Hope your recovery continues smoothly and is complete. Take care.Originally Posted by 1990
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Location
- Arlington, VA 1956
- Posts
- 9,209
Hope your recovery continues smoothly and is complete. Take care.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
Nathaniel,
I had noticed that you hadn't been posting lately. It's good to have you back, you write well and I enjoy reading your work. Here's to a quick healing for you.
Michael,
I know that I'm likely tilting at windmills here, but thank you for referring to 1T's as recoveries. Too often on this forum, people who should know better refer to 1T's as "highs."People need to keep in mind that there is no guarentee that our next 1T will feel high. Indeed, if we make bad choices in the 4T it will be quite austere.
I am not in much pain at all, thanks to a month of pain pills. But now I have to be very careful not to further strain the bone. It's a drag, but I'm lucky to have come out as well as I did. Should be a near-full recovery as long as I don't bend, twist, etc.
The loosely-defined system we used before was roughly this: me = Western Hemisphere, he = Eastern Hemisphere. But it was agreed that if someone had a special love or knowledge of a certain country, they could cross over (e.g. if he wanted to do Puerto Rico or Guyana, fine, and if I wanted to do Belgium or Lesotho, also fine). He of course has worked his butt off with Egypt, Turkey, Afghanistan, and others while I sit around Facebooking. But I did do the U.S. and Mexico back when, and they turned out decently (Mexico was a little incomplete thanks to the controversy over its current turning).
As I said, I started Cuba and never finished -- ran into trouble figuring out the turnings between the Ten Years' War 4T (during what was the Reconstruction 1T in the U.S.) and the Revolution 4T 80-odd years later. The trouble largely concerned how to treat the Spanish-American War, which should have been late in a 1T but which history books speak of with 4T-ish heroism. If the SAW was a 4T, it throws the whole saeculum off (was the Revolution a 3T? Please). So that was The Trouble with Cuba. When school ends, I intend to jump back in and try to unravel (pun not intended) the mystery.
In the meantime, are my dusty old U.S. and Mexico timelines posted in the Official Map Project Thread ready for primetime? They might need a bit of tweaking, but the research is there to be refined and posted online.
He and I started referring to 1Ts as recoveries a while back. It seemed a fitting, and simple, term, without the overly positive/manic implications of "high" and more easily understood to newcomers than "austerity."Nathaniel,
I had noticed that you hadn't been posting lately. It's good to have you back, you write well and I enjoy reading your work. Here's to a quick healing for you.
Michael,
I know that I'm likely tilting at windmills here, but thank you for referring to 1T's as recoveries. Too often on this forum, people who should know better refer to 1T's as "highs."
Where are they?
John
http://fourthturning.com/forum/showp...&postcount=308
http://fourthturning.com/forum/showp...&postcount=312
http://fourthturning.com/forum/showp...&postcount=259
http://fourthturning.com/forum/showp...&postcount=260
An issue may need to be resolved, however. There are competing visions of how the saeculum operates, so inconsistencies could mar the overall project.
Indeed, a 1T can be a time of extreme repression, as in the Soviet Bloc after 1948 and in China after 1950, or in the American South after Reconstruction.Nathaniel,
I had noticed that you hadn't been posting lately. It's good to have you back, you write well and I enjoy reading your work. Here's to a quick healing for you.
Michael,
I know that I'm likely tilting at windmills here, but thank you for referring to 1T's as recoveries. Too often on this forum, people who should know better refer to 1T's as "highs."
How well a 1T goes depends to no small extent upon how well the 4T went... and a 4T can have a very unpleasant resolution.
Dear Nathaniel,
I reviewed the first part of your Country Study on Mexico.
http://fourthturning.com/forum/showpost.php?p=204036&postcount=308
You did a lot of great work and a lot of research, but there are some
issues.
The timeline that you laid out doesn't really work. You have the War
of Independence climaxing in 1821, but you have the Crisis era
extending to 1829. It would have to end in 1821. Then you could
have the Awakening Era beginning around 1836-1841 and the Unraveling
era beginning in the 1860s, but the rest of your narrative doesn't
support that timeline.
