Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Objections to Generational Dynamics - Page 75







Post#1851 at 12-30-2006 10:31 AM by 1990 [at Savannah, GA joined Sep 2006 #posts 1,450]
---
12-30-2006, 10:31 AM #1851
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Savannah, GA
Posts
1,450

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
Guatemala- Genocidal Civil War lasted from 1960 to 1996. I would think that the 4T period came to a close sometime in the 80s, with the official end of the war being in 1996. 2T (or 1T).

Belize- Probably the same as Guatemala. Acheived independence in 1981. There was much unrest in Belize in 2005. 2T.

El Salvadore- El Salvadore had a genocidal civil war from 1980 to 1992. 1T, but close to 2T.

Honduras- I was expecting a 1980s war but couldn't find anything from the Wikipedia article. The US poured money into Honduras and there were a couple coups and some rebellions here and there. Needs more research, but probably 1T.

Nicaragua- Sandinista period (1979-1990) was, with little doubt, a crisis period. 1T, but close to 2T.

You're probably right about Costa Rica, and I'd say the same for Panama, for which I cannot find a crisis end since 1903.
Again, thank you. You are, yet again, proving extremely helpful.

I am coloring Belize in green, El Salvador in blue, Nicaragua in blue, and Costa Rica in red. The others you weren't sure about: Guatemala could be either 1T or 2T, Honduras has limited information, and Panama has gone so long without a crisis that I am suspicious. Maybe General Noriega's reign was a 4T? I don't know.

It's interesting that almost all the 1T countries in Central America are nearing 2T.







Post#1852 at 12-30-2006 11:46 AM by cbailey [at B. 1950 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,559]
---
12-30-2006, 11:46 AM #1852
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
B. 1950
Posts
1,559

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Here's the updated map:



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

Add this information to the map. Mexico soon be 4T.

Kent Paterson: Negative stats show Mexico is ripe for revolution
Kent Paterson
Tuesday, December 26, 2006





Amid protests, Felipe Calderon took office Dec. 1 as Mexico's new president. Calderon inherits a country where class polarization, political conflict and escalating criminal violence define the landscape.

Six years after former Mexican President Vicente Fox pledged an immigration accord with the United States, millions of new jobs and a promised educational revolution, Mexico's social and political indicators are in the negatives.

Both the United Nations Development Program and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development chide Mexico for continued high poverty rates. Some reports compare sections of the Mexican countryside to Mali or the Sudan. Public high schools and universities are unable to serve all aspirants, who are frequently funneled into private schools of dubious quality and purpose.

With the minimum wage of less than $5 per day buying less than it did 30 years ago, it's no mystery why as many as 4 million Mexicans crossed into the United States during the Fox presidency.

As a parting gift from the Fox administration, Mexicans began paying more for gasoline, milk, tortillas and other goods beginning Dec. 1.

According to Mexico's National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics, many rural towns became ghost towns during the Fox years. Millions of Mexicans only get by because of remittances sent by relatives in the United States - a money flow which the Bank of Mexico estimates will reach a record $20 billion to $25 billion in 2006.

A different story prevails at the top. During the Fox years, modest billionaires such as Carlos Slim became super-tycoons, which, in Slim's case, meant achieving the status of the world's third-richest man, with a fortune of $30 billion, according to Forbes magazine. A handful of companies control the transportation, entertainment, media, beverage, food and communications sectors. Close to 90 percent of bank stock is controlled by foreign companies and investors.

To be fair, Fox might be credited with fulfilling one of his campaign goals of 2000: creating economic development. In the last six years, the illegal narcotics economy has boomed - transformed from a mainly export trade oriented to the United States to an industry with an important domestic market as well.

The drug cartels are in an all-out war for the spoils, tossing grenades and firing off bazookas in their battles, while leaving decapitated bodies on the streets as gruesome warnings to rivals. Executions and grenade attacks take place within the eyesight and earshot of tourists in resorts such as Acapulco and Zihuatanejo.

By the end of 2006, somewhere around 2,000 people - most of them young - will have been killed in this year's bout of narco-violence. Few suspects are detained for such crimes, and honest government officials admit they are overwhelmed by the power of organized crime.

As the Nov. 25 narco-tainted slaying of Mexican pop star Valentin Elizalde in Reynosa highlighted, Mexico now has on its hands a "lost generation" of youths who are sucked into a cycle of easy money, addiction and violence.

Driving this social disaster is the implosion of the free-market economic model formalized in the North American Free Trade Agreement, a pact Washington refuses to renegotiate despite the growing clamor in Mexico to revisit the deal.

Scratch the surface of street protests - whether over the presidential election or misrule by the governor of Oaxaca - and economic and justice grievances stemming from a teetering political economy rise to the fore.

How will Calderon address Mexico's crisis? So far, all the evidence suggests that he will stay the course. Calderon's new Cabinet, whose members range from recycled Fox administration officials to U.S.- and British-educated technocrats, portends more of the same.

More than a few Mexican analysts see historical parallels between the current setup and the 30-year Porfiriato of the late 1800s and early 1900s, the era when dictator Porfirio Diaz kept wages low and the population in line for foreign corporations.

Some observers note the tendency for Mexico to explode in revolution every century. The 100th anniversary of the last upheaval, 1910, is just around the corner.


© 2006 The Albuquerque Tribune
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt







Post#1853 at 12-30-2006 12:36 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
12-30-2006, 12:36 PM #1853
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by 1990 View Post
Again, thank you. You are, yet again, proving extremely helpful.

I am coloring Belize in green, El Salvador in blue, Nicaragua in blue, and Costa Rica in red. The others you weren't sure about: Guatemala could be either 1T or 2T, Honduras has limited information, and Panama has gone so long without a crisis that I am suspicious. Maybe General Noriega's reign was a 4T? I don't know.
I agree with this
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1854 at 12-30-2006 02:32 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
12-30-2006, 02:32 PM #1854
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by 1990 View Post
Again, thank you. You are, yet again, proving extremely helpful.

