Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I've been focusing on the Franco-Prussian war, but after this
discussion, I decided to do further research on the American Civil
War as a possibility.

I went to the wonderful books.google.com , and search for free books
on "history of england." I ended up reviewing three of them,
although the first had the most comprehensive coverage of the
American Civil War, and the other two basically confirmed the first,
although in briefer form.

• British History in the Nineteenth Century (1782-1901)
  By George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1922, pp. 329-338
  http://books.google.com/books?vid=OC...=PA1#PPA329,M1
  
  David, I recall you once criticizing Trevelyan's 1941 book as being
  outdated, and I assume you must feel even more strongly about the
  1922 book. Nonetheless, I still cling to the belief that it's better
  to refer to history books published close to actual events in
  question, because I want to capture the moods and feelings of people
  before they get too filtered by later ideologies. This is also
  similar to Strauss and Howe's research approach.
• A Short History of England, Edward Potts Cheyney, 1904, pp. 653-655
  http://books.google.com/books?vid=OC...PRA24-PA653,M1
• A History of England from the Earliest Times to the Death of Queen
  Victoria, Benjamin Stites Terry, 1908, pp. 1033-1035
  http://books.google.com/books?vid=OC...RA31-PA1035,M1

Here are the main points that I learned from these three books:

• Just prior to the American Civil War, there was almost a war with
  France caused by panic.
• England's upper classes favored the South, who were most similar
  to England's upper classes.
• England's lower classes favored the North, who were most similar
  to England's lower classes.
• The British government remained officially neutral, though they
  favored the South.
• The northern blockade of Southern ports, preventing the export of
  cotton, inflicted great hardship on Lancashire's cotton mills, which
  depended on the cotton for work
• The British government was tempted to break the blockade, but
  decided to stay neutral.
  
  This was the opposite situation from the Napoleonic wars, where
  England had blockaded Europe's ports, and America began the War or
  1812 to break the blockade.
• Even Britain's neutrality was resented by Northerners, who felt
  it indirectly supported the South.
• The South didn't like it much either, since they wanted real help
  from the English.
• When Northern Captain Wilkes boarded an British ship and removed
  two Confederate envoys, the incident caused Britain to start
  preparing for war against the North. It was averted only because the
  North backed down, freed the envoys, and apologized.
• The Confederacy purchased a ship, the CSS Alabama, from Britain
  through France as an intermediary, to the embarassment of Britain
  when the ship was launched. Later, an international tribunal awarded
  America damages from Britain for violating neutrality.

Now here's the thing. When I've read accounts of Britain's reactions
to the Franco-Prussian war in the past, I never detected any passion,
but only passive interest.

Here I don't see a great deal of passion, but there is SOME passion.
In particular, after the envoys were arrested, Britain was preparing
for war against the North. (This reminds of the this past summer's
Lebanon war, where Israel attacked Hizbollah for abducting two
Israeli soldiers.).

Wow, I knew there was a strong possibility of war between the US and the UK during the ACW but I didn't know it got THAT close!

One interesting tidbit I've read is that a boost in cotton imports from Egypt to the UK helped to counter the effects of the Union blockade of the Confederacy.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

If this is correct, then Brazil is currently in 2T.

Hmm...interesting. While most of Latin America is on the WWII timeline, this might make sense given the reforms under "Lula".

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I've changed my mind about Turkey so many times that I can't even
remember where I was the last time. I think I finally decided that
Turkey's 1984-1991 war with the PKK Kurds was a crisis war for the
Kurds, but a non-crisis war for Turkey, and that Turkey is now in 4T.

Okay, so Turkey really needs more research. Putting in grey (i.e. not settled) for now.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Indonesia: The last crisis war appears to have been the violent coup
in 1965-66 (80% confidence).

Alright, so my 2T instincts about Indonesia were correct. That seemed intuitively right given how devastating the coup was and the very very 2T name of the post-Suharto era, "Reformation".

So according to you I had Indonesia and India/Pakistan right. Saudi Arabia is "4T-ish", and I had Jordan and Brazil backwards. If you are right about Brazil, that is quite curious since most of Latin America is on our timeline. But the junta takeover of Brazil does seem too bloody to be 2T.

1990, for illustration purposes, I think all "5T" countries should be in red. This will show that they too, will have a crisis war at the same time as 4T countries.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Russia's last crisis war was the Bolshevik Revolution and the subsequent civil war, so Russia is in 4T right now.

John. The October Revolution occurred in 1917, and the Civil War lasted until 1920 (USSR founded in 1922). more than eighty years ago years ago (or more than one full turning before the US 4T start and finish, respectively). If you want to use that as the 4T war in Russia, then Russia would have to be, by the calendar alone, in the opening days of their 1T right now.

