Originally Posted by 1990

I disagree. I consider the 1952 Revolution the Regeneracy of Egypt's Crisis, not at all the Climax. The shockingly aggressive way in which Egypt fought the Suez War (thus indirectly defeating the great powers of Europe) looks like a clear sign that the 4T was far from over. Then there was the failed union with Syria, and major reforms under Nasser. I consider the climax to actually be the 1967 Six-Day War, which ended in humiliating defeat for Egypt and was the country's last war fought with the same force and passion.

I call Egypt's 4T 1948-1967, starting with the formation of Israel (which was near the end of the Israel/Palestine/Jordan 4T) and ending with the Six-Day War.

I peg 1948 as the starting date as well, but you can't have one crisis, then a 4-year long break, then another crisis, then a 10-year long break, and a final crisis. Why not extend it to 1973? Egypt actually started that one with double the force.

Fact is, by 1954, things had settled down to the point where Egypt was on the road to recovery. The Suez Crisis was a real political war where each country involved sought to protect its interests following the previous crisis.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

The only problem I have is that this genocide was just some maniacal dictator slaughtering his own people. While dark and certainly not euphoric, this is not your standard crisis war. That is why I looked for supporting information. I didn't find any, likely due to being hampered by lack of information. If I can find anything to support them having a 4T in the 70s (such as a 2T now or a 2T in the 1940s), I'll change my mind. It will stay in gray.

As in most of the third world, including Iraq, E.G.'s politics are primarily tribal.
To sum up the situation there, the underdevoloped mainland, has 80% of the population and it is overwhelmingly of the Fang tribe. The island of Fernando Po was, by contrast, well cultivated with cocoa plantations and had one of the best infastructures in the thrid world pre independence. The islanders wanted a seperate independence, but the Franco regieme would not listen. The result being the genecidal killing of the better eduacted islanders by the Fang government. In the eyes of the ruling government and its dictator, the killed people were not "his people", they were from the other tribe and much hated for being so.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

As in most of the third world, including Iraq, E.G.'s politics are primarily tribal.
To sum up the situation there, the underdevoloped mainland, has 80% of the population and it is overwhelmingly of the Fang tribe. The island of Fernando Po was, by contrast, well cultivated with cocoa plantations and had one of the best infastructures in the thrid world pre independence. The islanders wanted a seperate independence, but the Franco regieme would not listen. The result being the genecidal killing of the better eduacted islanders by the Fang government. In the eyes of the ruling government and its dictator, the killed people were not "his people", they were from the other tribe and much hated for being so.

This is better information than I ran across, but where is your source for the genocidal killing of islanders?

From your source:

Originally Posted by Every Culture.com

In 1963 Río Muni and Bioko were officially united as Equatorial Guinea, and Spain granted the country partial autonomy. Independence was declared in 1968. However, when Spain pulled out, they left the country in dire straits; violence and economic upheaval ensued, and the fledgling nation declared a state of emergency. The first president, Macias Nguema, ruled as a dictator for eleven years, outlawing all political parties but his own. In 1972 he declared himself ruler for life, presiding over a regime that killed and tortured thousands of its own citizens. Dissidents were sent to work camps or executed, priests were thrown in jail, and schools and churches were shut down. Journalism was declared a crime punishable by death. During this time, Equatorial Guinea had little contact with the rest of the world. By the time of his ouster and subsequent execution in 1979, Macias had managed to kill or force to flee two-thirds of the population.

The numbers don't add up. If two-thirds of the population of EG were killed or were forced to flee (it is probably less), the target was not just the better-educated islanders. The above paragraph reads like a maniacal dictator who killed all opposition on both Río Muni and Bioko, while you make it sound like a crisis war where the Fang Tribe targets the Islanders.

The information is lacking so anything you give will prove useful.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

This is better information than I ran across, but where is your source for the genocidal killing of islanders?

From your source:



The numbers don't add up. If two-thirds of the population of EG were killed or were forced to flee (it is probably less), the target was not just the better-educated islanders. The above paragraph reads like a maniacal dictator who killed all opposition on both Río Muni and Bioko, while you make it sound like a crisis war where the Fang Tribe targets the Islanders.

The information is lacking so anything you give will prove useful.

