Forgot to mention Ghana but they are probably in a 2T because of things they went though in the 1970 and 1980 (Gerry Rawlings was their dictator then-he was deposed by the early 1990s). Madagascar I would guess is 2T too but that is just a guess. The indian ocean Islands like the Cormoros I have no idea either 2T or 4T-the problem sometimes is it can be very hard to tell a 2T from a 4T-That is why when you say Russia/Soviet Union went though a 2T durring WWII people say "WHAT! THATS AN AWAKENING WHEN 20 MILLION PEOPLE DIE!" and also with Zimbabwe Now will it under go a 2T or a 4T; it all depends if it's independance war in the 1970's-early 1980s was a 2T or a 4T. As for the Guyanas/Surinam well Surinam had a dictator too in the 1980s but he is still alive and trying for a comeback/still influencing Politics so it may be another situation where it is hard to tell if they are going into a 2T or a 4T, of course Guyana may of definatly been in a 4T in the 1970s because the jonestown tragedy in 1979 looks very 4T to me (or a failed 2T) so your guess is as good as mine, I'm just trying to help is all

Eritrea fought for independance from Ethiopea starting in the 1970s and it didn't end till the 1990s so that may have been a 2T or a 4T; so they are now either 1T or 3T, but I'm not shure which.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

> I'd like a clarification of some of the assignments on the Map.

> 1) The Arabian peninsula is shown in RED, indicating a current 4T.
> I'm not sure this is at all correct. If Arabia had gone 4T,
> wouldn't we already see assaults on the Saudi state and jihadists
> pouring into Iraq in much larger numbers?

We do see something like that. Remember that Osama bin Laden is
Saudi, and the the 9/11 hijackers were almost all from Saudi Arabia.
Also, almost of the suicide bombers in Iraq today are Saudi, with some
Jordanians and almost no Iraqis.

Osama bin Laden has declared war on the Saudi monarchy. Al-Qaeda has
launched a number of terrorist attacks within Saudi Arabia.

Here's a paragraph from a 2004 Time Magazine article:

Originally Posted by Time Magazine, June 13, 2004

> ... Al-Qaeda's campaign to overthrow King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz
> al-Saud and establish a Taliban-style regime has now become a
> constant assault. The attacks are targeting Western experts and
> the oil trade --- the twin pillars that have propped up the House
> of Saud almost since the desert kingdom was founded in 1932. The
> Saudis are still far from witnessing anything like Iran's 1979
> Islamic Revolution --- "Nothing's getting toppled," says one U.S.
> intelligence official --- yet diplomats fear al-Qaeda's tactics
> may dry up foreign investment at a time when the economy sorely
> needs it. Anxiety about the world's leading petroleum producer
> saw oil prices spike to an all-time high of $42.33 per barrel on
> June 1 before sliding back to $38.45 last week. ...
> http://www.time.com/time/europe/maga...650706,00.html

Originally Posted by catfishncod

> Arabia's last crisis war was the consolidation of the Saudi state
> in the wake of WWI (1920's). Was Arabia delayed, or was there a
> conflict I didn't hear about?

It's a fair question to ask why Arabia's inter-crisis period has been
extended. There are several examples of this: Saudi Arabia, Morocco,
Russia, Mexico.

These countries all have something in common: A big influx of
unexpected oil money. (Mexico also has American remittances.)
Poverty appears to speed up a crisis war, and money appears to delay
it.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

> 2) Lebanon is 1T; only the agitation of Syria and Iran is
> preventing Lebanon from making a peace treaty with Israel and
> rebuilding. But Syria didn't actually go through that conflict
> (though it was a player in it). What conflict did Syria experience
> to make this a 1T for them?

The Lebanese civil war was also a war with Syria.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

> 3) What say you to the idea that the massive loss of life in the
> Great Patriotic War (Russia's WWII experience) caused an Anomaly
> for the same reasons as the Civil War Anomaly?