I am coloring Belize in green, El Salvador in blue, Nicaragua in blue, and Costa Rica in red. The others you weren't sure about: Guatemala could be either 1T or 2T, Honduras has limited information, and Panama has gone so long without a crisis that I am suspicious. Maybe General Noriega's reign was a 4T? I don't know.

It's interesting that almost all the 1T countries in Central America are nearing 2T.
Well, I used wikipedia for Guatemala, and the focus seems to be more on the earlier parts of the war. In addition, it's basically impossible to have a 36 year 4T-style civil war, so my instinct says that the energy may have been sapped in the 80's but a real peace wasn't reached into the 90's. Most of these countries are really on the same timeline, being late 1T or early 2T, so it doesn't really matter what you would put down (but I'd go with 2T).

As for Panama, I just can't see a crisis in his reign. By putting down 4T for that period, you are falling victim to selection bias, unless you see a crisis. What evidence do you have?
Last edited by Matt1989; 12-30-2006 at 02:37 PM.







Post#1855 at 12-30-2006 10:51 PM by 1990 [at Savannah, GA joined Sep 2006 #posts 1,450]
---
12-30-2006, 10:51 PM #1855
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Savannah, GA
Posts
1,450

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
Well, I used wikipedia for Guatemala, and the focus seems to be more on the earlier parts of the war. In addition, it's basically impossible to have a 36 year 4T-style civil war, so my instinct says that the energy may have been sapped in the 80's but a real peace wasn't reached into the 90's. Most of these countries are really on the same timeline, being late 1T or early 2T, so it doesn't really matter what you would put down (but I'd go with 2T).

As for Panama, I just can't see a crisis in his reign. By putting down 4T for that period, you are falling victim to selection bias, unless you see a crisis. What evidence do you have?
Then I'll put Guatemala in green. And actually, this is the key difference between Odin's map and mine: Odin colors the countries by what turning they are in now, and I am coloring them by what turning they will be in during this turning; that is, by 2010 or 2015 (the middle of the Crisis) what turning they will be in.

So in that case I should put El Salvador and Nicaragua in green since they are "close enough". And Honduras and Panama remain utter mysteries.







Post#1856 at 12-30-2006 11:10 PM by 1990 [at Savannah, GA joined Sep 2006 #posts 1,450]
---
12-30-2006, 11:10 PM #1856
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Savannah, GA
Posts
1,450

Honduras is really annoying. I would assume it would be late 1T, soon to enter 2T, as is the case in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Belize, and Guatemala, yet it is a total question mark. Wikipedia doesn't give a picture of a very bloody Honduras in the '80s, unlike most of those other countries. It sounds like the Reagan administration was working through Honduras to defeat the Sandinistas next door, but it sounds like peacetime for the Hondurans. I am so confounded by this. It looks like Honduras was pretty ugly in the late '50s, early '60s, which would indicate the Cuba timeline (entering 3T), but that's only if that era was a 4T for them; it could have been 2T as well. (There's that old Latin America problem)

But I am not deterred! I still want to get through Latin America before moving on to less familiar places. Once we nail down Honduras, we need to figure out Peru, Ecuador, the Guianas, and the Guays. The Caribbean should be a lot easier, and is less crucial in my mind.

Anyone have more thoughts on Honduras?







Post#1857 at 12-31-2006 02:58 AM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
12-31-2006, 02:58 AM #1857
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by 1990 View Post
Then I'll put Guatemala in green. And actually, this is the key difference between Odin's map and mine: Odin colors the countries by what turning they are in now, and I am coloring them by what turning they will be in during this turning; that is, by 2010 or 2015 (the middle of the Crisis) what turning they will be in.

So in that case I should put El Salvador and Nicaragua in green since they are "close enough". And Honduras and Panama remain utter mysteries.
This is not a bad idea. I think it would be wise to be flexible. We're looking for this to actually tell us something. If one country is 39 years past its crisis, and the country next to it is 41 past, well, they should be the same color! After this is all over, would you mind doing my version? I don't know how to do it.







Post#1858 at 12-31-2006 03:05 AM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
12-31-2006, 03:05 AM #1858
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by 1990 View Post
Honduras is really annoying. I would assume it would be late 1T, soon to enter 2T, as is the case in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Belize, and Guatemala, yet it is a total question mark. Wikipedia doesn't give a picture of a very bloody Honduras in the '80s, unlike most of those other countries. It sounds like the Reagan administration was working through Honduras to defeat the Sandinistas next door, but it sounds like peacetime for the Hondurans. I am so confounded by this. It looks like Honduras was pretty ugly in the late '50s, early '60s, which would indicate the Cuba timeline (entering 3T), but that's only if that era was a 4T for them; it could have been 2T as well. (There's that old Latin America problem)

But I am not deterred! I still want to get through Latin America before moving on to less familiar places. Once we nail down Honduras, we need to figure out Peru, Ecuador, the Guianas, and the Guays. The Caribbean should be a lot easier, and is less crucial in my mind.

Anyone have more thoughts on Honduras?
First of all, that Wikipedia article is horrible. It concentrates more on the United States than Honduras. If you really want to nail it, you'll have to find another source.

I worked quickly through the above list, but I believe it is accurate. When I have some time, I'll move through South America. Can you post the new map?







