Dear Mike,

I'm not sure that I have much to add to what I've already written.
You talk about assimilation of the Kurds, but I have no idea what
that has to do with an Iraqi civil war. You talk about low-level
violence, but that could go on for decades. You talk (again) about
war deaths, but don't relate them to the issue.

I've previously listed three things that I would expect to see if
Iraq were headed to a civil war. I don't see any signs of any of
them, and I don't believe that anything you're presented is civil war
trend data.

Here is a summary of where I stand:

1. The Iran/Iraq war was a crisis war.
   
2. Therefore, a crisis civil war in Iraq is impossible today.
   
3. The data you've highlighted appears to me to be low-level
   violence bought and paid for by al-Qaeda.
   
4. For you to convince me I'd wrong, you'd need to show more than a
   few statistics. For example, you'd need to show a trend of ordinary
   people (not people being paid by al-Qaeda) to be massacring their
   neighbors.

As I understand it, you agree that there's no civil war today, so all
we're arguing about is what's going to happen in the future. So
let's just leave it at that and wait and see what happens.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

As I understand it, you agree that there's no civil war today, so all we're arguing about is what's going to happen in the future.

I agree that there is some support for your contention that the conflict in iraq has not yet risen to the level of a civil war, by some definitions. But you are flatly wrong when you say there is no evidence of a growing civil war in Iraq. You also imply that al Qaeda is responsible for most of the insurgent violence or least least most of the fatal bombings. This is also flatly wrong.

In place of facts and reasoning you employ a story about al Qaeda producing the violence so as to appear to be a civil war. But it's just a story you tell, with no evidence to suggest it is anything other than fiction.

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> As I understand it, you agree that there's no civil war today, so
> all we're arguing about is what's going to happen in the future.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

> I agree that there is some support for your contention that the
> conflict in iraq has not yet risen to the level of a civil war, by
> some definitions. But you are flatly wrong when you say there is
> no evidence of a growing civil war in Iraq. You also imply that al
> Qaeda is responsible for most of the insurgent violence or least
> least most of the fatal bombings. This is also flatly wrong.

> In place of facts and reasoning you employ a story about al Qaeda
> producing the violence so as to appear to be a civil war. But it's
> just a story you tell, with no evidence to suggest it is anything
> other than fiction.

I'm in a different situation than you because I'm trying to prove a
point - that the Generational Dynamics forecasting methodology works.
That's means that I have to make inferences from theory and from a
complicated set of current news events, and then state those
inferences as clearly as possible. If I say something "fuzzy," then
I can't make a claim later to have gotten something right. So I have
to make predictions very clearly.

You're in a different position, because all you have to do is wait
until I get something wrong.

Now you say that I'm "flatly wrong" in claiming that there's no
evidence of a growing civil war in Iraq, and you present evidence of
certain kinds of violence.

What I'm saying is that, according to Generational Dynamics theory,
the "certain kinds of violence" you're talking about are not the
kinds of violence that are evidence of a crisis civil war.

I gave an example a couple of weeks ago: Do you think that when the
announcement, "Cut down the tall trees" came over the radio, that the
average Hutu then went into his basement to put the finishing touches
on his roadside bomb, and then went out and put it on the road
somewhere in the hope that some hapless Tutsi would run into it?

If you're going to have a crisis civil war, then you have to show
"genocidal energy." That means picking up your machete, going next
and killing your neighbor, raping his wife, killing her, and
mutilating and dismembering both of them. Something like that.
Something that shows "attitudes and behaviors of large masses of
people," where the attitude is one of enormously intense hatred.

And I gave you examples of other crisis civil wars, to show you what
I mean.

Now, you haven't shown any evidence of that kind of violence.
Therefore, according to Generational Dynamics theory, you have not
shown any evidence whatsoever of a burgeoning civil war.

In the end, the only way we're going to settle this argument is to
wait and see whether a civil war develops. And I'm flatly predicting
that no such civil war will develop.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by Finch

Denial of what? ABC?