Which has been my contention all along. It's good to see that we agree.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Based on these observations, and because a Crisis Era is based on
"mood" more than anything else, my tentative conclusion is that the
American Civil War was an "aborted crisis war" for Britain, and that
the Franco-Prussian war was a first turning war for Britain.

I would also conclude that Britain's crisis era ended around 1865,
with the end of the war. Do you strongly object to that conclusion?

You suggest England's previous crisis war ended in 1815 with the end of the Napoleonic Wars, which were immediately followed by the restoring of Europe. The American Civil War began in 1861, 46 years after Waterloo, which is like the equivalent of 1991 in America, or early to mid 3T. This is atypically early for a 4T mood.

What I would expect to have a crisis this early would be that "unexpected invasion" you continually come back to, or the forced mass panic that happened to the Iroquois in 1693, thanks to the smallpox outbreak and surrounding enemies.

A 4T mood is possible 46 years after the previous crisis war, but it has to be done "the right way." What forced Britain to have this sort of "mood?" Well, if the panic really hit them hard, and they were preparing for a war with a major power, it could be conceived that this launched Britain into the type of panic we saw with the Israeli war this past summer. But Israel is still 4T.

It is easy to imagine Switzerland being reset to 1T because of World War Two. England? Not so much. If England had their crisis begin in 1861, why would the cycle have been reset in 1865? Something inside me screams that this might not have been enough.

My initial bet was that the onset of the mainland European conflict had a similar effect on Britain that the US Civil War did, so much as to launch them into a 1T by the end of the Franco-Prussian war. However, this doesn't seem to be supported by Britain's attitude during the Franco-Prussian War. Maybe they learned their mistakes from the Civil War?

So what happens if there's no crisis war? Is there a transition into
a first turning or a fifth turning? Well, I would hypothesize the
following:

* If the country was viscerally involved in the war (as in the case
of Switzerland in WW II), then feelings of anxiety are purged, and
there's a transition to a first turning. In particular, the Hero
generation imposes exactly the same kinds of austere rules on society
as if there had been an actual war; this gives rise to a rebellion by
the new Prophet generation, leading to an Awakening and a
continuation of the cycle as usual.
* But if not, then something quite different happens. The would-be
Hero generation becomes placidly middle-aged, without imposing any
austere rules. Without the war, the would-be Artist generation grows
up into an extremely angry "Super-Nomad" generation that's very
anxious for war, even to the point of becoming "altruistic" suicide
bombers. Furthermore, there are no austere rules provided by the
placid would-be Heroes, so the transition is into a so-called fifth
turning, an era which is distinctly different from any of the other
eras studied by S&H.

Did the first happen? England played it quite cool during the F-P war.

[quote=MichaelEaston;187543]You suggest England's previous crisis war ended in 1815 with the end of the Napoleonic Wars, which were immediately followed by the restoring of Europe. The American Civil War began in 1861, 46 years after Waterloo, which is like the equivalent of 1991 in America, or early to mid 3T. This is atypically early for a 4T mood.

This why I think the period from when France globalized the American Revolution to when Napoleon was crowned himself Emperor in continental Europe and the Battle of Trafalgar in the UK was a 4T and that the Napleonic wars were a case of 1T imperialism gone bad, Napoleon being the poster child of the hubris of a triumphant Hero generation gone terribly wrong.

Originally Posted by Odin

This why I think the period from when France globalized the American Revolution to when Napoleon was crowned himself Emperor in continental Europe and the Battle of Trafalgar in the UK was a 4T and that the Napleonic wars were a case of 1T imperialism gone bad, Napoleon being the poster child of the hubris of a triumphant Hero generation gone terribly wrong.

Nah, I wouldn't look at it backwards when trying to piece these things together. If you have it in your mind that the Napoleonic Wars can't be a 4T, it's going to take a lot to convince you otherwise. I would look at the Napoleonic Wars within the context of each turning and figure out which one fits properly instead of assuming that it was 1T so it fits properly.

Merry Christmas!

As you gather together with your family (if you can) to celebrate the
holiday, whether you're Christian or not, it's a good time to feel
grateful for the time you have together, in an increasingly darkening
world.



The classic movie "Meet Me in St. Louis" is set in the year 1900, but
it was released in 1944, and at times reflects much of the sadness of
families torn apart by World War II. This was particularly true in
the song, "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas," in the original
lyrics, as sung by Judy Garland in the movie:

Once again as in olden days
Happy golden days of yore.
Faithful friends who were dear to us
Will be near to us once more.