I believe that the War of Independence was a non-crisis war for
Mexico, in the same way that the War of 1812 was a non-crisis war for
America. It reads in many ways like an Awakening era war.
The analysis of Mexico has to focus on the "Conservatives" -- the
people of European descent -- versus the "Liberals" -- the people of
indigenous (Aztec and Mayan) descent.
There were many battles and revolts between these two groups, such as
the 1848 caste war in Yucatán and a massive peasant revolt in
Querétaro in 1849. I believe the climax of these battles occurred in
1861 at the conclusion of the War of the Reform.
Mexico is not a simple situation because there appear to be different
timelines for the south and the north, and perhaps others as well.
Some of these timelines merged with the War of the Reform and others
with the Mexican Revolution. The situation is further confused
because of interventions by the US, France and Spain -- but these
interventions all seem to be non-crisis conflicts. For Mexico, the
real crisis wars are fought between the European descendants (as
opposed to European armies) and the indigenous groups.
This extends even to today:
** Teen 'emo subculture' creating violent fault line in Mexico City
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e080525#e080525
Please take another look at your narrative and see if you can refocus
it to the European descendant/indigenous fault line. The timeline
should work out better then.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Dear Nathaniel,
I've added these two narratives to the web site:
** United States Country Study
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?d=ww2010.cs.us
** Mexico Country Study
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?d=ww2010.cs.mx
In the case of Mexico, I added a note saying that the timeline has to
be reworked.
Thanks! This is great work!
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
And if he doesn't agree? We have three people working on this, and everyone is going to have a different interpretation of events. Perhaps we should consider that a country's page has multiple viewpoints expressed.
IMO, I agree with 1990 that the Mexican War of Independence was a Crisis, where the liberals and conservatives came together. However, I think Awakening for Mexico ended in 1861. The early part of the Porfiriato seems to be a clear unraveling, too.
Last edited by Matt1989; 06-07-2008 at 04:09 PM.
Dear Matt,
I disagree with the premise of your question -- that there are
"different interpretations." Something either is or is not a crisis
war. We don't just take a vote. I've never found a case where the
question couldn't be resolved with a lot more research.
The fact that the liberals and conservatives came together to expel
Spain does not by itself indicate a Crisis war. Exactly the same
thing would happen in an Awakening era, especially in this kind of
situation where the entire population wanted to expel Spain. The
fact that they could agree on a common enemy does not mean that
they're unified, except for purposes of expediency.
Mexico is a very complex example because of the multiple timelines,
and may not be the best choice for someone's first country study. The
timeline in its current form contains inconsistencies that appear to
me to have been inserted in order to arbitrarily stretch the
inter-crisis period to 90 years, but the narrative doesn't provide
any justification. For example, what exactly does "unusual protection
... due to the harsh conditions" mean?
There are many times when I've had to spend a very long time
analyzing a nation or a war, especially at the beginning. I believe
that I spent something like 200 hours initially on the War of the
Spanish Succession. And even that wasn't enough because later I had
to revisit it for another few dozen hours when Mike Alexander grilled
me about it. That's the only way to get these "different
interpretations" resolved. Generational theory is very tough,
time-consuming work, requiring intensive study of multiple sources.
And it's a brand-new scholarly discipline, so there are no simple
answers. If you want to do real research, then this is what you have
to do.
In the country studies section, I can live with the differences in
formatting and style, because those can be edited later, but I can't
live with differences in generational theory. You also said
"inconsistencies could mar the overall project" in a previous posting.
I've been working on this for tens of thousands of hours over 6+
years, and I can't let that happen.