Nope. Denial of the Unraveling and the Looming Crisis.

But maybe I have a distorted view of Americans because I live in the reddest area in the nation.
Let me repeat that popular slogan :"I have no idea".

Originally Posted by Finch

You Boomers see the world in black and white. We Xers see the world in black and black.

OK, now I'm depressed.

My adage as a Millennial is this:

• Prophet / Idealists see the world as black & white
• Nomad / Reactives see the world as black & black
• Hero / Civics see the world as white & white
• Artist / Adaptives see the world as gray & gray

That is, for Boomers it is all "good vs. bad, right vs. wrong"; for Xers it is all "reality bites"; for Millies (and G.I.s before them) it is all "the future will be sweeter"; and for Silents it is all "well, opinions differ".

I don't see my generation expecting a bright future. 90% of Millies fall into one of these two groups:

1. Pretty oblivious (but feel things are getting worse)
2. Doesn't like Bush, doesn't care much for Kerry

You cannot argue that the situation has gotten better, and no Millies (even the most oblivious), see the future are being sweeter. And none of us like the bickering. I can't turn on the news anymore. One Republican always argues with one Democrat, repeating the same talking points.

I don't believe the 1947 conflict was a crisis war (at least for all of India).

When a country is that large and only 2,000 people die, it is indicative of a non-crisis war. I haven't looked at India much (although I do have a book that I have started), but it seems to me that World War Two, with the 2 million man volunteer army, might be more indicative.

What about the bloody dawn of Bangladesh in 1971? Was this a massacre that could be considered a crisis war (Pakistan)? I'm doubtful, but it is interesting.

Originally Posted by cbailey

I haven't heard one person in real life comment on the ABC mini-series. Haven't run in to anyone who watched it, and the 5-year anniversary of 911 was mainly noted by the media. I wonder if people really are paying attention or really care. I'll say it again, from where I sit, most folks are busy practicing Denial.

Are there viewer numbers (for the ABC series) available yet?

I was underwhelmed by the 9/11 observances and all the hoo-ha about ABC. There's enough serious shit going on in the present day, at least in my neck of the woods.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I don't see my generation expecting a bright future. 90% of Millies fall into one of these two groups:

1. Pretty oblivious (but feel things are getting worse)
2. Doesn't like Bush, doesn't care much for Kerry

You cannot argue that the situation has gotten better, and no Millies (even the most oblivious), see the future are being sweeter. And none of us like the bickering. I can't turn on the news anymore. One Republican always argues with one Democrat, repeating the same talking points.

I'd say most Millies (indeed, most Americans) see the present very negatively (as did the G.I.s for most of the Depression), but I have noticed that while Boomers and Xers have an idea that the future will only get worse from here, Millies generally think it will change a lot in the future. Everybody thinks the current system is bad, the difference is I hear Boomers and Xers express a "and it can only get worse" mentality, and Millies a "someday we will change it" mentality. This would conform a lot to S&H's model. Boomers sought to overhaul the society's moral status quo, Millies seek to overhaul society's civic status quo. Xers, as a whole, never sought to do either, believing more in the individual than the group.

So what I'm saying is not that Millies are positive about the present, but that they are optimistic (or at least hopeful) about the future, much more so than our parents.

I don't believe the 1947 conflict was a crisis war, not for all of India at least.

When only 2,000 people die in a large country, it is somewhat indicative of a non-crisis war. I know you don't like numbers for evaluations, but when you have a country as large at India, you have to think twice. I haven't looked at India much (although I do have a book that I have started), but it seems to me that World War Two, with the 2 million man volunteer army, might be more indicative.

India is very strange. A bunch of things seemed to be happening at once around that time.

You could also consider the bloody dawn of Bangladesh in 1971? Was this a massacre that could be considered a crisis war (Pakistan)? I'll look into it little more, but it seems like a government action, not "people-powered." Maybe you know a little about that.

