the War for Spanish Succession was a 4T war for England and all Western Europe. No contradiction.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

With these and other inconsistencies and contradictions resolved, TFT
and Generational Dynamics have risen to the level of an academically
valid discipline that could be taught as part of the curriculum of any
history, economics and even mathematics degree. Why the people in this
forum, including Strauss and Howe themselves, aren't thrilled by this
is one of the many perversities of human nature that I'll never really
understand, no matter how many times "NIH" is explained to me.

Maybe because you solved problems that aren't necessarily there and/or proposed solutions that don't solve anything.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Thus, the Rebels and Yanks who fought in the Civil War were, by definition, Heroes.

This exemplifies the problem with GD's connection to S&H. They were not "by definition" of the Hero archetype. That archetype requires more than just fighting in a big war -- there's several other components to it, like the type of upbringing, institutional problems, how they are perceived by the other archetypes, and so on. By simplying 4T's to Crisis Wars and centering your theory entirely on Crisis Wars you warp S&H's theory out of all recognition.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

That the American Civil War was a 5T war can be found by recomputing
the dates. The Revolutionary war ended in 1782 . . .

Here you go again, concentrating on war. In S&H's definition of a 4T, that crisis continued for several years because of the continuation of serious institutional upheaval and reconstruction. There was a nasty depression and a severe constitutional crisis in the 1780's. And the stability of the new constitutional order was questionable until the successful conclusion of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

Furthermore, serious, comprehensive religious ferver did not break out until the early 1820's. The items McLoughlin identifies for the very 19th century mostly occurred in the hinterlands and were not as broad and deep as what came decades later.

You're reworking to create a "fifth turning" does not fit S&H's basic ideas at all.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The optional "Fifth Turning" is a new proposed modification to
Strauss and Howe's theory. Something was needed anyway, because
S&H's theory calls for three 20-year era's between crisis periods,
and most of the six cycles they considered violated their own theory.
The 5T concept is an elegant addition to the theory, and may resolve
a whole collection of contradictions and questions in the original
TFT.

Far more in line with their theory, not to mention far more parsimonious and therefore approved by Mr. Ockham, would just to say that turnings and generations took longer prior to the late modern era due to a later age of net social autonomy. The Civil War anomaly was just a problem with the adjustment from one length to another. No more really necessary.

Also, Mike Alexander has proposed interesting ideas that also discount some basic tenets of S&H's theory but he admits to doing so, and also still keeps pretty true to their dates. I agree with him that your "Puritan flip" is a hell of a stretch.

FWIW.

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

> Wow. That should be a major update to your Generational Dynamics
> for Historians & other folks.

> A close friend of mine with whom I share T4T ideas thinks the Hero
> Generation really was out there - on the Western Frontier, leaving
> Back East to the Nomads and Artists.

Thanks for the comment. And I enjoy the idea that all those
"Westerns" that I used to watch on TV had the right idea -- that all
the "real men" went west and did things like standing down the bad
guy at High Noon.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> Recently I have been having an email discussion with you. I
> brought up the subject of the Gallic Wars, and for whatever reason
> I have not received a response. Maybe you didn't receive it so
> I'll just post it here.

> Chapter 9 of your most recent book:

> Ancient Rome

> Social/Civil War -91 -82 9 46 55
> War with Egypt -36 -30 6 92 98

> My friend knows a lot about Rome and Roman wars and he thinks the
> Gallic Wars, culminating in the battle of Alesia fits into the
> Algorithm.

> This is not listed and it takes place in 52 BC; too close to
> either war.

> A response or explanation would be appreciated.

> Thanks _________________ -1989

I did in fact write a response to your e-mail message, and I thought
I sent it to you last Sunday. However, I've just checked my e-mail
log files, and I see that I never received the copy that I always
blind copy to myself, and so I infer that either (1) I forgot to mail
it, or (2) I mailed it but it got lost in some bit bucket along the
way.