Though short, the article has clues. First, the country was created as an administrative convienance by Spanin in 1963. Therefore this is a very recent creation of what had previously been two seperate cultures. Normally, one would expect a new culture to begin with a 1t, but use a little comparitive thinking. America has three hundred million people. If we were a newly created nation, created against the will of a large segment of the population and ended up with a brutial dictator who before his overthrow plausibly klled 200 million Americans , what turning would our survivors and decendants familiar with the theory call it?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Though short, the article has clues. First, the country was created as an administrative convienance by Spanin in 1963. Therefore this is a very recent creation of what had previously been two seperate cultures. Normally, one would expect a new culture to begin with a 1t, but use a little comparitive thinking. America has three hundred million people. If we were a newly created nation, created against the will of a large segment of the population and ended up with a brutial dictator who before his overthrow plausibly klled 200 million Americans , what turning would our survivors and decendants familiar with the theory call it?

Well, killing or force fleeing 200 million people is different than killing or force fleeing 350,000 people, regardless of the percentages. The rule of a (maniacal) dictator is not necessarily 4T (and more often, it is not), and there is plenty of evidence around the world to show that.

Despite what you said earlier, it does not appear to be a crisis war, but it may have acted as one thanks to the huge decrease in population size. There isn't much research that has been done in this area, so I have a right to be skeptical. Like I said, I am open to the possibility and if there is any evidence to support it (I'm specifically looking for evidence of a 2T today), I'll change my mind.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Well, killing or force fleeing 200 million people is different than killing or force fleeing 350,000 people, regardless of the percentages.

In all X'er bluntness, yes, more dead bodies stink more, but other than the size of the carnage, what is the difference? The people who lived in the area in queston are dead in either case. If it is your tribe (nation) that has been almost wiped out, is your attitude as a survivor going to be any different while the struggle is going on? Yes, the relative power you have in your actions against your enemy will vary depending on your relative strength, but your going to do whatever you can to put "a hurtin' on the bad guys." We are talking 4t here.
If the land is depopulated by massive killings, isn't a 1t going to have to occur as the area is repopulated by either those survivors that remain or else by the occupying conquerors?

Despite what you said earlier, it does not appear to be a crisis war, but it may have acted as one thanks to the huge decrease in population size.

Yes, see below. :

There isn't much research that has been done in this area, so I have a right to be skeptical.

And this is why what you and 1990 are attempting is so important. Those of us who believe in the saeculur theory are a small minority amongst historians.
I believe that as the 4t becomes more apparent in everyday life, there will be a growth in belief in the theory. Understanding where we are, as well as everyone else will matter.

One thing about looking for 4t's around the world is that one size will not fit all. If a small, isolated culture such as the Easter Island is civilized to the point of being able to produce the Moai statues, then we know that they are post traditional and on a cycle. A people in a subsistance condition couldnot have produced the statues. Being isolated then, and with no history of either incoming or outgoing invasions, Easter Island's pre discovery by the outside world 4t's , have to be internal by default.

Granted, often a crises war will be the defining event of a 4t. Especially when dealing with a major power like the US. But in some cultures, especially isolated ones, you won't always find a classic crises war, it may be something else. It may be a potato famine as in Ireland, an ecological collapse as on Easter Island or maybe a prolonged internal slaughter as in Equatorial Guenia. There may be some variation.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

In all X'er bluntness, yes, more dead bodies stink more, but other than the size of the carnage, what is the difference? The people who lived in the area in queston are dead in either case. If it is your tribe (nation) that has been almost wiped out, is your attitude as a survivor going to be any different while the struggle is going on? Yes, the relative power you have in your actions against your enemy will vary depending on your relative strength, but your going to do whatever you can to put "a hurtin' on the bad guys." We are talking 4t here.
If the land is depopulated by massive killings, isn't a 1t going to have to occur as the area is repopulated by either those survivors that remain or else by the occupying conquerors?

Point taken. I thought you were trying to make a different point with the 200 million thing.

The problem here is that we don't have enough information on the subject so we don't know who was killed. Secondly, I've never really seen a country break up into two different saeculums, let alone dozens, so I don't think certain areas would automatically reset to 1T. Of course, I could see such a thing happening on an island.