John,

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

A Millie wants to know why you're so feckless as to be unhappy about what's going on but not doing anything about it except to call the people you [presumably] support in government cowards. A Millie wants to know why Boomers and Xers never do anything but bitch and complain.

Yes, I have a 12-year-old son. I'm quite familiar with the expression of slight exasperation he makes when I express helpless frustration with the world.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

To you, some people are cowards and some people are sociopaths.

Not quite; some people are cowards, and some people are sociopaths and cowards. That is to say, all people are cowards. That includes me and it includes you.

Currently, the more honest cowards tend to gravitate toward the Democratic party, while the weaker, more dishonest ones who project all their problems on their perceived enemies gravitate toward the Republican party. That will change over time, of course.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

So you don't like anyone, but you don't do anything about the problems, and you don't even suggest a solution. You just complain about Boomers -- which is all that Xers ever do anyway, isn't it?

Hardly. I often complain about Xers, Millies and Silents as well.

As for suggesting a solution, the problem is human nature -- and the project to remake human nature will have to wait for a bit. It was a project that I gladly participated when I was younger, as a Mormon missionary. I was was also thrilled when I was able to vote for Vice Pres. Bush over that coward Dukakis.

But times have changed, and now is not the appropriate time to proceed with that project. ("Black and black" is the correct diagnosis.) After the Crisis passes, we Xers will resume the human experiment. At that time, the Millies will be our experimental subjects, rather than ourselves as it was during the Unraveling.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I gave an example a couple of weeks ago: Do you think that when the announcement, "Cut down the tall trees" came over the radio, that the average Hutu then went into his basement to put the finishing touches on his roadside bomb, and then went out and put it on the road somewhere in the hope that some hapless Tutsi would run into it?

If you're going to have a crisis civil war, then you have to show
"genocidal energy." That means picking up your machete, going next
and killing your neighbor, raping his wife, killing her, and
mutilating and dismembering both of them. Something like that.

So then the 1861-1865 war in the US was not a crisis war? Nothing like this happened then.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> I don't see my generation expecting a bright future. 90% of
> Millies fall into one of these two groups:

> 1. Pretty oblivious (but feel things are getting worse)
> 2. Doesn't like Bush, doesn't care much for Kerry

> You cannot argue that the situation has gotten better, and no
> Millies (even the most oblivious), see the future are being
> sweeter. And none of us like the bickering. I can't turn on the
> news anymore. One Republican always argues with one Democrat,
> repeating the same talking points.

My own impression is that 99.9% of all Millies fall into group 1.

I've previously posted the following story on my web site:

I was recently talking to a college student, and I asked him to tell
me what he thought about the violence in Sri Lanka. I got a blank
look. Then I said, "OK, tell me absolutely anything you know about
any international story of any kind whatsoever, in any country in the
world." Nothing. "But surely you know something about what's going
on in Iraq?" "Well," he said, "I read a little bit about it a year
ago, but forgot about it."

Later, I spoke to my son Jason, who's a college student at Georgia
Tech. He knows a fair amount about international events because ever
since 9/11 he's often had to listen to me rant and rave about
international events and generational issues. I asked him if he ever
talks about news events with other students at school. He said that
the subject never comes up. I asked him, "Have you ever heard any of
the other students talk about any news events, even if you didn't
participate in the conversation, even if they were just talking about
it in the distance." He said he'd never heard a single conversation
of that type. "Everyone is an engineering student. Maybe if they
were history students then they would."

So, assuming that 0.1% of all Millies are history students, that
leaves 99.9% of Millies as oblivious.

However, this isn't really a criticism of Millies, since Xers and
Boomers have no more idea of what's going on than Millies do.

That is, Boomers aren't oblivious, like Millies. But they ARE
stupid, and in total denial about what's going on in the economy and
the world. And Xers are just as bad, since they just pick some
Boomer position and take the opposite position. Unfortunately the
opposite of stupid is still stupid.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> I don't believe the 1947 conflict was a crisis war (at least for
> all of India).

