Here is my story of what I experienced when the 911 attack occurred. I just woken up at 6 AM Australia Time on Wednesday 12 of Stepember and I went to my computer and checked my e-mail and read the morning newspapers. Then I noticed Robert, Chris and John were online on MSN messenger and decided to talk to them. They told me the horrible news of the terrorist attack; I could hardly beveile it the World Trade Centre Towers and the Pentagon were gone, destroyed by three Boeing Jets. This left me in shock and sometimes tears in my eyes all day; I found it hard to keep on schoolwork. In the days following it, I could hardly bevelie the news I was getting from the United States of the mood change this terrorist attack brought and all these sudden calls for decisive action and how this was going to be a long bloody war against Bin Laden and his supporters, how the people of America and it?s politicians were willing to commit Total war to be fought to the finish, unimaginable just a few weeks ago. Also how these politicians language had changed from Kosovo which was just to liberate Kosovo to this war which they are saying destroy Bin Laden and his minions at any price. How this event changed the mood of a whole nation just like that from an Unravelling to Crisis mindset. This event is going to be remembered for years to come as an important turning point in the affairs of World history. I know the ?roaring? 90?s have ended and a new era has dawned, the unravelling is most certainly over and there is no going back.

I saw this story on Americia's prepration for war on Sixty Minuties tonight and it had two Silents, a Korean and Vietnam war hero and Richard Holbrooke talking about how dertimited the public was willing to win this war aganist terrorist, how this would be a long total war like WW2. How they did not care if innocent lives could be killed in such a war and accepted mistakes could be made. This attuide to me was scary, this is from the same generation until recently which preached restraint in such wars and going to war as the final resort. This war coming up is going to be a long bloody one, the History of Afghanistan and the nature of the Pathans will make sure to that, Alexander the Great spend half of this campgain in Afghanistan, it is not going to be easy, especially invading via the Khyber Pass. However I do think Americia can win this war, however expect a long hard fight.

I am wondering what your thoughts have been how you have seen the mood change around you and your communites since the 911 attack, any stories would be welcome.

Great story, Tristan.


Ya gotta love this!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...123742_000.htm


The psychological war heats up.

Usually, I try not to intervene in dialogues between individuals on these threads, but I have to make an exception here.

Everyone should know that "wmurray" (Bill Murray) has been actively engaged in discussions about our books--indeed, in promoting the ideas of our books--since the very earliest days on the internet. Before The Fourth Turning was published, and before we began this web site in late 1996, Bill created a website, the "Time Page" (www.seanet.com), focused on the ideas of our Generations book. Check out http://www.seanet.com/Users/pamur/time.html, and you can see that his site is still active. I'm very pleased that he's joined our discussion.

In my view, Bill's comment, about how we might look at the relationship between the Taliban and Islam in the context of Nazi Germany and Christianity, is well within the range of ideas that are worth discussion on this forum.

Also: I was pleased to be on the Art Bell show, and if it brings new people to this forum, that's great. The three hours I spent on that show were not different from many other call-in shows Neil or I have done, except on this occasion I had more time than usual to present our ideas, which was good. Sure, I encountered some unusual callers, but they were the exception--and that happens with all kinds of radio shows, including C-Span and NPR. I thought, on the whole, the callers were very good.

Let me encourage listeners of that show to join our discussion here. If you're looking in, I want you to feel welcome.

There are strong signs of GenXers entering midlife.

Justin, many of us are approaching 40.

The Beastie Boys (who I see as kind of our generations Beatles) have kind of hung up the mic, and have taken completely to taking stands on issues and running their record company Grand Royal (which coincidentally went out of business the day of the attacks)

This is interesting. I can remember when the Beastie Boys came out -- was it 1986? They drew some attention among my immediate age group as a novelty but the appeal soon waned. It never would have occurred to me to consider them the Beatles of my generation -- perhaps more of a Paul Revere and the Raiders? In fact, just considering the question now, I am hard pressed to come up with any band which might be qualify for that title. Guns 'N Roses? Even they do not seem to make the cut.

But the music angle with respect to the 13th/GenX is interesting because I can recall how the music styles changed just after 1990. There seemed to be a general mellowing and an influx of bands I had never heard of and could not name now (with few exceptions). Then came that Woodstock revival in 1994. I recall reading the list of bands scheduled to play there and coming away with the sense that I was reading a menu in a French restaurant. This appeared -- and sounded -- to me to be the music of an entirely different generation even though my immediate age group most definitely did not belong to the Boomers.

I imagine that the intra-generational differences which I am describing here probably apply to all waves within all generations. For example, first-wave Boomers might consider last-wave Boomer music to be alien. However I am still willing to bet that the last-wave Boomers would agree with first-wave Boomers as to what bands defined their generation as a whole. If so, then first-wave 13ers might exist in an interesting notch.

If this notch exists, I can think of a possible reason for it. We first-wave 13ers mostly had Silent parents. You later-wave 13ers mostly had Boomers parents. Does a more incongruous group of parents even exist in the generational mix? We first-wave 13ers had parents who grew up listening to Elvis and who looked upon the Beatles and all that came afterward with disdain, i.e. "They need haircuts!" You later wave 13ers had parents who were the ones who needed those haircuts! Such an incompatible mix of parents for those within our generation might indeed translate in some way to a wave-based fragmentation in our sense of what constitutes our generation's music -- and a unique fragmentation at that.

I'll just add that I can think of one other manifestation which might support the first-wave 13ers as being an unusually distinct notch. We first-wavers vote in all different ways as waves of all generations do. But there is a pronounced core of ideological libertarians among first-wave 13ers and I continue to see this point made. And I do mean small "l" libertarian, not big "L," as this core is not wedded to any party and it can and does support Republicans, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reformers -- it does not matter. But my perception is that later-wave 13ers are largely apolitical and have "dropped out" since they concluded early on that politics is a rigged game not worth playing. Perhaps you later-wavers are a bit smarter and quicker than us first-wavers in this respect.