Someday soon we all will be together
If the Fates allow.
Until then we'll have to muddle through somehow.
So have yourself a merry little Christmas now.

As I've said before, treasure the time you have left, and use the
time to prepare yourself, your family, your community and your
nation.

And, once again, Merry Christmas!

Sincerely,

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

As I've said before, treasure the time you have left, and use the
time to prepare yourself, your family, your community and your
nation.

And, once again, Merry Christmas!

Sincerely,

John

Geez, doesn't that seem just a little dark? Chances are most of us will still be around and kickin' after the end of the 4T. Even WWII, devastating though it was, only killed a small minority of the world's population.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Merry Christmas!

As you gather together with your family (if you can) to celebrate the
holiday, whether you're Christian or not, it's a good time to feel
grateful for the time you have together, in an increasingly darkening
world.

Gee, only a few (actually only one) posts today. Makes a lot of sense, actually. As the depressionists libs feel their mighty gray champion savior approaching (maybe Obama, maybe Oh Hillary), the real deal, born ages ago in Bethlehem, dims in HIS relevance and usefulness.

Ergo, modern-day liberalism's true passions let loose: Eric Meece's Pelosi Big Government reigns Almighty. She's here, folks, ready or not.

Originally Posted by 1990

Geez, doesn't that seem just a little dark? Chances are most of us will still be around and kickin' after the end of the 4T. Even WWII, devastating though it was, only killed a small minority of the world's population.

Who says this one won't be much more devastating?

Either way, I have no doubt in my mind that this will be not be a pleasant 4T. I'm still in la-la land, and I dread (and yet look forward to) the day that my whole world is changed.

I need something to happen. I find the thought of no crisis leading to me turning "placidly middle-aged" quite eerie. Can you feel it too?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I'm still in la-la land, and... I need something to happen.

9/11 wasn't enough a bang for you, eh? No problem, most of America needs a bigger bang, too. Maybe a nuked NYC, LA will suffice?

Originally Posted by zilch

9/11 wasn't enough a bang for you, eh? No problem, most of America needs a bigger bang, too. Maybe a nuked NYC, LA will suffice?

Well Zilch, I may have been to young for it to have a true effect on me. But you're right, most of America still hasn't received that shock. The effects of 9/11 seem to be wearing off by the day. But what would you expect? How has 9/11 affected you?

I think another spectacular terrorist attack might do the trick and launch us into the regeneracy.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I think another spectacular terrorist attack might do the trick and launch us into the regeneracy.

The youthful idiocy question aside, I think another spectacular terrorist attack might do the trick and launch us into a degeneracy.

Again, the notion of youthful inexperience and aged wisdom aside, of course.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Who says this one won't be much more devastating?

Either way, I have no doubt in my mind that this will be not be a pleasant 4T. I'm still in la-la land, and I dread (and yet look forward to) the day that my whole world is changed.

I need something to happen. I find the thought of no crisis leading to me turning "placidly middle-aged" quite eerie. Can you feel it too?

Actually, I totally get what you're saying. While I dread the struggles ahead, it is best that they come sooner rather than later. I fear the destruction, yet I look forward to the change. We need a big shakeup right now to kick us into a mode of doing rather than whining. This post-WWII status quo has decayed and is pretty much useless now. It is unfortunately time for much of the world to start over.

You've baffled me. Must be my youthful idiocy.

Originally Posted by 1990

Actually, I totally get what you're saying. While I dread the struggles ahead, it is best that they come sooner rather than later. I fear the destruction, yet I look forward to the change. We need a big shakeup right now to kick us into a mode of doing rather than whining. This post-WWII status quo has decayed and is pretty much useless now. It is unfortunately time for much of the world to start over.

What about on a personal level?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

You've baffled me. Must be my youthful idiocy.

vs. "aged wisdom"? Is this the kind of respect the young displayed toward the aged wisdom of their Gray Champion Frank Roosevelt?

Dear Nathaniel,

Originally Posted by 1990

> Actually, I totally get what you're saying. While I dread the
> struggles ahead, it is best that they come sooner rather than
> later. I fear the destruction, yet I look forward to the change.
> We need a big shakeup right now to kick us into a mode of doing
> rather than whining. This post-WWII status quo has
> decayed and is pretty much useless now. It is unfortunately time
> for much of the world to start over.

I'm thinking that there are a lot of kids around your age in Chechnya
and Gaza who are thinking EXACTLY the same thing.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Marc,

Originally Posted by zilch

> 1) No post-McGovern Liberal or Democrat Party will lead this
> nation through the most horrific crisis we've ever faced in
> history, that is 2) soon to come with blinding speed and
> relentless destruction.