I'm extremely cautious about the reset to 1T following depopulation. Yes, in many cases such a thing has happened, but there are cases where it hasn't, for reasons I'm not quite sure of. The Potato Famine happened in 1845, or 46 years after the last crisis (which I think was the 1799 Rebellion), so I would think there would be a better chance of a reset to 1T than had the mid-cycle period been 20 years. Unfortunately, we cannot even establish a previous crisis in EG, so I'm not going to budge ATM.

And this is why what you and 1990 are attempting is so important. Those of us who believe in the saeculur theory are a small minority amongst historians. I believe that as the 4t becomes more apparent in everyday life, there will be a growth in belief in the theory. Understanding where we are, as well as everyone else will matter.

Thank you for your kind words. Hey! This could be the Millenials first major achievement!

One thing about looking for 4t's around the world is that one size will not fit all. If a small, isolated culture such as the Easter Island is civilized to the point of being able to produce the Moai statues, then we know that they are post traditional and on a cycle. A people in a subsistance condition couldnot have produced the statues. Being isolated then, and with no history of either incoming or outgoing invasions, Easter Island's pre discovery by the outside world 4t's , have to be internal by default.

You're right here, but two a point. It's important that we establish differences in cultures, but a 4T is a 4T and the basic guideline remains.

I found the cycle to be true for Native Americans, who didn't even qualify for civilization status.

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...d.php?p=161771

Granted, often a crises war will be the defining event of a 4t. Especially when dealing with a major power like the US. But in some cultures, especially isolated ones, you won't always find a classic crises war, it may be something else. It may be a potato famine as in Ireland, an ecological collapse as on Easter Island or maybe a prolonged internal slaughter as in Equatorial Guenia. There may be some variation.

In this project, 1990 and I have covered hundreds of 4Ts, usually 2 per country. I don't know the exact amount at this point, but I believe there have been less than '5' 4Ts that did not have a "crisis war," whether it be an external war, civil war, or rebellion.

True enough, the exceptions have been in the form of an aborted crisis war, catastrophic loss in population, or a revolution (that could have been an aborted crisis war). 1990 can correct me on this, but I believe that this is it.

Point is, because these happen so rarely, we don't know enough about them. As I said before, in the case of EG, we don't have enough information, so I can't possibly make a decision on it.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Point taken. I thought you were trying to make a different point with the 200 million thing.

The problem here is that we don't have enough information on the subject so we don't know who was killed. Secondly, I've never really seen a country break up into two different saeculums, let alone dozens, so I don't think certain areas would automatically reset to 1T. Of course, I could see such a thing happening on an island.

I'm extremely cautious about the reset to 1T following depopulation. Yes, in many cases such a thing has happened, but there are cases where it hasn't, for reasons I'm not quite sure of. The Potato Famine happened in 1845, or 46 years after the last crisis (which I think was the 1799 Rebellion), so I would think there would be a better chance of a reset to 1T than had the mid-cycle period been 20 years. Unfortunately, we cannot even establish a previous crisis in EG, so I'm not going to budge ATM.

Agreed. The period after 1968 sounds like a 4T, but without deeper history we can't be sure. Why on earth did no one keep records until 1968?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Thank you for your kind words. Hey! This could be the Millenials first major achievement!

Just think. We're making history!

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

You're right here, but two a point. It's important that we establish differences in cultures, but a 4T is a 4T and the basic guideline remains.

I found the cycle to be true for Native Americans, who didn't even qualify for civilization status.

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...d.php?p=161771



In this project, 1990 and I have covered hundreds of 4Ts, usually 2 per country. I don't know the exact amount at this point, but I believe there have been less than '5' 4Ts that did not have a "crisis war," whether it be an external war, civil war, or rebellion.

True enough, the exceptions have been in the form of an aborted crisis war, catastrophic loss in population, or a revolution (that could have been an aborted crisis war). 1990 can correct me on this, but I believe that this is it.

Point is, because these happen so rarely, we don't know enough about them. As I said before, in the case of EG, we don't have enough information, so I can't possibly make a decision on it.

Yes, I would agree that it is rare to have found a 4T without some kind of war or genocidal violence. Some military regimes and interventions, such as those in Latin America, Benin, and Cyprus, have been counted (at least by me) as 4Ts, but even most of these were brutally violent. Violence is fundamental to crises.