In the end, I'm going to have to make the final decision in each
case, since consistency is essential. But I don't generally make an
arbitrary decision, and I didn't in this case. I provided
descriptions of specific problems that have to be fixed, and suggested
how to fix them. If there's a different way to fix the problems, then
I'm willing to listen, but in the end you're going to have to convince
me, and that usually means doing a lot more research until the
solution is apparent to everybody, and "different interpretations" are
no longer necessary.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Angola
Angola
Late 19th century-1910 – Portuguese Imperialism (Crisis)
1911-1930 – Republican Era (Recovery)
1931-1951 – Growth of Nationalism (Awakening)
1952-1960 – Resistance Grows (Unraveling)
1961-1988 – War of Independence and Civil War (Crisis)
1989-Present – Political Tensions and Democratic Acceptance (Recovery)
Angolan resistance in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to Portuguese imperialism was fierce in this Crisis era. Artillery, fortifications, and intensive combat consumed much of Portugal's attention. In a Crisis War, especially those resisting foreign expansion, will continue to fight in the face of overwhelming odds. In particular, the Demos ethnic group fought to preserve their homeland and refused to surrender, but ultimately were overrun in 1910.
Due to the financial difficulties brought on by World War I and the violence in the previous decades, Angola's recovery era was filled with hardship, but the development of a diamond industry in the 1920s improved employment numbers and social conditions. Following a right-wing military coup in Portugal led by António de Oliveira Salazar, the Colonial Act of 1930 was instituted with the aim of integrating Portuguese culture into Angola.
Economic success was achieved in the late 1940s due to increased prices in coffee, which benefited Angolan producers. However, the authoritarian regime in Portugal silenced the growing objections among Angolan citizens. In an Awakening era, occurring 20-40 years after a Crisis era, a burst of idealism often brings about cultural and social change, as well as dissatisfaction with prevailing norms. A nascent nationalist movement opposing Portugal's subjugation of Angola developed, as did a class conflict between rich and poor.
These emotions unraveled in the following decade, provoking calls for separatism. The Portuguese government refused, thus beginning the Colonial War (or Angolan War of Independence) in 1961. Thousands of Africans and Portuguese were killed in this Crisis War, and many more were displaced. Independence in 1975 was achieved following the overthrow of the Portuguese regime the previous year (known as the Carnation Revolution), thus leading to the acceptance of African autonomy. The coalition of the three major separatist movements collapsed, and Angola descended into civil war, which also served as a proxy war for Cold War participants. The two antagonists were the communist MPLA (supported by the Soviet Union and Cuba) and the anti-communist UNITA (supported by the United States and South Africa), reflecting the divisions developed in the Awakening. The war killed hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, before climaxing in the battle of Cuito Cuanavale (1987-1988), the largest battle in Africa since World War Two. Both sides claimed victory, but the battle led to the departure of foreign troops as well as negotiations between the MPLA and UNITA factions.
Following the establishment of democracy, elections were held, and in 1991, the MPLA garnered a plurality of votes. In the fragile Recovery era, sporadic localized fighting broke out in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In 2002, UNITA demobilized its troops. Today, there is peace in Angola, and an Awakening era lurks on the horizon.
Dear Matt,
** Angola Country Study
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?d=ww2010.cs.ao
Thanks!
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
It is clear that more (time-consuming) research will be needed for Mexico, so at the moment let's leave that initial country study as a template of sorts, a first draft. To an extent, we should try for volume here, as some countries (Mexico, Russia, and quite a few in Africa) are simply maddening. Starting later this month, I will try to reconstruct what I was doing with Cuba and see where I left off -- the original document is lost, unfortunately, but I'm sure the source information still exists. Since I expect Mexico will be convoluted and controversial for some time (and I don't pretend to have a better grasp on that nation's endlessly violent 19th century than anyone else), this seems a nice detour.
Was a consensus ever reached on how to treat the Spanish-American War (vis à vis Cuba) around the turn of the 20th century? Was this 1T or 2T or something else? I suppose I could see it as the fiery early years of a 2T, akin to the furor of 1967-68 in the U.S., with a 1T between ~1879-1895. As I said before, this was the snag in figuring out Cuba's timeline.