Most Xers have quieted down, and its become more difficult(as late wave Xers friends of mine have discussed) to have a completely outrageous party on par with my brothers parties in the 80s where there were actually footprints on the ceiling leftover from when someone played "dancing on the ceiling."

I can see where it might appear that we first-wavers were wild in our partying compared to you last-wavers -- and we probably were. And it is funny to consider how tame we first-wavers considered ourselves to be in comparison to the Boomers before us -- and I am certain we were. But I distinctly remember having the sense that we were the last generation (first-wave 13ers) who would be allowed to have fun in America. Although, I was a staunch Reaganite, the crackdown on having fun was clearly in the wind. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers was a new temperance movement which was on the verge of bending the entire country to their will -- and they finally did with that road bill which forced the states to raise their drinking ages to 21. The War on Drugs and "Just Say No" was picking up steam. College administrations were responding by actually banning keg parties and it seemed only a matter of time before they would cease to "look the other way" with students' youthful transgressions and would actively cooperate with outside law enforcement in bringing the jackboot on campus. I loved Reagan's economic program as it promised to get government out of your wallet so that you might maximize your potential in life. But I was also fully conscious that this support of Reagan was opening a Pandora's Box of another kind. And it was mildly unsettling to say the least.

Society just isnt as tolerant of wild youth, and I think the gen Xers into midlife is just about to begin (I am 22 which is pretty scary, but if youre a 13er, then youve kind of been on the wild youth ride since you could go outside).

Over the past year or so, I have developed a sense that we need to be more protective of children, e.g. consider all the exploitation of minors, i.e. kiddie porn, on the Internet -- it is sickening. I remain every bit as much libertarian philosophically, but I have become more rigid in my opposition to license, i.e. liberty without responsibility. Unfortunately, government predictably will implement greater child protections by protecting us from ourselves (a la Committee For Public Safety, Virgil) and by delegating to itself more arbitrary power to dictate how you as a parent must raise your child. In the end, they will be effectively dictating what values you must instill in your children -- as they already are to a large degree. And this does not bode well for the future of this country or the liberty of its people.

I am one of the few that think that our national mood has changed dramatically, but not completely over the hump into the Fourth Turning. It will take one more push. A catalyst.

Watch out for those cells with biological agents which they have repeatedly warned us about in recent years. By the way, if they knew about these cells, why did they never remove them? Ah, but I forget. The strategy is to infiltrate and create informants, not eliminate and save lives. I fear we will pay dearly for this stupid strategy (as we already have in fact in a few prominent events which occurred over the past decade).


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2001-09-23 15:45 ]</font>

Mr. Strauss writes, "In my view, Bill's comment, about how we might look at the relationship between the Taliban and Islam in the context of Nazi Germany and Christianity, is well within the range of ideas that are worth discussion on this forum."

Be it far from me to suggest that anyone who comes to these threads anytime they want and say anything they wish to say.

On the subject matter at hand, perhaps a little light shed upon this nasty subject.

Two books worth looking at:

Christian America? : What Evangelicals Really Want
by Christian Smith
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...762175-4096059

Review:
"In this book Christian Smith shatters many of the stereotypes that the media and academics hold about American Evangelicals. In it he draws on a series of interviews that he and his colleagues conducted over a three-year period as part of a much larger research project of American evangelicals. It compliments his 1998 book on evangelicals that is far more quantitative in nature."


The Third Reich
A New History
By Michael Burleigh
http://www.fsbassociates.com/fsg/thirdreich.htm

Burleigh notes that from their earliest days, the Nazis attacked not only Jews but communists, but members of the 'effete bourgeoisie' and all religions. In essence, "Nazism represented a sustained assault on fundamental Christian values," he writes.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-09-23 16:41 ]</font>

On 2001-09-23 09:29, Brian Rush wrote:
HopefulCynic said:

From the point of view of the Islamic world, (or most non-Western cultures) the RR and the secular worlds of America look a lot more similar than they do to us.

We continue to disagree about the nature and influence of evangelical Christianity in this culture, H.C.


I don't know about "the Islamic world." But if we're talking about Muslim fundamentalists, your statement is demonstrably incorrect. I have seen many quotes in the papers recently from Muslim terrorists and their supporters to the effect that America's biggest crime in the eyes of God was turning away from Christianity and imposing a secular society. Islam has always recognized its kinship with Christianity and considered Jesus a prophet of God, although Muslims believe they hold an updated version of the truth. For the fundamentalist Muslims to accordingly recognize their kinship with fundamentalist Christians is only logical, and is supported by statements like this, in today's San Francisco Chronicle:

Mahmoud Aboulihama [convicted of the failed WTC bombing] . . . told [Mark] Juergensmeyer [in an interview] it took him a long time "to understand what the hell is going on in the United States and in Europe about secularism of people, you know, who have no religion.


"I lived their life, but they didn't live my life, so they will never understand the way I live or the way I think." . . .


Before this month's attack on the World Trade Center, Aboulihama was asked in a jailhouse interview if he thought the United States would be better off with a Christian government.


"Yes," the convicted terrorist replied. "At least it would have morals."

We don't _entirely_ disagree, Brian, but yes, we do perceive something fundamentally (there's that word again) different when we look out the window at modern America.

It isn't just the evangelical Christians (as opposed to my broad definition of RR) that worry that modern America has no morals. For that matter, in the dictionary sense of the word, America is actualy suffering from a case of multiple conflicting morals.

Fallwell's statement about God having removed his protection from America because of secularism also received positive commentary from Muslim fundamentalists, I believe from Iraq.