At any rate, here's the e-mail message that I sent to you:

> I have a friend who is an expert on Ancient Rome. He tells me
> that the Gallic Wars fit the Crisis War description. I find that
> it is not in the Crisis War list. It climaxed with the Battle of
> Alesia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia>, which from
> Wikipedia, looks like genocide to me. Please clarify this.

In evaluating a war, it's usually necessary to look at several
sources, which I haven't done for this war.

However, the Wikipedia article doesn't make it appear that Caesar did
anything genocidal. For example, there no mention that the civilians
of Alesia were harmed. (Not feeding the women and children when his
own army was running out of food doesn't count as harming them.) For
example, he might have raped and beheaded the women in full view of
the Alesia population, thus enraging them and possibly causing them
to attack earlier, before they were ready. But Caesar didn't do
anything like that.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I did in fact write a response to your e-mail message, and I thought
I sent it to you last Sunday. However, I've just checked my e-mail
log files, and I see that I never received the copy that I always
blind copy to myself, and so I infer that either (1) I forgot to mail
it, or (2) I mailed it but it got lost in some bit bucket along the
way.

No problem.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

In evaluating a war, it's usually necessary to look at several
sources, which I haven't done for this war.

Does anyone help you with your research? Once I get settled into school I could possibly help out.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

However, the Wikipedia article doesn't make it appear that Caesar did anything genocidal. For example, there no mention that the civilians
of Alesia were harmed. (Not feeding the women and children when his
own army was running out of food doesn't count as harming them.) For
example, he might have raped and beheaded the women in full view of
the Alesia population, thus enraging them and possibly causing them
to attack earlier, before they were ready. But Caesar didn't do
anything like that.

OK. That makes sense, but...

Originally Posted by GD For Historians--Regarding WWII for Russia

Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: low to moderate - supports N
Politicization: High - determines N
Resolution: Negotiates Eastern Europe (supports N)

Is the Genocide you are referring to the Katyn Massacre? This seems like an action of Stalin, and I assumed that this wasn't upgraded to high because there was a coverup so it wasn't supported by the public. I believe you have said in the past that the actions of one person aren't really considered to be too important in classification..that it was the public. Like if we all of a sudden nuked Iran and everyone in America was really pissed off, that really wouldn't fit into your genocide category, would it?

Thanks again John

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> Does anyone help you with your research? Once I get settled into
> school I could possibly help out.

The best way to get started is to understand the difference between a
crisis and non-crisis war. This is absolutely nothing like you learn
in history class, because all you learn in history class is the
post-war winner's sound bite. For example, everyone says that the
cause of the American Civil War was "slavery," but as my book shows,
that's the Northern point of view; the Southern point of view was
very different.

At this point I can assess a war reasonably quickly, but when I was
first starting out, it took me several days to evaluate each war. As
I recall, the War of the Spanish Succession alone took me almost two
weeks. You have to understand all points of view, which means
reading about it from the points of view of all belligerents. For
example, 99.999% of Americans are totally clueless about WW I,
believing that it was some kind of early version of WW II. In order
to understand what WW I was about for Germany, you must read a book
or two written by a German scholar.

In addition, in understanding a war it's always bests to read things
that were written by both sides during the war and immediately after
the war. Once time has passed, a lot of what historians write about
any war is nonsense, usually slanted to his political point of view.

So my suggestion is that you start by evaluating wars during a
particular historical period of interest to you. If you want some
ideas, take a look at the list of wars in Chapter 9 of
Generational Dynamics for Historians, the latest draft of which
can be read for free on my web site. A lot of the wars in that list
haven't been given a full evaluation anyway, and I may have made a
mistake or two in that list.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> Is the Genocide you are referring to the Katyn Massacre? This
> seems like an action of Stalin, and I assumed that this wasn't
> upgraded to high because there was a coverup so it wasn't
> supported by the public. I believe you have said in the past that
> the actions of one person aren't really considered to be too
> important in classification..that it was the public. Like if we
> all of a sudden nuked Iran and everyone in America was really
> pissed off, that really wouldn't fit into your genocide category,
> would it?

