Originally Posted by Odin

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

I suggest you color the Republic of Ireland blue.

Originally Posted by The Pervert

I suggest you color the Republic of Ireland blue.

That's what I was thinking but wasn't exactly sure, thanks.

Originally Posted by Odin

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.

So that would put the Russian Revolution in to 2T camp? Are you serious?

IMO Russia seems to be in a culture war between anti-West "Authoritarians" and pro-west "Libertarians"

There's no culture war here, in any kind of sense. In fact, there's really not even than hanging remnants of one you might expect to see in a mid 4T. The libertarian/authoritarian divide isn't really grist for a culture war anyway, and for there to be such a divide, both sides really would need to have separate, irreconcilable constituencies.
[looks around]Nope. None of those, either. Strike 2 against 3T.

and that the Libertarians were on top during the Yeltsin Era and the Authoritarians gained the upper hand in the Putin Era.

First off, if you think that 'pro-West' and 'anti-West' correspond to libertarian and authoritarian, you really need to get out more. Russia is in a part of the world (that is, 'not NAFTA') where the West has supported more than its share of brutal dictators against the will of their people. There are several countries (I'm looking at you, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia) where the anti-US side is the one fighting for freedom.
Secondly, to consider the Yeltsin years as somehow 'Libertarian' is to admit both a colossal level of misinformedness about the Yeltsin years themselves, and a serious misunderstanding of what, exactly, libertarian is. Under Yeltsin, the country experienced a level of expropriation of property by the politically-connected unseen since the post-Revolution years. And the assassinations and the hard economic times and so forth. In fact, Putin's biggest cronyism is really just the watered-down repetition of Yeltsin's (substituting his friends for the friends of his predecessors).

Classic 4T. We're out of that now; and the cycle doesn't run backwards. Russia is undeniably Blue.

-And by the way, you've got Turkmenistan as grey. I'd be interested to see how things progress there following the recent death of their dictator. Might be illuminating...

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

First, it makes it clear that the Bush tax cut has nothing to do with the deficit, as Democratic politicians are claiming. The deficit is caused by the sharp collapse of income that began in 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration.

The income in the graph is Federal income, that is, tax revenue. Of course tax revenue is going to be affected by tax rate, so what you say is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

But you've left me no choice because you keep attacking me like a banshee, telling me that, in essence, I'm a liar, I'm biased, and all the work I've done is full of crap.

You dismiss everybody else's work as garbage. Even S&H, which you don't dismiss outright, you replace with your own theories insisting that what S&H really meant to do was GD.

And then you talk about all your correct predictions when in reality, most of them haven't happened you or you redefine the meaning of the original prediction to make it not false (e.g. your 2003 prediction of no civil war in Iraq, which by any reasonable standard you got wrong). Ditto for the stock market and economy. You would gain a lot more credibiliy if you admitted to a few boners instead of trying to redefine reality to make them come out correct.

You have NEVER admitted that GD is just one view of the saeculum, yours. It is not necessarily better than anyone else's view. You have no modesty and come across as very arrogant. Arrogance is annoying even when the person is right. But you are frequently wrong. And you frequently get facts wrong e.g. (1) there was no major European war for 85 years after the peace of Utrecht (2) unemployment was over 10% in the 1970's, (3) tax cuts have no impact on the deficit. These simple facts are easy to check in real time with a quick search. But you don't. This tendency to bandy about false unchecked information to make a point suggests that you are not very careful about the facts you use to support your theory.

And it angers me I answer all your questions in good faith, but you just ignore the answers and make exactly the same attacks again. And this has been going on for years now.

But I do address your answers to a greater extent that you do mine. Often you go off on unrelated tangents (e.g this whole discussion to the K-cycle, when it hadn't even been mentioned). Only a small portion of your response is usually relevant and I do respond to that. Then you dismiss what I wrote.

And when you fashion McGinness' turning list and your event list into a giant club that you want to smash me in the face with, you leave me no choice but to attack your giant club.

How did I smash you in the face with it? This is a bizarre interpretation of my post.

You don't do this with other people. A couple of days ago you disagreed Dave Krein, but you didn't write, "Krein, you're a liar, you're biased, and all the work you've done is full of crap." You single me out for that.

You are right, I didn't say that to Dave. Now please provide the quote where I said "John you're a liar, you're biased, and all the work you've done is full of crap".

You have access to several different sets of turning dates -- yours, McGuiness', Horners, and Krein's, mine, and possibly others I've forgotten.