I'm not sure what anomaly you're referring to, since the civil war
anomaly has been characterized in many different ways.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

> I have a much more in depth critique of the Mexican turning
> system, but it will have to wait until I can develop it in full.
> Suffice it to say that while Mexico has turnings, and they follow
> a four-stroke cycle, I am not sure they match the classical S&H or
> Xenakis turning descriptions. These differences seem to stem from
> the supression of the Church as a force in public life during the
> Reform period (a classical 4T, 1857-1877).

I don't believe that there's any essential difference between Mexico
and other countries with an extended inter-crisis period.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> As 1990 pointed out, turnings go hand in hand with generations,
> and with such limited information, I rarely focus on generational
> characteristics. The information is available, but it would take
> too much time. So right now, I have to go with what I see. So you
> are right that the picture cannot be complete.

> Of course, generations aren't necessary to get an idea of what
> turning some countries are in. When researching, I largely focus
> on the crisis and the awakening (and to a lesser extent the high),
> since these are the two turnings that have the most obvious
> distinguishing characteristics.

> I can't speak for 1990, but what I do is look at brief histories
> of the past 100-150 years, which includes a full saeculum. I
> identify possible crises, then awakenings, and try and put them
> into the S&H context so they tell a little story. Generations
> follow turnings, and turnings follow generations, so I make many
> assumptions about the generations. So, for example, if Country A
> has what appears to be an awakening (as defined by S&H and others)
> from about 1931 to 1950 and a crisis beginning in 1974, climaxing
> in 1981 and ending 1983, I go ahead and assume that the country is
> currently in another awakening, which should be supported by
> current events.

> It's true that I can not claim absolute certainty of most
> countries since I don't have the information to get a complete
> picture of the history. However, by applying the accepted criteria
> for turning identification, I believe 1990, John, Odin, and I (and
> others who have voiced their opinions) have created a useful
> visual representation of the state of the world.

I agree with your approach of identifying turnings before
generations.

I'd like to add to what you're saying with some additional
theoretical discussion, particularly some methodological problems that
are actually greater in identifying generations than in identifying
turnings.

The rule always has to be: You make identifications based on the
attitudes or behaviors of large masses of people. A mistake I see
made constantly is that someone quotes a speech or two that someone
makes, and draws conclusions about an entire era from that one little
speech.

That doesn't work, and it produces invalid and often erroneous
results. An example I've given before is:

> "In the long history of the world, only a few generations have
> been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum
> danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I
> do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any
> other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the
> devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country
> and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light
> the world. And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your
> country can do for you -— ask what you can do for your
> country."

This sounds like a 4T speech that FDR or Bush could have delivered,
but of course it's a 2T speech delivered by President Kennedy.

Here's another example: In a recent discussion of xenophobia in
Russia, Justin asked me why I didn't refer to a nasty anti-immigrant
assault that occurred in Kandapoga in Karelia. I explained that I
never point to isolated incidents. You have to look for the
attitudes and behaviors of large masses of people, not isolated
incidents. Instead, I referred to widespread public acceptance of
xenophobic laws directed at Georgians. The widespread acceptance
meant that it reflected the attitudes of large masses of people.

On my web site, I'm always faced with this problem. Is a terrorist
act an "isolated" incident, or does it represent the attitude of an
entire generation? I always look for something broad. I especially
like polls and elections, especially when age-specific demographic
data is provided.

And so, as you say, we have to look for the markers that reflect
large masses of people in order to infer turnings and generations.
The easiest to find cases are crisis wars. The second easiest are
major Awakening-type student demonstrations and rebellions.
Sometimes you read about a society going out of control, either
spending too much or acting too crazy, and you can infer an
Unraveling era.

Nathaniel recently pointed out a set of criteria that might be
broadly usable:

> Major characteristics in S&H for each turning were the supply of
> civic order versus the demand for it:

> * 1T -- High public demand for order, supply of order begins to
> rise (a mood of relative stability implants)

> * 2T -- Public demand for order falls, supply of order peaks
> (government tries to squash riots, strikes, protests, and/or
> fringe activities)

> * 3T -- Low public demand for order, supply of order begins to
> fall (a mood of relative disorder implants)

> * 4T -- Public demand for order rises, supply of order crashes
> (government is in meltdown)

These criteria might provide a very good systematic way for
identifying turnings.