I wasn't referring to the Katyn Massacre specifically, but only to
the general situation.

If we had woken up one morning in 1971 and learned that, during the
night, a nuclear weapon had been dropped on Hanoi under President
Nixon's orders, the country would have been infuriated. Even though
many people would have been killed, it would not be "genocide" in the
sense of Generational Dynamics because, as you say, it has to be
based on hatred by the large masses of people, not something a few
politicians decided on their own.

This is a very good example of the point I was making earlier -- that
contemporary sources are the best for evaluating crisis wars,
especially genocides. Every tribe, society and nation is genocidal
-- it's in our DNA, just like sex is, a part of "survival of the
fittest." And yet, almost every genocidal act is considered shameful
after it's over, including by the perpetrators. That's why you have
to look at contemporary documents to understand acts of genocide.

The most well-known act of American genocide was the nuclear weapons
dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the climax of WW II. I wrote
an article on this for my web site, on the 60th anniversary
commemoration.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...050802#e050802
It's worth reading because it gives some contemporary quotes by
President Truman and others, including the following:

Originally Posted by President Truman

> "Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against
> those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against
> those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners
> of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying
> international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten
> the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and
> thousands of young Americans.

> "We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's
> power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop
> us."

You can't possibly understand what was going on unless you try to put
yourself into Truman's mind and feel the emotions that he was
feeling.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The best way to get started is to understand the difference between a crisis and non-crisis war.

Well in order to do that, I think one might have to do some research. It's very difficult to understand unless you apply it yourself. When I read your book, I was just taking your word for the wars I knew little or nothing about. For the last few weeks I have been doing is simply verifying your list of crisis wars by looking at the war itself and the mid-cycle wars.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

So my suggestion is that you start by evaluating wars during a particular historical period of interest to you.

Hmmm... You don't seem to have Native American wars there. Also, the effect of war on European countries who didn't really participate.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

If we had woken up one morning in 1971 and learned that, during the night, a nuclear weapon had been dropped on Hanoi under President Nixon's orders, the country would have been infuriated. Even though many people would have been killed, it would not be "genocide" in the sense of Generational Dynamics because, as you say, it has to be based on hatred by the large masses of people, not something a few politicians decided on their own.

OK. So even if Caesar did go and slaughter the Alesian population, it still might have not been fit into the algorithm as genocide.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

However, the Wikipedia article doesn't make it appear that Caesar did anything genocidal. For example, there no mention that the civilians of Alesia were harmed. (Not feeding the women and children when his own army was running out of food doesn't count as harming them.) For example, he might have raped and beheaded the women in full view of the Alesia population, thus enraging them and possibly causing them to attack earlier, before they were ready. But Caesar didn't do anything like that.

That's what caused the confusion. It seems like you say in this paragraph, if Caesar had slaughtered the population, it would have been counted as genocide.

I understand what you were trying to say now.

The Battle of Alesia probably counted as a Crisis Wars for the Gauls. For Caesar, it was just another conquest. He was getting very, very rich from the Gallic Wars, which sounds like an Unraveling to me. At Rome.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> Hmmm... You don't seem to have Native American wars there.

This would be a great choice. The only place I ever even mention
Native American wars in my books is that there's some evidence that
the Wampanoag and the Narragansett tribes were particularly devastated
and weakened by a conflict that must have occurred in the late 1500s,
which would have been their last crisis war prior to King Philips' War
with the colonists.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> OK. So even if Caeser did go and slaughter the Alesian
> population, it still might have not been fit into the algorithm as
> genocide. ...

> That's what caused the confusion. It seems like you say in this
> paragraph, if Caeser had slaughtered the population, it would have
> been counted as genocide.

Keep in mind that a lot of these "what if" scenarios are really
impossible - could not have occurred.