Dear Nathaniel,
If that's the only snag, then just call it a "non-crisis war." The
time from 1T through 3T is a period of continuous change, not huge
quantum leaps at era boundaries. So there may be a noticeable
difference between a 1T war and a 3T war, but there's much less
difference between a 1T war and a 2T war.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Chad
Dear Matt and Nathaniel,
Does either of you have anything on Chad? They're close to war with
Sudan.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
I'm working on Mediterranean Africa now.
I suspect Chad is on multiple timelines, with the main one being the anchored by the Crisis that occurred during the time of this man. They have had many incidents in the past 40 years (including a civil war and war with Libya), but I couldn't identify any climax in these conflicts and the 1990s did not seem like a time of recovery, so I lean towards Chad being overdue for a Crisis. However, it's possible that I simply missed it.
Last edited by Matt1989; 06-17-2008 at 09:34 PM.
Is it possible that some countries don't have a national timeline, but a set of tribal ones? Not knowing anything about Chad, but still, the thought came to me.
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.
Dear Matt,
That makes sense. I looked at the Wikipedia article, and I see where
there are many candidates, as you point out, but the 1978-82 civil war
looks "crisis-y". What do you think?
If so, that would make the current situation with Sudan a late> Colonialism (1900–40)
> The French first penetrated Chad in 1891, establishing their
> authority through military expeditions primarily against the
> Muslim kingdoms. The decisive colonial battle for Chad was fought
> on 22 April 1900 at Battle of Kousséri between forces of French
> Major Amédée-François Lamy and forces of the Sudanese warlord
> Rabih az-Zubayr. Both leaders were killed in the battle. ...
> Civil war (1979-82)
> Internal dissent within the government led Prime Minister Habré to
> send his forces against Malloum's national army in the capital in
> February 1979. Malloum was ousted from the presidency, but the
> resulting civil war amongst the 11 emergent factions was so
> widespread that it rendered the central government largely
> irrelevant. At that point, other African governments decided to
> intervene.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chad
Recovery era or early Awakening era war -- and that would actually be
consistent with the fact that this situation has been building for a
couple of years, but the Chad government has been pretty laid back
about it all.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
=eod
=send 3
Dear Pat,
That certainly is possible. In fact, it happens in every country,
before all the tribal timelines merge.
2-3 years ago, Matt did some fantastic work on the timelines of North
American Indians.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Dear Matt,
I posted an article about Chad without attempting a generational
history. Maybe next time.
** Chad and Sudan may be close to a declaration of war
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e080618#e080618
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
I don't know. The information I gathered when I made the map and my world Crisis list was inconclusive, probably due to the multiple timelines. If we pay attention, Chad's response to the current crisis should indicate where it stands.
Last edited by Matt1989; 06-19-2008 at 11:12 PM. Reason: whoops!
Libya
This took a while, since I had to revise my previous end to the crisis. This timeline makes more sense IMO.
-------------------------
-- Libya: 1911-1931 – Italian Invasion + Sanussi Resistance (Crisis)
-- Libya: 1932-1950 – Italian Colony (Recovery)
-- Libya: 1951-1970 – Gaddafi's Coup (Awakening)
-- Libya: 1971-Present – Conflicts at Home and Abroad (Unraveling and Post-Unraveling)
From the 15th century through 1911, Libya was occupied by the Ottoman Empire. It appears that the generational cycles of the Libyan people and the Ottomans were merged. Unlike their neighbors in Egypt, Libyans never mounted concentrated resistance to the Ottoman Empire (whose study can be found on the Turkey page), but there is evidence of local fighting in the 1850s, which occurred as the Ottomans were participating in their own crisis, the Crimean War. Regardless, we'll pick up their generational cycle with the Italian invasion of Libya.