> When a country is that large and only 2,000 people die, it is
> indicative of a non-crisis war. I haven't looked at India much
> (although I do have a book that I have started), but it seems to
> me that World War Two, with the 2 million man volunteer army,
> might be more indicative.

> What about the bloody dawn of Bangladesh in 1971? Was this a
> massacre that could be considered a crisis war (Pakistan)? I'm
> doubtful, but it is interesting.

I agree with you that the situation in India is way too complex for a
simple conclusion. I've been assuming that most of India and
Pakistan was (at least roughly) on a World War II timeline. I've
assumed the same for Bangladesh. But I haven't looked into it in
depth.

A few months ago I listed some general things about the many India
fault lines:

• The main fault line is between Hindus and Muslims. However, there
  are other fault lines.
  
• Within Hindus, there are caste fault lines (Dalits vs other
  castes).
  
• Maoists -- I think that's a Buddhism vs Hindu fault line, but I'm
  not completely certain.
  
• Sri Lanka's Tamils vs Sinhalese spills over into India.
  
• I'm pretty certain that the 1946-47 war over Kashmir and Jammu,
  resulting in the partitioning of Kashmir and the Line of Control, was
  a crisis war.
  
• However, India is so huge with so many different fault lines, I
  really can't be sure whether other regions of India are on different
  timelines. This is where all the research is required.

Basically, this can only be sorted out by researching all the
different fault lines.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> I gave an example a couple of weeks ago: Do you think that when
> the announcement, "Cut down the tall trees" came over the radio,
> that the average Hutu then went into his basement to put the
> finishing touches on his roadside bomb, and then went out and put
> it on the road somewhere in the hope that some hapless Tutsi would
> run into it?

> If you're going to have a crisis civil war, then you have to show
> "genocidal energy." That means picking up your machete, going
> next and killing your neighbor, raping his wife, killing her, and
> mutilating and dismembering both of them. Something like that.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

> So then the 1861-1865 war in the US was not a crisis war? Nothing
> like this happened then.

Well, there was the Battle of Gettysburg. And as far as I know,
there was plenty of such violence along the border. You have to take
into account that there's a fundamental difference between the
American Civil War and the current situation in Iraq: The American
Civil War was fought between two separate geographical entities,
while the two "sides" in Iraq are intermingled.

This gives me an opportunity to discuss some new thoughts about the
American Civil War at greater length, and I'll do so in the next
posting.

Sincerely,

John

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

Evaluating the "Hero Generation" in a Civil War

The biggest puzzles about TFT are the anomalies -- why didn't Strauss
and Howe find a "Hero generation" in the American Civil War, and why
didn't they identify the English Civil war as a crisis war?

The purpose of this essay is hypothesize that the Hero generation in
a civil war is fundamentally different from the Hero generation in a
foreign war, so much so that they have to be evaluated in completely
different ways.

In this essay, I'll support this hypothesis by quoting three national
leaders.

First, I'll repeat a recent quote I posted from Lebanese President
Émile Geamil Lahoud in an interview during the recent 34 day war
between Israel and Hizbollah/Lebanon:

Originally Posted by Lebanese President Émile Geamil Lahoud

> "Believe me, what we get from [Israeli bombers] is nothing
> compared to [what would happen] if there is an internal conflict
> [a new civil war] in Lebanon. So our thanks comes when we are
> united, and we are really united, and the national army is doing
> its work according to the government, and the resistance
> [Hizbollah] is respected in the whole Arab world from the
> population point of view. And very highly respected in Lebanon as
> well."

What Lahoud is talking about in this statement is the Lebanese Civil
War of the 1980s, and the 1982 massacre at camps in Sabra and
Shatila, where Lebanese Christian Arabs butchered Palestinian
refugees.

The explosive events at Sabra and Shatila hang over all of Lebanon
today. There are enormous feelings of guilt and shame among the
Lebanese people that they could have done anything like this to their
fellow citizens.