Post#1859 at 12-31-2006 03:17 AM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
12-31-2006, 03:17 AM #1859
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Looking over the history of Honduras, I wonder if the Football War could be a crisis war. Here's from the history of El Salvador:

Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In July 1969 El Salvador invaded Honduras in the short Football War. During the 1970s, the political situation began to unravel. In the 1972 presidential election, the opponents of military rule united under José Napoleón Duarte, leader of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC). Amid widespread fraud, Duarte's broad-based reform movement was defeated. Subsequent protests and an attempted coup were crushed and Duarte exiled. These events eroded hope of reform through democratic means and persuaded those opposed to the government that armed insurrection was the only way to achieve change. As a consequence, leftist groups capitalizing upon social discontent gained strength. By 1979, leftist guerrilla warfare had broken out in the cities and the countryside, launching what became a 12-year civil war.
I wouldn't rule out pushing back El Salvador's beginning of the 4T back from 1979 to 1969. In addition, this would shed some light on Honduras. I'll continue to look into it.







Post#1860 at 12-31-2006 10:16 AM by 1990 [at Savannah, GA joined Sep 2006 #posts 1,450]
---
12-31-2006, 10:16 AM #1860
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Savannah, GA
Posts
1,450

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
This is not a bad idea. I think it would be wise to be flexible. We're looking for this to actually tell us something. If one country is 39 years past its crisis, and the country next to it is 41 past, well, they should be the same color! After this is all over, would you mind doing my version? I don't know how to do it.
Sure, I will do your version as well (separately, of course) some time soon. I will post my new version today.

Hey, Happy New Year's Eve, everyone!







Post#1861 at 12-31-2006 10:22 AM by 1990 [at Savannah, GA joined Sep 2006 #posts 1,450]
---
12-31-2006, 10:22 AM #1861
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Savannah, GA
Posts
1,450








Post#1862 at 12-31-2006 05:52 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
12-31-2006, 05:52 PM #1862
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

The following is from http://honduras.com/history

From Military to Civilian Rule

In October 1955--after two authoritarian administrations and a 1954 general strike by banana workers on the north coast--young military reformists staged a palace coup that installed a provisional junta and paved the way for constituent assembly elections in 1957. This assembly appointed Dr. Ramon Villeda Morales as President and transformed itself into a national legislature with a 6-year term. The Liberal Party ruled during 1957-63. At the same time, the military took its first steps to become a professional institution independent of leadership from any one political party, and the first class of the newly created military academy graduated in 1960. In October 1963, conservative military officers preempted constitutional elections and deposed Villeda in a bloody coup. These officers exiled Liberal Party members and took control of the national police. The armed forces, led by Gen. Lopez Arellano, governed until 1970. Popular discontent continued to rise after a 1969 border war with El Salvador.
This paragraph alone isn't enough to determine any turning. However, if the following years appear to be 4T, it could be discerned that this was 4T.

Soccer War of 1969

The Honduran government and some private groups came increasingly to place blame for the nation's economic problems on the approximately 300,000 undocumented Salvadoran immigrants in Honduras. Fenagh began to associate Salvadoran immigrants with illegal land invasions, and in January 1969, the Honduran government refused to renew the 1967 Bilateral Treaty on Immigration with El Salvador that had been designed to regulate the flow of individuals across their common border. In April INA announced that it would begin to expel from their lands those who had acquired property under agrarian reform without fulfilling the legal requirement that they be Honduran by birth. Attacks were also launched in the media on the impact of Salvadoran immigrant labor on unemployment and wages on the Caribbean coast. By late May, Salvadorans began to stream out of Honduras back to an overpopulated El Salvador.
This sudden xenophobia is a very strong indicator of a fourth turning. Does it determine it? Probably not, but a finer indicator is hard to find.

Tensions continued to mount during June 1969. The soccer teams of the two nations were engaged that month in a three-game elimination match as a preliminary to the World Cup. Disturbances broke out during the first game in Tegucigalpa, but the situation got considerably worse during the second match in San Salvador. Honduran fans were roughed up, the Honduran flag and national anthem were insulted, and the emotions of both nations became considerably agitated. Actions against Salvadoran residents in Honduras, including several vice consuls, became increasingly violent. An unknown number of Salvadorans were killed or brutalized, and tens of thousands began fleeing the country. The press of both nations contributed to a growing climate of near- hysteria, and on June 27, 1969, Honduras broke diplomatic relations with El Salvador.
Again, this appears to be 4T. Rhetoric isn't enough to determine a 4T, but this paragraph shows plenty of emotion in the form of violence, panic, and hysteria. These reactions are even silly.

Early on the morning of July 14, 1969, concerted military action began in what came to be known as the Soccer War. The Salvadoran air force attacked targets inside Honduras and the Salvadoran army launched major offensives along the main road connecting the two nations and against the Honduran islands in the Golfo de Fonseca. At first, the Salvadorans made fairly rapid progress. By the evening of July 15, the Salvadoran army, which was considerably larger and better equipped than its Honduran opponent, pushed the Honduran army back over eight kilometers and captured the departmental capital of Nueva Ocotepeque. Thereafter, the attack bogged down, and the Salvadorans began to experience fuel and ammunition shortages. A major reason for the fuel shortage was the action of the Honduran air force, which--in addition to largely destroying the smaller Salvadoran air force--had severely damaged El Salvador's oil storage facilities.

The day after the fighting had begun, the OAS met in an urgent session and called for an immediate cease-fire and a withdrawal of El Salvador's forces from Honduras. El Salvador resisted the pressures from the OAS for several days, demanding that Honduras first agree to pay reparations for the attacks on Salvadoran citizens and guarantee the safety of those Salvadorans remaining in Honduras. A cease-fire was arranged on the night of July 18; it took full effect only on July 20. El Salvador continued until July 29 to resist pressures to withdraw its troops. Then a combination of pressures led El Salvador to agree to a withdrawal in the first days of August. Those persuasive pressures included the possibility of OAS economic sanctions against El Salvador and the dispatch of OAS observers to Honduras to oversee the security of Salvadorans remaining in that country. The actual war had lasted just over four days, but it would take more than a decade to arrive at a final peace settlement.
This wouldn't stand as a crisis war on its own. However, it stands out as a major event in Honduras' history.