Just to check the point on crisis wars, I'm looking up the top 20 countries population-wise and checking that against our turning assignments. Bold countries possibly had no crisis war in their last 4T.

1. China -- last crisis WWII and Civil War (ending 1949-50)
2. India -- last crisis WWII and Independence/Partition (ending 1947)
3. United States -- last crisis WWII (ending 1945)
4. Indonesia -- last crisis Civil War (1965-66) and Suharto's regime (4T ended circa 1984-85, date uncertain)
5. Brazil -- last crisis Military Rule (1964-1985)
6. Pakistan -- see India
7. Bangladesh -- see India
8. Russia -- here we differ. Easton says nothing since the Revolution/Civil War/founding of the USSR (crisis ending 1922?). I say crisis ending sometime in the early 2000s, without a real crisis war.
9. Nigeria -- last crisis Civil War (1967-70) and Military Rule (ending 1985).
10. Japan -- see United States.
11. Mexico -- last crisis Revolution (1910-20) and possibly Cristero Revolt as well (1926-29).
12. Philippines -- last crisis WWII and Independence (ending 1946)
13. Vietnam -- last crisis was Second Indochina War (ending 1975-79).
14. Germany -- see United States.
15. Egypt -- last crisis Revolution (1952) and possibly Suez Crisis (1956) and even Six Day War (1967). Whether you end it in 1952 or not, there was a war of some kind.
16. Ethiopia -- last crisis Civil War (ending 1991).
17. Turkey -- last crisis WWI and Ottoman Collapse (ending 1923).
18. Iran -- last crisis Revolution (1979) and Iran-Iraq War (ending 1988).
19. Thailand -- see United States.
20. D.R. Congo -- last crisis Congo Wars (ending 2003).

So out of the top 20 countries, only 2 countries maximum (and 1 if you consider the 1990s NOT a crisis in Russia) had their last 4Ts sans a crisis war.

Originally Posted by 1990

Just to check the point on crisis wars, I'm looking up the top 20 countries population-wise and checking that against our turning assignments. Bold countries possibly had no crisis war in their last 4T.

1. China -- last crisis WWII and Civil War (ending 1949-50)
2. India -- last crisis WWII and Independence/Partition (ending 1947)
3. United States -- last crisis WWII (ending 1945)
4. Indonesia -- last crisis Civil War (1965-66) and Suharto's regime (4T ended circa 1984-85, date uncertain)
5. Brazil -- last crisis Military Rule (1964-1985)
6. Pakistan -- see India
7. Bangladesh -- see India
8. Russia -- here we differ. Easton says nothing since the Revolution/Civil War/founding of the USSR (crisis ending 1922?). I say crisis ending sometime in the early 2000s, without a real crisis war.
9. Nigeria -- last crisis Civil War (1967-70) and Military Rule (ending 1985).
10. Japan -- see United States.
11. Mexico -- last crisis Revolution (1910-20) and possibly Cristero Revolt as well (1926-29).
12. Philippines -- last crisis WWII and Independence (ending 1946)
13. Vietnam -- last crisis was Second Indochina War (ending 1975-79).
14. Germany -- see United States.
15. Egypt -- last crisis Revolution (1952) and possibly Suez Crisis (1956) and even Six Day War (1967). Whether you end it in 1952 or not, there was a war of some kind.
16. Ethiopia -- last crisis Civil War (ending 1991).
17. Turkey -- last crisis WWI and Ottoman Collapse (ending 1923).
18. Iran -- last crisis Revolution (1979) and Iran-Iraq War (ending 1988).
19. Thailand -- see United States.
20. D.R. Congo -- last crisis Congo Wars (ending 2003).

So out of the top 20 countries, only 2 countries maximum (and 1 if you consider the 1990s NOT a crisis in Russia) had their last 4Ts sans a crisis war.

^^Why I'm not so sure about Brazil. I think John X. is still looking at Brazil, so I'm still waiting there. Either way, it's very rare. Eventually (and it will take some time), we are going to have some sort of database where everybody can look at this themselves so for now, you just have to trust us

Hello.