Yes, and I put McGuinnness's posts up on the net so you (and others if they are interested) could have access to them, since they are no longer available here. How this is "smashing your face" is beyond me. Would you prefer I keep my information to myself?

And they all give different results. (And now, I see that you have another one, by Sidney Alston. That makes six.)

Yes I collect turning schemes--they are raw material with which I work. I have several times requested that you come up with a saeculum scheme, but you have never done so, simply providing lists of crisis wars that are not very easy to analyze since I don't know where the other turnings fall.

And what conclusion do you reach? You single mine out

None of these others are as arrogant (and nasty) as you are.

Well, why me?

Because you are arrogant. You are quick to denigrate the work of others describing as "garbage" the work of scholars far more capable than you are. You resort to name-calling far more quickly than I or others have.

If you have six inconsistent sets of data, why single mine out for your convulsive attacks. When there are differences among the others, you just point out that there are differences. But when mine are involved, you attack like a banshee. Why is that?

Because you dismiss everyone else as not worthy of consideration. You present GD as the be all and end all of all saeculum research. You are arrogant, presenting yourself as having all the answers, claim near-infallability, are frequently wrong (like most mortals) yet never acknowledge it.

A different, more humble tone would make a lot of difference.

[qute]Why don't you just leave it alone? If you disagree with something, just point it out like you do with Krein and the others, and leave it at that? Why do you have to continue on this multi-year crusade of destruction?[/quote]
I usually do just point it out, and then usually you come back swinging. You and I are the only people currently on this site who have amassed a large body of saecular work. You have a novel model for the saeculum and some interesting ideas. But your insistence that only you have the answers, that the thinking of others is all "garbage" and that a failing on your part (an inability to understand another's idea like the generational constellation) means that they are wrong, makes it very difficult to have a useful discussion with you.

But not impossible. The discussions have not been without profit. I now believe I have a firm grasp on GD--something I could never get from simply reading your material. And if I find some ideas of interest I will use them, and cite the appropriate reference from your body of work (I find it admirable that you have made it all available for examination).

I also have gained from your criticism of my spiritual events and am now involved in a re-examination of my unrest events (and eventually the spiritual ones) using the internet resources available in 2006 as opposed to those in 2000. I have found an excellent link you will be very interested in. I'll post it later (I don't have it on this machine). It is a quite complete list of European wars from the 15th century one with potted descriptions and links to other sources for more information.

And it is not just you. Ask Bob Butler. I AM very argumentative. I'm one of the "battling Alexanders". Here's a joke my childhood friends tell about us: How many Alexanders does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Three, one to screw in the bulb and two to keep the argument going.

I do argue strenuously, but I do try to remain civil.

Originally Posted by David Krein

If I understand you correctly, you find S & H's CVA the simplest solution to a problem you've been wrestling with for years.

No, S&H's cycle is based on the generations, not on the turnings. These generations form the factual foundation upon which they build their theory. They did not find a Hero generation born before the Civil War, which according to their theory is supposed to be there. That is, there was no Hero generation is a fact uncovered by their research. Since I am unwilling to do biographical research I cannot verify this fact. I can discount it, and I did just that for years, but on what basis?

So I am left with the absence of a Civil War hero generation as "observational data" for which any theory of the saeculum must account.

If I came up with a self-consistent theory to explain how generations shortened abruptly from 26-27 years to 18 years just before the Civil War, then I would discount the CWA, because I would have a strong argument in favor of the idea that no generation was dropped. But I have found no such theory. The one I currently have correctly predicts the observed cycle lengths, predicts the Civil War crisis (to the year) and also predicts that no Hero generation would emerge from the crisis. It also predicts the current crisis start for ~2005--not 2001 as I used to believe based on the 18-year generation with no CWA concept.

However, there is a big flaw in the model. It doesn't explain the European saeculum.

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.

This is too "spooky" for me. What is history but present day events as viewed from the future? I look at the present day and I don't see a collective unconscious forcing us to go war in Iraq or to do anything. I see our actions as being what the actors think was a good idea at the time. Some of us (e.g. HC) still think it was a good idea.

The reason why Iraq has turned out to be a clusterfuck is not because some spooky collective unconscious made Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, Rice etc. lose their reasoning ability. It is not a collective unconscious that causes HC to think the way he does. It is their and his set of assumptions about how the world works that does this--a point that HC himself has repeatedly made.