The war produced only losses for both sides. Between 60,000 and 130,000 Salvadorans had been forcibly expelled or had fled from Honduras, producing serious economic disruption in some areas. Trade between the two nations had been totally disrupted and the border closed, damaging the economies of both nations and threatening the future of the Central American Common Market (CACM). Up to 2,000 people, the majority Honduran civilians, had been killed, and thousands of other Hondurans in the border area had been made homeless. Airline service between the two nations was also disrupted for over a decade.
Again, while there was civilian damage, this was a 4-day war. It wouldn't stand as a crisis war on its own. However, I imagine there was much panic due to the invasion.

After the war, public support for the military plummeted. Although the air force had performed well, the army had not. Criticism of the army was not limited to the public; junior officers were often vocal in their criticism of superiors, and a rift developed between junior and senior officers.

The war, however, led to a new sense of Honduran nationalism and national pride. Tens of thousands of Honduran workers and peasants had gone to the government to beg for arms to defend their nation. Local defense committees had sprung up, with thousands of ordinary citizens, often armed only with machetes, taking over local security duties. This response to the fighting made a strong impression on a sector of the officer corps and contributed to an increased concern over national development and social welfare among the armed forces.
Sounds 4T-ish.
Last edited by Matt1989; 12-31-2006 at 07:02 PM.







Post#1863 at 12-31-2006 05:52 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
12-31-2006, 05:52 PM #1863
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

History After 1970

A civilian President--Ramon Cruz of the National Party--took power briefly in 1970 but proved unable to manage the government. In December 1972, Gen. Lopez staged another coup. Lopez adopted more progressive policies, including land reform, but his regime was brought down in the mid-1970s by corruption scandals.

Gen. Lopez's successors continued armed forces modernization programs, built army and security forces, and concentrated on Honduran Air Force superiority over its neighbors. The regimes of Gen. Melgar Castro (1975-78) and Gen. Paz Garcia (1978-83) largely built the current physical infrastructure and telecommunications system of Honduras. The country also enjoyed its most rapid economic growth during this period, due to greater international demand for its products and the availability of foreign commercial lending.

Following the overthrow of Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua in 1979 and general instability in El Salvador at the time, the Honduran military accelerated plans to return the country to civilian rule. A constituent assembly was popularly elected in April 1980, and general elections were held in November 1981. A new constitution was approved in 1982, and the Liberal Party government of President Roberto Suazo Cordoba took office following free and fair elections.

Suazo relied on U.S. support to help during a severe economic recession which was the result of regional instability caused by the revolutionary Sandinista government in Nicaragua and the chaos of the brutal civil war in El Salvador. Close cooperation on political and military issues with the United States was complemented by ambitious social and economic development projects sponsored by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Honduras became host to the largest Peace Corps mission in the world, and nongovernmental and international voluntary agencies proliferated.

El Salvador and Honduras formally signed a peace treaty on October 30, 1980, which put the border dispute before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
These paragraphs show a mixture of 1T and 4T, with Honduras nearly being dragged down by the surrounding chaos in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Now, Honduras is not the tiniest country in the world, but I imagine that medium-sized to small countries experience similar things when the surrounding nations are going through 4T periods.

The xenophobia, hysteria, multiple coups, and nearly falling victim to the same fate as their neighbors leads me to conclude that they are on the same timeline as their neighbors. This isn't 100%, but it makes sense.

The dates I am not sure of. The beginning date is probably 1963, with the beginning of public discontent and the bloody coup. This encompasses the soccer war. An end date could be in the early 80's or the end of the El Salvador civil way. Either way, I'd go with green.







Post#1864 at 12-31-2006 07:20 PM by 1990 [at Savannah, GA joined Sep 2006 #posts 1,450]
---
12-31-2006, 07:20 PM #1864
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Savannah, GA
Posts
1,450

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
These paragraphs show a mixture of 1T and 4T, with Honduras nearly being dragged down by the surrounding chaos in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Now, Honduras is not the tiniest country in the world, but I imagine that medium-sized to small countries experience similar things when the surrounding nations are going through 4T periods.

The xenophobia, hysteria, multiple coups, and nearly falling victim to the same fate as their neighbors leads me to conclude that they are on the same timeline as their neighbors. This isn't 100%, but it makes sense.

The dates I am not sure of. The beginning date is probably 1963, with the beginning of public discontent and the bloody coup. This encompasses the soccer war. An end date could be in the early 80's or the end of the El Salvador civil way. Either way, I'd go with green.
Thank you, yet again, so much for your hard work. It seemed like it would be impossible for Honduras not to be green given that it is surrounded by green except for Costa Rica (which is hardly known as an influential country). The hysteria in the late '60s does sound like a 4T, and the signing of a peace treaty in 1980 sounds like the end of a 4T, a symbolic beginning to a 1T like the founding of the U.N. in 1945.

So okay, I will put Honduras in green. Thank you so very much. One more Latin America country done. Once we figure out Panama, Central America is complete. Peru, Ecuador, or the Guays should be my/Odin's/your next project. (I keep trying Peru because it is the biggest, but am continually stumped)

And again, thank you for helping this project so actively. You keep beating me to the punch on these things.







Post#1865 at 12-31-2006 07:55 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
12-31-2006, 07:55 PM #1865
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by 1990 View Post
Thank you, yet again, so much for your hard work. It seemed like it would be impossible for Honduras not to be green given that it is surrounded by green except for Costa Rica (which is hardly known as an influential country). The hysteria in the late '60s does sound like a 4T, and the signing of a peace treaty in 1980 sounds like the end of a 4T, a symbolic beginning to a 1T like the founding of the U.N. in 1945.
Maybe. The end date isn't so clear.