Burkino Faso should be on the same timeline as Cote D'Ivoire, who's last crisis ended with Mossi resistance (1902?). As far as I can tell, the 1983-1987 revolution was not a crisis war, making Burkino Faso the second country with 100 years+ without a crisis war.

Edit: *Map Updated to Include This*

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

^^Why I'm not so sure about Brazil. I think John X. is still looking at Brazil, so I'm still waiting there. Either way, it's very rare. Eventually (and it will take some time), we are going to have some sort of database where everybody can look at this themselves so for now, you just have to trust us

Even if you do have plenty of countries like Brazil, the trend we saw in that top 20 list was that 90% of the countries had had clear crisis wars during their last 4Ts. Those could be international wars like WWI, civil wars, revolutions, or some other sort of genocidal violence, but they were present in 90% of the cases.

I found that if you do the top 25 countries (instead of the top 20), the percentage is even more dramatic. The next 5 countries are France, the UK, Italy, South Korea, and Burma/Myanmar, and since these were all on the WWII timeline, you then have 23 countries out of the top 25 with crisis wars in their last 4Ts. That's 92%. And that assumes Russia's last 4T to be the '90s rather than the Revolution/Civil War of the 1910s.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Hello.

Burkino Faso should be on the same timeline as Cote D'Ivoire, who's last crisis ended with Mossi resistance (1902?). As far as I can tell, the 1983-1987 revolution was not a crisis war, making Burkino Faso the second country with 100 years+ without a crisis war.

I have to be skeptical, but it does look rather perplexing.

BTW, do you really consider Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Ghana, AND Cote d'Ivoire to all be 5T? (Or, in the case of the last three, "6T") I just really have trouble buying that. There has to be a crisis somewhere. Sometimes brief crisis wars are easily missed. A great example is Argentina, which clearly had a 4T during military rule (which ended in 1983) and before. When researching Argentina, all I saw was an oppressive dictatorship, but hidden in there was a genocide imposed by the government on its own people called the Dirty War. This genocide was large and devastating, but it was barely mentioned in Wikipedia's History of Argentina article at the time.

(Argentina's last 4T was largely reminiscent of Chile's, as a matter of fact, in terms of the brutal level of oppression by the military government)

Originally Posted by 1990

I have to be skeptical, but it does look rather perplexing.

BTW, do you really consider Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Ghana, AND Cote d'Ivoire to all be 5T? (Or, in the case of the last three, "6T") I just really have trouble buying that. There has to be a crisis somewhere. Sometimes brief crisis wars are easily missed. A great example is Argentina, which clearly had a 4T during military rule (which ended in 1983) and before. When researching Argentina, all I saw was an oppressive dictatorship, but hidden in there was a genocide imposed by the government on its own people called the Dirty War. This genocide was large and devastating, but it was barely mentioned in Wikipedia's History of Argentina article at the time.

(Argentina's last 4T was largely reminiscent of Chile's, as a matter of fact, in terms of the brutal level of oppression by the military government)

Help me out then. As you know, I was never terribly sure about the above countries (add Chad to that list).

The Sahel Drought is rarely mentioned, and that's worth looking into.

I'm pretty sure Samori Ture's resistance to the French was a crisis war in the late 19th century. Good luck.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Help me out then. As you know, I was never terribly sure about the above countries (add Chad to that list).

The Sahel Drought is rarely mentioned, and that's worth looking into.

I'm pretty sure Samori Ture's resistance to the French was a crisis war in the late 19th century. Good luck.

Sahel Drought? Ding ding ding:

The Sahel drought from the late 1960s to early 1980s created a famine that killed a million people and afflicted more than 50 million. The economies, agriculture, livestock and human populations of much of Mauritania, Mali, Chad, Niger and Burkina Faso (known as Upper Volta during the time of the drought) were severely impacted.

And Encarta chimes in:

The West African Sahel drought, which began in the late 1960s and lasted until the early 1980s, was the worst drought of the 20th century. The agriculture and livestock of much of Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and Chad were devastated, and the countries’ economies suffered.

THE WORST IN THE 20th CENTURY? That's saying a lot. 50 million people afflicted? Economies devastated? We may have just stumbled onto the last 4T in West Africa. This was not a little thing. It was like Africa's Dust Bowl, but a thousand times worse than the Dust Bowl.