Is it ever possible to identify generations before turnings? I would
say "yes," but only when you have a lot of material available. If
you have two dozen diaries from two different people of different
ages, that might do it.

It might also work if you have one person's diary over his whole
life, a 40-60 year period, and in that diary he constantly talks
about the attitudes of other people.

So this could work, but it's very difficult to do in practice,
especially in countries and eras when there's no literature, or no
literature written in English, available.

Sincerely,

John

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

Demonstrations and coups d'état
by Nomads against Prophets

I recently wrote a brief generational history of South Korea for my
web site, and I was greatly startled by something.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...070216#e070216

In 1960, the "April 19 Revolution" brought down the government. A
new government was formed, headed by President Park Chung-hee, who
ruled until he was assassinated in 1979. This was a classic
Awakening-type rebellion of Prophets versus Heroes.

The assassination led to a coup d'état and to the Kwangju massacre in
1980, and a new government by 1987. This was a rebellion of the
Nomad generation against the Prophet generation.

In fact, the Nomad generation gave itself a special name in the late
1990s: The 386 generation -- because they were all in their 30s (at
that time), they had been activists in the 1980s, and they had been
born in the 1960s. (I suspect that they gave themselves the name
"386er" to contrast with the Prophet nickname, "68er.") The 386ers are
running the government today, although that may not last long since
they're in way over their heads with North Korea.

I've never thought of it this way, but when student demonstrations
occur late in the mid-cycle period, after the Unraveling era has
begun, then they are quite likely to be Nomad vs Prophet, since no
one would ever want to rebel against those nice Artists.

That means that the Tienanmen Square demonstrations (leading to a
massacre) and the Tlatelolco demonstrations that Nathaniel mentioned
(leading to a massacre) must have been Nomad vs Prophet!

This is something that's worth considering when evaluating a country.
Since both the last two examples led to massacres, it may also turn
out to be the case the Prophets treat rebellions much more harshly
than Heroes do. That wouldn't be a surprise.

Sincerely,

John

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

To all:

I can no longer keep up with everything you guys are doing, but I
just want to mention a couple of things.

The main thing is:

THE RULE: Once a crisis war occurs and reaches its climax and
resolution, then the generational schedule and relationships are fixed
for the rest of the next saeculum.

The consequences of this rule are as follows:

* A country can't change its timeline during an awakening; it can
only change its timeline during a crisis war.

* A country can't merge timelines with another country during an
awakening; it can only merge timelines during a crisis war.

* A country can't extend its turning length to accommodate a long
inter-crisis period. That would require, for example, the Prophet
generation to hold off rioting and demonstrating for ten years because
they can look ahead into the future to determine that their next
crisis war is going to be 30 years late.

* Thus, if a country's crisis era passes by and, for whatever reason,
they don't have a crisis war, then the country makes another
generational change and goes into a distinctly different era called a
"fifth turning."

The major thing that CAN be changed within a saeculum is the fault
lines. Thus, the fault lines between the three countries England,
France and Germany have shifted around several times during the
crisis wars of the last millennium. One of the best ways to
understand how fault line changes can occur is through "Pólya's Urn
and Kismet," which I wrote about several months ago.
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1535

The other thing that's possible is to "reset" back to a first
turning. This can only happen if a country's generational
relationships are so destroyed, such as either by a massive invasion
or by a massive relocation, that the old Prophet generation is
effectively wiped out, and a new Prophet generation is born after the
crisis. However, that's not an exception to The Rule, because a new
saeculum begins at that point.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Nathaniel,

Originally Posted by 1990

> And...I began to wonder...if my map is supposed to be the way the
> world will look around 2015,...