These feelings are exposed by Lahoud's statements, which I consider
to be extremely remarkable. Here's the president of a country who
says that he's more afraid of what his people will do to each other
than what enemy warplanes will do.

Now, where's the "Hero generation" of the Lebanese civil war?
Obviously there is none. Even though there was a "winner" in that
massacre, you can't be a "Hero" if the people that you massacre are
your own neighbors. That's why the Hero generation of a civil war
cannot possibly be evaluated in the same way as the Hero generation
of a foreign war.

For the American Civil War, the battle that most closely corresponds
to Sabra and Shatila is the Battle of Gettysburg.

And reading Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is the best way to
understand how people felt about that battle:

Originally Posted by President Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg

> Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
> continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the
> proposition that all men are created equal.

> Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that
> nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long
> endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have
> come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place
> for those who here qave their lives that the nation might live. It
> is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

> But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate,
> we cannot hallow, this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who
> struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to
> add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what
> we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for
> us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work
> which they who fought so nobly advanced. It is for us to be here
> dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these
> honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which
> they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly
> resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this
> nation, under God shall have a new birth of freedom; and that the
> government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not
> perish from the earth.

It's interesting that Lincoln didn't expect his words to be
remembered, and yet this is probably the most famous Presidential
speech in American history.

There's no sense of revenge. There's no sense of "us versus them."
All the fallen are treated equally. There's no sense of "heroism."
It's only sadness.

When you look at it this way, it's very clear why Strauss and Howe
never found a "Hero generation" in the American civil war. It's not
because of some methodological anomaly. It's because you don't get
to be a hero by killing your brother or your neighbor.

The same thing must be true of the English civil war. I don't have a
speech from that era, but it's easy to imagine the enormous sadness
that people felt after they'd killed each other and beheaded the
King. There was no feeling of heroism after that.

Now, by contrast, look at what President Truman said after the first
use of the atomic bomb:

Originally Posted by President Harry S. 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 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."

> "When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a
> beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true."
> http://www.doug-long.com/hst.htm

What an enormous difference! There was no sadness here. This was
pure vengeance. And the Americans who brought this about were
clearly Heroes, and are considered Heroes to this day.

This quotes make it clear why Strauss and Howe didn't find a Hero
generation in the American Civil War and didn't identify the English
Civil War as a crisis war. As in the case of the Lebanese Civil War,
there are no "victors" and no "heroes." Only enormous shame, guilt
and sadness that so many people could so brutally massacre their
neighbors.

Sincerely,

John

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

Is this to be combined with your statement that "super-nomads" fought in the civil war?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Well, there was the Battle of Gettysburg.

Which was a bloody battle in a war, just like the Somme in WW I, which wasn't even a crisis war. Neither compares in genocidal character to Rwanda.

And as far as I know, there was plenty of such violence along the border.

Amd there was plenty of violence all along the borders between France and Germany in WW I. Once again, such violence is not genocidal in the same way as the violence in Rwanda.

What there was not, in either the US Civil War or WW I, was civilians from either side slaughtering each other with machetes or similar weapons. But then, violence like Rwanda was not present in most of the crisis wars you have listed--so why bring it up as a requirement for a potential crisis war in Iraq?

You have to take into account that there's a fundamental difference between the American Civil War and the current situation in Iraq: The American Civil War was fought between two separate geographical entities,
while the two "sides" in Iraq are intermingled.

Are they? The nine southern provinces are overwelming Shite, and have expressed a wish to secede from the nation as "Sumer". The northern three provices are overwhelmingly Kurdish and have already all but seceded and have named their new nation "Kurdistan". They, however, would like to take Kirkuk with them (and its oil), which will require them to fight a war. Finally there is Western Iraq which is overwhelmingly Sunni. In between these three territories are the "border provinces" which like the border states in the US Civil War are of uncertain allegience.

So there are divisions along religious and ethnic lines into which Iraq could break up. Such a split would not be clean and easy--but then neither was ours. This is why civil war has always been considered a likely outcome of the absence of a strong central government.