In September 1911, Italy initiated a conflict with the Ottoman Empire with the intent of invading and occupying Libya, thus liberating the nation from Ottoman rule. The Ottoman Empire, in the final years of its existence, proved a weak and disorganized foe; following heavy casualties in the year-long invasion, they were forced to grant concessions to Italy. A concurrent revolt was staged by Libyan tribesmen (particularly the traditionalist Sanussis) against the invaders, as they saw the Ottoman surrender as a surrender of Islam. A peace accord was reached in 1920, but following fascist dictator Benito Mussolini's rise to power in Italy, war broke out again upon the annexation of recognized Sanussi territory. What followed was fierce resistance and refusal to surrender on the part of the Libyan people and extreme brutality (including a war of attrition that featured the establishment of concentration camps) exhibited by the Italians.
However, in 1931, resistance collapsed and the country was unified. In the recovery era, attempts at modernization of Libyan infrastructure as well as Italian and Libyan integration were mostly successful, despite the bitterness felt from the crisis. When World War Two broke out, Mussolini and the Axis Powers used Libya as a base for operations against the British in Egypt. Many Cyrenaicans (the eastern-most portion of Libya), assisted the allies in the struggle. By 1943, the Italians and Germans had been pushed out of the country, and Libya was occupied by British and French forces.
Following a decree by the United Nations, Libya achieved independence in 1951. The nation was established as a constitutional monarchy which would be led by King Idris I. Shortly after elections in 1952, political parties were outlawed. Despite this, the order that was so strong for much of the 1930s and 1940s began to fracture in the awakening era (typically occurring approximately 20 years after the climax of the previous crisis), a time of generational conflict and shifting values. Disputes between various local governments intensified, as did opposition to Idris. Petroleum deposits were discovered in 1959, thus transforming Libya into a wealthy nation with an increasing population. Despite this, Idris could not promote support for his regime like Nasser had done in Egypt. Rather, the wealth brought in from petroleum sales failed to affect the lives of Libyans, and when combined with conservative opposition to Idris's pro-Western policies (feelings which were intensified following the Arab-Israeli war in 1967), created a climate inducive to change.
The awakening climaxed in 1969, when a group modeling themselves after Nasser's government in Egypt took control of the government and abolished a monarchy. Led by Muammar al-Gaddafi, the new leaders pursued a policy of socialism and strict adherence to Muslim doctrine. In the unraveling era, divisions continued, albeit of a different nature. Many educated Libyans left the country and formed opposition groups, leaving a lack of skilled workers. In addition, many students opposed Gaddafis reforms; and, perhaps fearful of another coup, Gaddifi had dissident members of the armed forces executed. Despite the opposition, economic conditions improved in the 1970s.
Gaddafi fashioned himself as a revolutionary, and he sought to support opposition to Western and Soviet territories throughout his rule. Some have speculated that Gaddafi was a major financier of terrorism in the 1980s and 1990s. His policies led to conflicts with the United States and a United Nations embargo on petroleum was placed following an incident over the Gulf of Sidra in 1981, crippling the economy for two decades. In 1986, the United States initiated bombing raids on the country. The following year, Libya invaded southern neighbor Chad, but was repulsed.
In 1999, Libya agreed to meet the demands posed by the United Nations, and the sanctions were removed. In 2003, Gaddafi renounced terrorism and has ended his weapons of mass destruction program. Currently, Libya is slightly overdue for a crisis and will likely be drawn into conflicts in surrounding countries, notwithstanding the current steps towards a less provocative foreign policy.
Last edited by Matt1989; 06-20-2008 at 01:48 AM.
Dear Matt,
Great job! Thanks!
** Libya Generational Country Study
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?d=ww2010.cs.ly
I just realized -- the Libyan flag is solid green.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
I edited my post for grammar. You might want to put the new one up.
Gaddafi is actually going green (eco-term) today, but green is a major symbol of Islam. The 1969 Revolution is sometimes referred to as the Green Revolution.
The man actually struck me as quite amusing. The popular American perception doesn't line up with what I read... at least not totally. He would often give almost complete control of the country to his advisers for years and retreat to his study to theorize about politics and revolution and whatnot. In the mid-1970s he published a 3-volume book called "The Green Book," which outlined his political philosophy. It makes me wonder what he thought of himself, since his actions don't match up with this intellectualism.
I suppose it's no wonder he's a Prophet.