So okay, I will put Honduras in green. Thank you so very much. One more Latin America country done. Once we figure out Panama, Central America is complete. Peru, Ecuador, or the Guays should be my/Odin's/your next project. (I keep trying Peru because it is the biggest, but am continually stumped)
I'll take another look at Panama, but don't expect much. Nothing screams crisis to me. Recently it has not been cool, calm, and collected, but if a country hasn't had a crisis since the 19th century, what is to be expected?

And again, thank you for helping this project so actively. You keep beating me to the punch on these things.
No problem! Don't think I get no benefit out of this.

I'll continue working on the Americas, but if you don't mind, I'd like to get back to Africa at some point







Post#1866 at 12-31-2006 09:35 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
12-31-2006, 09:35 PM #1866
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Taylor,

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
> 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.
Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
> Seward tried to start a war with the UK!?! Well there is a
> important tidbit I never learned in High School US History...
Yes, this has been a very big surprise to me too. I never dreamed
this was going on.

There's one more point that's been popping up on my mind that I never
really thought about when I read these histories a couple of weeks
ago.

When Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, it apparently
changed English attitudes fairly dramatically. After that point,
favoring the South meant favoring the side of slavery, and that
hadn't really been the case prior to the signing. This could be
another reason why the incipient war between the UK and the North was
aborted.

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
> 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.
What do you mean "didn't change much?" It gave Syria almost complete
control of Lebanon, something that only ended in 200, and also gave
rise to Hizbollah terrorists as a powerful political force. What did
the American civil war change?

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
> The Wiki article on the Iran-Iraq War screams 2T country vs. 4T
> country:
This is a strongly pro-Iranian source. Check out the Battle of
Halabja, for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2001/1322.htm

Here's a fairly decent account from a pro-Jewish source. It tends to
be critical of America's role.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../iraniraq.html

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1867 at 12-31-2006 09:36 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
12-31-2006, 09:36 PM #1867
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Justin,

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
> 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.
Well, not quite. I actually might agree with this if Russia were an
island protected from its enemies by something like the English
Channel.

You're suggesting that Russia might avoid a crisis war for the same
reason that Britain appears to have avoided a crisis war in the mid
1800s. But Britain is an island protected from its enemies by the
English Channel. Russia is surrounded by monsters at all times, with
no protection at all except for an occasional mountain range.

However I've said before that it's a very good question, and well
worth discussing, why Russia wasn't driven to have a crisis war in
the 1990s. Here are two possible factors that might have postponed a
crisis war:
  • The harshness of the Great Patriotic War. Even though Russia
    fought WW II as an Awakening War, it was an extremely brutal war in
    certain regions of Russia, which could mean that certain regions came
    out of the war with their internal generational relationship
    structure in tatters, forcing them back to a first turning. If those
    regions of Russia are large enough, then the re-created Artist
    generation in those regions may have delayed the crisis war in the
    1990s. A related point is that Chechnya is apparently just entering
    a fourth turning, because of Stalin's forced massive relocation of its
    population after WW II.
  • The influx of vast amounts of oil money. A crisis war is
    launched by the young Hero generation when they panic (mass hysteria)
    out of fear and anxiety that their way of life is in danger. This
    happens particularly in a fourth turning because so much time has
    passed since the last crisis war that overpopulation has caused
    poverty and ethnic tensions, resulting in xenophobia. But large
    amounts of money can mitigate against that anxiety by guaranteeing
    that even poor people stay fat and happy.

    This is actually already an explicit policy in several places in the
    world. Haiti would have been in a crisis war after 1994 if it hadn't
    been for large influxes of American and U.N. money. The Gaza strip
    has received large amounts of aid for years to stave off war, but
    that aid was mostly cut off in January when Hamas won the legislative
    elections, and Gaza now appears very close to war. And China has a
    publicly stated policy of providing as much food as possible to poor
    and unemployed itinerant workers and rural dwellers in order to try
    to control the tens of thousands of regional mass riots and
    demonstrations that occur each year.

    So I'm suggesting that the influx of oil money in the 1990s postponed
    Russia's crisis war.


You know, Justin, I like to say in situations like this that "I have
no dog in this fight," by which I mean that I have no emotional or
political or ideological reason to believe that Russia did or did not
have something resembling a Crisis in the 1990s. I can live with it
either way.

But I cannot find any theoretical or evidentiary way to support the
idea that Russia had a Crisis in the 1990s, or that Russia has
somehow found a way to avoid a crisis war. To me, all the signs
point to a postponed crisis war, and I believe that things will come
to a head very quickly once any sort of crisis is triggered.

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
> Maybe part of John's problem is that he bunches together countries
> without regard to the actual variety of conditions in each.
Where do I do that, and what are the other parts of my problem?

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1868 at 12-31-2006 09:38 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
12-31-2006, 09:38 PM #1868
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Matt,

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
> 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?
You make a number of good points, Matt, and I'd probably just agree
with you except that I'm going by what the history tells me.

I've now read descriptions of the American Civil War and the
Franco-Prussian war from the British point of view, and I can't see
any question about it -- Britain was clearly in a 4T during the
American Civil War, and was almost certainly in a 1T during the
Franco-Prussian war.

As you know, this is a big surprise to me, something that I hadn't
even suspected until recently. But it's what the history tells me,
and you always have to go by the history.

You say that you can't have a panic after 46 years, and you're right,
but is the 46 year figure right? I've assumed that the Napoleonic
wars' crisis era ended with Waterloo in 1814.

The basic reason for this assumption was the invasion of Russia,
which clearly "reads" like a crisis war for France and a non-crisis
war for Russia.