True enough, but not directly relevant. The fact that one faction of America sees a fault in their own country that an enemy also sees proves one of two things:

1. The faction is actually aligned with the enemy.

2. The fault really exists, and is visible to both.

For example, during the Vietnam War, both the North Vietnamese, the War Protestors at home, _and_ many military officers, perceived that something was fundamantally wrong with the way the war was being run strategically. Does that mean that the military officers and the North Vietnamese had similar motives, since they perceived similar problems? (Whether it was a problem depends on which side you were on. I should perhaps say which 'weaknesses'.

It is an interesting question what would have happened in 1971. My guess is that the country would have united against the threat more than many of you suppose. The antiwar movement would have gotten much quieter. It would have been much harder to protest against the U.S. military or the government when the country was really, obviously in danger.


In fact, I speculated once on another thread regarding what would happen if external events forced a Crisis era with a wildly inappropriate generational constellation. What I think would happen is that each generation, while remaining true to its own archetype at the core, would adopt the life role of its phase of life location to the best of its ability. It would make for a clumsy Crisis, though, to be sure. Let's be thankful nothing of the sort occurred.

I'm at a disadvantage here, because I am not old enough to recall first hand the time in question, save very vaguely. From what I've read, seen in film, heard on audio, and perceived in this discussion, I suspect you and the others are right. Some would have done what they could as best they could. Others would have rejoiced at America's downfall, at least until it occured to them that _they_ were America in the eyes of whatever enemy attacked, as well.

I was simply pointing out the congruence of those viewpoints, and how the main thing the bin Laden crowd have against our society involves a moral and religious critique based on the fact that we are a secular, non-puritanical society with a complex rather than simplistic mythos.

What _is_ the secular mythos (if we can express it that way)? I've identified half a dozen separate ones in the secular movements, but I can't trace out any coherent pattern to them that isn't self-contradictory on a basic level.





If you want to understand why these people hate us, you need look no further than our own homegrown religious right, and why they, too, criticize our society. The only significant difference between the two groups lies in the methods each is willing to employ.
[/quote]

And of course, most of the details of the basic beliefs and practical goals.

On 2001-09-23 09:29, Brian Rush wrote:
HopefulCynic said:

From the point of view of the Islamic world, (or most non-Western cultures) the RR and the secular worlds of America look a lot more similar than they do to us.

We continue to disagree about the nature and influence of evangelical Christianity in this culture, H.C.


I don't know about "the Islamic world." But if we're talking about Muslim fundamentalists, your statement is demonstrably incorrect."

As I said, there would be greater respect (of a peculiar sort) among Fundamentalist Islamics for a Christian Theocratic America.

But if we assume that this other America retained the military, political, and economic power it does now, the Islamic world would still feel as if it were under siege. In some ways, it would be worse, because they would be facing an enemy they felt to be more inherently dangerous. It's quite possible to respect an enemy and at the same time fear him the more so for the greater degree of (perceived) power and danger.

Further, even if the RR was in power in America, it would _still_ look like a hotbed of permissiveness and decadence to the Taliban and their crowd, just somewhat less of one. The Taliban make the hardcore evengelicals look like the mainstream methodists in terms of their ideal society.