Yes, I've been wondering about this too. How can you possibly
predict what crisis wars will begin or end by 2015? How can you
predict what student demonstrations will occur?

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by purple-state extreamist

> Ok what about somalia, ethiopea, and eritria? Eritria should be
> 1T, Ethiopea 2T and Somalia can't be anything but 4T. As for
> Guinea-Bissau it should be transitioning from 3T to 4t because
> they had a civil war in the late 90s but the president that was
> deposed then got reelected again last year. Niger and Mali may be
> going from 3T to 4T too. Now Burkina faso is interesting because
> it was once called Upper Volta but there was a revolution and then
> a name change to Burkina Faso in the early 1980s.Would something
> like that reset the Cycle? Camaroon seems to be 2T, Senagal
> 3T,Benin 2T,Gabon 3T, Equalorial Guinea 3T,Gambia 3T, and
> Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda 3T and as for Togo either 2,3,or4T
> because that may be the hardest county to guess. Zimbabwe Now is
> going Into a 4T or will have a very bloody 2T due to their curent
> leadership.

Thanks for this information on Africa. Is there any chance you could
provide more detail? For example, could you explain why Ethiopia is
2T?

Originally Posted by purple-state extreamist

> Also an other thing; can an awakening fail like a crisis can turn
> out bad? I have read on here that if a country fails in a crisis
> that it becomes like a 5th turning? the only other way I have seen
> that a 5th turning can happen is when the cycle is
> lengthened/surpressed. But what if an awakening fails for one
> segment of a county's population and for another segment it
> succedes?, then what happens? Becuase I think the problem for
> America is that for ONLY the elites the 60s awakening worked and
> now that we are just about offical 4T here we are seeing how the
> 60s Failed the common people of America. I was born in 1977 the
> beginning of the Xer Millie transition (The genY anomally)- I
> personally think that america is on a borderline regular 5th
> tuning (like a milder version of the suppression that Hait,
> Mexico, And Saudi Arabia have undergone) and a split Good/bad
> awakening for the Upper/lower classes and that when things finally
> start happening for real we will see America and most of the world
> go though a Hellstorm of trouble

I'm not sure what you mean by "fails in a crisis." A true crisis has
a climax and resolution, and whether the country wins or loses, the
crisis is over, and the country goes into a new First Turning
(Recovery Era).

If, however, a country goes through its entire 4T without having a
crisis war, for whatever reason, then the country makes a new
generational change and goes into a distinctly different era called a
"Fifth Turning." A crisis war can then occur in the fifth turning
and, if it does, then there's still a climax and resolution, and the
country then goes back to a First Turning, just as if the crisis war
had occurred in the Fourth Turning.

Sincerely,

John

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

The Three Maps as of February 22, 2007



The dizzying version:

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Arabia's last crisis war was the consolidation of the Saudi state in the wake of WWI (1920's). Was Arabia delayed, or was there a conflict I didn't hear about?

...While the Mexican Revolution in the 1910s was clearly a crisis...

It seems to me more likely that with rising lifespans, turnings (and therefore generations) are lengthening. Mexico and the countries of the Middle East are probably more or less on schedule (although Mexico may be a little late).

If anything, the corporate interests, Anglo-Saxon and Jewish elites, "security" agencies, groupthink thanks, and other apparats of the United States Soviet (National) Socialist Republics have worked in concert to compress the timetable in order to fulfill some sort of a (globalist?) agenda. They are probably a few steps ahead of John J. Xenakis.

In the past I've seen comparisons between the elections of 1860 and 2000. I've given up trying to find the maps; Apparently, one can now spend hours searching for them (even though it ought to take only a few minutes). In any case, I am under the impression that had trends continued as they had been for the previous several elections, the result that occured in 2000 (be they due to manipulations of voters or the votes themselves) should not have occurred until more like 2020.

It seems to me that America is being thrust into a fourth turning deliberately, perhaps in order halt the decline and save it. Its premature sunset or even destruction (along with the rest of the planet perhaps) are more likely consequences, but this is another long topic.