In my last message, I discussed a hypothetical of Nixon ordering a
nuclear weapon used on Hanoi in 1971. This was actually impossible;
if the idea had even been floated, the uproar would have been so
enormous that the idea would have to have been dropped. If Nixon had
ordered it anyway, it's even possible that someone in the chain of
command would have refused to comply.

That's an example from a non-crisis war. Here's an example in the
other direction from a crisis war.

In War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy explains that Napoleon's
soldiers would not have retreated, even if he had wanted them to:

Originally Posted by Leo Tolstoy

> Many historians say that the French did not win the battle of
> Borodino because Napoleon had a cold, and that if he had not had
> a cold the orders he gave before and during the battle would have
> been still more full of genius and Russia would have been lost
> and the face of the world have been changed. To historians who
> believe that Russia was shaped by the will of one man - Peter the
> Great - and that France from a republic became an empire and
> French armies went to Russia at the will of one man - Napoleon -
> to say that Russia remained a power because Napoleon had a bad
> cold on the twenty-fourth of August may seem logical and
> convincing.

> If it had depended on Napoleon's will to fight or not to fight
> the battle of Borodino, and if this or that other arrangement
> depended on his will, then evidently a cold affecting the
> manifestation of his will might have saved Russia, and
> consequently the valet who omitted to bring Napoleon his
> waterproof boots on the twenty-fourth would have been the savior
> of Russia. Along that line of thought such a deduction is
> indubitable, as indubitable as the deduction Voltaire made in
> jest (without knowing what he was jesting at) when he saw that
> the Massacre of St. Bartholomew was due to Charles IX's stomach
> being deranged. But to men who do not admit that Russia was formed
> by the will of one man, Peter I, or that the French Empire was
> formed and the war with Russia begun by the will of one man,
> Napoleon, that argument seems not merely untrue and irrational,
> but contrary to all human reality. To the question of what causes
> historic events another answer presents itself, namely, that the
> course of human events is predetermined from on high - depends on
> the coincidence of the wills of all who take part in the events,
> and that a Napoleon's influence on the course of these events is
> purely external and fictitious.

> Strange as at first glance it may seem to suppose that the
> Massacre of St. Bartholomew was not due to Charles IX's will,
> though he gave the order for it and thought it was done as a
> result of that order; and strange as it may seem to suppose that
> the slaughter of eighty thousand men at Borodino was not due to
> Napoleon's will, though he ordered the commencement and conduct of
> the battle and thought it was done because he ordered it; strange
> as these suppositions appear, yet human dignity - which tells me
> that each of us is, if not more at least not less a man than the
> great Napoleon - demands the acceptance of that solution of the
> question, and historic investigation abundantly confirms it.

> At the battle of Borodino, Napoleon shot at no one and killed no
> one. That was all done by the soldiers. Therefore, it was not he
> who killed people.

> The French soldiers went to kill and be killed at the battle of
> Borodino, not because of Napoleon's orders but by their own
> volition. The whole army - French, Italian, German, Polish, and
> Dutch - hungry, ragged, and weary of the campaign, felt at the
> sight of an army blocking their road to Moscow that the wine was
> drawn and must be drunk. Had Napoleon then forbidden them to fight
> the Russians, they would have killed him and have proceeded to
> fight the Russians because it was inevitable.

> When they heard Napoleon's proclamation offering them, as
> compensation for mutilation and death, the words of posterity
> about their having been in the battle before Moscow, they cried
> "Vive l'Empereur!" just as they had cried "Vive
> l'Empereur!" at the sight of the portrait of the boy piercing
> the terrestrial globe with a toy stick, and just as they would
> have cried "Vive l'Empereur!" at any nonsense that might be
> told them. There was nothing left for them to do but cry "Vive
> l'Empereur!" and go to fight, in order to get food and rest as
> conquerors in Moscow. So it was not because of Napoleon's commands
> that they killed their fellow men.