This is for Mr. Xenakis. I sent you this as a comment on your website, but just in case you don't check that, here it is on the board too:

Wonderful site. I would like more specific predictions though on what is coming in this Crisis, if possible. What I find confusing is that while the Culture Wars-era obsession with individualism and social fragmentation seems to have gone out of vogue (in other words, "social issues" and other distractions don't win elections anymore for either party), I don't see the unity and sacrifice yet that we saw during the last Crisis. Of course, we are still early in the Crisis, and we haven't yet had an economically devastating event like Black Tuesday, but when will this sort of event come?

You say frequently that we are headed for a "clash of civilizations" war. Are you referring to a clash between the developed world's Crisis era and the Middle East's Awakening era? What does this mean? What stages are Africa, Asia, or Latin America in? Any more specifics?

I'm very curious about this subject and perhaps I should buy your book. But before I do, could you elaborate a little more on some of the specifics?

P.S. President Bush was totally wrong when he predicted a Third Awakening. Typical Boomer, thinking the world will always be about protests, revolution, and religion. The next Awakening shouldn't be until the 2040s, right?

Seems that GD has some appeal to Millies.

You'll have to look a little bit deeper to find the details on the Clash of Civilizations World War, inspired by Samuel Huntington (but using the Generational Dynamics method), but you can figure it out yourself.

America (1945)
Western Europe (1945)
Israel (1949)
East Asia (1945 and 1949)
Russia (1928)

And others of course. Some Middle-East are 2T, others are 4T. But if a war occurs, I imagine ME countries will find it hard to stay out.

And Mr. Xenakis has once again demonstrated that GD is a glorified War Cycle that has little to do with S&H's saecular insights upon which he allegedly "improved".

Using GD I can predict with "near 100% certainty" that Germany and Russia are going to go to war in the next 10 years. I mean, if it works for China and Japan . . .

Also, using GD I can say with confidence that WWI was a Crisis War on the Western front as the fighting was far more ruthless and comprehensive. Therefore, WWII was simply a late 1T war for the West and the 1950's was obviously an awakening. This was allowed by the Anti-Puritan "flip" of 1950.

It gets better . . . Since the 1917 Revolution was obviously a Crisis event for Russia, the following Stalinist terror must have been a fifth turning. And the Great Patriotic War was therefore a sixth turning with Super-Duper Nomads!

Simply amazing.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

And Mr. Xenakis has once again demonstrated that GD is a glorified War Cycle that has little to do with S&H's saecular insights upon which he allegedly "improved".

Using GD I can predict with "near 100% certainty" that Germany and Russia are going to go to war in the next 10 years. I mean, if it works for China and Japan . . .

Also, using GD I can say with confidence that WWI was a Crisis War on the Western front as the fighting was far more ruthless and comprehensive. Therefore, WWII was simply a late 1T war for the West and the 1950's was obviously an awakening. This was allowed by the Anti-Puritan "flip" of 1950.

It gets better . . . Since the 1917 Revolution was obviously a Crisis event for Russia, the following Stalinist terror must have been a fifth turning. And the Great Patriotic War was therefore a sixth turning with Super-Duper Nomads!

Simply amazing.

There is an alternative possibility, Sean, and I'm quite serious in suggesting it: Maybe both S&H and Mr. X are wrong. Wouldn't be the first time a really cool theory was blown up by reality. So far, the S&H theory has been a useful tool, and Mr. X has attempted to put some mathematical rigor into applying it. It may literally take a couple of generations to prove/disprove the generational hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

There is an alternative possibility, Sean, and I'm quite serious in suggesting it: Maybe both S&H and Mr. X are wrong. Wouldn't be the first time a really cool theory was blown up by reality. So far, the S&H theory has been a useful tool, and Mr. X has attempted to put some mathematical rigor into applying it. It may literally take a couple of generations to prove/disprove the generational hypothesis.

