Up to date means everything we have done since the last update, which includes bringing my map to be as advanced as yours, and to include a few more African countries.Originally Posted by 1990
There isn't any reason to suggest Somalia is on a different timeline than Ethiopia and plenty of reasons to suggest it is on the same timeline. I think the crisis runs from ~1976-~1991.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflic...Horn_of_Africa
Last edited by Matt1989; 03-21-2007 at 01:38 PM.
Thank you!
So it looks like you have 5T countries in red, just like 4T, instead of a darker shade. So you consider Mali, Niger, and Cote d'Ivoire to be 5T, right? Not 4T.
And why was it wrong to put Somalia in red? Why green? I've never heard you argue for a 2T in Somalia...
BTW, dig your map. It's cooler than mine now. Must change that...
Okay, I'm gonna copy your little "color key". It's too cool, cooler than my old one was.
UPDATE: No, I won't. Paint is stupid. Nevermind. Keep your lovely color key.
UPDATE #83: Okay, so I figured out a way to have my own color key. It's very reminiscent of yours, but since this whole map project was originally my idea, I could hardly be accused of copying!
Last edited by 1990; 03-21-2007 at 02:05 PM.
Okay, I guess I could see that. It was a little odd to have all of the Horn of Africa, save Somalia, in green. That would explain the rising Islamism as well.
BTW, does Sudan ever bother you? I know the Central African conflict looks pure 4T, but wasn't Sudan's independence struggle in the 1950s? Could that have really been a 1T?
It was 50/50 for me. I don't think it matters one way or the other, for me at least.
Lol, if you look closely you can see the different lines on the key aren't aligned at all.BTW, dig your map. It's cooler than mine now. Must change that...
Okay, I'm gonna copy your little "color key". It's too cool, cooler than my old one was.
UPDATE: No, I won't. Paint is stupid. Nevermind. Keep your lovely color key.
Ha! I seamlessly switched over the link to an update! So the link in my sig line still works, but the map has been updated!
MichaelEaston, our maps are getting closer and closer. The only real differences now are the former USSR and Latin America.
Oh, and Ireland, which I am still not completely, 100% sure is 1T.
I Still think most of south america is 3T. the war of the triple alliance shows the signs of a crisis war, and there was the chaco war in the 1930's. Brazil was very unstable in the 30's with several revolts, one included the deployment of full-fleged armies, and their was the renewal program of estado novo that was similar to the new deal, their was a expansion of that program in the 50's and early 60's including the building of brasilia. Also the Peronists were in power in argentina, and colombia had a devastating civil war in the late 1940's and early 1950's.
Okay, let's test this theory out. It's hard to measure 3Ts, so let's measure by the last 2T instead (2Ts and 4Ts are much more obvious than 1Ts and 3Ts). What happened in the 1990s in Latin America that strongly suggested an Awakening?
I'm not actually challenging you, I'm just asking because Latin America is still very shaky for both MichaelEaston and me.
According to yesterday's USA Today, Northern Ireland is getting sick to death of The Troubles and of the Orange/Green split. All they care about, apparently, is gold and silver. The place is ticking like a clock economically, and the only graffiti are in the non-affluent neighborhoods. There is talk of a government with the head of the Protestant party as President and the head of the IRA as vice president.
If that doesn't spell First Turning, I never lived through the Eisenhower Years. Go ahead, color them blue - please!
P.S. IMO Somalia should also be Blue; it's too soon for a 2T. A 1T, however, seems quite reasonable.
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."
"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.
I don't see a crisis war for Ireland since before WWII.
I peg the end date as 1991. A typical recovery lasts ~17 years. I suppose my map is a couple years into the future, so it will stay.P.S. IMO Somalia should also be Blue; it's too soon for a 2T. A 1T, however, seems quite reasonable.
Yes, I have thought Ireland was 1T not just because of the Troubles, but because of the major liberal economic and social reforms of the 1990s - legalization of divorce and limited abortions, economic overhauls, the Celtic Tiger economy, etc. The end of the 4T would be the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.
As for Somalia, I don't know about MichaelEaston, but my map projects into 2015 (which will be deep into the current turning). By 2015 Somalia will surely be 2T, as turnings almost never last 24 years these days.
You don't sound too sure of yourself.
I'm not. If Ireland is in recovery from a 4T, it was one of the milder (as in less violent) 4Ts I've come upon. The thing is, though, when you go to Ireland, things do feel very different than they do in Britain. Britain, like the US, has that "calm before the storm" eerie feeling. Ireland feels genuinely refreshed. And I could see a 4T from about 1977-1998, during which time the Church's influence on politics was noticeably (no, more than noticeably, blatantly) eroded, and the country's economy and social structure were radically reformed. This kind of radical social change typically only occurs in either a 2T or a 4T, and it sure wasn't a 2T, since the last Awakening was clearly post-WWII.