This set of assumptions reflects his basic personality (which reflects his genes) and his experience in the world. All generations genetic endowments are the same since the genes are all passed down from the previous generation--so personality doesn't explain peer personality. What is different is their collective experience. HC's worldview (or mine) is different that what his (or my) clone born 40 (or 30) years earlier would be, because the clone and he(I) would have had different experiences.

Thus, our clones (if still alive) would think about Iraq differently than we do. Similarly, what is happening today reflects what clones of us born 25 (or 15) years before us would be doing and thinking. You don't even need the clone idea to understand the times since it is those born around when you were born who are calling the shots today. You and your age-mates have the right experience for thinking about the policy issues of our time in the way that they are going to be thought about.

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.

...

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.

Are you serious? For saecular theory to have any relevance at all, the shift from 4T to 1T is a huge, bright shining line that everybody and his dog agrees on. The distinction is palpable, and can be determined by about 30 seconds of reading the local newspaper.

4T: crisis -- the country feels it is fighting for its very continued existence
1T: resolution -- the country is looking forward to the future with hope and optimism


Yes, 1917-22 was a Crisis for Russia. So was 1989-1991, and the Soviet Union didn't survive it. The sudden and dramatic collapse of the USSR was what established the validity of saecular theory in my mind.

Similarly, although the war with the PKK was not as earthshaking for the average Turk, there was undoubtedly more of a Crisis mood prior to 2000 than after it.

As for the Kurds, how could it be 4T for them? They didn't have a country -- or much hope of it -- before 2000, and not after 2000 either. And the continued semi-independence of Kurdish Iraq is still very precarious, and will probably require a pitched battle to defend, so it would seem they're late-3T/early-4T.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Russia is undeniably Blue.

I agree with the Turnings... but USA as red and Russia as blue? No, no, no, no, no. Russia is Red and the US is Blue; that's how it is and always will be. You'll just have to change the meaning of the colors.

Originally Posted by Finch

Yes, 1917-22 was a Crisis for Russia. So was 1989-1991, and the Soviet Union didn't survive it.

Except that '17-'22 was the end of a 4T (I can't bring myself to call it the end of a crisis; it was more like the beginning of a very long, terrible crisis. But not a Crisis crisis, IYKWIM), and '89-'91 was the middle of one. It works out to a just about 80-year cycle.

Fancy that

Originally Posted by Odin

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

Copycat!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

So that would put the Russian Revolution in to 2T camp? Are you serious? There's no culture war here, in any kind of sense. In fact, there's really not even than hanging remnants of one you might expect to see in a mid 4T. The libertarian/authoritarian divide isn't really grist for a culture war anyway, and for there to be such a divide, both sides really would need to have separate, irreconcilable constituencies.
[looks around]Nope. None of those, either. Strike 2 against 3T.
First off, if you think that 'pro-West' and 'anti-West' correspond to libertarian and authoritarian, you really need to get out more. Russia is in a part of the world (that is, 'not NAFTA') where the West has supported more than its share of brutal dictators against the will of their people. There are several countries (I'm looking at you, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia) where the anti-US side is the one fighting for freedom.
Secondly, to consider the Yeltsin years as somehow 'Libertarian' is to admit both a colossal level of misinformedness about the Yeltsin years themselves, and a serious misunderstanding of what, exactly, libertarian is. Under Yeltsin, the country experienced a level of expropriation of property by the politically-connected unseen since the post-Revolution years. And the assassinations and the hard economic times and so forth. In fact, Putin's biggest cronyism is really just the watered-down repetition of Yeltsin's (substituting his friends for the friends of his predecessors).

Classic 4T. We're out of that now; and the cycle doesn't run backwards. Russia is undeniably Blue.

-And by the way, you've got Turkmenistan as grey. I'd be interested to see how things progress there following the recent death of their dictator. Might be illuminating...

Since you actually have lived in Russia (right?) I have to give your opinion some weight. I am tentatively coloring not just Russia, but all of the former Soviet Union blue. Europe on my map is now sharply divided by the Iron Curtain, with the countries west of it in 4T red (including Scandinavia and Greece) but everything east of Germany or north of Greece in 1T blue. My opinion may change, but your argument that The Collapse was 4T seems persuasive.

Originally Posted by Odin

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

BTW, our maps have a lot of differences. You have put a ton of countries in 3T yellow which I assume are on the Western timeline, so how many of them do you think have just entered 3T (like, say, Cuba) and how many do you think are winding down their 3T and coming close to 4T?

ftp://generationaldynamics.com/GD%20World%20Map.GIF

My latest.

http://generationaldynamics.com/gdgr...orld%20Map.GIF

Sorry.