Originally Posted by AutumnofBurnoutCommie'67

It seems to me more likely that with rising lifespans, turnings (and therefore generations) are lengthening. Mexico and the countries of the Middle East are probably more or less on schedule (although Mexico may be a little late).

If anything, the corporate interests, Anglo-Saxon and Jewish elites, "security" agencies, groupthink thanks, and other apparats of the United States Soviet (National) Socialist Republics have worked in concert to compress the timetable in order to fulfill some sort of a (globalist?) agenda. They are probably a few steps ahead of John J. Xenakis.

In the past I've seen comparisons between the elections of 1860 and 2000. I've given up trying to find the maps; Apparently, one can now spend hours searching for them (even though it ought to take only a few minutes). In any case, I am under the impression that had trends continued as they had been for the previous several elections, the result that occured in 2000 (be they due to manipulations of voters or the votes themselves) should not have occurred until more like 2020.

It seems to me that America is being thrust into a fourth turning deliberately, perhaps in order halt the decline and save it. Its premature sunset or even destruction (along with the rest of the planet perhaps) are more likely consequences, but this is another long topic.

LOL, take off that tin-foil hat...

Originally Posted by AutumnofBurnoutCommie'67

> It seems to me more likely that with rising lifespans, turnings
> (and therefore generations) are lengthening.

Strauss and Howe speculated that turnings might be shortening rather
than lengthening, but weren't sure about it. My own finding is that
average turning and saeculum lengths are constant throughout history.

80 years appears to be an almost immutable constant for humans. It's
true that the average lifetime has increased (because of infant
mortality, for example), but the maximum life span seems to have been
relatively constant throughout history. For example, during the
Golden Age of Greece, Pericles lived 66 years, and Aristides lived 72
years -- not quite 80 years, but close enough to make the point.

Basically, there are always a few people in each generation who live
to be 70-80, and those are the elders who remember the last crisis,
and who protect everyone by counseling caution and compromise. It's
when the elders of the previous Artist generation die that society
loses all their wisdom at once, and the new crisis begins.

Sincerely,

John

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

Of course, in one miniseries I'm following avidly (Sunday nights, HBO, historical accuracy NOT guaranteed) the last great name of the previous Artist Generation has just been murdered by a Nomad warlord currently (temporarily) being backed up by one of the coldest-blooded little Civics in over 2,000 years of history. And yes, the Fourth Turning is decidedly on!

Three points in Western Civ 101 for names and the Prophet Generation leader who died last season.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Strauss and Howe speculated that turnings might be shortening rather
than lengthening, but weren't sure about it. My own finding is that
average turning and saeculum lengths are constant throughout history.

80 years appears to be an almost immutable constant for humans. It's
true that the average lifetime has increased (because of infant
mortality, for example), but the maximum life span seems to have been
relatively constant throughout history. For example, during the
Golden Age of Greece, Pericles lived 66 years, and Aristides lived 72
years -- not quite 80 years, but close enough to make the point.

Basically, there are always a few people in each generation who live
to be 70-80, and those are the elders who remember the last crisis,
and who protect everyone by counseling caution and compromise. It's
when the elders of the previous Artist generation die that society
loses all their wisdom at once, and the new crisis begins.

Sincerely,

John

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

With regards to cycle length, I understand that you were trying to be as simple as possible, but the other generational alignments typically have to be in place. There are still plenty of Silents around today, but we are clearly fourth turning, while at an earlier stage following the previous crisis war, there might have been a fewer percentage of (powerful) Artists among the Greeks. The probability of a new crisis war increases as the generational alignment nears (and especially passes) the fourth turning format. The disappearance of Artists might not mean a thing if Heroes are still in diapers.

But I'm probably just preaching to the choir.

Originally Posted by Odin

LOL, take off that tin-foil hat...

Well, he's not half as nuts as Kathaksung. Poor guy.

I put Nepal in 4T because the "civil war" was relatively low-level and while it served to create a very 3T disorder, it did not have the profound societal effect of a 4T.