I,ve read the essay and the first few pages and then the last few pages to get a sense of the discussion. I encountered the authors work on c-span around the time of the congressional shift from democrat to republican. At the time I was also trying to get a working knowledge of a similar system with different applications. A business course thats buried in the closet but still a part of my regular tools to try to understand difficult problems. There was quite a lot of information on the Fourth Turning and even a seminar environment broadcast if I remember correctly. I taped it and watched it repetitively at intervals to get a handle on it. I knew it was a lens system as opposed to a series of conclusions. So after the events of 9/11 I happened to hear an interview and checked out the Fourth Turning website which I had lost the bookmark for over time. I was surprised to find such a lengthy post 9/11 discussion.
Reading the essay by the authors twelve days after the event I would say that all ten points are evident with 1-7 & 9 hardened and definitely pointing to the fourth turning. While 8th point. the movement toward new roles within the archtype are harder to define than the 10th as the shattering of consumer confidence, which seems well progressed. I think from reading about ten pages of discussion the bulk concerns question relevant to point eight because of its application to a wider context of group behavior within archtypes. The millenial children I know are acting according to script even if others around me don,t see it. Getting jobs and quitting ectasy and raves, or giving up pot and joining the team sports world and just all around behaving in a more predictable fashion-socially adjusted.
The next archtype, nomad, I personally ascribe to realizing that the demarcations are not necessarily drawn in the pavement of history's hardened cement. I suppose for mental consideration of the authors work I would see myself most definitely as an earliest wave genXer. Born Oct of 1959 I am pretty much past the circle the wagons stage or else headed into a repeat cycle of the same period. Movies such as "Dazed and Confuzed" "Outside Providence" being culture portraits that seem accurate portayals of that period to my perspective with "Airheads" "Waynes World" and "Bill & Ted " movies being accurate caricatures that draw on many real elements of attitude and perspective. Especially the idea of partying with out false pretense to being socially relevant which was prevalent with the boomers. Cultural themes in entertainment slowly moving along and culminating culturally in "The Matrix" caricature of the nomad group realizing its place. The early pop culture references being easy to grasp with The Matrix depicting the ID of what I heard the authors reference as (paraphrasing) the target factor that Xers were exposed to and there reaction. The idea of early Xers being consider disposable products in light of the heroics of the GI generation, The manipulative skills of the Silent generation and the chosen by God to enter the gates of paradise aura of the Boomer/hippie generation. Suffice to say as the authors mentioned in their radio interview the only plane brought down was probably managed by a few Xers weilding their own belts swung circularly as knife defense to overcome the attacker. A technique many first wave Xers remember. The sixties were a very violent period where a lot of children were left to their own devices as far as self protection.
Obviously the chance of anyone dying in a terrorist attack in this country are still very minute, but a shift in mood for those not acquainted with violence can be seen.
The fate of the boomer generation seems varied but in decline except for those acquainted with and comfortable with dual mode thinking, specifically survival and relaxation and the ability to move between the two without to much time or effort expended. Among Boomers there were always psuedo-Xers those who had overcome some great obstacle and were constitutionally incapable of doing anything but assisting and tolerating the growth of younger Xers. That seemed to taper off as the seventies deepened and the eighties dawned. The Silent generation people I know were simply not ready or mentally available for the events of 9/11. I'm sure there are exceptions. The ones I knew were to overcome to have a reaction to the greater context and did as expected. They did not lead, follow or get out of the way, they simply sat and stared and forgot that the flags they bought were to be flown at half mast instead of full. Most of the G.I. generation people I know are gone to their graves with great fanfare and celebration of their absolute uniqueness in the universe as beings who came saw and conquered and were to be payed handsomly unto all eternity. I respect those who died in the great wars but theres a limit to the idea of compensation and its only common sense that no one should rest on their laurels forever. Which was the saddest part of knowing the GI people I knew. Botching one task after another until finally they passed and a sigh of relief could be heard. The proposed WWII monument is a good example of that idiom. Between the Washington monument with its phallic spire representing a man who could have been our first king but refused to give in to temptation to throw away the heart and soul of the new reality of a dream based on freedom and liberty and justice for all. It was a dream and a promise. At the other end of the great space is the Lincoln Memorial which is the fulfillment of that promise when brother fought brother to decide the issue of slavery once and for all. Such a great space for the continuing renewal of that promise and others outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Yet, some feel thats not as it should be because an entertainer, a great and talented entertainer without a doubt, begins a movement previously championed by another media personage to honor the "Greatest Generation". Thats what outlines the lack of perspective of the GI, Silent and Prophet generations working in concert. Should the American system of laws and governance dominate as the human family becomes a starbound civilization then obviously there shall be many generations challenged ahead.
But it serves as a good anecdote and icon to observe using the authors idea of cultural movement and group activity. If that monument gets built this is not the fourth turning.
If it doesn,t then the fourth turning is more likely here. Having summed up my perspective on the generations I'll go on to put forth the conclusion that I would say that 9/11 is the fourth turning. My reasoning going back to my earlier commentary on Genx realities of dual mode existence. Where now the entire culture is in a dual mode existence.
Experiencing the humans are disposable conceptualization according to someone elses value system. Leading to a forced change to all generations that pushes them into that next phase of each archtype. Being a first wave Genxer I would have a degree of the Prophet generation within as a part of my inner cosmology even if mostly of a caricature variety. When I saw the second plane hit I knew the first one didn't have a suitcase nuke in it and that the chance of all out nuclear war had just fallen to zero and the possibility of tactical nuclear weapons being used in retributive action had just climbed an order of magnitude due to the level of destruction to the capital of civilization. So overall I believe this is the fourth turning the authors spoke of only come sooner due to some application to cultural processes of moores law which describes the prediction that the processing power of computer chips
will double approximately every 18 months.
I surmise that this event is the fourth turning catylyst as just an acceleration of the formula. Earlier I mentioned several movies as amusing caricatures of genXers that drew on real aspects of that culture. Which caused me to remember a discussion in earlier pages concerning music. The beatles of GenXer are beyond a doubt U-2. I saw them the first time they played the states and had to repeat their entire set because they only had about ten songs and the crowd was not going to let them out of the building. I personally still listen to them depending on the quality of the specific song or songs. Though many other groups are a close second. They had that sense of a great loss and a resolve to go on no matter what that could be detected by early wave GenXers. The only commentary I would make on late wave GenXers verses early wave is they had less reason for their use of violence than early wavers. Violence was always reserved to protect life and then it was unleashed without mercy. The later wave latched onto the psychotic overkill aspect of that violence as a form of style as opposed to a strategy of warding off a seemingly more potent opponent before harm came to them.
While all long term threats to survival were dealt with more modestly and with resolve and resolution. Such comments applying to the early stated theme of GenX
as a disposable generation. I think that theme of psychotic pretense has finally played itself out in all the school shootings of the past years where the younger generation eschews any connection to such methodologies. In a quasi-editorial conclusion I am tempted to cast out such surly tragically hip endings such as "Welcome to the real world" or " Glad to see you made it to the future" but I'll restrain my hyperbole and go with the more classic chinese proverb "May you be blessed to live in interesting times", due to my belief that the surviving of the chinese revolution that is sure to come shall test our nerves equally or more severly than a Boomer presidents "crusade" on terrorism. I'm actually a huge "Big Bad George Pt II" the sequel fan. It was no big surprise to see so many pages of posts on this forum but a daunting amount to try to catch up on so I read the beginning and read the latest to get acquainted with the discussion. I would put forth the assertion that revolution is sure to come to china as an object of discussion in the full phase length of a fourth turning.
As far as the current wave of paranoia. This too shall pass and be replaced by a practical level of vigilance and a return to the loud and boisterous american rhythum.
Possibly the final great event of a fourth turning could be some space related discovery but I'll not wax on about that postulate instead prefering to smack around the wee bit of sixties Prophet I was infected with back then until it shapes up and gets with the program. Rock On Dudes.

Brian,

Before I respond, let me qualify by explaining that I, like HopefulCynic, was too young in 1971 to formulate a confident opinion with respect to this hypothesis. So do not go through the roof when you read my response. But my first reaction is that the war protestors would have been cheering had the WTC attack come in 1971. Were the protestors not at bottom attacking a "rich man's" war and the "evil capitalists" behind it? And did the terrorists not take out the World Trade Center because it is a symbol of America's "evil capitalism?" It seems to me that protestors railing against the "military-industrial complex" and every other "capitalist scheme" would have been partying in the streets!