> And it was not Napoleon who directed the course of the battle,
> for none of his orders was executed and during the battle, he did
> not know what was going on before him. So the way in which these
> people killed one another was not decided by Napoleon's will but
> occurred independently of him, in accord with the will of hundreds
> of thousands of people who took part in the common action. It
> only seemed to Napoleon that it all took place by his will. And so
> the question whether he had or had not a cold has no more
> historic interest than the cold of the least of the transport
> soldiers.

> Moreover, the assertion made by various writers that his cold was
> the cause of his dispositions not being as well planned as on
> former occasions, and of his orders during the battle not being as
> good as previously, is quite baseless, which again shows that
> Napoleon's cold on the twenty-sixth of August was unimportant.

> The dispositions cited above are not at all worse, but are even
> better, than previous dispositions by which he had won victories.
> His pseudo-orders during the battle were also no worse than
> formerly, but much the same as usual. These dispositions and
> orders only seem worse than previous ones because the battle of
> Borodino was the first Napoleon did not win. The profoundest and
> most excellent dispositions and orders seem very bad, and every
> learned militarist criticizes them with looks of importance, when
> they relate to a battle that has been lost, and the very worst
> dispositions and orders seem very good, and serious people fill
> whole volumes to demonstrate their merits, when they relate to a
> battle that has been won.

> The dispositions drawn up by Weyrother for the battle of
> Austerlitz were a model of perfection for that kind of
> composition, but still they were criticized - criticized for their
> very perfection, for their excessive minuteness.

> Napoleon at the battle of Borodino fulfilled his office as
> representative of authority as well as, and even better than, at
> other battles. He did nothing harmful to the progress of the
> battle; he inclined to the most reasonable opinions, he made no
> confusion, did not contradict himself, did not get frightened or
> run away from the field of battle, but with his great tact and
> military experience carried out his role of appearing to command,
> calmly and with dignity.

In the above passage, Tolstoy brilliantly captures the feeling of
what a crisis war is about. In other places he talks about a "ball
of invasion" -- where the invasion plans are like a ball that gathers
so much momentum that it can't be stopped, even by the leader who
started it.

So when you talk about Caesar's actions in the battle of Alesia, and
what might have happened if Caesar had decided to pursue a genocidal
strategy, the question has to be asked whether his soldiers would
have even obeyed a command to commit such genocidal acts. In that
sense, committing a genocidal act may have been impossible, so the
"what if" consideration has no meaning.

It's also good to look at a much broader context, rather than just
one battle. Why was Rome even pursuing the Gallic wars? Presumably
it was to "convince" the Gauls that they would be happier, healthier
and wealthier if the were to submit to Roman rule. But you can't win
the hearts and minds of the people by committing unnecessary
slaughter. So genocide would have been impossible for another
reason: It violated the strategy of the entire Gallic campaign.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

> The Battle of Alesia probably counted as a Crisis Wars for the
> Gauls. For Caesar, it was just another conquest. He was getting
> very, very rich from the Gallic Wars, which sounds like an
> Unraveling to me. At Rome.

I'm glad you mentioned this because it brings into focus how the
Gauls conducted themselves. The Wikipedia article says that, prior
to the Battle of Alesia, there was "the slaughtering of all Roman
citizens, merchants and settlers in the major Gallic cities," which
is something that would indicate the beginnings of a crisis war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia

What was really strange about the battle of Alesia was what happened
to the Alesian women and children: "The Mandubii decided to expel
the women and children from the citadel, hoping to save food for the
fighters and hoping that Caesar would open a breach to let them go."

This is a remarkable thing, and it's similar to using women and
children as "human shields" against bombs in modern times, though
it's much bigger.

What kinds of negotiations went on among the Alesians to cause this
amazing event to happen? Were there arguments as to which women
would go and which would stay? Were the women themselves willing to
sacrifice themselves for the cause?

When I refer to "genocidal acts," I'm actually referring to two kinds
of things. One of them is gratuitous mass murder of enemy forces and
civilians, but the other meaning is a willingness to sacrifice masses
of one's own forces or civilians. The best known example of this is
D-Day, when tens of thousands of American soldiers stormed the
Normandy beaches to be mass murdered -- essentially committing
suicide, without complaining about it.