Also, this would have been right on-cue in at least Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, all of which had rebellion 4Ts on the 1890s timeline.

As an aside, I had concluded that the current Central African War is a 4T in all three countries involved, with Sudan, Chad, and the C.A.R. each having had 4Ts in WWII. But now I am doubting this, especially with Sudan. It would seem obvious that the Darfur situation is a 4T genocide, especially now that this situation has spread into Chad and the C.A.R., but all articles I read have strong hints of Sudan's last 4T being the independence struggle in the 1950s. It was not a smooth transfer of power, but an ugly transition leading to civil war.

Anyway, is it at all possible that Sudan is 3T? I mention this because you have re-introduced a question mark about Chad.

Originally Posted by 1990

Sahel Drought? Ding ding ding:

The Sahel drought from the late 1960s to early 1980s created a famine that killed a million people and afflicted more than 50 million. The economies, agriculture, livestock and human populations of much of Mauritania, Mali, Chad, Niger and Burkina Faso (known as Upper Volta during the time of the drought) were severely impacted.

And Encarta chimes in:

The West African Sahel drought, which began in the late 1960s and lasted until the early 1980s, was the worst drought of the 20th century. The agriculture and livestock of much of Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and Chad were devastated, and the countries’ economies suffered.

THE WORST IN THE 20th CENTURY? That's saying a lot. 50 million people afflicted? Economies devastated? We may have just stumbled onto the last 4T in West Africa. This was not a little thing. It was like Africa's Dust Bowl, but a thousand times worse than the Dust Bowl.

Also, this would have been right on-cue in at least Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, all of which had rebellion 4Ts on the 1890s timeline.

Err, when has a drought acted as a crisis war? There was an even worse drought in 1914 along the Sahel strip that was much more devastating, but I have no reason to believe this was a crisis war either.

What it seems is that any possible 4T was continually delayed by unrest, famine, non-violent coups, and small rebellions.

As an aside, I had concluded that the current Central African War is a 4T in all three countries involved, with Sudan, Chad, and the C.A.R. each having had 4Ts in WWII. But now I am doubting this, especially with Sudan. It would seem obvious that the Darfur situation is a 4T genocide, especially now that this situation has spread into Chad and the C.A.R., but all articles I read have strong hints of Sudan's last 4T being the independence struggle in the 1950s. It was not a smooth transfer of power, but an ugly transition leading to civil war.

Anyway, is it at all possible that Sudan is 3T? I mention this because you have re-introduced a question mark about Chad.

I'm pretty sure Chad had their own Samori Ture in Rabih az-Dubayr, which ended/climaxed in the Battle of Kousseri in 1900.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kouss%C3%A9ri

As in the situation with the West African countries, Chad had the opportunity for a crisis war, but for some odd reason, it was delayed. There was a military rule beginning in 1975, and the civil war began in 1979. As far as I can tell, this is a non-crisis civil war. It had low, sporadic violence, and was very much a political war. Chad and Libya had a long, low-violence war in the 1980s and the 1990s and early 2000s had a lot of unrest.

There is another civil war/conflict with Sudan that started last year thanks to fallout from Darfur. I think it is on the verge of getting out of control, but we'll see.

FYI, Sudan's timeline appears to be the Muhammed Ali invasion (1819-1820), Mahdist War (1881-1899), and the current war.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Err, when has a drought acted as a crisis war? There was an even worse drought in 1914 along the Sahel strip that was much more devastating, but I have no reason to believe this was a crisis war either.

What it seems is that any possible 4T was continually delayed by unrest, famine, non-violent coups, and small rebellions.

I don't think the Sahel Drought acted as a crisis WAR, but maybe had the effect of an economic depression?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I'm pretty sure Chad had their own Samori Ture in Rabih az-Dubayr, which ended/climaxed in the Battle of Kousseri in 1900.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kouss%C3%A9ri

As in the situation with the West African countries, Chad had the opportunity for a crisis war, but for some odd reason, it was delayed. There was a military rule beginning in 1975, and the civil war began in 1979. As far as I can tell, this is a non-crisis civil war. It had low, sporadic violence, and was very much a political war. Chad and Libya had a long, low-violence war in the 1980s and the 1990s and early 2000s had a lot of unrest.