But here's what David Krein says:

Quote Originally Posted by David Krein View Post
> John - For Britain, the bulk of the Napoleonic Wars took place in
> a High, just as it was for France whose Crisis ended in Nov. 1799
> when Napoelon overthrew the Directory. As for Britain, Trafalgar
> [The Battle of Trafalgar, 1805] ended any chance of a French
> invasion, so Britain was safe from then on (I could even argue
> the Crisis ending with Amiens in 1802, but Trafalgar is just more
> dramatic. 1812 [America's War of 1812] for Britain was a sidelight
> and a nuisance - the real war for Britain was in Spain. Waterloo
> salved the national ego that had been deprived by absence from
> Leipzig [Battle of Leipzig, 1814].
David says that France's crisis era ends in 1799 and England's ends in
either 1802 or 1805. This could still be possible and still be
consistent with the belief that the invasion of Russia was a crisis
war invasion.

Question: How is that possible? Answer: Europe wasn't yet on a
unified timeline, and Napoleon's army had French, Italian, German,
Polish, and Dutch soldiers. The Battle of Leipzig appears to be the
climax of the Napoleonic wars for Germany. So it's quite reasonable
to conclude that the Napoleonic wars climaxed at different times in
different countries. That couldn't have happened in WW II, but it
could have happened in the early 1800s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leipzig

So if we move the climax of England's participation in the Napoleonic
wars from 1814 back to 1802 or 1805, then the inter-crisis period is
55 or 58 years, which is quite reasonable.

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
> 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.
This is great work! Thanks.

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
> Something that I have noticed is that most people see elections
> (and public opinion polls of leaders) as the best way to determine
> a regeneracy. I'd disagree with this. By those standards, we
> reached a regeneracy after 9/11, a month into the Iraq war, and
> throughout 2005 and 2006. Hell, it'd be like that during
> Watergate. I don't think overwhelming support for a party
> determines a regeneracy. If the support goes towards the
> opposition, then there is no confidence in the ruling party. If it
> is toward the ruling party, then it could be nationalism. This can
> happen in any turning.
This is true -- that a major political change can occur any time.

In addition it's worth remembering that there's almost always a major
political change climaxing the Awakening era. During the Awakening
there's a big political battle between the parents and the kids
(Heroes vs Prophets), and the kids usually win, which means a big
political change.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1869 at 12-31-2006 09:41 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
12-31-2006, 09:41 PM #1869
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Mike,

You just can't stop, can you.

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
> You dismiss everybody else's work as garbage.
Not everyone else, just those whose work actually IS garbage. There
are lots of people who disagree with me, including in this forum and
in web site readers, whose work I find very respectable, even in those
cases where I disagree with it.

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
> You are arrogant, presenting yourself as having all the answers,
> claim near-infallability, are frequently wrong (like most mortals)
> yet never acknowledge it.
My experience is that people who call me arrogant, as well as a
number of other explicit names, are people who are angry that I don't
agree with them.

I change my position all the time, when I make a mistake or when the
facts dictate. For example, last week you caused me to re-evaluate
my view of France in WW I, though I haven't reached a conclusion yet.
In my postings today, I've changed my view on Britain and the
American Civil War. You're a moron. (Oooops, I did it again.)

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
> You have NEVER admitted that GD is just one view of the saeculum,
> yours.
It's "one" view, and certainly not your view, if that makes you
happy. TFT has no concept of awakening eras defined by Saints' 33rd
birthdays, for example. But GD's view is also the TFT view, using
exactly the same methodology, with the one major change of multiple
timelines. Is that the admission you were looking for?

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1870 at 12-31-2006 09:42 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
12-31-2006, 09:42 PM #1870
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Rick,

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis View Post
> 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.
Quote Originally Posted by Finch View Post
> 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.
Well, I didn't add a "LOL" to my posting, so I probably was being
serious that day.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was a political change to the CIS,
not a crisis change. It's comparable to the collapse of the Second
Reich, replaced by the Weimar Republic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "didn't have a country or much hope of
it." Crisis wars existed before countries did.

The Turkey/PKK war appears to me to have been a crisis war for the
Kurds. As for the Turks, do you have a reference for "more of a
Crisis mood prior to 2000 than after it"? I can't remember where I
put my electronic CrisisMood-o-Meter.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1871 at 12-31-2006 09:44 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
12-31-2006, 09:44 PM #1871
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

To all:

I got a very nice e-mail message on Christmas eve. I receive thank
you messages every week or two, and they're really what keep me
going, but this one was particularly motivating to me, so I thought
I'd share it.

> Hi John my name is Ray. Im a 31 year old family man.

> Well what a find your website has been for me. Its christmas day
> now in Sydney, i am up much later than intended as ive been
> reading your work for hours, and its fantastic. Thank you.

> After years of trawling the internet trying to enlighten myself.
> Only now have i found your site. And i thank you on my familys
> behalf.

> Your work has just hit the spot. I identify with your methodology
> and am now beginning to appreciate the true scale of the ignorance
> that abounds. The overall topic, the injection of facts with your
> knowledge with a very easy to read font and a giggle PLUS a
> forecast makes its way directly to the right spot in my brain that
> says to me now this information. This is real.

> Anxiety. yes that is the result, along with the relief of having
> years worth of questions answered. Particularly on the mid east,
> and even more relevant to me at this time stocks. I can feel an
> impending disaster in my gut, but in the back of my mind
> generational changes and their weight and effects in our world
> have always niggled away starved of any information.

> On countless occasions i have compared the different behaviours of
> my generation to that of my brother and his friends only 4 years
> younger. Even more carefree, arrogant, greedy, argumentitive, and
> risk seeking. Little did i realise the compounding effects of
> these changes. And that in my own observences lie the answers to
> so many questions.

