Originally Posted by 1990

We all are glad he's out of power, and most of us are glad he's dead.

I, for one, am not glad he's dead. He was executed before he had a chance to stand trial against the worst of his atrocities, his massacre of the Kurds during the Iran/Iraq War.

Originally Posted by 1990

In this case we're not talking about right-wing spin. Democrats don't say "oh, to have Saddam back". Not at all. We all are glad he's out of power, and most of us are glad he's dead. Likewise, I don't call the situation in Iraq a civil war, even though that's what pols on both sides of the aisle are obsessed with calling it.

If you polled Iraqis on how optimistic they are about the Maliki government in general, though, I'd bet the numbers were pretty low.

I was being sarcastic about right-wing spin.

I mentioned earlier that I figured Panama was on Colombia's timeline since Panama was a province of Greater Colombia and participated in the Revolution of the 1810s and 1820s in Spanish South America. Ecuador did as well, and it's population during the war decreased from 600,000 to 480,000 (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wars19c.htm).

The War of a Thousand Days in Colombia (1899-1902) certainly spilled over into Panama (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...DOCID+pa0018)), but I'm not sure to what extent.

As for Ecuador, well, this paragraph is downright confusing:

(http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...(DOCID+ec0020))

Eloy Alfaro is the outstanding standard-bearer for Ecuador's Liberals, much as García Moreno is for the Conservatives. Some Marxist groups have also looked to Alfaro; although his political program was in no way socialist, it did prove to be revolutionary in the extent to which it stripped the Roman Catholic Church of the power and privileges previously granted to it by García Moreno. Catholic officials and their Conservative allies did not give up without a fight, however. During the first year of Alfaro's presidency, Ecuador was ravaged by a bloody civil war in which clergymen commonly incited the faithful masses to rise in rebellion against the "atheistic alfaristas" and were, just as commonly, themselves victims of alfarista repression. The foreign-born Bishops Pedro Schumacher of Portoviejo and Arsenio Andrade of Riobamba led the early resistance to Alfaro. A fullfledged bloodbath may well have been averted only through the magnanimous efforts of the outstanding historian and Archbishop Federico González Suárez, who urged the clergy to abandon the pursuit of politics.

There isn't much information on this time period (1895-????), and the above paragraph gives mixed messages. They say there was a bloody civil war, but that a fullfledged bloodbath was averted. The struggle for independence climaxed/finished in 1825, so a 70-year mid-cycle period fits in.

Furthermore, there is no evidence if a crisis war within 20 years on either side of 1895, with only a brief civil war:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...d(DOCID+ec0020)

A major cause of the instability of the period was the lack of unity within the PLR itself. Alfaro and a second military strongman, General Leónidas Plaza Gutiérrez, maintained a bitter rivalry over party leadership for almost two decades. Following Alfaro's first period in the presidency, Plaza was elected to a constitutional term of office that lasted from 1901 until 1905. In 1906, shortly after a close associate of Plaza had been elected to succeed him, however, Alfaro launched a coup d'état and returned to the presidency. Alfaro, in turn, was overthrown in 1911 after refusing to hand power over to his own hand-picked successor, Emilio Estrada. Four months later, Estrada's death from a heart attack precipitated a brief civil war that climaxed the rivalry between Alfaro and Plaza. Alfaro returned from his exile in Panama to lead the Guayaquil garrison in its challenge to the Quito-based interim government, which was under the military authority of General Plaza. The rebellion was quickly defeated, however; Alfaro was captured and transported to Quito via the same railroad that he had done so much to complete. Once in the capital, Alfaro was publicly and unceremoniously murdered, along with several of his comrades, by a government-instigated mob.

This sounds like a political, non-crisis civil war. So, it appears that the late 1890s were a crisis war for Ecuador, which would put them on the same timeline with Colombia, Panama, and Venezuela.

The 20th century is much more muddled and confusing. Of the four countries mentioned above, only one had a definitive crisis war. La Volencia (catalyst 1948, end 1958) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Violencia).