Here's the resource I mentioned

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/15cen/15cenindex.html

Originally Posted by 1990

Since you actually have lived in Russia (right?) I have to give your opinion some weight. I am tentatively coloring not just Russia, but all of the former Soviet Union blue. Europe on my map is now sharply divided by the Iron Curtain, with the countries west of it in 4T red (including Scandinavia and Greece) but everything east of Germany or north of Greece in 1T blue. My opinion may change, but your argument that The Collapse was 4T seems persuasive.

I agree that the collapse was 4T, and a new "order" was put in place.

But the absence of war makes the situation difficult to mark. I see the Chechen wars and the financial collapse and ensuing depression as 4T events; not 1T events. Russia might have turned to 1T if it weren't for these internal problems.

Right now, I see the level of anxiety as being more indicative of 4T. Undoubtedly, they will be caught up in the coming crisis (much like Turkey), which will comprise the latter half of their 4T period.

Originally Posted by 1990

BTW, our maps have a lot of differences. You have put a ton of countries in 3T yellow which I assume are on the Western timeline, so how many of them do you think have just entered 3T (like, say, Cuba) and how many do you think are winding down their 3T and coming close to 4T?

The 3T European countries, India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, China Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and other countires on the Arabian peninsula are late 3T. Cuba is early 3T The rest of the 3T countries are mid-3T

Originally Posted by Odin

The 3T European countries, India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, China Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and other countires on the Arabian peninsula are late 3T. Cuba is early 3T The rest of the 3T countries are mid-3T

I'm curious about some of those. I get why you could have the WWII countries - Europe, India, Australia, China, etc. - in late 3T, but Syria, Lebanon, etc. I don't think I get. The Middle Eastern countries northeast of Israel (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran) each featured prominently in the Middle Eastern crises of the '70s and '80s, from the Lebanon Civil War to the Iran-Iraq War and on and on. For that same reason I can't get why Iraq is 4T. Yes, the Iraq war is very ugly right now, but the way the Iraqis are responding seems much more 2T than 4T to me (riots, chaos in the streets, no coherent government), and that would jibe with the idea that their last 4T was war with Iran in the '80s.

So I'm curious about your interpretation of the Middle East. You may be on to something, but I don't get it and I'd love to hear your thoughts. The coloring of the former Soviet Union in 3T yellow seems to be raising eyebrows as well, though I think you explained that one.

Originally Posted by 1990

I'm curious about some of those. I get why you could have the WWII countries - Europe, India, Australia, China, etc. - in late 3T, but Syria, Lebanon, etc. I don't think I get. The Middle Eastern countries northeast of Israel (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran) each featured prominently in the Middle Eastern crises of the '70s and '80s, from the Lebanon Civil War to the Iran-Iraq War and on and on. For that same reason I can't get why Iraq is 4T. Yes, the Iraq war is very ugly right now, but the way the Iraqis are responding seems much more 2T than 4T to me (riots, chaos in the streets, no coherent government), and that would jibe with the idea that their last 4T was war with Iran in the '80s.

So I'm curious about your interpretation of the Middle East. You may be on to something, but I don't get it and I'd love to hear your thoughts. The coloring of the former Soviet Union in 3T yellow seems to be raising eyebrows as well, though I think you explained that one.

My interpretation of the ME is that the Arab-Israeli War that followed the founding of Israel was a 4T Climax for the Arab world and Israel and the rise of Islamism in the 70s and 80s was a 2T period for the Arab world. The invasion of Iraq cut short Iraq's 3T and now Iraq is now pre-Regeneracy 4T.

I consider the civil war in Lebanon a 2T event because it didn't really change much, the demographics have changed drastically since Lebanon got it's full independence from the French mandate (Muslims are now the majority, not Christians) but the institutions haven't changed much. The Lebanese Civil War was similar to the English Civil War, a 2T gone wrong.

1990, I did an investigation of North Africa, West Africa, and Central Africa. Unlike Russia and China, it doesn't really "matter" (from an U.S. viewpoint) what turning some of these countries are in, as a crisis war there probably will be isolated from a crisis war the U.S. is involved in.

In the 100 year analysis of all these countries I can't claim absolute certainty; however, I think it gives a good idea of where most of the continent stands. If anyone has an objection, feel free to voice it.

North Africa

Egypt- Egypt’s last crisis probably was the 1952 revolution, ending in 1954. This would place Egypt in a 3T now.