There is the distinct possibility of a 5T in Ireland...except that I don't see it in contemporary Irish politics and society. While Europeans are showing increasing signs every year of dissatisfaction with their governments, xenophobia against the Muslims, anti-Americanism, and other ugly early signs of Crisis, the Irish are generally happy these days, at least with their own politics. And if Ireland were 5T, wouldn't the sense of tension be even more apparent, leading to a high sensitivity and susceptibility to genocide? That's certainly the mood in Turkey, and Mexico, and Saudi Arabia.
So no, I'm not sure of the 1T label. But I'm more inclined to that interpretation.
Well, Ireland's history is pretty straightforward with one major exception: The Potato Famine (1845-1849). It is not a crisis war, but it looks to have acted like one, coming about during the beginning of the Unraveling (The crisis anchor was probably the Irish Rebellion of 1798), and the 1870's appear to be another Awakening, so that conclusion is supported. So we could expect another crisis war sometime around 1909.
So I have two candidates for the Crisis War:
World War One + War of Independence + Irish Civil War (1914-1923): But World War One wasn't a crisis war for any other country in Western Europe. The following wars were guerrilla campaigns and for crisis wars, it was relatively bloodless.
Great Depression + World War Two (1929-1945): But Ireland was neutral and did not fight. Then again, neither did Iceland nor Switzerland.
I'm inclined to think the first one, but I'm not sure. Either way, provided there hasn't been a crisis war since, Ireland would be in red. But you mention the Troubles as being a crisis. The Troubles began in 1968 (why you give 1977, I don't know), and peaked in the early to mid 1970s. One of the first few lines on the Wikipedia page (The Troubles) is: "It has been variously described as a many-sided conflict, a guerrilla war, a low intensity conflict, or even a civil war."
I don't get anything out of it that feels like a crisis war. The thing just drags on and on and has no definitive climax. You say that you see the social structure changing. This is certainly true, but did the generational structure change? Is there anything to indicate a major generational change?
Besides some liberalization, what evidence do you have?
I know the Troubles dragged on and on, and started in the '60s. The 1977 date is approximate around when they appeared to strongly intensify. But it is shaky.
And yes, Ireland is quite confusing. It's possible that we are seeing it merge into the Western European 4T timeline. I am convinced that independence and the brief civil war (1910s-20s timeline) was a 4T. So at that point Ireland was a turning ahead of Britain. And the 2T appears to arrive right on time in the 1950s. The beginning, and eventual escalation, of The Troubles may be a 3T, as it was a low-intensity, sporadic guerrilla conflict (in this way it is reminiscent of the PKK War in Turkey and the Chiapas Uprising in Mexico, two events that should have been 4T but weren't).
Liberalization did radically alter Irish society. But it certainly is not a typical 4T. Upon further consideration, I see another parallel to Turkey and Mexico: during the same period (1980s-1990s) as liberalization in Ireland, Turkey and Mexico experienced broad reforms (beginning of multi-party democracy in Mexico, economic austerity in Turkey). Yet this did not count as a 4T enough to prevent a later crisis in these countries.
Alright, you almost have me sold, except for one thing: you hear stories all the time about rising xenophobia in Turkey, and sizzling class tensions in Mexico, but never anything of the sort about Ireland. Ireland's government, at least, is acting 1T, and the public is eating it up.
I see the exact opposite. 1977 is the date it begins to settle down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_troubles Scroll down.
Probably. The Troubles started too early to be a crisis war, and by the time a crisis was right, it was settling down.And yes, Ireland is quite confusing. It's possible that we are seeing it merge into the Western European 4T timeline. I am convinced that independence and the brief civil war (1910s-20s timeline) was a 4T. So at that point Ireland was a turning ahead of Britain. And the 2T appears to arrive right on time in the 1950s. The beginning, and eventual escalation, of The Troubles may be a 3T, as it was a low-intensity, sporadic guerrilla conflict (in this way it is reminiscent of the PKK War in Turkey and the Chiapas Uprising in Mexico, two events that should have been 4T but weren't).
What evidence do you have for Ireland acting 1T? Please post the events and why they are 1T events, as opposed to 2T, 3T, 4T, or 5T events.Liberalization did radically alter Irish society. But it certainly is not a typical 4T. Upon further consideration, I see another parallel to Turkey and Mexico: during the same period (1980s-1990s) as liberalization in Ireland, Turkey and Mexico experienced broad reforms (beginning of multi-party democracy in Mexico, economic austerity in Turkey). Yet this did not count as a 4T enough to prevent a later crisis in these countries.