I have been looking for evidence of some spillover, some chaos, anything, but I cannot seem to find it. So Colombia is certainly 3T, but Panama, Venezuela, and Ecuador may be 5T, unless there is some evidence to indicate otherwise.

For Ecuador, there was much instability in the 1960s and a dictatorship in the 1970s, but evidence there is inconclusive. There is instability and student riots in the 1940s and 1960s in Panama, and there was a minor military insurrection in Venezuela in 1958.

I'll continue to look but right now I'm leaning 5T for all three.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I mentioned earlier that I figured Panama was on Colombia's timeline since Panama was a province of Greater Colombia and participated in the Revolution of the 1810s and 1820s in Spanish South America. Ecuador did as well, and it's population during the war decreased from 600,000 to 480,000 (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wars19c.htm).

The War of a Thousand Days in Colombia (1899-1902) certainly spilled over into Panama (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+pa0018)), but I'm not sure to what extent.

As for Ecuador, well, this paragraph is downright confusing:

(http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ec0020))



There isn't much information on this time period (1895-????), and the above paragraph gives mixed messages. They say there was a bloody civil war, but that a fullfledged bloodbath was averted. The struggle for independence climaxed/finished in 1825, so a 70-year mid-cycle period fits in.

Furthermore, there is no evidence if a crisis war within 20 years on either side of 1895, with only a brief civil war:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ec0020)



This sounds like a political, non-crisis civil war. So, it appears that the late 1890s were a crisis war for Ecuador, which would put them on the same timeline with Colombia, Panama, and Venezuela.

The 20th century is much more muddled and confusing. Of the four countries mentioned above, only one had a definitive crisis war. La Volencia (catalyst 1948, end 1958) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Violencia).

I have been looking for evidence of some spillover, some chaos, anything, but I cannot seem to find it. So Colombia is certainly 3T, but Panama, Venezuela, and Ecuador may be 5T, unless there is some evidence to indicate otherwise.

For Ecuador, there was much instability in the 1960s and a dictatorship in the 1970s, but evidence there is inconclusive. There is instability and student riots in the 1940s and 1960s in Panama, and there was a minor military insurrection in Venezuela in 1958.

I'll continue to look but right now I'm leaning 5T for all three.

Really? Hmm. Somehow I'm having trouble with this. The military rule in Venezuela during the 1950s seems to have the same 4T element of later military regimes in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, etc. And I had the strong sense that Ecuador was on the same timeline as Peru, not Colombia.

Originally Posted by 1990

Really? Hmm. Somehow I'm having trouble with this. The military rule in Venezuela during the 1950s seems to have the same 4T element of later military regimes in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, etc.

Can you show some evidence?

And I had the strong sense that Ecuador was on the same timeline as Peru, not Colombia.

I haven't looked at Peru, but they were a part of Gran Colombia as well. What is their timeline? I am pretty sure Bolivar's revolution was a 4T for them.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Can you show some evidence?



I haven't looked at Peru, but they were a part of Gran Colombia as well. What is their timeline?

As for the first question, my reason for thinking Venezuela's military regime was a 4T was that it looked sufficiently similar to other military regimes in Latin America which he have ruled to be 4Ts. To show evidence for why the 1950s were a 4T in Venezuela, we would first need to know exactly why the 1970s were a 4T in, for example, Brazil.

Peru is entering 2T. Encarta:

"In the presidential elections of 1962 none of the three major candidates, Haya de la Torre of APRA, Fernando Belaúnde Terry of the Popular Action Party, and Manuel Odría, received the necessary one-third of the votes to win the election. The task of choosing a president thus went to the newly elected congress. The military, which favored Belaúnde, overthrew the government to forestall an agreement between Odrístas and the APRA to elect Odría president with an APRA vice-president. A military junta took control. To appease the Peruvian people and foreign governments, the junta promised new elections. The junta installed General Ricardo Pío Pérez Godoy as president in July 1962, but deposed him in March 1963.