> I don't often believe what i read, but i believe you. I'd love to
> hope you are wrong, maybe even not get my head around it and block
> you out. But that's just not me either. Either way youve just
> changed the way i think forever. Not good news for an optimistic
> guy like me. But great news for the curious realist in the back of
> my mind that has finally, after years led me to your site.

> You are not totally correct about the anxiety. You see now that i
> can reject so much more irrelevant information based purely on
> understanding quite simple fundamental theories, i will have so
> much more time to relax!!

> Sorry about the long email, and many thanks..... you are one of
> the best mate.
Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1872 at 12-31-2006 09:47 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
12-31-2006, 09:47 PM #1872
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear David,

Quote Originally Posted by David Krein View Post
> 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.
I'm really confused by your posting because TFT says that America's
crisis ends in 1865, so there shouldn't be any conflict at all. TFT
lists the Idealist Missionary generation as running from 1860-82, and
so all the people that you mention ARE Idealists in S&H's schema.

This brings into focus the so-called "Civil War anomaly" in TFT, in
particular that there's no Hero (or Civic) generation. This has
caused an enormous amount of confusion.

As I assume you know, my findings are that this is impossible. The
young Yanks and Rebels were considered as "heroes" by their families
and countrymen, and they were the Civic generation that rebuilt the
country after the war.

In my opinion, when S&H read the histories and diaries of the
Civil War period, they correctly concluded that something was
different, but incorrectly concluded that there's no Hero/Civic
generation, when obviously there was.

What's different is that, among crisis wars, civil wars are quite
different from foreign wars. This can be seen dramatically by
contrasting Lincoln's Gettysburgh Address, full of intense sadness but
lacking in an ounce of blame for anyone, versus Truman's gloating
vengeance statements after Hiroshima was nuked. To Truman, the pilot
of the Enola Gay was a hero, but to Lincoln there were no heroes at
Gettysburgh.

We saw this again in the summer war in Lebanon between Israel and
Hizbollah. Here's what Lebanese President Émile Geamil Lahoud said in
an interview:

Quote 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."
Lahoud is referring to the 1982 massacre at camps in Sabra and
Shatila, where Lebanese Christian Arabs butchered Palestinian
refugees during the Lebanese civil war, something that completely
overshadows everything that's going on in Lebanon today (something
that complete escapes the moron journalists who cover Lebanon).

Lahoud's statement is remarkable: He says he's more afraid of what
his people will do to each other than what Israeli warplanes will do
to his people. To me this is a breathtaking statement.

And Lahoud's statement is comparable to Lincoln's Gettysburgh address
in the sense that there are no "heroes" in America's civil war or
Lebanon's civil war. This is, I believe, the correct way to look at
the civil war anomaly.

At any rate, getting back to the determination that the British 4T
ends in 1865, this is entirely a surprise to me, as I've mentioned
elsewhere, but it's based entirely on reading the history, and I know
that you, of all people, would have to agree that the history is the
final authority.

I've now read the British views of the American Civil War and the
Franco-Prussian War, and the differences are dramatic. Britain was
clearly in a 4T during the American Civil War, and was almost
certainly in a 1T during the Franco-Prussian war.

If there's something about the F-P war that I don't know or
understand, please let me know. But based on the information I have
now, I cannot see how Britain's crisis era could have extended beyond
1865.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1873 at 12-31-2006 09:56 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
12-31-2006, 09:56 PM #1873
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Matt, Nathaniel and Taylor,

All of you have been doing really fantastic work, and you're way
ahead of me on many of these countries. I'm just going to make some
general comments.

First of all, you should assume that at least 10-25% of all your
conclusions are wrong. This is just the way these things go.

The recent discussion about Britain and the American Civil War is a
good example. This was a big surprise to all of us -- or at least it
was a big surprise to me. I'm not a Civil War guru, but I do know a
fair amount about the Civil War. But there was one point of view
that I've never really read -- the British point of view -- and that
changed several aspects of my opinion.

That leads to the point I want to make -- that you can't trust your
intuition, you can't trust just one source, you can't trust multiple
sources if they're from the point of view of only one country, you
can't trust some sort of statistical analysis. You have to get into
the minds of the people, and you have to read multiple sources from
multiple points of view. This is the heart of Strauss & Howe's
methodology, and it's the only methodology that works.

I try to be very careful about this, especially on my web site, where
I have to remain super-credible. If you've read my articles on the
Somalia war, you'll notice that I've carefully avoided saying whether
I think it's a crisis war. What I THINK is that Somalia and Ethiopia
are on the WW II timeline, and that the war is (or soon will be) a
crisis war, but there have been several wars since then, and they all
have to be researched to verify that they're really non-crisis wars.

So all I'm saying is that you have to constantly question your
findings. You can't let politics or ideology influence you at all;
the whole point of Strauss and Howe's methodology is that things
happen independent of politics or, to put it a different way, it's
generational changes that drive the politics, while politics has no
predictable effect on generational changes or their results.

----

Another point is that I'd like to urge you strongly to keep careful
notes of how you evaluate each of these countries. One reason is
that you'll forget what you did if it's not in writing. The other
reason is that putting something in writing forces you to be sure of
your reasoning.

Actually, I'd like to ask you to do more than that: Write a
description in each case and post it. Once we get a collection of
these, we can put it into a single DOC or PDF file, and if it's
really good, then we can even publish it as a book.

--------

Please put a color key on the maps. I can never remember which color
is which.

--------

I'll just make a couple of additional specific comments about Africa.

If you're looking at Africa, especially southern Africa, make sure
that you're familiar with the Mfecane, the huge 1820s war that
established the Zulu Empire. Shaka was the Genghis Khan of time.
It's one of the most interesting wars I've ever looked at because
Shaka revolutionized tribal warfare with a particular "weapon of mass
destruction." I've written an article about it on my web site, and
you can get a lot more information by searching for Mfecane or Shaka
into a search engine.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...i.africa040822

After that, the next crisis war was the Boer War (1899-1902), which
was Britain's Vietnam, but a crisis war for the Africans.