And I do not think the war protestors would have been swayed by the fact that thousands of innocent Americans were killed. After all, it was right about that exact time that Jane Fonda proudly mounted that NVA anti-aircraft gun, a gun which fired at and shot down "innocent" American boys on a daily basis. At least these American boys were "innocent" to the extent that they were not "evil capitalists" but rather their often hesitant "tools."

I may not have it exactly right but I find it impossible to believe that this event in 1971 would have caused a sea-change among war protestors as you hypothesize. You assume that the protestors would have believed that they had come under attack as well. But it seems to me that the protestors would have perceived that the same element responsible for waging the war had come under attack from a foreign flank. They would have welcomed the support.

In my view, Bill's comment, about how we might look at the relationship between the Taliban and Islam in the context of Nazi Germany and Christianity, is well within the range of ideas that are worth discussion on this forum.

To Bill and anyone else who wants to talk about the political ideology of Islamism. I have created a thread in the Politics section designed to debate about Islamism. Please share your views once I have done some research on this I will share my thoughts.

Chris, I don't personally know anyone in Afghanistan. But the people there are people, they don't all approve of the Taliban, I think most of them don't like it, and I'm sure there are many teens who are just like those in America. And college students, and Xers.

S&H distinctly say that a 4T will be all about being civic. Pop culture will boost patriotism and everyone will go into a war effort. They said it not me. Now as for movies in the 1930s and 1940s, it actually wasn't too bad in the beginning, the way it actually turned out, with movies like Freaks from 1932. But then it got worse when they started rating and censoring movies. They got to a point where they forbade just about anything in movies, they even had a rule that there could be no interracial love. Besides FDR was capturing the brains of the American people and even pumping them up for war by the time Pearl Harbor came along. By the 1940s even movies like Casablanca had themes of "duty" and crap like that..."sacrifice for the greater good", civic involvement, etc. It doesn't bother me so much that the movies that were created got bland, it just that all of society, even the entertainment industries themselves, were pushing a set of rules that said these things COULDN'T be done. It punished those who ventured into breaking sexual taboos, insulting the country, whining about the miseries of life, etc. There was just a huge all-around clampdown even from within. This goes beyond pop culture. During a 4T anti-U.S., anti-leader, anti-government, anti-anything ideals are abandoned by just about everyone leaving those of us who are still raging against the system's injustices left alone and behind, outnumbered. -Craig

Welcome, Skytrax. Wow, that was a book! Unfortunately, I am not feeling well right now and need to go to bed so I will have to give you a real reply later on, but something did pop out at me that I must respond to now.

I would agree with you that U2 is the Xr equivalent of the Beates. I believe this for several reasons. Both are male-dominated, from the British Isles and could (and are) both be considered "classic" rock. More importantly, both consist of late-wave cohorts of the previous generation appealing primarily to the next-youngest generation. In the Beatles' case, it was late Silents making music for Boomers, mainly first-wave Boomers; and for U2, it was late-wave Boomers making music primarily for first wave Xers. Both bands also had a fair number of fans of their own generations, albeit last-wavers. I consider myself an example of this--I am a Joneser born 1958 and consider U2 one of my favorite bands. I never actually cared all that much for the Beatles, strangely enough--though this could be because I was only 13 when they broke up, so I never had the chance to become a die-hard fan. REM is another band consisting of last wave Boomers that appealed to many Xers, and may be considered a Beatles for their generation.

I would say that perhaps Nirvana might be more strictly Xer (though I am a fan of theirs too), but weren't around long enough to really become an Xer version of the Beatles. I might compare them more with The Doors, even down to their long-haired, pain-ridden, angsty frontmen (who both died at age 27).

Another good candidate might be Pearl Jam.

Sorry, I know this post really belongs on the Music and Generations thread, but it was a reply to Skytrax that got a bit longer than I intended.

_________________
Insanity is the only sane way to cope with an insane world.--RD LANGE

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Susan Brombacher on 2001-09-23 18:33 ]</font>

Barbara is right, you cannot tell the views on this attack and war in the late eighties cohorts by looking at the earlier eighties cohorts, or vice versa. We are basically different generations. I was born in '84. I basically missed minivans, uniforms in public schools, and being in character and skill "building" activities with adults watching me 24/7. Apparently the youngest people you get on this board are all in Generation Y. It would be like trying to desern a Baby Boomer's reaction from looking at late Silents. We born in 1977 or 1985 can never be the real Millennials, we've come too far and we're not set to fill a Hero role unless the 4T plays some magic with our minds and erases everything we've already decided. A quote,

As for Millies turning toward extreme love of their nation and community as opposed to feeling the need for vengeance - that's right on track for their archetype. Their looking upward along the generational ladder to their elders (Boomers) for the correct value-laden response to this event. They are currently too young to decide on what course of action America needs to take - rather they wait for their orders and are ready to carry them out. They are establishing a lifelong trusting relationship with authority and government and will most probably continue to look upward for answers as long as they live.

But what about MY generation, the one just older than the Millies? The question comes, how will we influence public life and events if this is the start of a crisis? Generation Y has a refusal to accept rules and laws that places us much closer to the true Xers than to Millennials. We are also one of the most likely groups of birthyears to hate our country and reject the government. It's told us again and again that we have no rights and we've even seen the whole system get away with punishing people for all sorts of awful reasons, we don't want it to happen to us, authority and government are a travisty of justice, we've seen it again and again. SEVERAL kids actually liked the attacks because they were symbolic blows to the Establishment or something...MOST kids haven't gone to loving their country after the attacks just because a few towers in New York were destroyed. This age group has already determined its values and maybe should be cut off from the Millies in Strauss and Howe's dates because it was already old enough to figure out for itself which values to follow by the time 9-11 came. Being 17, I've already seen the different sets of values myself and everything they imply, plus we are old enough to realize inconsitencies and hypocricies and to feel the hurt and shame that characterizes a realization that a certain moral ideology (like those of most Boomers) is too damp and repressive. Unlike the youngest set, our relationship with government and the whole concept of authority has already solidified. We were already thrown into the coming of age vortex long before some psychotic pilots used airplanes to hijack and destroy the Twintowers. We have hit a values evaluation point in our collective life, and there is no turning back. -Craig

On 2001-09-23 15:30, Stonewall Patton wrote:

But the music angle with respect to the 13th/GenX is interesting because I can recall how the music styles changed just after 1990.

i disagree to some extent. the style of popular (mainstream) music may have changed, but many bands from the 80s (REM, husker du, the replacements, sonic youth, etc.) had sounds that simply came to the forefront under other bands in the 1990s.