Elections in 1963 brought Belaúnde to the presidency. President Belaúnde and the APRA, which dominated congress, competed to introduce reforms. Progress was made in public works and social benefits. However, the government’s programs resulted in budgetary deficits and a spiraling inflation. Belaúnde was also unable to create a stable government coalition.

A long dispute over the claims of the International Petroleum Company (IPC), a subsidiary of the Standard Oil Company (New Jersey), in the operation of the rich La Brea y Pariñas oil fields was finally settled by the Belaúnde government in August 1968. Widespread disapproval of this settlement, however, forced the resignation of the Cabinet on October 1, and two days later the armed forces ousted Belaúnde and suspended the constitution. A military junta formed, headed by General Juan Velasco Alvarado. His government expropriated the IPC’s assets, seriously straining relations with the United States. Relations deteriorated still further in February 1969, when a Peruvian gunboat accosted two U.S. fishing vessels off the Peruvian coast, claiming they were poaching in Peruvian waters. In 1970, despite these differences, U.S. relief supplies were quickly sent to Peru following an earthquake that killed about 67,000 people and left some 600,000 homeless.


In the early 1970s the Velasco government began a radical reform of the social and economic system. Among the major actions were seizure of foreign-owned ranchlands, the imposition of price controls on basic goods and services, and a sweeping land-reform law. The anchovy fishing industry, seriously hurt in 1972 by alteration of ocean currents, was nationalized in 1973. The 1973-1974 budget provided a 35 percent increase in spending to build up and diversify private industry. In 1973 the World Bank extended credits of $470 million to Peru, and the Inter-American Development Bank lent Peru $30 million. Relations with the United States and with U.S. investors were largely normalized, but U.S. economic aid was sharply reduced.


Another military coup toppled the Peruvian government in 1975, after a series of strikes and demonstrations expressed popular discontent with the ailing President Velasco. General Francisco Morales Bermúdez, who had been prime minister and minister of war under Velasco, was sworn in as president. His government announced that the country would be returned to democratic rule in 1980. Morales pledged to continue the “revolutionary process” begun in 1968. However, the military government was unable to cope with Peru’s deepening economic crisis, which was marked by an immense national debt, rampant inflation, and massive unemployment. In 1978 it received a loan from the International Monetary Fund to ease its debt burden, but only in exchange for imposing economic austerity measures, which worsened the lot of most Peruvians.


In 1980, as promised, presidential elections were held. The winner, former president Belaúnde, took office in July, when a new constitution came into effect. Belaúnde immediately adopted a conservative program that aimed to reverse many of the reforms of the Velasco era, and he began a series of extravagantly costly large-scale construction projects in the rain forest region. Belaúnde was immediately overtaken by political crisis and economic disaster. An extreme left-wing guerrilla movement, Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso), began activity in the highlands and gained strength. At the United States’ behest the government tried to suppress production of coca, further alienating the Native Americans whose main source of income it was. Output of the anchovy fisheries collapsed as a result of ecological devastation from earlier overfishing. The country entered a deep depression accompanied by runaway inflation, and it had to suspend payments on its enormous foreign debt. By the time presidential elections were held in 1985, Belaúnde and his government were completely discredited. His party got only 5 percent of the vote."


To me this looks like 20 years of instability, overhaul, reform, economic crisis. Hence Peru is now entering 2T.

Originally Posted by 1990

As for the first question, my reason for thinking Venezuela's military regime was a 4T was that it looked sufficiently similar to other military regimes in Latin America which he have ruled to be 4Ts. To show evidence for why the 1950s were a 4T in Venezuela, we would first need to know exactly why the 1970s were a 4T in, for example, Brazil.

I'm very uncomfortable with that line of thinking. Each country must be analyzed individually. Saying, "this kinda-sorta resembles the same thing that happened here" won't give you perfect results, especially in countries where we don't have access to the best information.

Who is he? John Xenakis? Or do you mean we? I never looked at Brazil.