In my mind it would take the length of an entire saeculum. If the Twenty-Twenties and Thirties come and go without an all-out war and recovery, would this mean the theory is wrong... or that we merely had the mildest 4T since England's in the late 19th Century? Disproving the Theory would take new eras clearly recognizable as Crisis, High/Austerity, Awakening and Unravelling either juxtaposed, severely off schedule, or not arriving at all.

Since I'll be dead before that can happen, I think I'll stick with the Theory as the best explanation for patterns of history available.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

In my mind it would take the length of an entire saeculum. If the Twenty-Twenties and Thirties come and go without an all-out war and recovery, would this mean the theory is wrong... or that we merely had the mildest 4T since England's in the late 19th Century? Disproving the Theory would take new eras clearly recognizable as Crisis, High/Austerity, Awakening and Unravelling either juxtaposed, severely off schedule, or not arriving at all.

Since I'll be dead before that can happen, I think I'll stick with the Theory as the best explanation for patterns of history available.

Maybe the problem is trying to put too much quantifiable data into the theory. I'm not saying that objective measurements should not be attempted to test the theory, but just as polling has a margin of error in measuring short term data, long term events like a cycle may also need to account for the human element. For example, a 4t war several hundred years ago will likely have fewer deaths than a 1t war from this century simply because there are a lot more people now, more 'targets' that can be killed.

Much of a turning is subjective.The progress of music and the larger economy shows this. The late 1950's 1t felt better than the early 1930's 4t for both objective and subjective reasons. It's a lot more fun to live in an America that has early rock and roll and is building the interstate highway system than to live in one that has bread lines and is singing "brother, can you spare a dime?" Similarly, a late 1960's 2t America with a highly productive economy and a fairly even distribution of income, rock songs had gotten moree diverse, many were longer and more complex. But it also had an awakening catalyized by an unpopular war and to many people life felt worse. Late 1980's America, was as is true with other 3t's a study in contrasts where with the awakening issues seemed to be settled although rock music, excepting for the punk-grunge movement in Seattle and a few other places, seemed to be past its prime. The Belin wall was coming down yet the economy was now running on debt and income inequality was slowly but surely becoming a problem again.

Exactly, herbal tee. The societal mood changes with each turning. Some catalysts (like the end of WWII starting the 1T, or the JFK assassination starting the 2T) are easy to pinpoint. Others, like what started the 3T, are more gray-area.

But there is a clear mood difference. The mood was urgent in 1940, proud in 1960, exhausted in 1980, spoiled in 2000. It's quite dark today, in the early days of a 4T.

So it's more about mood than about empirical data. Sure, there's no new Depression or WWIII yet to prove that we're in Crisis. But the mood has shifted. In 1999 the economy was strong enough that we could afford to be mesmerized by the president's sex life, and celebrity circuses and Culture Wars divisions were still a-plenty. Now people are in such a funk that we see the entire government as useless and dysfunctional, and have nothing but dark visions of the next few years. Abortion and gay marriage aren't deciding any elections anymore. Instead, it's the Iraq War and the weakness of the government.

What's next? No one knows, and whether empirical data can tell us ahead of time or not is debatable. But the S&H/GD theory appears to be playing itself out so far. I've heard people on this board use impatience as a reason to discount the theory we all supposedly are discussing: "why haven't Millennials stepped up yet?" "Why hasn't the economy tanked yet as in the 1930s?" "Where's WWIII?"

There are good answers to these questions. 1) because the oldest of them are 24, and generations don't make their mark on history until the oldest are in their 30s - witness Silent dominance in the '50s, Boomers in the '70s, Xers in the '90s. 2) because we're still early in the 4T. 3) it'll come, unfortunately, soon enough. But the broader indicator to me that the theory is correct is the mood shift. Most Americans today can't remember the last time things felt so dark. But as any G.I. or older Silent can tell you, they do remember. We've entered a new mood, and just because Black Tuesday and Pearl Harbor haven't hit yet (mind you, it's quite early for that) doesn't discount anything about the theory.