There is another civil war/conflict with Sudan that started last year thanks to fallout from Darfur. I think it is on the verge of getting out of control, but we'll see.

FYI, Sudan's timeline appears to be the Muhammed Ali invasion (1819-1820), Mahdist War (1881-1899), and the current war.

So even Sudan is experiencing 4T after a long, long delay. Why are so many African countries delayed not just one turning, but two? How can the status quo survive for 110 years?

I guess I'll be putting Sudan, and possibly many other countries, in maroon. Do you think Chad and the C.A.R. are "overdue" as well?

I find it fascinating that practically the entire continent of Africa was 4T around the turn of the 20th century, and then started unpredictably and irregularly diverging.

So far we may have the following countries as "overdue":

Mexico -- crisis ending 1929
Haiti -- 1932
Ireland -- 1923
Turkey -- 1923
Arabian peninsula -- about 1926
Morocco -- 1926
Sudan -- 1899
Chad -- 1900

Other West African countries ending in the late 1890s or early 1900s.

Originally Posted by 1990

I don't think the Sahel Drought acted as a crisis WAR, but maybe had the effect of an economic depression?

Well, economic depressions can happen in any turning (true, usually fourth). Think the panic of 1837 here. So while the Sahel Drought certainly had an effect on the people, I don't believe they went back to 1T.

So even Sudan is experiencing 4T after a long, long delay.

Well, I think Sudan's crisis began sometime in the 1980s with the second Sudanese Civil War, but recently it has taken a turn for the horrifying.

I guess I'll be putting Sudan, and possibly many other countries, in maroon. Do you think Chad and the C.A.R. are "overdue" as well?

Well Sudan isn't overdue any more since they are well past the regeneracy, and I think their crisis will end in less than 5 years. For all I know, CAR and Chad could have already started their 4th turning, but are still waiting for the regeneracy.

Why are so many African countries delayed not just one turning, but two? How can the status quo survive for 110 years?....

I find it fascinating that practically the entire continent of Africa was 4T around the turn of the 20th century, and then started unpredictably and irregularly diverging.

It's really quite bizarre and I don't have an answer. Between the years of 1880-1920, nearly every African country had a crisis (with most falling between 1895-1905), usually being resistance to colonial powers. But if you look at my map you'll be a whole lot of colors. A few had their crisis around the 60 year mark (orange/green), while some waited a turning (green/blue), and some waited two (blue/red/maroon).

Really, I'm racking my brain here and I don't have a clue. Maybe we're looking at it the wrong way. There are plenty of different ethnic groups in Africa spread across multiple countries who for all I know, could be on a different timeline then the one where they are a minority. The clash of different cultures could be throwing things off as their timeline tries to align with their countries timeline. It seems that every country has one next to it of the same color. Maybe we can get a map showing different ethnic groups in Africa? I know where a few reside, but a map would be helpful.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Well, economic depressions can happen in any turning (true, usually fourth). Think the panic of 1837 here. So while the Sahel Drought certainly had an effect on the people, I don't believe they went back to 1T.



Well, I think Sudan's crisis began sometime in the 1980s with the second Sudanese Civil War, but recently it has taken a turn for the horrifying.



Well Sudan isn't overdue any more since they are well past the regeneracy, and I think their crisis will end in less than 5 years. For all I know, CAR and Chad could have already started their 4th turning, but are still waiting for the regeneracy.

So Sudan should really be blue on the map. (What a brain-warp)

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

It's really quite bizarre and I don't have an answer. Between the years of 1880-1920, nearly every African country had a crisis (with most falling between 1895-1905), usually being resistance to colonial powers. But if you look at my map you'll be a whole lot of colors. A few had their crisis around the 60 year mark (orange/green), while some waited a turning (green/blue), and some waited two (blue/red/maroon).

Really, I'm racking my brain here and I don't have a clue. Maybe we're looking at it the wrong way. There are plenty of different ethnic groups in Africa spread across multiple countries who for all I know, could be on a different timeline then the one where they are a minority. The clash of different cultures could be throwing things off as their timeline tries to align with their countries timeline. It seems that every country has one next to it of the same color. Maybe we can get a map showing different ethnic groups in Africa? I know where a few reside, but a map would be helpful.