Originally Posted by zilch

> 9/11 wasn't enough a bang for you, eh? No problem, most of America
> needs a bigger bang, too. Maybe a nuked NYC, LA will suffice?

Marc, I can't help but notice a marked change in tone in some of your
recent postings.

Have you gone through some sort of Epiphany in the last few weeks?
Is everything OK?

Sincerely,

John

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

Happy Holidays all -

I thought I'd take some time on this fine Christmas Day to respond to a number of things that have arisen in the past few days.

Mark - I never voted for Al Gore for President, nor I could I do so under any circumstances I can foresee. Should the Dems put up either Hillary or Gore, and the Repubs McCain, I guess I'll have to vote for whoever the Libertarian candidate is. Would that be generational?

Mike - I appreciate all the work you have put in trying to make this thing work, and I usually agree with you, but on this one, I can't. If I understand you correctly, you find S & H's CVA the simplest solution to a problem you've been wrestling with for years. For myself, I am content to see a shortening of Turnings and Generations (without skipping anything) and I kind of liked McGuinness's compaction theory. As to the underlying issue - " how do generations get their attributes in the first place and how do these attributes cause turnings to happen" - you will recall, a long time ago, I suggested that, as long as we were dealing with archetypes, we ought to accept a full Jungian approach and chalk it up to the "collective unconscious." Not much of an answer, but I still think it's about as good as anything - generational behavior as a product of our evolutionary heritage. And we really do need another 10-25 years to verify that the saeculum is really for real.

Odin - the British sent reinforcements to Canada in the spring of 1862, anticipating a war with the North (in part, because they really believed Seward still was looking to a war with Britain, as he had in 1858-60, as a means of ending North-South hostility in face of a common outside enemy).

John - what you dug out on Britain on the U.S. Civil War is absolutely on the button, and I agree Google's book project is wonderful. I just wish that they'd get more out there faster. For a more detailed look, there are a number of more recent publications including a couple of chapters in my "The Last Palmerston Government." Having said that, Britain did not have a Crisis War they way you originally defined such a war during its 1857-1873 Fourth Turning.

As for ending Britain's Crisis in 1865, it causes a big problem for Britain's generational line-up. Specifically, it cuts out the last the third of Britain's 19th century Adaptive Generation, including Edward Grey (1862), Austen Chamberlain (1863), Arthur Henderson (1863), David Lloyd George (1863), J. Ramsay MacDonald (1866), John Galsworthy (1867), Stanley Baldwin (1867), Harold Harmsworth, Lord Rothemere (1868), Neville Chamberlain (1869), Hilaire Belloc (1870), Ernest Rutherford (1871), Aubrey Beardsley (1872), John (1872) and Barbara (1873) Hammond, and Bertrand Russell (1872). These folks would end up Idealists in S & H's schema, and they most decidedly were not.

For now, I'll leave it to you and Mike to fight out the Spanish Succession War.

By the way, John, have you thought of using Pareto's 80/20 Rule on the recalcitrant poverty issue? I have found it applicable to just about everything.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Originally Posted by David Krein

Odin - the British sent reinforcements to Canada in the spring of 1862, anticipating a war with the North (in part, because they really believed Seward still was looking to a war with Britain, as he had in 1858-60, as a means of ending North-South hostility in face of a common outside enemy).

Seward tried to start a war with the UK!?! Well there is a important tidbit I never learned in High School US History...

I decided to do the same thing as 1990, make a turning-based world map:



Blue: 1T
Green: 2T
Yellow: 3T
Red: 4T
Gray: Uncertain

Originally Posted by Odin

I decided to do the same thing as 1990, make a turning-based world map:

Interesting. Would you mind explaining India/Pakistan, the Congo, South Africa, and Russia? I haven't seen anyone say Russia is in a 3T.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Interesting. Would you mind explaining India/Pakistan, the Congo, and Russia? I haven't seen anyone say Russia is in a 3T.

I'm pretty sure India's and Pakistan's saeculum is aligned with the Western one, the partition screams "4T Climax" IMO. I'm not well versed on the DR of the Congo, but I'm assuming independence was a 2T event and the revolts leading to the end of the Mobutu dictatorship was a crisis catalyst.

With Russia I was thinking that the death of Stalin and the rise of Kruschev was the end of a 4T and the reforms of Gorbachev and the collapse of the USSR were late 2T (Gorby and end of the Cold War)/early 3T (break-up), though that is very tentative. IMO Russia seems to be in a culture war between anti-West "Authoritarians" and pro-west "Libertarians" and that the Libertarians were on top during the Yeltsin Era and the Authoritarians gained the upper hand in the Putin Era.