Peru is entering 2T. Encarta:

"In the presidential elections of 1962 none of the three major candidates, Haya de la Torre of APRA, Fernando Belaúnde Terry of the Popular Action Party, and Manuel Odría, received the necessary one-third of the votes to win the election. The task of choosing a president thus went to the newly elected congress. The military, which favored Belaúnde, overthrew the government to forestall an agreement between Odrístas and the APRA to elect Odría president with an APRA vice-president. A military junta took control. To appease the Peruvian people and foreign governments, the junta promised new elections. The junta installed General Ricardo Pío Pérez Godoy as president in July 1962, but deposed him in March 1963.

Elections in 1963 brought Belaúnde to the presidency. President Belaúnde and the APRA, which dominated congress, competed to introduce reforms. Progress was made in public works and social benefits. However, the government’s programs resulted in budgetary deficits and a spiraling inflation. Belaúnde was also unable to create a stable government coalition.

A long dispute over the claims of the International Petroleum Company (IPC), a subsidiary of the Standard Oil Company (New Jersey), in the operation of the rich La Brea y Pariñas oil fields was finally settled by the Belaúnde government in August 1968. Widespread disapproval of this settlement, however, forced the resignation of the Cabinet on October 1, and two days later the armed forces ousted Belaúnde and suspended the constitution. A military junta formed, headed by General Juan Velasco Alvarado. His government expropriated the IPC’s assets, seriously straining relations with the United States. Relations deteriorated still further in February 1969, when a Peruvian gunboat accosted two U.S. fishing vessels off the Peruvian coast, claiming they were poaching in Peruvian waters. In 1970, despite these differences, U.S. relief supplies were quickly sent to Peru following an earthquake that killed about 67,000 people and left some 600,000 homeless.


In the early 1970s the Velasco government began a radical reform of the social and economic system. Among the major actions were seizure of foreign-owned ranchlands, the imposition of price controls on basic goods and services, and a sweeping land-reform law. The anchovy fishing industry, seriously hurt in 1972 by alteration of ocean currents, was nationalized in 1973. The 1973-1974 budget provided a 35 percent increase in spending to build up and diversify private industry. In 1973 the World Bank extended credits of $470 million to Peru, and the Inter-American Development Bank lent Peru $30 million. Relations with the United States and with U.S. investors were largely normalized, but U.S. economic aid was sharply reduced.


Another military coup toppled the Peruvian government in 1975, after a series of strikes and demonstrations expressed popular discontent with the ailing President Velasco. General Francisco Morales Bermúdez, who had been prime minister and minister of war under Velasco, was sworn in as president. His government announced that the country would be returned to democratic rule in 1980. Morales pledged to continue the “revolutionary process” begun in 1968. However, the military government was unable to cope with Peru’s deepening economic crisis, which was marked by an immense national debt, rampant inflation, and massive unemployment. In 1978 it received a loan from the International Monetary Fund to ease its debt burden, but only in exchange for imposing economic austerity measures, which worsened the lot of most Peruvians.


In 1980, as promised, presidential elections were held. The winner, former president Belaúnde, took office in July, when a new constitution came into effect. Belaúnde immediately adopted a conservative program that aimed to reverse many of the reforms of the Velasco era, and he began a series of extravagantly costly large-scale construction projects in the rain forest region. Belaúnde was immediately overtaken by political crisis and economic disaster. An extreme left-wing guerrilla movement, Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso), began activity in the highlands and gained strength. At the United States’ behest the government tried to suppress production of coca, further alienating the Native Americans whose main source of income it was. Output of the anchovy fisheries collapsed as a result of ecological devastation from earlier overfishing. The country entered a deep depression accompanied by runaway inflation, and it had to suspend payments on its enormous foreign debt. By the time presidential elections were held in 1985, Belaúnde and his government were completely discredited. His party got only 5 percent of the vote."


To me this looks like 20 years of instability, overhaul, reform, economic crisis. Hence Peru is now entering 2T.

Do we have evidence of a 2T for Peru now, or just this crisis?