Okay, I copied on a Word document all 192 members of the United Nations, and the following countries are unassigned: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu

So basically, a lot of Africa and almost all the island countries. Purple-state extreamist hit some African countries, but more research is needed to confirm his ideas. (Thanks on Ethiopia, though, purple-state, good catch).

Nailing down Somalia would feel good. I know, I know, it looks 4T. But Somalia has been in civil war since 1988, with varying levels of violence. Was that a Nepal-esque civil war that was of a 3T nature until recently, or is Somalia ending a 4T?

Originally Posted by 1990

Well, it looks like the anti-British rebellions and ensuing independence in the 1910s is a 4T. In fact, I see a 4T starting in the early 1910s and going till the early '30s. Then sometime after 1946, a 2T begins with Sardar Shah attempting reforms. The 2T may have ended in 1967, when Zahir's "experiment in democracy" fizzled out and extremist parties began to segment and form.

The instability in the '70s sounds like an ugly 3T, not a 4T, because order was deteriorating, not already at rock-bottom, and most of the changes attempted didn't last. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is eerily reminiscent of our Iraq War today (and I'm not being political here, I'm saying in terms of the Superpower being at the height of late-3T overreaching, it's very similar). Then in 1988-89 I see a 4T beginning, and the Regeneracy hits in 1992 with the start of the Civil War.

So this fits a 1910s/1990s crisis model. Unless I am missing something?

I haven't looked at Afghanistan in too much detail, but if 1930 is the end of their last 4T, then it wouldn't be surprising to have another crisis war beginning following the Soviet Occupation. I have a few questions for you:

1) Do you see too much of a difference between 1980's guerilla warfare versus 1990's guerilla warfare?

2) Do you see a panic in the 1988-89 time frame?

3) Terrorism typically doesn't equal a crisis war since it is carried out by the few. However, widespread rebellions, guerilla warfare, massacres, and anarchy are all indicative. Do you see any of this?

4) The 4T should have ended prior to the The American invasion of 2001 if in fact it was a Crisis War, with the Taliban being the victors.

BTW, what are your thoughts on the African countries purple-state extreamist mentioned?

I wouldn't know. I'll eventually look into it when I get a chance.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I haven't looked at Afghanistan in too much detail, but if 1930 is the end of their last 4T, then it wouldn't be surprising to have another crisis war beginning following the Soviet Occupation. I have a few questions for you:

1) Do you see too much of a difference between 1980's guerilla warfare versus 1990's guerilla warfare?

2) Do you see a panic in the 1988-89 time frame?

3) Terrorism typically doesn't equal a crisis war since it is carried out by the few. However, widespread rebellions, guerilla warfare, massacres, and anarchy are all indicative. Do you see any of this?

4) The 4T should have ended prior to the The American invasion of 2001 if in fact it was a Crisis War, with the Taliban being the victors.



I wouldn't know. I'll eventually look into it when I get a chance.

1) Don't know, except that the '80s violence was against the Soviets and '90s violence was a civil war.

2) Not really.

3) Anarchy, absolutely. Massacres - in terms of the Taliban government against enemies, absolutely.

4) Not at all. I said the 4T began somewhere around 1988-89. Hence the American invasion in 2001 should be more like Pearl Harbor, the peak of 4T fury.

Of course, it is possible that the "civil war" of the '90s was more a 3T war between government forces and a violent fringe, like civil wars in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and some other countries have been. In that case, Afghanistan's 4T probably began with the American invasion in 2001.

So I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by 1990

1) Don't know, except that the '80s violence was against the Soviets and '90s violence was a civil war.

Then how can you be certain the 80's violence wasn't part of the 4T?

4) Not at all. I said the 4T began somewhere around 1988-89. Hence the American invasion in 2001 should be more like Pearl Harbor, the peak of 4T fury.