Libya- No clue. My instinct would suggest 1920-1931 with the Italian pacification of the Arabs, but I’m not sure. It also could be WWII. Or both. Power passed right from the Ottomans to the Italians, and when a group of people has been under that kind of rule for so long, it is hard to pick out a cycle.

Tunisia- My gut instinct would say they are on the same timeline as Libya.

Algeria- War of Independence was fought from 1954-1962, which was a crisis war. They had a very violent 2T (more deaths than in the War of Independence) in the Algerian civil war (1991-2002) that has a lot of similarities to Iraq today. 2002 seems like a fitting end date to the 2T, and look! It’s 40 years after 1962! This would place them in a 3T.

Morocco- John says the Rif War (1921-1927) and it is hard to argue. 5T (or 4T).

Western Sahara- Mostly uninhabited.

West Africa- There are far too many countries there and I picked only a select few. The others require some deeper research. Most seemed to be “crisising” around the turn of the century (the 1900 one, that is) in wars against European imperialists. For the most recent crises, they have typically followed a pattern of a coup (usually military), which then turns into a bloody civil war, typically occurring between 1960 and 1995.

Liberia- Liberia had a two-part civil war (1989-2003) which was the last crisis war. It began Aside from the high death toll, its government went through several changes, its economy was destroyed, and 1 million refugees fled the country. Currently, the UN runs the show and is in the process of disarming the rebel groups. Fragile 1T.

Sierra Leone- Civil War (1991-2002) appears to be the last crisis war. I'm not entirely sure about this, but it follows a standard 4T pattern. 1T.

Niger- I believe their last crisis war ended in 1922, when they became a French colony. There was the Tuareg Rebellion/ Civil War from 1990-1996, but this may be a 4T event only for the Tuaregs. I’ll say 4T, but it may be 1T.

Mali- In 1898, Mali resistance leader Samory Ture was killed, ending the war against the French. The Tuareg Rebellion spilled over into Mali (1990-1996), but I don't see a crisis war, just isolated crisis incidents since 1980. In fact, I can't find a crisis war in the 20th century. 5T, although it's really 6T since it has been over 100 years.

Nigeria- Nigerian Civil War/ Biafran War (1967-1970) was the last crisis war. This war earns a prize for being one of the bloodiest wars since WWII, with about 3 million deaths, due to starvation and genocide. After a stalemate, the government forces broke through to win. 2T.

Biafra- Biafra was also part of the Nigerian Civil War/ Baifran War (1967-1970). 2T

Cote D’Iviore- The war against French forces (1891-1915) seems to be the last crisis war. They are really on the cusp of another one now. The country appears very unstable. 5T.

Ghana- (18??-1902) against British forces is the last one I can find. I’m really not all too certain but, 5T.

Mauritania French colonization ended inter-clan warfare by 1990. A series of wars, coups, fleeing appears to be a crisis war (1976-1991). As they have gone two coups since 2003 and became the third Arab country to recognize Israel, I’d say 2T.


Central Africa- The most recent crisis wars are those touched off by Rwanda and the Darfur crisis, except Angola.

Rwanda- Rwanda is an interesting case. In 1959, 10’s of thousands of Tutsis were killed by Hutus, causing hundreds of thousands to flee. This era requires more research since this was a major case of genocide. However, this paragraph strikes me in a strange way as 2T.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Genocide ensued, with an estimated 20,000 to 100,000 Tutsis being killed by Hutus. On 25 September 1960, through United Nations intervention, a referendum was held to establish whether Rwanda should become a republic or remain a kingdom. The result indicated an overwhelming support for a republic. After elections, the first Rwandese Republic was declared, with Grégoire Kayibanda as prime minister.
The revolution of 1959 marked a major change in political life in Rwanda. Some 150,000 Tutsis were exiled to neighboring countries. Those Tutsis that remained in Rwanda were excluded from having any political power in a state becoming more and more centralized under Hutu power. The Belgians declared the country independent in 1962, and there was no mistake to be made, the power would be completely in the hands of the Hutu. In fact, following independence, the Hutu would come to blame anything that went wrong in the country on the Tutsi. The Tutsis were to become the national scapegoats. The previous history of Rwanda under the Tutsi monarchy and then as a colony was rejected as a long period of darkness. The new Rwanda was Hutu and Catholic and thus believed to be a complete break with the past.

This of course, solidified the events of the 4T, when the Tutsi returned and completely misread the Hutu hate for them. 1T.