TK

Craig, I have been thinking about you and I hope you're doing OK. There is a book I'd like to recommend to you, "McSorley's Wonderful Saloon." It's a compilation of essays written by Joseph Mitchell that were published in the New Yorker during the 30's and 40's. The essays are portraits of some wacky members of the Lost and GI generations who lived in New York during the last 4T. There is nothing boring or straight-laced about any of these people and it gave me a lot of hope that some fun could be had during a 4T. I wonder what happened to them all during the 1950's though. They probably all stayed in Manhattan while everyone else moved to Levittown.

Also, as I posted on the Millennial Perspective thread, don't forget that GIs comprised most of the socialists, communists and anarchists of the 1930s.

i have read a few posts on here from people who have expressed their own concern, or the concern of others, that we are on the verge of another "great depression" or "world war III."

all i can say is that, in my opinion, the risk of either of the above events occurring anytime soon is very slim. as i have said before, the recent tragedy in new york and its aftermath remind me tremendously of the cuban missile crisis of 1962. a war was averted then and i believe any serious war will be averted now as well. the stock market also plummetted at that time but quickly reversed direction and headed higher for several more years into the vietnam war.

it is not uncommon to see a lull in the economy, and stock prices, about 10 years into an economic boom period just following a popular war such as the gulf war and world war II. we saw it in the mid to late 1950s and then in 1962 with the missile crisis, and we have recently seen it with the market peak in 2000 and this recent tragedy. i would suggest that "radical islam" will be for us over the next several years or more what "communism" was back in the 60s and will generate much the same type of general paranoia. but, if the general pattern repeats, then people will indeed soon get back on with their lives and the economy, and the stock market, will recover as before.

however, if a serious shooting war does indeed break out and things do not go well for the u.s. then what we would expect to see next would be the most serious recession since the early 90s followed by a period of rising inflation which could easily turn into a hyperinflation. but i think the odds of such a scenario occurring given my take on current conditions is 20% or less.

but, as i have said before, based on what i see going on in the markets now, as a professional money manager, this looks like a very important buying opportunity for at least the next few years and the timing for the real crisis due in the 2020s still looks very much on track to me.

On 2001-09-23 19:00, Neisha '67 wrote:
...don't forget that GIs comprised most of the socialists, communists and anarchists of the 1930s.

And, though Boomers like to take credit for events that we associate with the 1960's (the sexual revolution, civil rights, anti-war movement) those were built on the foundations established by the GIs.
Though their natural tendency was a mistrust of power, the operative characteristic of the GIs was their faith in their leaders (a faith born almost entirely of their war experience)...and this came into conflict with the fact that these social movements required a certain amount of radicalism.

I think there is <u>much</u> to be expected of the Millenials after the crisis. Dan Wakefield (in his book New York in the 50s) contends that that period was the height of 20th c. East Coast intellectualism, most of whom were GIs. Elvis may have been a Silent, but Sam Phillips was a GI, and we have to view Sun Studios as a hotbed of musical radicalism.

I agree, Craig need not fear having his passion buried beneath the rubble of the WTC and whatever lies in store for us. As I write this I am teaching to my 17 year old HS seniors <u>Slaughterhouse 5</u>. And so, I, an aging boomer get to pass a powerful anti-war novel written by one of the literary heroes of my youth, an aging survivor of Dresden and the Battle of the Bulge. Can't get much more anti-establishment than Vonnegut.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin1952 on 2001-09-23 20:32 ]</font>

Good for you, Kevin! I must admit, I had a severe urge this weekend to call in Monday to substitute teach, go rent a copy of Dr. Strangelove, dust off and dig out my paperback classroom set of Orwell's 1984 from the attic, and pray for a 3-4 week assignment. I'm more than a bit jealous. These are wonderful teaching times. :wink:

Hopeful Cynic:

The fact that one faction of America sees a fault in their own country that an enemy also sees proves one of two things:

1. The faction is actually aligned with the enemy.

2. The fault really exists, and is visible to both.

Or, 3. Both parties perceive as fault what is actually a values disagreement between themselves and the society in question, and both parties share essentially the same values.


There is no reason to believe that the American Christian right and the Muslim fundamentalists are actually in cahoots. There is just a similarity about them that causes them to see things in a similar way. American evangelicals might think the country got what was coming to them, but they are not unaware that it's their country, too. They are not going to side with the enemy.

What _is_ the secular mythos (if we can express it that way)?

There is no "secular mythos." That's a contradiction in terms. What there is, is a complex religious mythos that is shared by most Americans.


We are not really a secular nation. We have a secular government because it was designed that way, because government serves secular purposes and because the founders perceived inevitable corruption in allowing it to serve spiritual ones. But as a nation, we are on the whole deeply religious -- including those of us whom the Christian right thinks are not.


What I mean by a "complex mythos" is one that can encompass more than one religious tradition, that in fact embraces a rich diversity of religious traditions, and that does not exalt one narrow tradition over all others. It is a mythos that recognizes the uncertainty of knowledge and the impossibility of recording the being of God or the will of God for all humanity in a book. It is a mythos that recognizes that each person finds God in the small voice within, not in the loud voice without.


The American mythos is Christian, Jewish, Neopagan, New Age, Hindu, Buddhist -- even Muslim, which is particularly important to remember right now. It seeks the common core at the heart of all faiths, focusing on that core through the lens of American liberty.