Why is this? The Civil War was basically over by 1996, at the latest 1998. Things had settled down and the Northern Alliance had all but lost (in a similar way that the Nationalists lost in China). Things had settled down until the Taliban was ousted by the United States, and I wouldn't expect to see a return to 4T warfare (if it was 4T) many years after the war had pretty much ended. It wasn't until 2006 that things began to heat up again.

Of course, it is possible that the "civil war" of the '90s was more a 3T war between government forces and a violent fringe, like civil wars in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and some other countries have been. In that case, Afghanistan's 4T probably began with the American invasion in 2001.

So I'm not sure.

Possibly. You'll have to do more research and get a better feel for what went on. We know what 4T warfare looks like. Does this check out?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Then how can you be certain the 80's violence wasn't part of the 4T?



Why is this? The Civil War was basically over by 1996, at the latest 1998. Things had settled down and the Northern Alliance had all but lost (in a similar way that the Nationalists lost in China). Things had settled down until the Taliban was ousted by the United States, and I wouldn't expect to see a return to 4T warfare (if it was 4T) many years after the war had pretty much ended. It wasn't until 2006 that things began to heat up again.



Possibly. You'll have to do more research and get a better feel for what went on. We know what 4T warfare looks like. Does this check out?

Afghanistan is probably weird because it is in the middle of a lot of dominating civilizations -- Iran to the west, Pakistan and India to the east, the former Soviet Union to the north. It is honestly quite confusing. The fall of the Taliban does feel like a 4T climax though, a major shift in the governing of the country. Then again, rumor is the Taliban is still fighting back hard in parts of Afghanistan.

Clearly either Afghanistan just finished a 4T, or is in the middle of one. Which is the answer, though, I don't know yet.

For now I'll put it back in red, as that explanation seems more logical and easy to swallow in the short term. Will keep researching though.

By the way, on my next version of the map I am coloring the "overdue for a 4T" countries maroon. The only ones I've settled on are Bahrain, Haiti, Kuwait, Mexico, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Yemen, with Haiti's last crisis being the U.S. occupation, Mexico's being the Revolution, and Arabia's being WWI.

I also have decided that Somalia is indeed 4T, but early (probably began in 2006). The Italian occupation in WWII looks crisis-y, and the UN peacekeeping during 1993 reeks of holding down 3T disorder, like Haiti in the '90s as well, but unlike the true genocidal 4Ts in Rwanda and Kosovo.

Originally Posted by 1990

Afghanistan is probably weird because it is in the middle of a lot of dominating civilizations -- Iran to the west, Pakistan and India to the east, the former Soviet Union to the north. It is honestly quite confusing. The fall of the Taliban does feel like a 4T climax though, a major shift in the governing of the country. Then again, rumor is the Taliban is still fighting back hard in parts of Afghanistan.

Clearly either Afghanistan just finished a 4T, or is in the middle of one. Which is the answer, though, I don't know yet.

For now I'll put it back in red, as that explanation seems more logical and easy to swallow in the short term. Will keep researching though.

Well, I'm extremely wary of what people call "cultural influences," since I never have thought that "influence" would change the generational structure. The fall of the Taliban was brought by the U.S., not the Afghani people, so I'm skeptical of a 4T climax being the fall. From what I can tell by just looking over Wiki pages, is that the war was over by Massoud's assassination and the 2001 invasion. This isn't suprising since the civil war had been going on for 17 years.

Speaking of which, if a war lasts that long, I wouldn't expect to see extremely high-intensity violence throughout its entirety. It just isn't possible. Anyways, the 1990's may not have been a 4T, but if it is, I'm pretty sure it has to be over.

Let me know what you find, and if I get around to it, I'll do the same.

By the way, on my next version of the map I am coloring the "overdue for a 4T" countries maroon. The only ones I've settled on are Bahrain, Haiti, Kuwait, Mexico, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Yemen, with Haiti's last crisis being the U.S. occupation, Mexico's being the Revolution, and Arabia's being WWI.