From the information above, I see no evidence of a crisis war. We would need to find an aborted crisis war, or else I might conclude that Peru is 5T as well.

I think South america is either 3T or 4T, much like the anglo-saxon world. The new governments such as chavez, or morales seem to be either late 3T or 4T. Central america on the other hand seems to be 1T.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I'm very uncomfortable with that line of thinking. Each country must be analyzed individually. Saying, "this kinda-sorta resembles the same thing that happened here" won't give you perfect results, especially in countries where we don't have access to the best information.

Who is he? John Xenakis? Or do you mean we? I never looked at Brazil.



Do we have evidence of a 2T for Peru now, or just this crisis?

From the information above, I see no evidence of a crisis war. We would need to find an aborted crisis war, or else I might conclude that Peru is 5T as well.

Yes, I am uncomfortable with that line of thinking as well. But before analyzing Venezuela, or other countries, we should know why certain periods of military rule have qualified as 4Ts. I would argue the reason is that the civic structure was remade, and in a traumatic way, in these countries during military rule. This occurred most dramatically in Argentina, Chile, and Brazil, all of which emerged democratic and revitalized after ugly military juntas. 4Ts ended in Argentina in 1983, Brazil in 1985, and Chile in 1990. Whether a similar situation qualifies as 4T in Venezuela, or other Latin American countries, is up for debate.

Yes, Xenakis analyzed Brazil and made the strong case for a 4T from 1964-1985.

As for Peru, there is some (early) evidence of a transition to 2T. The election last year went to former center-left president Alan Garcia, who ruled over a rocky period that could be characterized as a 4T-1T transition, with Garcia defeating leftist nationalist Ollanta Humala. Not only was Humala's rhetoric probably too militant (read: too 4T) for mainstream Peruvians, but the re-election of former leaders, or old dynasties, seems to happen in some countries late in 1Ts, as the public is in an increasingly optimistic and "second chance" kind of mood.

Also, somewhere recently I read about a slow uptick in protests throughout Peru, mostly by small activist groups. This is the slow "mainstreaming" of protests, as happens late in 1Ts and early in 2Ts (such as the way the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. later led to more public acceptance of and participation in mass demonstrations).

It's hardly an open-and-shut case, but I see enough evidence to lean 2T on Peru, and most of Latin America.

Originally Posted by 1990

Yes, I am uncomfortable with that line of thinking as well. But before analyzing Venezuela, or other countries, we should know why certain periods of military rule have qualified as 4Ts. I would argue the reason is that the civic structure was remade, and in a traumatic way, in these countries during military rule. This occurred most dramatically in Argentina, Chile, and Brazil, all of which emerged democratic and revitalized after ugly military juntas. 4Ts ended in Argentina in 1983, Brazil in 1985, and Chile in 1990. Whether a similar situation qualifies as 4T in Venezuela, or other Latin American countries, is up for debate.

Yes, Xenakis analyzed Brazil and made the strong case for a 4T from 1964-1985.

As for Peru, there is some (early) evidence of a transition to 2T. The election last year went to former center-left president Alan Garcia, who ruled over a rocky period that could be characterized as a 4T-1T transition, with Garcia defeating leftist nationalist Ollanta Humala. Not only was Humala's rhetoric probably too militant (read: too 4T) for mainstream Peruvians, but the re-election of former leaders, or old dynasties, seems to happen in some countries late in 1Ts, as the public is in an increasingly optimistic and "second chance" kind of mood.

Also, somewhere recently I read about a slow uptick in protests throughout Peru, mostly by small activist groups. This is the slow "mainstreaming" of protests, as happens late in 1Ts and early in 2Ts (such as the way the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. later led to more public acceptance of and participation in mass demonstrations).

It's hardly an open-and-shut case, but I see enough evidence to lean 2T on Peru, and most of Latin America.

I'll need to mull this over and read through some histories.

John,

I know you did about an hour's research on Brazil, but I was wondering if you could shed more light on your findings when you have the chance to look into Brazil a little further.