Alright, you almost have me sold, except for one thing: you hear stories all the time about rising xenophobia in Turkey, and sizzling class tensions in Mexico, but never anything of the sort about Ireland. Ireland's government, at least, is acting 1T, and the public is eating it up.
Last edited by Matt1989; 03-21-2007 at 08:52 PM.
Potatoes
As one wo is proud of is Irish hertitage, I feel that it is time to join this discussion.
Not every crises is caused by an existing cycle. If massve immigration occurs because of a famine then it would stand to reason that a new 1t would start amongst the remaining population, after the worst of the famine was clearly over. IOW, if the potato famine crises ended around 1850, then the independence movement-seperation crises of the 1910's and early 20's would have arrived more or less "on time."
Ireland was one of the few countries to remain neutral in WWII. Yes, animosity to the British played a role, however the fact that they were one of the few european countries that managed to stay out of the war is a clue that the generational line up in Ireland was post crises at the time. A turning later, the fact that a real guerella war emerged from the "culture wars" of the 1960's points to a 3t at that time and to the suggested timeline being correct.
IOW, it is quite possible that Ireland has recently emerged from the first post independence crises. Changes in both the north and the south seem to confirm this. This crises was internal and involved the secularization of Irish life and national identity in both regions. The Republic of Ireland was considered perhaps the most catholic country in europe in the late 1960's when the religious troubles in Northern Ireland grew severe. Throughout the 70's and 80's, as widespread violence continued in the north, the south began to secularize as seen in the liberalization of family law and the diminished role of the Roman church in everyday life in the republic. This secularization no doubt has a big role in the the recent waining of violence in the north. With the catholic influence of the larger and more populos south becoming less pervasive over time, the need for protestant seperatism became less urgent. Finally, the recent economic resurgence of Ireland also suggests that Ireland is, as it was about the time of WWII, now post crises and 1t.
Last edited by herbal tee; 03-21-2007 at 11:05 PM.
Well, I thought you were arguing for 4T until the final sentence.
So let's see what we have here:
1) Low-Intensity Conflict With No Sense of Urgency
2) Liberalization/ Reduction of Catholic Church Influence
3) Change in Attitudes Regarding #2 (IE fewer going to church)
Of course, none of this is indicative of a crisis, and could happen in any turning. Thanks for your input (Pick a country people! Any country!), but I really don't see how the 1980's and 1990's were a crisis. As for the economic resurgence, well I just think that is restored confidence thanks to the Troubles ending. I think John X. would call it a warm day in winter.
Last edited by Matt1989; 03-21-2007 at 11:43 PM.
When a society percieves "the troubles" in whatever form they take as over, which cusp are they at? Ireland reached this cusp about a decade ago.
Well, that warm day has lasted about a decade or half a turning. In terms of the solar calender, that's about six weeks or half a season. You could argue that this is a very mild 4t for Ireland, but that's hard to square with both current and past Irish conditions. The potato famine put Ireland on a cycle about a decade ahead of the "euro-American" one. As noted above, this set up the "fighting Irish" as primed to fight for independence when the opportunity came during WWI. It also meant that they were in no mood to fight with anyone by 1940 and sat out WWII. That's not unusual for post crises populations. If you insist on looking for a "crises war" in Ireland, it was the internal troubles and mostly limited to the north.I think John X. would call it a warm day in winter.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Can you please rephrase?
OK, perhaps that wasn't a proper analogy. In fact, I'm not entirely sure Ireland is in winter. They are somewhere in an area where they have to be exhibiting signs of a 4th turning thanks to their generational alignment, but without a proper catalyst. You could say the same thing about the rest of Europe.Well, that warm day has lasted about a decade or half a turning. In terms of the solar calender, that's about six weeks or half a season. You could argue that this is a very mild 4t for Ireland, but that's hard to square with both current and past Irish conditions. The potato famine put Ireland on a cycle about a decade ahead of the "euro-American" one. As noted above, this set up the "fighting Irish" as primed to fight for independence when the opportunity came during WWI. It also meant that they were in no mood to fight with anyone by 1940 and sat out WWII. That's not unusual for post crises populations. If you insist on looking for a "crises war" in Ireland, it was the internal troubles and mostly limited to the north.
Anyways, the Troubles don't read like a crisis war and I'd be cherry-picking if I said otherwise.
I think it might be time to start an Ireland poll thread, as previously done for Russia, Syria/Lebanon/Iraq, and Turkey.