Burundi- Between 1905 and 1914, a huge portion of their population died due to disease and famine. This could act as a crisis. Government sponsored detaining and killing began in 1972, but the real crisis began in 1993 in the Burundi Civil War, touched off by the Rwandan Genocide, which lasted until 2005. 1T.

Republic of the Congo- There was a 1997-1999 civil war with various militias. 1T.

Democratic-Republic of the Congo- Touched off by Rwandan refugees, the Congo Wars began in 1994, lasting until 2003. Directly involving nine African nations, this war has been the deadliest (4.6 million) since World War II, due to genocide, disease, and starvation. 1T.

Angola- They had their War of Independence in 1961, which later turned into a brutal civil war, lasting from 1974-2002. That would be an extremely long crisis war, but I have a hunch that 1974 may be the starting date. 1T.

I’d also say that Sudan and Chad are on the same timeline.

****

I'll eventually get around to doing east and south Africa.

Originally Posted by Odin

My interpretation of the ME is that the Arab-Israeli War that followed the founding of Israel was a 4T Climax for the Arab world and Israel and the rise of Islamism in the 70s and 80s was a 2T period for the Arab world. The invasion of Iraq cut short Iraq's 3T and now Iraq is now pre-Regeneracy 4T.

I consider the civil war in Lebanon a 2T event because it didn't really change much, the demographics have changed drastically since Lebanon got it's full independence from the French mandate (Muslims are now the majority, not Christians) but the institutions haven't changed much. The Lebanese Civil War was similar to the English Civil War, a 2T gone wrong.

Interesting. I always assumed that the '70s was a 4T era for these countries because it was such an ugly decade for the Middle East in general (though it could be argued that the worst of the violence was in Iran, which we both agree to be on the opposite timeline of the U.S., i.e. in 2T right now but in 4T during the 1979 Revolution).

I guess what you're saying could make sense, as so little did change in the Middle East (with the exception of Iran). So by your interpretation, is Iran the only Middle Eastern country that won't enter 4T during this turning?

Also, do you plan to keep your map updated or was this a one-time thing? I know I plan to stay up on mine, and it would be really cool if we each continued this project. I'm finding some of your more debatable choices very enlightening.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

1990, I did an investigation of North Africa, West Africa, and Central Africa. Unlike Russia and China, it doesn't really "matter" (from an U.S. viewpoint) what turning some of these countries are in, as a crisis war there probably will be isolated from a crisis war the U.S. is involved in.
...

You rock, thank you so much!

Originally Posted by 1990

Interesting. I always assumed that the '70s was a 4T era for these countries because it was such an ugly decade for the Middle East in general (though it could be argued that the worst of the violence was in Iran, which we both agree to be on the opposite timeline of the U.S., i.e. in 2T right now but in 4T during the 1979 Revolution).

I guess what you're saying could make sense, as so little did change in the Middle East (with the exception of Iran). So by your interpretation, is Iran the only Middle Eastern country that won't enter 4T during this turning?

Also, do you plan to keep your map updated or was this a one-time thing? I know I plan to stay up on mine, and it would be really cool if we each continued this project. I'm finding some of your more debatable choices very enlightening.

Yes, I consider Iran to be the only ME to be the only country that is 2T (and very early 2T at that, check my recent post on student protests in Iran in the Middle East Thread in the Beyond America forums. I suspect Turkey to go 2T fairly soon, though.

I an currently working on the map right now and will be updating it here when I can.

I have colored in all the African countries MichaelEaston seemed sure about (again, thank you so much for that, you clearly worked very hard and you were very helpful!). I have also decided to put China in red even though it is still 3T. The reason is that I don't know whether a lot of WWII countries (Europe, Australia, India, Japan...) have entered 4T yet or are "getting there", but the point is to generalize that they are somewhere in the neighborhood of 4T, and to organize which countries are on which timeline. Since China is going to enter 4T any year now, being on the same timeline as the U.S. and Western Europe, it should be in red even though it hasn't made the switch yet.

I have also put New Zealand and the entire Arabian peninsula (including Kuwait?) in red. After reading a brief history of the Philippines on Wikipedia, I have concluded that it is on our U.S. timeline (makes sense) because Wikipedia repeatedly talks about massive student activism and civil unrest against Marcos in the '70s. Thus it will be in red.

Tell me your thoughts, people.

Here's the updated map:



I darkened the 2T and 3T colors to make the borders easier to see after I JPEGed the image.