Yeah. Very possible, and an interesting idea. Africa is a special case where cultures mean more than nation-states.

In light of recent information, I have changed my mind on Mauritania. 4T.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

In light of recent information, I have changed my mind on Mauritania. 4T.

Why am I not buying that this much of Africa is so overdue for a crisis? I mean, if we require a civil war or mass revolt to dub something a 4T, that means Benin, Cameroon, Uganda, Tanzania, and Southern Africa are all 5T. I think we need to be a little more flexible about what constitutes a 4T.

Originally Posted by 1990

Why am I not buying that this much of Africa is so overdue for a crisis? I mean, if we require a civil war or mass revolt to dub something a 4T, that means Benin, Cameroon, Uganda, Tanzania, and Southern Africa are all 5T. I think we need to be a little more flexible about what constitutes a 4T.

Benin: I don't know why I have it in Green. When I made my map I copied yours, and you had it in green.

Cameroon: Cameroon had the UPC revolt and appeared to be 2T in the late 1980s and 1990s.

Uganda: Uganda's was the independence movement followed by the reign of Amin through the Tanzanian War.

Tanzania: I think Uganda and Tanzania are on the same timeline.

South Africa: I believe the time from 1959-1970?, the early part of the Apartheid Era, was part of a crisis war that had many rebellions, revolts, underground movements, etc. Not sure why there was no violent explosion. We could be looking at another aborted crisis war.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Benin: I don't know why I have it in Green. When I made my map I copied yours, and you had it in green.

Cameroon: Cameroon had the UPC revolt and appeared to be 2T in the late 1980s and 1990s.

Uganda: Uganda's was the independence movement followed by the reign of Amin through the Tanzanian War.

Tanzania: I think Uganda and Tanzania are on the same timeline.

South Africa: I believe the time from 1959-1970?, the early part of the Apartheid Era, was part of a crisis war that had many rebellions, revolts, underground movements, etc. Not sure why there was no violent explosion. We could be looking at another aborted crisis war.

Benin was in green because the reign of Kerekou (and before) seemed 4T.

If Uganda, Tanzania, and Southern Africa (this includes not just South Africa, BTW) had 4Ts when you say, then they are 2T now, not 3T. So you say Kenya is 3T, but not Uganda and Tanzania?

As for South Africa itself, Xenakis said he thought it to be entering 3T, with the last crisis being post-WWII. This period included the beginning of Apartheid in 1948 and the creation of the Republic in 1961.

EDIT: Oh, and it seems you put Guinea back in grey?

Originally Posted by 1990

So far we may have the following countries as "overdue":

Mexico -- crisis ending 1929
Haiti -- 1932
Ireland -- 1923
Turkey -- 1923
Arabian peninsula -- about 1926
Morocco -- 1926
Sudan -- 1899
Chad -- 1900

Other West African countries ending in the late 1890s or early 1900s.

Morocco was an unwilling participant in WWII. Its Crisis effectively ended in 1943 as American soldiers moved on into Algeria, Tunisia, and Italy. Turkey and Ireland have effectively been drawn into the orbit of western European history even as neutrals if they missed WWII (see also Sweden, Switzerland, and Portugal. Spain's Crisis, thank you, ended in 1939 with Franco's consolidation of power).

Sudan is clearly in the worst stage of a genocidal 4T -- usually the last stage that results in utter exhaustion or utter defeat. I can imagine its leaders ending up much like those who ruled Germany, Italy, and Germany during WWII and many of those of Iraq before 2003.

Mexico? Hit by the same Great Depression as the United States, and forced into the same cycle by its giant neighbor. It was a minor participant in WWII, but it was a participant. Closely synchronized with the USA since 1945.

Haiti? The country seems to be in a perpetual Crisis without relief.

Arabian Peninsula? I see Saudi Arabia as a classic powderkeg... with the sort of government that tries to divert people from its failure by funding those who would attack it to turn elsewhere. That is ultimately suicidal... If Saudi Arabia is operating on a 90-year or 100-year cycle it is on target for a 4T.

Chad -- didn't Muammar Khaddafi invade and occupy about half the country a few years ago? Even if that is a triviality, Chad was a French colony, and the struggle between Vichy and the Free French took place in Africa before it came to pass in France itself.