It is sufficiently broad to encompass, and embrace the (few) valid elements from, even the faith of Osama bin Laden. But the reverse is not the case.

And of course, most of the details of the basic beliefs and practical goals.

Not really. From outside, they look like two peas in a pod, except that one party does seem, thankfully, less inclined to fly airplanes into buildings.

But if we assume that this other America retained the military, political, and economic power it does now, the Islamic world would still feel as if it were under siege.

Very possibly. Muslims fight among themselves a lot, too.

The Taliban make the hardcore evengelicals look like the mainstream methodists in terms of their ideal society.

Yes, but they also make most Muslim fundies look just as permissive. I think Iran under Khomeini might provide a closer match.


Stonewall Patton:

Before I respond, let me qualify by explaining that I, like HopefulCynic, was too young in 1971 to formulate a confident opinion with respect to this hypothesis. So do not go through the roof when you read my response.

I sometimes go through the roof when a poster is personally rude and obnoxious, or exhibits sheer bigotry or jumps to insulting conclusions. I never do that in the face of honest disagreement. It serves no purpose, and I consider it unethical. Please do not hesitate to express any honest opinion.

But my first reaction is that the war protestors would have been cheering had the WTC attack come in 1971. Were the protestors not at bottom attacking a "rich man's" war and the "evil capitalists" behind it? And did the terrorists not take out the World Trade Center because it is a symbol of America's "evil capitalism?" It seems to me that protestors railing against the "military-industrial complex" and every other "capitalist scheme" would have been partying in the streets!

It's not that simple. First off, you have to understand that a lot of that jargon was used not because it was clearly thought out or firmly believed, but because it was the first model available to embody the deep feelings many of us had in those days that something was very, very wrong. It is no accident that most of us have moved on from those early models; that's because we really were never all that sure of them from the first. All we were really sure of was that something was deeply wrong and needed fixing.


It's one thing to rail against capitalism as an abstraction. It's quite another to see an attack on "capitalism" in the form of human beings incinerated inside a building, when everyone either knows one of the victims or knows someone who does.


Remember that the anti-Vietnam-war movement wasn't confined to bomb-chucking Weathermen. It numbered in the hundreds of thousands just measured by protest attendees, and in the tens of millions when all the sympathizers are included. One has to be so committed to and sure of the cause as to be downright psychotic, to approve of what happened on September 11. America didn't have tens of millions of psychotics in the Awakening.


Also, the antiwar movement faced a lot of criticism from GIs who had answered their country's call in World War II. In the face of that criticism, and neither willing nor able to dishonor that former sacrifice, most of us were very aware of the difference between that war and the one we were protesting. Very few of us didn't say at one time, to ourselves if not to others, that if faced with something like Pearl Harbor and a real threat to our country, we would sign up.


No, we would not have cheered. We would have stood in shock. We would have fallen silent. And then, quietly, we would have made a truce with President Nixon and the U.S. government, to fight a common enemy. We wouldn't have been very comfortable doing that. But really, there would have been no other choice.


Let me say again, that I'm sure glad it didn't happen. I don't think the country would have been able to respond as effectively with an Awakening constellation. But it would have responded, and in as united a fashion as it could, make no mistake about that.

Hey y'all--It's nice to be back after a 3-1/2-year absence & see some familiar "faces" (David Kaiser, Matthew Elmslie, & Lis '54). As expected, all kinds of good discussion & interesting points raised in this topic. This first-wave 13er's take:

On 9/11 I was *sure* we were in a premature Fourth Turning & spent some of the day nervously recalling the Civil War saeculum (&, for the first time, my husband--'62--seriously listened to generational theory). Since then I've become less sure of our point in the cycle. Although the mainstream thoughtline is that 9/11 is another Pearl Harbor (my initial thought, having just finished Hermann Wouk's Winds of War & War & Remembrance), 9/11 has been compared to a lot more events by posters here.

If I do a comparison of the atmosphere surrounding Pearl Harbor & now, I come up w/some striking differences & unanswered questions: 1) I very much doubt that, after PH, there was any talk of a "measured response," or a need to understand the Japanese (or German) viewpoint, as we see now. 2) Among the people I know, only those who have always been "tuned in" to the political/internat'l world are really discussing 9/11 &/or its implications now. I've brought up the subject & most people seem uncomfortable w/the topic. 3) Did people wear flags, red-white-&-blue, &/or other patriotic symbols immediately following PH, as people are now? If not, is the difference simply due to a greater emphasis on the visual in our time, or a difference in the nat'l mood (which would place PH & 9/11 at different places in the cycle)? 4) How would Americans react to rationing of any kind now? Practically everything was rationed during WWII. Are we ready to plant victory gardens & do w/o "stuff"?

The idea of 9/11 as this saeculum's WWI has been kicked around by various posters. I've gotten the sense that it's not the same...but suppose, just for speculation's sake, that it is. We get involved in a "war to save democracy" (i.e., kick the evil Hun--or terrorist--off the face of the earth) & trundle around Afghanistan, or Iraq, or wherever, for a year or two. The results are a lot of devastation, but inconclusive. American public opinion swings solidly in an isolationist direction, & we pull into a "Fortress America." Twenty years from now, we get another 9/11-type shock, & this time find ourselves in a take-no-prisoners, fight-to-the-death war--just as 20 years went by between the end of WWI & the beginning (at least for Westerners) of WWII.

Obviously there are some difficulties w/this comparison, primarily the idea that a Roaring '20s-type decade would occupy the Oh-Ohs. Like David Kaiser, I'm really not sure that this would happen after the Roaring '90s we've just had (&, frankly, I don't think things *could* get much wilder than they did during the last decade). And I don't know my history quite well enough to know if the pre-WWI Edwardian Age was considered to be "wild" for that time.