It takes an almost inhuman amount of psychic energy for such a mass
sacrifice to occur, and it's one of the signs of a genocidal crisis
war.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

One question concerning the devastation of of the Narragansetts and Wampanoags: was it due to a conflict in the late 1500s, or was it smallpox, either in the late 1500s, or closer to the 1620s?

I researched for about 4 hours yesterday and I couldn't find any evidence of a war in the 1590s.

I did find a mid 1610's war where Micmac war parties came down after the Tarateen war while the Pequot's attacked Eastern Connecticut. Then disease struck and killed possibly 80% of the Wampanoag population, although the Narraganasett remained relatively unscathed and emerged as the more powerful of the two.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

I researched for about 4 hours yesterday and I...

Millie!

Has anyone noticed that John does not answer me? Is it that he can't answer those questions, or is it that he's too insecure to answer those questions? Is GD that vulnerable? I thought this was an "objections" thread.

Dear Sean,

The reason that I don't answer your questions is because they've been
discussed many times before as you well know, and because you often
festoon your questions with gratuitous personal attacks. If I were a
woman I could get a restraining order and maybe even have you
arrested for stalking. In my 20 .... errr 21 years online -- you see,
Sean, I've been online since 1984 -- I've discovered that there are
certain types of people whose obsessions are not good to feed.

For example, you're well aware of the answer to your question about
the Puritan Flip since you were involved in the original discussion,
and you also know you could go to my book on my web site and read
about it there.

I made up the name "Puritan Flip," but all the details of what
happened are from William McLoughlin's 1978 book, Revivals,
Awakenings, and Reform. So it's McLoughlin's Puritan Flip, not
mine. Strauss and Howe have repeatedly identified this book as the
highest authority on the Puritan Awakening, but McLoughlin clearly
and unambiguously says that the Puritan Awakening began around 1604,
with the ascendancy of King James VI to the throne, while Strauss and
Howe have it beginning in 1621, which is considerably later.

So what's the resolution to this inconsistency in Strauss and Howe's
work? McLoughlin provides the answer to that too. He explains how
the Puritan Awakening was a Puritan revolt against the Anglican Church
in the 1600s decade, but it turned into a revolt against Puritanism
when the Pilgrims reached America. That's the Puritan Flip.

As I said, I see one of my jobs as correcting the few inconsistencies
in Strauss and Howe's brilliant work, so that it will be an
academically valid discipline.

So, McLoughlin's Puritan flip may be a "hell of a stretch" to you,
but your opinion doesn't particularly count for much. McLoughlin's
opinion counts, and he lays it out in unambiguous detail.

How do I know all this? Because I actually went to the trouble to
read McLoughlin's book!!! I don't just throw out any nonsense that
goes through my head; I actually went to the trouble to research
something before posting it.

You too can do research before asking a question, just like me. Why
don't you read McLoughlin's book to see for yourself, and then post
something intelligent for a change? But I'm sure you won't bother,
because you're more into obsession and stalking.

Could I make a suggestion? You're about to become a new father, and
I know you're very depressed, but you've got to pull yourself
together because your wife and your soon-to-arrive child are going to
need you very much. I'm not the most important person in your life;
they are.

Let me tell you something about myself. I have a very tough time
making it through the day too, though I make a point of not taking it
out on other people. And a lot of people don't realize that I
actually believe the stuff that's on my web site, but I do, and at
least once or twice a day I get completely overwhelmed by the sadness
of it all, especially since I have a 20 year old son who's going to
be pulled into the vortex of it all, as will Matt and many of the
Millies on this web. Maybe the fact that your child is going to grow
up in that environment is one of the things that's depressing you, as
well it might. But can you begin to understand why, with all that
going on, I really don't want to put up with your anger and hostility
and personal attack crap, and why I really don't care whether your
questions get answered or not? There's just too much else on my
plate.

By the way, when's your baby due?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com