I am wondering in particular if the War of Brazilian Independence was a Crisis War. Maybe the War of the Triple Alliance was a crisis war instead. I am sure it was a Crisis War for Paraguay, and it is not such a leap to suggest the war a Crisis War for Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil.

Thanks in advance,
Matt

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

John,

I know you did about an hour's research on Brazil, but I was wondering if you could shed more light on your findings when you have the chance to look into Brazil a little further.

I am wondering in particular if the War of Brazilian Independence was a Crisis War. Maybe the War of the Triple Alliance was a crisis war instead. I am sure it was a Crisis War for Paraguay, and it is not such a leap to suggest the war a Crisis War for Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil.

Thanks in advance,
Matt

OK, give me a couple of days.


Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,

OK, give me a couple of days.


Sincerely,

John

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

Great, thanks a lot John. I really look forward to this. I've always been hesitant to look at times where countries have come out from long rules of imperialist powers. India has always troubled me whenever I have looked into it and I'm getting flashbacks just thinking about South America.

That's a very interesting map you've got going on there. It would be neat to see a flash video of the colors/turnings changing over time, if you guys ever chart that far. What a monster of a project that would be!

Anyways, do you think you could post a legend for the map? I'm having a hard time figuring out which colors mean what.

Edit: Thanks!

High (recovery) - Blue
Awakening - Green
Unraveling - Orange
Crisis - Red

Any contributions are more than welcome!

Here's my updated map (Yes, I figured out how to do it. When I tried editing yours it wouldn't work so I started a new one.). I'm still looking into South America, which will be completed shortly. And I'll have to revisit a good portion of the countries in Africa, if not all.

Anyways:

1990, I'm getting giddy just looking at Africa.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

1990, I'm getting giddy just looking at Africa.

Looks like you made big progress in Africa, but your map is so small I can't see what you did!

Anyway, two questions:

A) What did you do differently from me? (Other than the ones I'm already aware of, like the former USSR)

B) What countries have you made decisions on that I am not aware of?

This map project has been absolutely wonderful. I've been following it with fascination. The color key is also logically intuitive, except that I mentally assign Yellow to the Unraveling.

Anyway, when it's finished, I want to see it here. Or on John's website.

Originally Posted by 1990

Looks like you made big progress in Africa, but your map is so small I can't see what you did!

I can't tell if you are joking or not, but you are supposed to click on it.

Anyway, two questions:

A) What did you do differently from me? (Other than the ones I'm already aware of, like the former USSR)

B) What countries have you made decisions on that I am not aware of?

Well, you hadn't updated your map in a while, so basically I brought mine up to date, but left out South America. Eastern Europe is basically the only difference.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

This map project has been absolutely wonderful. I've been following it with fascination. The color key is also logically intuitive, except that I mentally assign Yellow to the Unraveling.

Anyway, when it's finished, I want to see it here. Or on John's website.

Thanks. When we finish, we're going to need some sort of way for people to verify it themselves.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Here's my updated map (Yes, I figured out how to do it. When I tried editing yours it wouldn't work so I started a new one.). I'm still looking into South America, which will be completed shortly. And I'll have to revisit a good portion of the countries in Africa, if not all.

Anyways:

Somalia should be in green. I messed up.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I can't tell if you are joking or not, but you are supposed to click on it.



Well, you hadn't updated your map in a while, so basically I brought mine up to date, but left out South America. Eastern Europe is basically the only difference.

No, no joke. I can't enlarge it. It looks tiny on my screen, and it won't click to enlarge.

So when you say up-to-date, does that mean nothing new since Cameroon?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Somalia should be in green. I messed up.

Green, really? Never thought about that. Interesting.

Originally Posted by 1990

No, no joke. I can't enlarge it. It looks tiny on my screen, and it won't click to enlarge.

So when you say up-to-date, does that mean nothing new since Cameroon?

That's bizarre. It's a link so I can't tell why it wouldn't open.

http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?i...orldmapnk4.png