The big plus to comparing 9/11 to WWI is that puts us back into a non-anomolous cycle; i.e., the real Crisis would fall when the generations are in a better alignment to handle a Fourth Turning.

As far as indicators to watch for signs as to whether the 3T continues or the 4T is here, one that I would watch is church/synagogue/temple attendance. The Episcopal church I attend was bursting at the seams on the Sunday after 9/11, more full than even Christmas Eve & Easter services w/the "Triannual Christians." Today's service was nearly as crowded. If attendance continues to be up, I would take that as a sign that the 4T is here. If it drops off over the next couple of months, I would think that we're still in 3T.

Someone had asked what people would miss & not miss about a 3T. I would happily leave behind the focus on style & not substance; "reality" TV (about the least real thing I know of); glorification of material things; racist, misogynist, homophobic lyrics in music; & the avid consumption of scandalia (okay, I know that's not a real word :smile: ). I would miss the attention paid to issues like abortion rights, gun control, preservation of the environment, & the simple opportunity (as little as it happens) to focus on issues other than survival & war. I'm not a fan of B&W.

Anyway, there's my two cents' worth. Please excuse me if I haven't gotten the sense of some of the 4T terminology right; I've only read it once, pre-baby (now preschooler), & my copy of Generations is on permanent loan. :smile: Sherry63

To clarify an issue of age, I was born in 1958, and not '81 as the sv81 username indicates. I consider myself a late boomer with only occasional 13th generation traits. Parenthetically, as an employer, I can mirror the conclusions about Gen X people. I see them and although I understand the world they were shaped by, they have , up to this point, made some of the poorest citizens. (Sorry for saying so). My kids are millenials, and respond to the world true to the authors as well.

Having that out of the way, the last post by Brian Rush was great. I agree with him and he acts to pull together many concepts we have read (and wrote about).

It's also good to review page 1 to see the ten points raised by the authors, S&H as some determinate of the 4T situation that 9-11-01 was. I am convinced that the turn is being made, but resist in some measure of admitting to the change. The people I talk to conceed that things have changed, but many people want to forget the disaster. Really, that's human nature, and a testimate to our culture. Wouldn't any one of us admit that there is some small part of us that wants to live in the 3T world another year or two? I hear people saying that the public has a short recall to disaster, and the airlines will be back to normal in no time. Does anyone else believe that?

Lastly, as I eluded to last week, for the 4th Turning to come to fruition, (which it will) the stimulus needs to affect all Americans, not just the east coast people. As we can all anticipate the war effort raising the desperation of the terrorists, they will strike again, somewhere, and in doing so bring us around the bend on our resolve to deal with this crisis. It takes both sides for history to cycle. The gray champion needs a foe to vanquish, and the foe we have latched on to is worldwide terrorism, born from hositility rooted in antagonist cultures.

Plain Dealer Sept 23, 2001 page A3:
"...Federal agents armed with court orders issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act got Internet firms to turn over suspect e-mail and sifted through millions of telephone calls the government has intercepted.
Attorney General John Ashcroft issued new rules allowing foreign visitors to be held 48 hours without being charged and indefinite detention in a national emergency.
Ashcroft also asked Congress for new electronic surveillance powers, expanded sharing of tax information, and issuance of administrative subpoenas to foreigners with no court oversight..."
How does this look in view of Strauss and Howe's 10 indicators? Does this sound more like a late 3T or an early 4T?

Craig, I had a long talk this weekend with my grandson who is your age. He thinks T4T is a conspiracy theory :sigh: , but he does feel alot like you do as far as how he fits into all this that's happened, or er, doesn't fit.

I gathered that he is already having some anxiety about his life changing in the next year because of high school graduation and the pressures of college. This attack adds to that, and it poses to potentially mess up all of his plans that have kept him motivated and calm. Half of him sees it as exciting and adventurous; the other half sees it as disruptive, worrisome and confusing. Don't know if you are similar as to this, though.

It was difficult to get him to open up, but he finally talked to me of the same things you just posted. Craig, I know you currently see Boomer values that you call "damp and repressive", and I can agree with that assessment. I can imagine you see them that way.

What do you think of this, though: when I hear you and my grandson talking with such conviction, with such passion, you remind me so much of those much-younger Boomers of 30 or so years ago, after their disillusionment with the Establishment started. Really. My point? They had a good point then, and you do now. Back then, the grownups very much attempted to make them feel ashamed of their views. I hope that doesn't happen again, now. I know as an elder Silent that my views are considered 3T and smothering by some right now, and some want to blow them off and ignore. Such is the lot of a minority view. Doesn't mean it's wrong, by any means.

If the S&H theory holds, your Y gen will parent the oldest next-Prophets (or the youngest new Artists) in an undamp and unrepressive way. And the Pendulum-Spiral continues. IOW, what you are feeling is valuable, even necessary, and you go, Craig. As I told my grandson, the perceived pressure is there for you to behave in a way you think society is forcing you, but resist it and have faith in your beliefs. Know your value.

I'm been reading current articles about college kids (and some high schoolers) who are not responding to this attack in the way we *think* Millies are supposed to. I believe there are peaceful protests planned around the nation on September 30. (Robert Reed, is that the right date?) My grandson is looking into going to the nearest one he can find, if only in hopes of seeing, meeting and getting to know others who may be feeling the same things he does.

Neisha's book sounds like a great recommendation, too. I'm telling my grandson about it. And if you haven't read Orwell, he's a 1903 GI (Lost cusp) who had definite political convictions (1984 wasn't the only thing he wrote).

Actually Barbara, if Straus and Howe are right and this is the fourth turning going against the grain is not wise. I believe that the reaction to the peace protests will tell for sure whether this is the fourth turning. If the Peace Protests do for the left what Jerry Falwell's comments did for the religious right. By this I mean marginalize it, then I will be convinced this is the fourth turning.