Also, don't forget that Africa is HUGE: As big as all of America PLUS
Alaska PLUS China PLUS Europe -- and there's still a little room left
over for New Zealand. This means that there's a possibility of many,
many timelines.

---------------

Finally, someone was wondering about Morocco's Rif War.

Those of you (if any) who love Broadway musicals may be interested in
knowing that the Rif War was popularized in a highly romanticized
1926 Broadway musical, "The Desert Song," with wonderful music by
Sigmund Romberg.

Here are the lyrics to the introduction, sung by the women, of the
French Marching Song:

> Why did we marry soldiers? Why did we leave our France?
> To live in old Morocco, the lives of maiden aunts.
> Our men are always busy, they're not around enough.
> Just as we start our kissing, the damned old Riffs get rough.

> And then to quell the Riffian plight our hubbies heed the call to fight,
> Which seems a silly fuss,
> For if they choose to spend the day in fighting why not let them stay
> At home and fight with us,
> Stay home and fight with us.

> Life is dull and life is dreary, life is ?, without, without men!
And then, here's song of the leader of the Riffs, the Red Shadow
himself:

> Over the ground there comes a sound
> It is the drum, drum, drum of hoofbeats in the sand
> Quiver with fear if you are near
> It is the thunder of The Shadow and his Band
> And all who plunder learn to understand

> The cry of Ho!
> So we sing as we are riding, Ho!
> That's the time you'd best be hiding low
> It means the Riffs are abroad. Go
> Before you've bitten the sword. Ho!
> That's the sound that comes to warn you so!
> In the night or early morn, you know
> If you're The Red Shadow's foe
> The Riffs will strike with a blow
> That brings you woe!
I've put MP3s of these two songs on my web site. If you want them,
then grab them right way, because I'll probably delete them in a few
days.
http://generationaldynamics.com/gdgr...rySoldiers.mp3
http://generationaldynamics.com/gdgr...heRiffSong.mp3

(Spoiler alert.) In the 1953 movie, Margot, the young, perky, naďve,
but oh so beautiful daughter of the French General, falls into the
hands of bandits. They might kill her, but she's saved from death by
the Red Shadow, and wouldn't you know it, she can't help but fall in
love with him while under his protection. Fortunately, it all works
out well in the end. All her conflicts are resolved when her hated
tutor, wearing glasses and looking for all the world like Clark Kent,
suddenly returns after an absence and announces that the Red Shadow is
dead. Margot then realizes that her tutor IS the Red Shadow (I'm not
joking), and they live happily ever after.

All in all, a very enjoyable crisis war.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1874 at 12-31-2006 09:58 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
12-31-2006, 09:58 PM #1874
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Resources for Historical Research - Updated 1-Jan-07

Resources for Historical Research - Updated 1-Jan-07

In doing historical research to identify turnings and generations,
here's a list of some resources that you may find valuable:
  • You already know about Wikipedia. It has a lot of stuff, but of
    uneven quality.
    http://www.wikipedia.org
  • The Library of Congress country studies. This is great for
    reasonably current histories of most countries of the world, usually
    up to around 1990. If you're at some other web site and it has a
    history of some country, there's a good chance that they stole it
    from this site.
    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html
  • The CIA Fact Book is updated constantly, and contains detailed
    current information on all countries and location in the world, as
    well as maps and reference materials.
    https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...ook/index.html
  • The State Department Background Notes are updated constantly, and
    cover facts, history and culture of all nations.
    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/
  • The New Advent Encyclopedia is a Catholic encyclopedia written and
    published around 1905-1917. It has a huge amount of historical
    material on all religions, so it's very useful for doing research on
    religion issues, without 20th century ideological filtering.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen
  • This 1911 version of Encyclopedia Britannica is a wonderful
    resource for understanding the past.
    http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/
  • The Encyclopedia of the Nations is another collection of country
    information, provided by the same people who provide the 1911 version
    of Encyclopedia Britannica.
    http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/
  • Google books is a wonderful source of books online, many of which
    are free since their copyrights have expired.
    http://books.google.com/
  • The Gutenberg Project has been around since the early 1990s and
    has 20,000 free books available online, in text form. (Google Books
    has page scans, and you can't copy text out of them.) This is a
    wonderful research resource.
    http://www.gutenberg.org
  • World History at KMLA is an online world history project authored
    by a German national, living in Korea, teaching at Korean Minjok
    Leadership Academy, written in English, hosted on a German web site.
    It has a lot of world history reference materials, emphasizing
    1500-1800, with details such as histories of China by province -
    detailed material on countries not found anywhere else.
    http://www.zum.de/whkmla/index.html


Sincerely,

John

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

[Edited on 1-Jan-07 to add the Gutenberg Project and World History at
KMLA.]
Last edited by John J. Xenakis; 01-01-2007 at 10:20 AM.







Post#1875 at 01-01-2007 01:09 AM by 1990 [at Savannah, GA joined Sep 2006 #posts 1,450]
---
01-01-2007, 01:09 AM #1875
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Savannah, GA
Posts
1,450

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
Maybe. The end date isn't so clear.



I'll take another look at Panama, but don't expect much. Nothing screams crisis to me. Recently it has not been cool, calm, and collected, but if a country hasn't had a crisis since the 19th century, what is to be expected?



No problem! Don't think I get no benefit out of this.

I'll continue working on the Americas, but if you don't mind, I'd like to get back to Africa at some point
Africa works too! Happy 2007, and I look forward to your contributions in the next year. My goal is to complete the map by New Year's 2008. I think that's doable...
-----------------------------------------