Dear Matt,
Here's what I came up with the last time:
> Brazilian War of Independence in 1821-1825
> Civil War / Establish Old Republic - 1889-1898
> Military takeover - 1968-1974
> http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/brtoc.html
To respond to your question, I read through everything I could find
on the War of the Triple Alliance (avoiding something with a similar
name during World War I).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Triple_Alliance
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/tango/triple1864.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-TripAlWar.html
http://en.allexperts.com/e/w/wa/war_...e_alliance.htm
http://www.travelotica.com/travelgui...ance-52046.htm
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=95190689
http://www.workmall.com/wfb2001/para..._alliance.html
The Library of Congress history (referenced earlier) doesn't seem to
even mention the war, indicating that it can't be TOO important in
Brazil's history. (However, the war is discussed in LOC's Paraguay
history.)
As you say, it's clear that this was a crisis war for Paraguay.
Solano López seems to have been a nutcase with the same kind of
hypnotic charisma as Hitler. He was in total denial about what was
going to happen when he launched the war, making one mistake after
another, even misjudging his supposed alliance with Uraguay.
But I just don't see any "crazy" about what Brazil did. There were
higher casualties than expected, but it appears to me to be a
straightforward non-crisis war for them.
It's actually very hard to "prove" that a war is a non-crisis war,
since essentially you have to prove a negative. But all the signs of
a crisis war are missing. Brazil, Argentina and Uraguay seem to have
handled the war very wel.
The only hint of something more was that one of the texts (I forget
which) hinted that Brazil may have pursued the war longer than
necessary, killing more Paraguayan civilians than might have been
necessary.
But even this concept is quite ambiguous. The problem is that nobody
claims that Paraguay ever surrendered, or stopped fighting the war,
until they were utterly devastated. As a practical matter, if the
Paraguayans were going to continue fighting and launching terrorist
attacks, then Brazil had no choice but to keep on fighting.
And in fact, here's a paragraph from the Wikipedia account: "The
Paraguayan people had been fanatically committed to López and the war
effort, and as a result they fought to the point of dissolution.
Paraguay suffered massive casualties, losing perhaps the majority of
its population. The war left it utterly prostrate."
So I see that Brazil fought the war because they felt they had to,
and they stopped the war only when that was possible.
So this war appears to be a non-crisis war to me.
Well, you and Nathaniel are doing a great job.
What do you see as the issue when imperialist powers are involved?
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Who is this?
Hey everybody, look what I stumbled across on the Internet:
Who do you suppose that person is, giving a lecture on Generational
Dynamics? (And I'm not referring to the person with the receding
hairline!)
Sincerely,
John
So do you still agree with this timeline? All three of those mentioned aren't your typical crisis wars. I so far have seen no evidence of a real Civil War in the late 19th century.
Actually, the war is mentioned, but not by named. See the Second Empire: 1840-89.To respond to your question, I read through everything I could find
on the War of the Triple Alliance (avoiding something with a similar
name during World War I).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Triple_Alliance
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/tango/triple1864.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-TripAlWar.html
http://en.allexperts.com/e/w/wa/war_...e_alliance.htm
http://www.travelotica.com/travelgui...ance-52046.htm
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=95190689
http://www.workmall.com/wfb2001/para..._alliance.html
The Library of Congress history (referenced earlier) doesn't seem to
even mention the war, indicating that it can't be TOO important in
Brazil's history. (However, the war is discussed in LOC's Paraguay
history.)
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...d(DOCID+br0021)
I haven't checked a few of those links, so I'll read over them.
When imperialist powers are involved, the crisis war is almost always in some form of a rebellion against the imperialist power. But rebellions happen all the time and it is often difficult to distinguish between a non-crisis rebellion a crisis rebellion. Part of the problem is that the rebellion is typically somewhat isolated to a specific region. The second problem is that rebellions are often brutally suppressed and don't seem to run their course.What do you see as the issue when imperialist powers are involved?
Another big deal is the screwiness of fault lines. Fault lines usually (not always) carry over from the previous crisis war, but if the previous crisis war was a rebellion against the imperialist powers, the fault line is hard to identify, making the crisis war hard to identify. The longer the rule is, the more difficult this becomes. Africa is a cinch, but I recoil at the prospect of figuring out India or South America.
Well, I know what the results are going to be (1T), but I think it is the responses that will shed the most light.
Well, when the image filename is "matt," it kind of gives the secret away.Hey everybody, look what I stumbled across on the Internet:
Who do you suppose that person is, giving a lecture on Generational
Dynamics? (And I'm not referring to the person with the receding
hairline!)
Sincerely,
John