I also have decided that Somalia is indeed 4T, but early (probably began in 2006). The Italian occupation in WWII looks crisis-y, and the UN peacekeeping during 1993 reeks of holding down 3T disorder, like Haiti in the '90s as well, but unlike the true genocidal 4Ts in Rwanda and Kosovo.

Sounds good to me.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Well, I'm extremely wary of what people call "cultural influences," since I never have thought that "influence" would change the generational structure. The fall of the Taliban was brought by the U.S., not the Afghani people, so I'm skeptical of a 4T climax being the fall. From what I can tell by just looking over Wiki pages, is that the war was over by Massoud's assassination and the 2001 invasion. This isn't suprising since the civil war had been going on for 17 years.

Speaking of which, if a war lasts that long, I wouldn't expect to see extremely high-intensity violence throughout its entirety. It just isn't possible. Anyways, the 1990's may not have been a 4T, but if it is, I'm pretty sure it has to be over.

Let me know what you find, and if I get around to it, I'll do the same.



Sounds good to me.

For now Afghanistan is in 4T red. If I find the smoking gun for the '90s as 4T, I will of course post that smoking gun.

Anyhow, I've been researching the African countries purple-state talked about. He might have been right about Eritrea, because unlike Ethiopia it seems that Eritrea's last 4T began in the mid '70s and ended in 1993. Ethiopia's, however, started in the late '60s or early '70s and was over at the latest by 1989 or 1990. This could make a crucial difference on whether Eritrea is 1T or 2T by the mid 2010s. Ethiopia's invasion into Somalia this winter had all the confidence of a late 1T or early 2T government. I need to look at Eritrea a little more carefully to be sure how far behind Ethiopia it is, but it seems purple-state was absolutely right that at the moment it is in the second half of a 1T.

Djibouti seems to be on a similar timeline as Eritrea and Ethiopia, late 1T entering 2T within a decade. For now I'll put all three in green, based on the assumption that they are not far from 2T.

More African research to come...

UPDATE: Okay, tackling Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya in hopes of completing Eastern Africa. Kenya is most definitely entering 3T, as the Mau Mau uprising of the 1950s screams crisis. The information about Tanzania is sparse, but what there is suggests the same, as independence was finally achieved in 1961 and the first multi-party elections (often a sign of 2T reform) were in 1992. Julius Nyerere, the first president, who basically founded the country in 1954, sounds like a typical 4T leader.

Okay, but what about Uganda? It would only be logical that it is on the same timeline, as its independence came in 1962 after a long struggle for independence. But Idi Amin's rule during the 1970s was exceedingly violent. I read 300,000 casualties during his administration! Of course, this kind of ruthless dictator can come in any turning, but the violence seems very great for a 1T. Then again, Saddam Hussein and Joseph Stalin -- who both ruled their countries during 1Ts -- would probably beg to differ. So I guess Amin could still have been ruling during a 1T.

Originally Posted by 1990

Okay, but what about Uganda? It would only be logical that it is on the same timeline, as its independence came in 1962 after a long struggle for independence. But Idi Amin's rule during the 1970s was exceedingly violent. I read 300,000 casualties during his administration! Of course, this kind of ruthless dictator can come in any turning, but the violence seems very great for a 1T. Then again, Saddam Hussein and Joseph Stalin -- who both ruled their countries during 1Ts -- would probably beg to differ. So I guess Amin could still have been ruling during a 1T.

It's definitely possible. As you know, 4Ts are determined by the masses.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Of course, in one miniseries I'm following avidly (Sunday nights, HBO, historical accuracy NOT guaranteed) the last great name of the previous Artist Generation has just been murdered by a Nomad warlord currently (temporarily) being backed up by one of the coldest-blooded little Civics in over 2,000 years of history. And yes, the Fourth Turning is decidedly on!

Three points in Western Civ 101 for names and the Prophet Generation leader who died last season.

Julius Ceasar, Cicero, Marc Antony, and Octavian.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Julius Ceasar, Cicero, Marc Antony, and Octavian.

Ave! Three tickets to the gladiatorial games for you. Poor Cicero.